Global warming talks eye U.S 42 replies

Please wait...

Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051129/sc_nm/environment_climate_dc_15;_ylt=A86.I2yPvotDE1MBjAlrAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

MONTREAL (Reuters) - Host Canada urged a wider fight against global warming at the start of 189-country talks on Monday that will try to enlist the United States and poor nations in U.N.-led schemes to fight climate change beyond 2012.

ADVERTISEMENT "Let us set our sights on a more effective, more inclusive long-term approach to climate change," Canadian Environment Minister Stephane Dion told the opening of the U.N. conference in Montreal, which lasts until December 9.

"More action is required now," Dion told delegates at the talks, likely to involve up to 10,000 representatives of governments, environmental groups and businesses, charged with working out how to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases from fossil fuels.

The talks will start mapping out what to do after the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, a first step by about 40 industrial nations to curb emissions, runs out in 2012. Negotiations on a successor could take several years.

The Montreal session included actors and video images showing the risks of a changing climate -- including more frequent hurricanes, ice storms, desertification, locust swarms, forest fires, floods and melting ice caps.

Dion said climate change was the single most important environmental issue facing the world today.

He did not mention Washington by name but the United States, the world's biggest polluter, and Australia have pulled out of Kyoto, denouncing its caps on emissions as an economic straitjacket.

CAPS WON'T WORK

"A targets and timetables approach will not work for us," chief U.S. climate negotiator Harlan Watson told Reuters, reiterating the Bush administration's opposition to Kyoto-style caps.

Washington favors an approach with big investments in new technologies like hydrogen or research into burying carbon dioxide, the main industrial gas blamed for warming the planet.

"We are working hard on some of the advanced technologies ... but the development and deployment of technology does not fit with rigid targets and timetables," said Watson.

Apart from the United States and Australia, Kyoto excludes poor nations, such as China and India, from the first set of targets. Their emissions are growing but far lower per capita than those of industrial nations.

"We have an enormous task in front of us," said Argentine Environment Minister Gines Gonzalez Garcia.

He said big nations should take the lead and "significantly reduce" their emissions. Kyoto backers are supposed to cut their emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012.

Some delegates noted that U.S. President George W. Bush signed a declaration at the Group of Eight summit in Scotland in July promising action at the U.N. talks in Canada.

Referring to Montreal, the G8 leaders said: "We are committed to move forward in that forum the global discussion on long-term cooperative action to address climate change."

Since records began in the 1860s, the 10 hottest years have been since 1990 and most scientists blame rising temperatures on a build-up of greenhouse gases from carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

Dion is due to stay on as president of the talks although Canada's Liberal government is likely to be toppled in a confidence vote on Monday, which would trigger an election.

The meeting is a parallel session of the 156 nations which have ratified Kyoto and a total of 189 countries, including the United States, which back the wider U.N. climate convention

Only one question. Why is Bush afraid to sign the Kyoto treaty?




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

Only one question: Could you please put some more effort into your post? Or we will delete it as spam...

Edit: Seeing you went offline: Contact a member of staff with an improved version of the above post (so he/she can add it) or else... :devil:




Ensign Riles VIP Member

No! I'm Spamacus!

426,516 XP

17th June 2003

0 Uploads

39,479 Posts

1 Threads

#3 13 years ago

Probably because in the short term is costs more money than not having to worry about the future. Anyway, we have no money with it all being sucked up by multiple wars. I assume the U.S. in general thinks it is too good to join, seems like that has been the attitude in many other world organizations...




aaronpmc

FPS Fanatic

50 XP

1st November 2005

0 Uploads

132 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago

Because its a waste of money that could be used elsewhere.




Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago

Großadmiral DönitzOnly one question: Could you please put some more effort into your post? Oor we will delete it as spam...[/QUOTE]

Since when did we have to have "effort" in the pub? This is may be a simplistic post, but is hardly spam and if you would just get off of your high horse for one second, you would realize that I have been doing this for the past...oh lets say year or so :rolleyes:. What else do I have to say concerning this subject? Lets see:

I think Bush is afraid that his buddies in the oil company won't financially support him anymore if he signs it. Is that a sufficient answer, donitz? Do you need it to go under review before it is decided to be spam or not?

[QUOTE=aaronpmc]Because its a waste of money that could be used elsewhere.

Elsewhere like the war in Iraq? I suppose going to war is more important than children's educations, road maintenance, etc...




Komrad_B

Score Monkey

45,850 XP

2nd September 2004

0 Uploads

4,500 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago
Großadmiral DönitzOnly one question: Could you please put some more effort into your post? Or we will delete it as spam...

Come on, these topics are good to start discussions.

Dion is due to stay on as president of the talks although Canada's Liberal government is likely to be toppled in a confidence vote on Monday, which would trigger an election.

Just to clear this, the government was toppled a few hours ago. I saw Stephane Dion on TV so he's not at that conference anymore (like anybody cares about that...).

I think the USA are not showing a good example there... Really, they are the only country that self proclaims itself "most powerful country of the world", yet they can't even afford to diminish the amount of trash they throw in the air. Really kind, especially when they ask us Canadians to help them in their pointless missile shields and illegal wars and yet continue to pump OUR water, tax OUR forests and ultimately throw their pollution on OUR air :p (yes I know, I'm getting a bit out of subject and demagogic here, but you get my point).




Inyri Forge VIP Member

[Insert User Title Here]

55 XP

15th March 2005

0 Uploads

25,940 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago
Since when did we have to have "effort" in the pub?

Since it wasn't the spam forum. Which has been always. How hard is it to write more than one line of text? Give your own opinion if you expect others to give theirs.

This is may be a simplistic post, but is hardly spam and if you would just get off of your high horse for one second, you would realize that I have been doing this for the past...oh lets say year or so

And it ends now. Jump on the bandwagon, or get left behind. If you don't like the changes, you don't have to post. But whatever you decide, don't argue with staff. It's non-negotiable.

As for my views on this topic, Bush is not afraid to sign. He is probably afraid to lose the backing of the companies who don't want him to sign. It's all $$$'s folks. Which sucks for the rest of the world, and all of the rest of us who don't like inhaling smog.




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago

JeffroSince when did we have to have "effort" in the pub? This is may be a simplistic post, but is hardly spam and if you would just get off of your high horse for one second, you would realize that I have been doing this for the past...oh lets say year or so :rolleyes:. What else do I have to say concerning this subject? Lets see:

I think Bush is afraid that his buddies in the oil company won't financially support him anymore if he signs it. Is that a sufficient answer, donitz? Do you need it to go under review before it is decided to be spam or not?

As Inyri said it isn't that hard to post more then one line of text. The topic itself is an intresting one but at the very least you could post your own opinion or detail your question a bit more. "Everybody" can quote a (long) news article and post "Discuss!" and it shows lack of effort.

My thoughts on the subject: Bush is afraid that the economy will suffer, he personally rather lifts economic ristrictions then putting them into affect all in the name of proffit (for the USA). It's a shame really, in the short run you might "lose" (compagnies will make more costs) but in the long run you will only win with a cleaner enviroment. We are talking about what keeps is alife here (or can potentially kill us!). This world belongs to all of us and we all should atleast try to limit the damage we do.

Luckly there are some (large) cities in the USA that brought up enviromental friendly laws and projects such as the city of Seatle and it's melting glaciers. It's good to see not every goverment organ in the USA shows a total lack of intrest in enviromental problems (when they collide with economical issues). :thumbsup:




Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago

US rules out extra pledges on global warming http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051129/sc_nm/environment_climate_dc_17;_ylt=A86.I0c65oxDvXcAhBZrAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

MONTREAL (Reuters) - The United States ruled out making extra pledges to fight global warming beyond 2012 on Tuesday, angering environmentalists who accused Washington of blocking a 189-nation conference in Canada.

ADVERTISEMENT Chief U.S. climate negotiator Harlan Watson also strongly defended President George W. Bush's environmental record, saying emissions by the world's biggest polluter had fallen more in 2000-2003 than in the European Union.

Up to 10,000 delegates are meeting in Montreal, Canada, from November 28-December 9 to discuss new ways to fight a build-up of gases released mainly from burning fossil fuels in factories, power plants and cars.

"The United States is opposed to any such discussions," Watson told a news conference of Canadian proposals to launch talks under the U.N.'s climate convention about new actions to combat global warming beyond 2012.

Environmentalists accused Washington of doing too little to fight a rise in temperatures from human activities that could lead to more storms, expanding deserts and worse floods, and could raise sea levels by up to three feet (one meter) by 2100.

Bill Hare, climate policy director of Greenpeace, called the United States the "fly in the ointment" at the conference. "The failure of the United States to be willing to discuss future action here is the real issue," he said, predicting Washington will only join a global pact after Bush leaves office.

KYOTO PROTOCOL

Bush pulled out in 2001 of the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, under which about 40 industrial nations have to cut greenhouse gas emissions by about 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 1008-12.

At Montreal, Kyoto backers plan to launch talks, likely to last several years, on new commitments beyond 2012. Bush branded Kyoto too costly and said it wrongly excluded poor countries.

Many also hope to start wider parallel talks among all countries, including the United States and developing nations such as China and India, on new ways to fight climate change.

"We hope to start a dialogue" among all 189 nations, said Sarah Hendry, head of the British delegation which holds the rotating EU presidency. She said that new tougher measures were urgently needed to combat rising temperatures.

And British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a speech earlier on Tuesday that he believed that all major economies would sign up for a binding accord to succeed Kyoto.

But Watson reiterated that Washington had no plans to adopt Kyoto-style caps on emissions and rejected environmentalists' predictions that the U.S. was dooming the conference to failure.

"I don't know why it's doomed," he said. "There's more than one way to approach climate change.

"Look at the data -- the United States has done better in the first three years of the Bush administration in addressing greenhouse gas emissions than the EU ... the UK, France, Germany.

"I can go down the laundry list for you. I reject the premise that a Kyoto-like agreement is necessary to address the issue," he said of emissions between 2000-03. Washington is investing heavily in new technology like hydrogen.

Still, U.N. data show the United States is doing worse than all the nations named by Watson in the longer term. U.S. emissions were 13.3 percent above 1990 levels in 2003 -- while the EU average in the same period was a fall of 1.4 percent.

Outside the conference, activists dressed as trees, insects and birds marched to call for the protection of rainforests.

"It would be nice if the U.S. would step up and start to take some action," said Ben Matchstick, a U.S. organizer dressed as a bird.

Proof enough that the Bush administration doesn't give two shits about the environment...:cort:

'Nuff said.




Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago

Fuck this ridiculousness...I'm leaving this forum.

By the way, you can all eat my shit.