Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on December 10, 2005, 01:51:22 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4515898.stm
[q]Ministers at the climate change conference in Montreal have made a series of breakthroughs in plans to combat global warming.
On the conference's last day, Kyoto Protocol signatories agreed to extend the treaty on emissions reductions beyond its 2012 deadline.
And a broader group of countries including the US agreed to non-binding talks on long-term measures.
The US had refused to accept any deal leading to commitments to cuts.
Earlier, former President Bill Clinton said the US approach was "flat wrong".
After Mr Clinton's remarks - which were warmly received - the official US team appeared to shift its position.
'Map for the future'
The BBC's Tim Hirsch in Montreal says the deal was finally agreed in a mood of some euphoria after a last-minute procedural objection by the Russians held up the talks for several hours.
Formal talks can now begin over the precise targets which will be set when the first phase of the Kyoto agreement expires in 2012.
Our correspondent says that, crucially, it sets the scene for discussing how large developing countries like India and China could be brought into the system of limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
Canadian Environment Minister Stephane Dion, who is hosting the conference, described the agreement as "a map for the future, the Montreal Action Plan, the MAP".
Last week delegates finalised a rule book for Kyoto, formally making it fully operational after years of negotiation and ratification.
The 1997 treaty commits industrialised countries to cut their combined carbon emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
'Meet and surpass'
The US appears to have been stung by negative coverage in the US media after it walked out in protest at Canadian attempts to get it to accept mandatory targets, as well as by Mr Clinton's strong comments , our correspondent says.
Bill Clinton in Montreal
There is no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real, accelerating and caused by human activities
Bill Clinton
Former US president
Clinton damns Bush policy
Watch the speech
Mr Clinton attacked a central plank of the Bush administration's resistance to targets for cutting emissions - that it would harm the US economy.
If the US "had a serious, disciplined effort to apply on a large scale existing clean energy and energy conservation technologies... we could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets easily in a way that would strengthen, not weaken, our economies," he said.
Global warming and melting ice, he suggested, could lead to a future climate conference in Canada being held on "a raft somewhere".
The US has still not budged on its opposition to the Kyoto treaty, and faced heavy criticism for its stance.
Jennifer Morgan, climate-change expert for environmental group WWF, said US negotiator Harlan Watson's decision to leave the talks overnight showed "just how willing the US administration is to walk away from a healthy planet and its responsibilities".
The US rejected the criticism.
"If you want to talk about global consciousness, I'd say there's one country that is focused on action... dialogue... co-operation and... helping the developing world, and that's the United States," said state department spokesman Adam Ereli in Washington.
Despite the row, environmentalists said the conference had been in most respects a success, reaching agreements on how to quantify gas emissions and how to penalise nations for failing to meet Kyoto targets. [/q]
And who said Americans don't do irony?
-
The question is whether even the most expansive measures, beyond what even the pro-Kyoto countries are discussing, is enough. I say that the world should forget about trying to please the United States, since that harms and cause more than it helps it, and forge ahead with powerful new efforts to curb global warming. Realistically, no one can force the United States to do anything, and watering down the agreements to get Uncle Sam on board will most likely make them next to useless, negating their original purpose. Clinton is talking big because he can, he is in a position where he doesn't have to commit to anything since he is no longer Prez. Certainly he would be singing a different tune were he currently in power
I say that those nations interested in self-preservation do what is right, and to hell with the nay-sayers. History will judge them accordingly.
-
save the world or cheap Gas and Electricity in California. Decisions, decisions.
-
How can they be focussed on both action and dialogue?
-
How can they be focussed on both action and dialogue?
They're focused on discussing how best to avoid action.
-
"If you want to talk about global consciousness, I'd say there's one country that is focused on action... dialogue... co-operation and... helping the developing world, and that's the United States," said state department spokesman Adam Ereli in Washington.
That's about the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. :rolleyes: What is more sad is that there are people who actually believe it.
-
Whats strange is the name Katrina is not listed there. :confused:
-
Whats strange is the name Katrina is not listed there. :confused:
You can't definately link Katrina to global warming unlike things like the slowdown in the gulf stream etc. Most people suspect that there's a link but you certainly can't categorically state it as a fact.
-
I think they're using double-speak:
"We're gonna conquer all the piss-poor countries, force our lack of culture on them, loot their treasuries and then condemn violence as a means of effecting political change."
They're going all Haven.....
-
Whats strange is the name Katrina is not listed there. :confused:
You can't definately link Katrina to global warming unlike things like the slowdown in the gulf stream etc. Most people suspect that there's a link but you certainly can't categorically state it as a fact.
No...but for joe-sixpack American (or Canadian) you've gotta show them where climate change kicks them in the balls otherwise all they think is going to happen is that it'll be warmer outside.
Most of the facts of climate change are not easily understood by people who have trouble comprehending traffic signals. And there's alot of those sorts of people out there.
-
Whats strange is the name Katrina is not listed there. :confused:
You can't definately link Katrina to global warming unlike things like the slowdown in the gulf stream etc. Most people suspect that there's a link but you certainly can't categorically state it as a fact.
No...but for joe-sixpack American (or Canadian) you've gotta show them where climate change kicks them in the balls otherwise all they think is going to happen is that it'll be warmer outside.
Most of the facts of climate change are not easily understood by people who have trouble comprehending traffic signals. And there's alot of those sorts of people out there.
Yeah, but we've also seen the **** that certain special interest groups raise over even well-documented scientific facts.........using Katrina, etc would just be giving ammunition to the naysayers when there is far better evidence out there.