Slashdot Mirror
US Opposes G8 Climate Proposals
elrond writes "The US appears to have summarily rejected draft proposals for G8 members that would have agreed to tougher measures for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. The BBC reports that leaked documents have indicated the positions of the various world powers, from the timetable-setting of Germany to the US's intractable stance. Red ink comments on the documents hint at the US's irritation: 'The US still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement. The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses 'multiple red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to ... We have tried to tread lightly but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position.'"
This world is fragile in our hands.
The US still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement.
Correction: The US Government.
Here's a related bit of news that may make you feel better.
An investigation at the Department of the Interior (Manages US wildlands) has resulted in numerous resignations and may result in real domestic reform.
Accusations from leading scientists include:
Elimination of data regarding imperiled species in resource rich areas
Rubber stamping of logging permits on public lands without due process
Improper contact between dept administrators and corporate interests including the allowance of corporate influence on impact assessments
All of the allegations center around administrators who were placed by the Bush administration. Several highly placed scientists have left for the private sector and there may be an expose published. The elimination of data was egregious. Apparently data was not only removed from official reports, but other data was *actually* changed and whistleblowers were railroaded out.
Bet you five bucks this becomes a campaign issue if Gore decides to run.
Don't take it from the commies and the hippies; just read the official documents, or any lobby group manifest for that matter:
p acts/execsummary.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/economicim
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7850
http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05907.cfm
I think that you yourself are being a little egotistical. While the EU is indeed a larger market, it has many of the same problems that the United States market has. I would like to point out that in the EU, you manufacture very little these days, as does the United States. On my visits to nations in the EU, I have found the label which says "Fabriqué en Chine" or "Hergestellt in China" or whatever language you choose on many many products.
As for our currency, while its value is decreasing slowly, you exaggerate. It is not "worth so little" today, and I will also point out that if the United States stops investment in the world, the resultant situation would not be pleasant.
"All you need is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." -- Mark Twain
So, uhh, what was your point again? GP was saying that if the US fell off the face of the Earth tomorrow, the rest of the world would go chugging right along since the bulk of imports come from China and other developing nations. And (s)he is right. There wouldn't be as many Cisco routers, dot coms, investment banks, or bushels of corn to go around, but, well, bfd. We are mostly a service economy and services, while nice, aren't a deal breaker for most economies. I don't view trade sanctions as likely in the near future, but if we continue down our path while the rest of the world continues down another, it's certainly not out of the question.
As to your point about currency, you need to read up on international finance, my friend. China has us completely by the balls in terms of foreign reserves, and if the constant rumors about the teetering dollar ever spook them into switching even a small portion of that into gold or euros, a major, painful readjustment in the exchange rate would result, and it would not be pleasant for the American economy.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Trees are the ultimate renewable resource because the more you harvest, the more area you have to replant them. It's not like, say, fish, where the more you harvest, the less there are to reproduce and replenish their stocks. The reason the world is losing forested area is because sustenance farmers are able to grow food and cash crops on cleared land, while harvesting trees is not as economically attractive. So they burn the trees down to clear land.
The U.S. only accounts for 24% of the world's carbon emissions. The U.S. also accounts for 28% of the world's economic production. In other words, the rest of the world is less efficient than the U.S. at producing value per ton of CO2 released. Europe is by far more efficient and the U.S. should try to learn from them, but these attempts to paint the U.S. as the sole bogeyman are horribly misguided. If the U.S. were to disappear overnight, by the time the world economy grew back to the level it's at today, there would be more CO2 emissions than before the U.S. disappeared!Also, trying to pin blame on a country by country basis makes no sense (aside from a policy perspective) because each nation has a different size and different population. On a per capita basis (CO2 emissions per person), the U.S. is not at the top, and there are several developed nations who are right up there with the U.S.
Finally, in terms of forest and protected forest, the U.S. has far more than all of Europe combined, nearly 1.7x as much in terms of area, and more than 3x as much per capita. In the above hypothetical scenario where the U.S. disappeared overnight, 7.6% of the world's forests and 9.6% of the world's protected forests would disappear as well.
What's needed to get us out of this mess is a systemic plan which address all aspects of the problem, not trying to single out sole nations for blame. If you do that, as we found out with Kyoto, the nation singled out will simply choose not to play ball. The developed nations need to set and meet energy efficiency goals (the U.S., Canada, and Australia especially). They also need to invest R&D money in non-carbon based energy sources. Environmentalists in these countries need to accept that nuclear is a much, much better option than spewing out millions of tons of carbon and other pollutants by burning fossil fuels. Developing nations need to restrict behaviors which are cheap in labor but expensive in carbon emissions (e.g. slash and burn). They will need economic and organizational aid from the developed world to help them establish economies which are not based on these behaviors.
Recently a Canadian university release a study on the GHG and the proxy measurements. It seem that most of the early global warming studies cherry picks information in order to make the case for a rising Co2 level in the early 20th century.
Well, nobody likes cherry-pickers.
And no, I'm not going to find a link for this. I first heard it on Paul Harvy and then it was talked about on a local talk show.
If you don't give me a link, I can't check your facts.
In contrast, I can give you a good link that explains why the arguments you make about CO2 and other criticisms are wrong -- last week's New Scientist http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth
That's one of the reasons the global warming scientists are right and their critics are wrong -- the scientists cite sources, the critics don't. That's a good sign the scientists are right.
When you try to separate good science from pseudoscience, look for citations, folks. That's the lesson.
For some other sources, check this graphic for per-capita emissions in 2002. For the US, we have about 19.8 tons, while for China it's about 2.2 tons. Using the CIA World Factbook for current population numbers, we get:
Of course, there is also Wikipedia: