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.'"
Let's hope so.
USA seems to be saying to the world, "we don't care about the planet".
this news is sadly unsurprising.
when will the US finally step up and take something other than short-term, economic driven decisions concerning the environment?
~~~ Paf. Le chien.
the world is more like a single civilization these days, any sanctions brought by europe would have far reaching consequences for the world economy. while I do think that the only way to get the top C02 producers' attention is to hit their wallet, I dont think sanctions are it. mainly because sanctions interrupt the global economy not just america's. but hey if there is a way, I hope they do it- I am sick of politicians and industry putting their own monetary goals ahead of life on Earth- something must be done.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Correction, The USA is a democracy, ruled by the people. So the US goverment is the US and represents the US's views.
We don't suppose you can spare some rice and some oil, by any chance? Only the desert now stretches from the West Coast to Chicago and we have a bit of a food problem. And the Canadians have built a big fence along the border and won't let us in as none of us want to mow their lawns or harvest their oranges.
We can offer plenty of stuff in exchange. How about some strategic nuclear missiles? Or some fighter aircraft? We've got plenty of them. Unfortunately, turns out they don't work too well if you want to invade another country and make people grow food for you.
Pining for the fjords
The thing is not inly if "greenhouse gasses" affect the climate. It's also about outrageous and irresponsible use of resources. It's about pollution.
You don't pollute your own house, so stop polluting this world.
Although I don't live in your house and couldn't care less about what you do there, I and about 6 billion people live in this world so let's keep it clean.
Privacy is terrorism.
talk about american egotism. The EU is a bigger market than the USA, and one that would survive quite happily without you. The USA manufactures very lttle these days, most of its made in china, and your currency is worth so little that your value as customers is steadily dropping.
Dont expect the EU to shed too many tears about losing the USA as a market.
In a true free market capitalism world, someone would own the air, water etc. and you would have to pay them for the right to pollute. Some senators therefore proposed to privatize everything, so somebody would care if you destroy these things. I think we are in enough trouble already with patents and intellectual property to see that making everything "owned by someone" is not necessarily the best option. But this is what a real market version would look like. Today we have a world where a number of resources are provided "for free" instead of having a price, which is part of the problem.
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
The only problem with a pure free market is that it acts under the assumption that what makes the best business sense will be inherently good for everyone. Just because the average consumer want to pay less for goods in exchange for more environmental damage, that doesn't mean it is a good idea. The reason that we have (and need, unfortunately) governments is that often what the best choice for society at large is a poor choice for a give segment of that society. A dying environment is a bad thing for society. It may be fine for specific business or acceptable for some consumers, but that does not make it a good choice or outcome.
It's a republic, actually. Ruled by elected representatives of the people. Democracy is just the word those representatives use to make the people of the US feel warm and fuzzy.
Personally, I've rarely encountered a candidate for major public office that represents my views. I believe that there's a decent-sized minority similar to myself that simply can't quite overpower (in votes) the majority that focuses on whatever the two major candidates have decided are important issues today.
It's scary being a Flash and Flex developer on Slashdot. You guys are unnaturally rabid.
I never understood this mentality..
Why do we have police? Because citizens, as good as we are, cannot be trusted to police ourselves without a ton of laws and police to make sure we do what we're supposed to.
Why should the market be any better? It's run by those same people who could not be trusted to maintain law biding composure.
The market is fueled by it's self which is why companies are able to sell people products they don't really want or need (diamonds?), while consumers have the choice in the end, they also manipulate the hell out of us and try to convince us that their products are really safe/healthy/environmental.. when they're not.
A perfect example would be "0 Trans Fats" vs "No Trans Fats" (yes, there's a difference). No transfats means just that; 0 means it could be "0.9g Transfats" but because of the current standards, they can truncate the number to become "0".
Who then is going to stop a company from lying about how environmentally friendly their products are if there is no actual regulation?
MABASPLOOM!
"... why should we wreck our economy over something that not everyone can agree on..."
Who says it would wreck the economy? Automakers cried wolf in the same fashion in the 70's and 80's when rasied MPG requirements and imposed the environmental standards that required catalytic converters and cleaner fuels. "Oh," said they, "it will cause the collapse of the industry as we know it and cause irreparable harm to the US economy."
Didn't happen.
At worst cleaning up our act and imposing higher CAFE standards "might" impact corporate profits for a quarter or two. But in return we get a cleaner environment, less polution, and less dependence on foreign oil imports. Not to mention spawning new industries to provide those solutions and technologies.
And that's a bad thing... how?
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Correction: The companies who bought off the representatives of the U.S. government.
As the single biggest waster of energy in the world and a country where average miles per gallon figures are actually dropping, I would hope that a bigger stick would be applied to the US.
Do you hassle all your neighbours equally, or just the ones who are letting their dog shit on your lawn?
Even if we come up with a huge breakthrough on the energy production front,
How about just improving the efficency of your economy to the same level that other people have?
China and India will both be producing 5-10 times more emissions than they are today
Gothcha, two wrongs make a right.
They aren't covered by this agreement at all.
Oh, I thought you said you didn't know the specifics of the agreement.
global warming still just as much of a problem and the developed world has no economy left,
Hey, crazy thought, but couldn't you just not buy all that crap China is producing? I mean, if you're that worried about their economy overtaking yours maybe you should stop paying them to do it? Plus, since they're a totally corrupt and evil country, you'd even be acting ethically. Just a thought. We could all make a small start by not sending any teams to the Chinese Olympics.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The funny thing is, that Christianity has been perverted to a big degree, I dont know where those groups derive their believe from, it cannot be in the words written down.
Lets sum those words up, there was a guy 2000 years ago, he went into confrontation against people who had strict religious rules, he sided with hookers poor people etc, and called the rich ones being not his people. He went into opposition against things which would make the life miserable for ordinary people, and he was in his core message not really a very capitalistic guy (some people nowadays probably would call him communistic, I just would say he puts the people in the core of his message not the money)
He also was absolutely opposed to any war or violence whatsover even dismissing defense as valid form of violence.
Now lets face it, if a guy with such a message would go out into the crowds nowadays, how long do you think his life expectancy would be. Probably three years as well, the killer, probably some corporate sponsored guy, or a religious zealot, who wants to the defend the words of jesus (and does in fact do totally the opposite). Jesus probably would go in total confrontation with any right wing cristian groups like he did with the jewis zealots in the past, and probably would call them severe names out of anger, he also would go into opposition with lots of governments including our own, and generally our society of self righteousness while we bring lots of misery onto the rest of the planet.
I dont think the message he would bring us would be very comforting for us!
"Socialist Europe"
ROFLMAO. Another American who has no idea what socialism means and no clue about Europe and the result is mindless drivel without foothold in reality, good job.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
For some people, the idea of "free trade" includes the right to know what one is buying. Evidently not so for Bush.
Further, if the G8 did reduce emissions by 50% by 2050 (below 1990 levels... um... ok, so we reduce our energy consumption by 50% and don't completely destroy our economy how?).
Hey, remember. Emissions!=energy production. I could easily drop our emmissions by 50% and increase energy production. Nuclear power is our friend.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Unfortunately, the political will to make real changes seem to be lacking, not only in the US.
Ultimately, everyone's in favor of doing something to help our environment, but there's nearly always something they care more about, and very few people vote on the basis of a politician's stand on the environment.
And, perhaps more importantly. With democracy the way it is, politicians profit (get reelected) by looking no more than 4 years into the future. Any good they do which doesn't show significant results before the next election simply doesn't matter to the professional politician. Politics is a job, and securing your job is one of the greatest motivations for most people.
Making the drastic changes required to slow global warming significantly has a very high political cost - more unemployment as polluting businesses go out of business, and a great deal of money taken from other posts that will be obvious much earlier, and influence the next election a great deal.
We're all environmentalists, but when the interest rates start increasing, when your house falls in value, and you're in danger of losing your job... You don't vote for environmentalism, you vote for your own short term best interests.
And I fear that by the time the global climate becomes the immidiate problem for a majority of the population, it will be far too late to do anything effective to change it.
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
Yes. In fact, as Adam Smith described, one of the requirements for an ideal free-trade system is that the buyer knows what they're buying and makes an informed/logical choice. In practice, this rarely occurs, and is one reason why free-trade is an ideal that (like communism) sounds nice in theory but doesn't translate quite so well into practice.
No one would let a trash-disposal company make money by dumping rubbish in their backyard - it's interesting that many people feel that public commons, like air and water, are somehow different.
We don't hate the American people (though the tourists can be a bit loud sometimes, they still mean well.)
But we hate the American government with a passion.
The distinction happens because the democratic process sometimes doesn't run as smoothly as one would hope - that can happen to any country.
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
"North Americans plant billions of trees each year. There is no reason why the rest of the world can't do the same."
This somehow remembers me some cute Maire Antoinette saying on pre-revolution days: "if there's no bread, let them eat cake!"
Please, remember how Marie Antoinette ended.
Why is winning wars important to you?
I find it barbaric to measure a countrys worth based on wars they have won. I personally base a countrys worth on what they offer the citizens and how little crime, esp violent crime the country has, access to health care, access to higher education, How they punish their own citizens etc. And when it comes to all of those, USA is pretty far down on any lists. It looks more like a banana republic than a 1st world country and yes, I have lived and worked here for over a decade and I have lived and worked in several other countries too. If I wasn't white with a good education from a top 50 university working in a 6 figure job and living in a climatically great area, I would not have been here.
I'm not French either, but when you use the French revolution against them, it is too dumb to take seriously. USA has not exactly been stellar when it comes to winning wars alone in the past either and it certainly have had zero luck in Iraq and Afghanistan, mostly because your leaders have zero clue about how to handle them. You have basically been shown that the US military machine is a waste of money and it will not be able to achieve anything in the world we currently live in. So, continue to spend a good portion of your tax money on the military, err on the fat cats running the armament industry. USA is slowly becoming a 3rd world society with a 1st world economy/military.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
"North Americans plant billions of trees each year. There is no reason why the rest of the world can't do the same."
This somehow remembers me some cute Maire Antoinette saying on pre-revolution days: "if there's no bread, let them eat cake!"
Please, remember how Marie Antoinette ended.
Clever, but a non-sequitir. I imagine your +4 rating has more to do with your historical reference and playing to the anti-american-they'll-get-theirs-someday crowd then you actually having a point.
Trees are a renewable resource that can be predictably grown and harvested- it's just that the season isn't months, it's decades. I see no good reason that we can't expect the rest of the world to act accordingly when it's something we do routinely in the US.
Unless, of course, your opinion is that the rest of the world is too stupid and impatient to treat wood like any other crop.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
God, I love anti-American Slashdotters. In your zeal to bash the U.S. (remember, it makes you intellectual and witty!), you conveniently leave out that if the U.S. disappeared, there wouldn't be anybody to buy the damn imports. Bye-bye, economies.
As for global warming, there is so much contradictory evidence that it's a joke whenever someone claims a consensus (the opposite of science, by the way). We'll look back on this silly politically-driven hysteria the same way we look back on the "global cooling" fears of the 1970s. Nobody can explain the medieval warming period, nobody can explain the correlation with solar cycles, nobody can explain the warming in the rest of the solar system, etc. etc. etc. The media cherry-picks what it wants people to hear, because it makes for a better ratings-driven storyline if we're destroying the planet through the evils of our own successes.
One of these days, mankind is going to wake up and stop loathing itself just to feel smart. That is, if liberals lose their stranglehold on the media (perhaps George Soros will have to die first).
"Sufferin' succotash."
Firstly, the GP was not "bashing the US", but was pointing out the unsustainability of the US economy.
Secondly, your post is partly wrong, and partly misguided. The US is not the only country with wealth to buy imports. While an immediate cessation of US purchasing would be a blow to the global economy, it would survive. Anyway, what do you think is gonna happen as the US dollar (inevitably) devalues?
Finally, let's play spot the cliche!
1. God, I love anti-American Slashdotters.
2. there is so much contradictory evidence
3. this silly politically-driven hysteria the same way we look back on the "global cooling" fears of the 1970s
4. it makes for a better ratings-driven storyline if we're destroying the planet through the evils of our own successes.
5. if liberals lose their stranglehold on the media
well done dude - you've hit the jackpot!
Selfishness seems to have become the core value of America right now. The measure of all actions is self interest. Individuals and corporations are encouraged to act solely in their own self interest, for that, we are told is the best way to ensure the common interest. While there is some truth to this, overall it is dangerous delusion. We are all part of a larger civilization, and the fate of that civilization effects all of us.
Climate change is an issue that will effect all of us. And no matter how many deluded denials there are, no matter how loud those deluded denials are shouted, no matter much we look away from the unpleasant truth, the laws of physics remain. No matter the slippery and reassuring words of oil industry funded public relations people, the landslide of data supporting the predictions of climate scientists will remain.
Reducing carbon emissions is highly likely to cause great harm to corporations whose main income comes from oil extraction. Thus we see many of these oil interests working hard to prevent any effective reduction in carbon emissions. After all, it's just self interest. If you were facing the loss of billions and billions of dollars, wouldn't you be fighting it? Except that the oil companies' profits are coming at the expense of the future of our civilization. I believe that unless we as a society overcome our obsession with pure self interest, our civilization will enter a period of profound decline. Is that really in our best interest?
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
This common refrain ("we won't reduce ours until they do so, too") is like two school-children arguing: "You first!" "Nu-uh, you first!"
Oh come one, you know this is bullshit. Countries like that are still busy getting their economy up and running. You seriously think they should be held to the same standard as the US, who's carbon emission per capita is WAY higher than any of those countries ? (e.g. 6 times higher as China). Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Per capita....
Great way to offset the reality.
US: 300 million
China: 1.5 BILLION
Translation, what China doesn't have on a per-capita basis, they make up for in sheer quantity.
What's more, the drive to modernize China will cause a per-capita increase.
Additionally, there are initiatives in the US already to reduce emissions. Sure, they may not move as quickly (the day before yesterday please!) as you'd like. But they ARE in progress.
Yet you want to excuse it because "Oh, they're a developing country!"
Essentially what you want is for us to wreck our economy around the same time China finishes building theirs.
Good idea! (NOT!)
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
No, actually, they don't.
If you follow this link you'll see that the emission of the US is still WAY higher than China, even as China has a much larger number of inhabitants. (data is from '96, couldn't find more recent data using a quick google search and I'm too lazy to keep on looking).
The US isn't doing nearly enough, since the US is so wastefull compared to the rest of the developed world it should be relatively easy to cut down, 'we' already demonstrated it can be done. E.g. increase the gas prices through taxation so people will stop buying ridicious cars. (Contrary to popular belief US gas prices are insanely low).