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.'"
surely its only a matter of time before europe imposes trade tarrifs on US goods? Otherwise they are basically subsidising US industry, operating with far looser environmental standards. I'm sure the US will complain and 'retaliate', but I don't see any other option in the long term.
Parent is not a troll. It's an informative post.
There's not much political benefit to environmental stewardship when a considerable majority of your supporters have no interest in empirical truth. Most Bush voters believe exactly what parent said: Jesus will come again and they will be swept into heaven before the environmental consequences of their actions cause them any harm.
That's exactly right. I read a Gore Vidal essay explaining how Regan was absolutely convinced that the biblical end of times would be within his lifetime. It's scary to think how such beliefs influence national policy. Vidal also proposed that no president should be elected who holds a literal view of the bible. I wonder how much the Christian Right influences Bush's environmental policy.
Why bother looking out for future generations if the leader of the free world believes we'll all be getting beamed up in a few years?
I'm convinced, due to knowledge about human nature, that the climate change problem will only be solved with market-driven solutions.
I don't think the government, or governments, can solve it without the private industry. Private industry is the only organizer of the masses and it must be utilized in every way on every level.
It must be cheaper to run a business in an environmentally friendly manner. It also must be cheapter to start a business that is dedicated to solving climate change.
I propose that we allow people to start small businesses, tax free, for 5 years, as long as that business is dedicated to the principles outlined, of reducing environmental harm. This is what worked for the internet, so many businesses moved to the net because theres no internet taxes. One way to bring business support is to simply remove taxes.
Are you telling me that Democrats and Republicans can't agree to cut taxes for this issue? If we want environment-conscious businesses, we need to cut taxes for environmentally conscious businesses. I think Tarrifs are another one of those old ideas from the last century. We are globalized now, and the elements of our system which are globalized, are tax laws, and business laws.
We need to update business laws so people can start corporations who's main goal is not simply profit in money, but also to advance social goals. If a business is started by law with the social agenda of being environment conscious and of preserving the environment, then it will be illegal for that business to go against the social agenda set forth through law.
So lawyers, who understand business law, need to team up with environmentalists, who need to team up with social activists, who need to term up with business and economics majors, and together they can come up with something similar to the GPL, or creative commons, only this would be a legal document and script for starting eco-corporations.
This eco-corp document should redefine corporation, into eco-corporation, and being eco-friendly should come before all else.
At the same time, by redefining what a corporation is and how it functions, it will give people the freedom to organize the market to solve climate change. I see this is a legal/technical problem of business law. The way it can be solved is through new corporate models, new classifications, new laws to manage corporations on the local level.
If anyone here is a lawyer and capable of understanding exactly the impact the GPL had on the open source movement, could something similar to the GPL be invented to assist the climate change movement? And is anyone interested in starting a project to do it?
Respond with your comments, this post is designed to advance discussion and promote new idea generation. New ideas are needed. Old ideas like tarrifs, and taxes, only make the government bigger but don't create the fundamental changes anymore than having the government build an OS would create the open source movement. So think bigger.
Ok, so Greenpeace leaked that the US is against this "communique" but they don't specify anything in the communique except that it requires reducing emissions. What are the specifics? Does it single the US out in any way? Does it put broader or more strenuous penalties on the US? Neither of these things would surprise me coming from Germany. There are a million things that the US could be objecting to. Not including third world countries in the agreement, singling out coal power production for special penalties, maybe it specifies per capita caps (the US uses more energy per capita than anyone else). My point is, without seeing the actual communique, this is just Greenpeace making headlines. It is more of the same from the environmentalists: "Here's something scary and bad, but we won't give you the actual facts, just take our word for it, the US sucks".
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?). Even if we come up with a huge breakthrough on the energy production front, and we manage to reduce emissions by that much, China and India will both be producing 5-10 times more emissions than they are today, and today China and India are producing almost as much as the US. They aren't covered by this agreement at all. So net result is, global warming still just as much of a problem and the developed world has no economy left, or wasted hundreds of billions converting over to clean power.
The problem with agreements like this is that you can't know, say the G8 (including US) signs this agreement, and now its 2048, and no one has made fusion work, wind power is still too costly, and too sporadic, wave power doesn't pan out, solar power is still only 15% efficient, nuclear power because of local regulations is not an option... And we have this global treaty that on Jan 1 2050 requires us to pay huge penalties or turn off half our economy.... There is not a good solution to the energy problem, and you don't commit yourself to something extremely detrimental to your economy, way of life, people in general hoping for a massive breakthrough. And that is exactly what this is hoping. We would need a seriously massive breakthrough on some renewable energy front (nuclear, solar, wind, whatever) to comply with this regulation. There is nothing that seems to be on the horizon which would allow us to comply. Hydrogen cars? Great but hydrogen takes energy to produce, so now we're burning more coal. Electric cars, same problem. The only solution is to go completely nuclear. But thanks to these same environmentalists, that is 100% impossible in the US. It will not happen.
The only other possibility is to start spending billions if not hundreds of billions buying up huge swathes of land to put up wind farms or solar panels, and then there is still huge amounts of regulation, law suits, all sorts of things that will happen with that. I wanted to take my house off the grid, but it is impossible for 99% of americans to pull this off, because solar panels to power even a modest home cost > 30k. Very few people have that money sitting around, and even if they did, they would be stupid to spend it on something that will at most save them 100-150/mo on their electric bill. 30+ year ROI is not considered a good investment anywhere.
Anyone know what these "red lines" actually are? I mean, it's fun to just assume that the US is wrong, but it would be neat to know what we are actually disagreeing about.
Also, I wouldn't sign anything that was an "Agreement to slow the rise in average temperatures this century to 2C". How can we possibly agree to that? Do we have some reason to believe that is withing the G8's power?
-Peter
There are some hints in the news here that the USA was sufficiently embarrassed by this leaked memorandum, that it had to mollify its position somewhat.
It happens that the governments of the UK and Germany happen to take global warming very seriously, and both want and need to deliver a deal. If the US refuse to compromise, then the allies of the USA will be in a very awkward position indeed. Chancellor Merkel and especially prime minister Blair will have closely associated themselves with a power that refuses to take action on an issue that they have themselves identified as a significant, even the most important, threat to the future of their own societies and economies. And as no nation on this planet produces even remotely as much CO2 per head of the population as Americans do, that makes the USA a de facto threat, instead of an ally.
The sad truth is that Merkel and Blair they have no reason to expect much in the way of concessions. So their best way out of this corner is to dismiss George W. Bush and his policies as an irrelevance, which they could do with some justification. Many US states have already taken serious steps to fight global warming, and as Tony Blair pointed out today, "I can't think that there's going to be many people running for presidential office next time round in the US who aren't going to have climate change in their program." Never mind the current president... and that's King Tony speaking!
Of course, even from the Bush administration's point of view, provoking such a situation seems rather counterproductive, and I would think that sanity will induce them to offer at least a compromise that people can attempt to interpret as a step forward. On the other hand, consistency or clear sense of purpose have never hallmarks of the Bush Jr. era.
I entrusted you with this planet, and you ruined it. Why should I let you into Heaven?
Well, I guess you just proved that human nature hasn't really changed that much in 2000 years. They killed him then, they would kill him now. And them really means we.
I don't imagine this is possible... but (I'll carry on anyway!) would it be possible for the G8 to instead try to reach agreement with individual states? I'd imagine that California (for one) might be more inclined to reach an agreement.
This might be a more practical approach than trying to reach any agreement with the current US administration, which would otherwise involve lots of foot-dragging and then finally a very watered down (and likely useless) agreement.
Also, if some states did sign up, it *might* shame the others into action? Or am I expecting too much?!
Someone should come right out and call a shovel a shovel.
The U.S.A. is essentially an international criminal state on this issue,
and it's time that the rest of the world agreed to take some serious
punitive measures.
I think sanctions would be a good first step.
"No oil for you!"
('til you learn how to use it like a responsible adult.)
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
If you care to provide a link to support the claims made by sumdumass, I will address them.
As a preface, if the US was gone tomorrow, the world would largely spiral into a dark age for several generations. Likely not a thousand years like the result of the fall of Rome, but there would definitely be a financial crisis followed by a tremendous depression in every country, issues with supply of food, cotton, and other such goods. Effects of similar magnitude would likely be seen if Europe or Southeast Asia were to disappear.
The US has long been a pioneer in environmental regulation and conservation. Today, the average American is becoming more interested in environmental protections and conservation. American business is also moving towards a more environment-friendly model (a search for "company goes green" on Google will yield results about recycling efforts from Dell Computers, taxi cab companies purchasing hybrid cars, IBM's more energy efficient processors, NBC Universal and FOX making announcements that they will be moving towards carbon neutrality).
Business and the free market, as well as awareness are the best ways to fight CO2 and global warming. Benchmarks, unenforced and detrimental to economic progress, do not work. Companies in the US are already taking the initiative upon themselves and coming up with creative ways to lower their carbon emissions. American car companies are already selling more flex-fuel and hybrid models this year than previous years, and the amount of E85 gas stations across the US has increased 60% last year.
Really though, environmentalism is great and all, but there are still more pressing concerns that could be taken care of with much less cost. The entire country of Africa, for example. Or the barbarous countries that allow people to be stoned in the street. North Korea and its starving population. Looking forward and preparing for future catastrophes is great, but we're not exactly living in a perfect world today either.
Just my view, take it for what you think its worth.
Temperature is a measurement of atomic/molecular energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature/ (Wikipedia link, there are hundreds of others, including basic chemistry and physics books). We humans have a lot of machines, which use energy, mostly from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels contain energy stored from millions of years ago. Our machines return this energy into the current world as sonic or thermal energy. Since we are adding molecular energy/motion into the world, the temperature increases. If you build a small fire, it heats up the nearby area. If you build a lot of big fires, you heat up a larger area.
Carbon dioxide gets into the picture as being a "greenhouse" gas. A "greenhouse gas" being one that retains energy here on Earth, instead of letting it reflect out to space. Not the only one, just the most commonly emitted one. Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and Ozone are some of the other considerations.
But, this has become a political issue, so it must be stripped down to something understandable in 60 seconds or less, and understandable to someone with no analytical skills or scientific knowledge. Carbon Dioxide emissions then get all of the attention, though they are a small part of "global warming", and not the true cause.
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
It seems to me that the best way for the rest of the world to react would be to stop negotiating with the US as a country and move to negotiating with the states. Some of them are as large as a reasonably sized country and act as such. California, for example, seems very ready to move on climate change.
The other states, some of which seem to have "rogue governments" that look very much like "axis of evil", can easily be ostracized. Sanctions can be implemented such as travel restrictions for their elected officials or freezing of funds in foreign bank accounts.
Of course military action cannot be ruled out but liberating Texas may be difficult.
There is proof that CO2 is related to global warming. However not the proof everyone thinks. They have everything backwards. CO2 has always lagged temperature changes by 800 years.
Here are more numbers for you. 95% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is water vapor. Of the remaining 5% only one of the the gases in question is actually CO2. Of that CO2 humans are only one of several emitters. The oceans emit CO2 when the surface of the water is heated. Volcanoes also emit CO2 and so does rotting leaves. So man made CO2 may in fact be about 2% of all Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is a conservative estimate. It may be less then that.
Yes exactly that was my point and the killers would be the same, the religious zealots in combination with those who have money and power (usually both groups are heavily interwined with each other)
:-)
Funny thing is under McCarthy he would probably have been dragged in front of the tribunal as being a hardcore communist
The other G8 nations are coming to the table with proposals that are already very much watered down, due to the demands of big business, and of course political expediency. That the US isn't even prepared to entertain these weak and inadequate changes shows the lack of regard they truly have for the state of the planet on which we live. They should try to bear in mind that the rest of us also have to live with the consequences of their selfishness and shortsightedness.
Bzzzzzt..."AAAAaaaaarrrgh!!!" Thud.
You're joking, right??? The term this thread is searching for is 'non-rival' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) ). Apples are rivalrous goods. If I eat an apple I reduce the amount of apple left for everyone else. Housing services (think 'house-months') are, too. If I live in a house for a month, I reduce the amount of housing left for everyone else for that month. A musical recording, or a piece of software, is non-rival. If I listen to (or copy) some country music it doesn't - regrettably - reduce the amount of country music left in the world for everyone else.
That is the difference, and is why intellectual property is fundamentally different. No free market can produce an optimal outcome for an economy containing non-rival goods (see my other post on the first theorem of welfare economics). With no IP protection there's too little incentive to generate IP. With IP protection people who might benefit from the IP but not by enough to pay the market price cannot make use of it, and this can add up to a lot of lost economic welfare (especially for those in poorer countries - consider AIDS drugs). There's a second-best maxima at some level of IP protection, but it isn't as much as the perfect economic choices (all IP which costs less to produce than the total benefits is produced, and anyone who can benefit from it uses it freely).
- That humans cause CO2 to rise
- Current computer models accurate predict that a rise in CO2 is "bad" for our environment
- All other large countries, inclusing China, India, Indonesia and the US will need to agree on reducing emissions otherwise reduction by the others cannot compensate the increase by those who don't comply
- If we reduce CO2 levels our climate will return to where it was before
If any of the above is untrue there is no point in reducing emissions. I am particularly sceptic about number 3. We can't even agree with a few western nations to stop fishing North Sea herring so it doesn't become extinct. And you want the majority of the world to agree on something far more costly? Go read an economics book on "tregedy of the commons". Then decide to build dikes.This sig is just as redundant as the rest of this posting