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.'"

9 of 845 comments (clear)

  1. And then the people in the USA... by fluch · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...are surprised that sympathy towards USA is keeping within limits for the destruction caused by the horrible hurricanes. (Of course the people who suffer from it are not the ones who made the decisions and such disasters are horrible.)

  2. Re:Hope for the future by perlchild · · Score: 0, Troll

    If the americans, who have been ridiculed for their leader by other countries ever since he took power, refuse to act, perhaps the other nations will just let them suffer. We may be bound to save ourselves, but after the Americans realized how bad he was, they didn't even protest, why are we bound to save them even the trouble of protesting?

  3. Re:The 'Fundamental' concern... by j.+andrew+rogers · · Score: 1, Troll

    "If political will existed we could have vehicles that do everything SUVs do now, and houses just as big and comfy as the ones we have now, that had only a small fraction of the environmental impact. The technology is there; it's just a question of making it economically feasible."

    Considering that the environmental impact of SUVs versus, say, a Prius is negligible in the big environmental calculus, I would say that it is an entirely unimportant point. On the list of things that will have the most impact on the environment that is way, way down the list in both terms of impact and return on investment as far as the environment goes.

    People routinely conflate oil trade issues with environmental issues -- they are not the same. Eliminating all SUVs tomorrow will have a negligible impact on CO2 production or most other environmental issues people seem to care about. Eliminating SUVs tomorrow would impact the geopolitics of the oil trade, but that has very little to do with environmental impact. A lot of people get hot and bothered about SUVs, but they are pretty much inconsequential in terms of the environment if you look at actual relative impact numbers. If environmental results are all we are looking for, spending energy on SUVs offers an incredibly low return on investment.

  4. Re:The 'Fundamental' concern... by Kohath · · Score: 0, Troll

    A lot of people get hot and bothered about SUVs, but they are pretty much inconsequential in terms of the environment if you look at actual relative impact numbers. If environmental results are all we are looking for, spending energy on SUVs offers an incredibly low return on investment.

    But if hating America and hating big oil and hate in general are your thing, you can't beat SUVs for their buzzword power.

  5. Re:Nicolas Sarkozy Must Deal Tough with America by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Troll
    The trouble with Americans is that we devalue science education. Creationism is making a comeback in parts of the deep south. Several presidential candidates claim that evolution is a lie.

    With this attitude, naturally we Americans reject scientific conclusions: e.g., the warming of the globe due to human activity.


    Here is a little something from that evangelical magazine, Newsweek :

    A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

    The consensus approach is the right approach. It also works in the case of global warming. The consensus among reputable scientists is that human activity is causing global warming. We must immediately deal with the situation by reducing the production of greenhouse gases.

    Really?

    Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming...
    Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action...

    So, tell me again, why should we wreck our economy over something that not everyone can agree on? Why should I change my lifestyle and/or lose my job for when the loudest cheerleaders of global warming are the world's largest carbon producers (Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, John Edwards and so on) and at the same time, the one attacked the most (George Bush) has a home that produces less carbon the average, small, energy efficient abode!

    In 1999, the Bushes purchased approximately 1600 acres of land, complete with house and outbuildings, eight miles northwest of Crawford, Texas. They later hired an associate professor of Architecture from the University of Texas at Austin, David Heymann, to design a new 5,000 sq. ft. house and to convert existing buildings into Secret Service quarters and guest houses.

    The new house is a model of energy efficiency. Central to the energy efficiency of the house is a geothermal heating and cooling system which pumps water through pipes extending three hundred feet beneath the ground surface, using only twenty-five percent of the total electric usage of the house.

    Pipes connected to a heat pump inside the house circulate water into the ground and back up through the house. As the water returns to ground level it is a constant 67 degrees F, sufficient for summer cooling and winter heating. The water for the outdoor pool is heated by the same system, which proved to be so efficient that plans to install solar energy panels were cancelled.

    Compared to Gore's House

    According to a report published by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Al and Tipper's

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  6. Re:sanctions are inevitable by ccmay · · Score: 0, Troll
    The USA manufactures very lttle these days

    Very funny. Maybe you're right with regard to your grandpa's job making pig iron or automobiles, but the big money and growth is in high-technology manufacturing, and we are BURYING the rest of the world in that.

    The EU held about 34% of the world's high-technology manufacturing market in 1980, and now accounts for less than 20%.

    The Japanese provided about 14% of hi-tech manufactured goods in 1980, peaked in the early 90's at about 25%, and now make about 12%.

    The Chinese have climbed from essentially nothing in 1980 to provide about 9% of hi-tech manufacturing today.

    And the obese, burger-flipping, Oprah-watching morans of the USA? We built 24% of the world's hi-tech manufactured goods in 1980, and now produce about 43%.

    We'll do even better in the future as the population of Europe ages and the culture decays under the Mahometan onslaught. Your gross national product in fifty years will be measured in terms of how many Muslim nurses are wiping how many elderly white arses in nursing homes, as all your smart and hard-working youth will have fled for the shores of America. Your grandchildren will beg on their knees for the privilege of immigrating to the United States.

    I'm sure there was a time a hundred years ago when some preening Euro-trash looked down his nose and sneered about the falling market share of American buggy-whip makers and whale-oil refiners. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. It's pitiable and will only get worse as time goes by. The future will be American for at least the next hundred years.

    and your currency is worth so little that your value as customers is steadily dropping.

    But our value as suppliers grows ever more formidable. Sounds like you need to ask your pals at Airbus for a basic lesson in the macroeconomics of international trade.

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
  7. Nukulear power by flyingfsck · · Score: 0, Troll

    The whole purpose of the global warming hullabaloo is to convince Joe Sixpack that a nuculear power station in his backyard is actually a good idea. This is more of a problem in Europe, since those countries have few nuclear power stations and because the Chernobel nuclear mess happened there. The US doesn't need so much scare mongering, mainly because the US backyard is so much bigger than anywhere else, but also because the US already has a large number of nuculear power stations. If you want in on the scam, buy shares in uranium/gold mines (uranium and gold are usually mined together).

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  8. Re:sanctions are inevitable by budgenator · · Score: 0, Troll

    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've been trying to stop the Canadians from importing trash into Michigan for years, but the Feds keep saying that it's interstate commerce and to keep your hands off. The result is convoys of Canadian trash haulers bring trash in from Toronto that run non-stop day and night. From Toronto to Port Huron is a 2 1/2 hr drive by car so figure 3-4 hours by semi truck wonder what that does for global warming! considering the trucks come in loaded, return bob-tail and only can make one run a day, the pigs in Toronto must really be paying through the nose for trash removal.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  9. Re:Please Remember by hotgist · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yes the world is fragile in our hands but there is no global warming. Imagine that you woke up in the afternoon, would you scream global warming and if it were at night say global cooling? We are just going through some cycles. This will pass and a cooling period will come. Its like summer and winter I am writing something on this and when I am through I will submit it here. I hope it will be accepted