GW To Go With Kyoto?

[Annie]

Something to watch for in SOTU Address:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1989997,00.html

Bush set for climate change U-turn

Downing Street says that belated US recognition of global warming could lead to a post-Kyoto agreement on curbing emissions
Gaby Hinsliff, Juliette Jowit and Paul Harris
Sunday January 14, 2007

Observer
George Bush is preparing to make a historic shift in his position on global warming when he makes his State of the Union speech later this month, say senior Downing Street officials.

Tony Blair hopes that the new stance by the United States will lead to a breakthrough in international talks on climate change and that the outlines of a successor treaty to the Kyoto agreement, the deal to curb emissions of greenhouse gases which expires in 2012, could now be thrashed out at the G8 summit in June.

The timetable may explain why Blair is so keen to remain in office until after the summit, with a deal on protecting the planet offering an appealing legacy with which to bow out of Number 10.

Bush and Blair held private talks on climate change before Christmas, and there is a feeling that the US President will now agree a cap on emissions in the US, meaning that, for the first time, American industry and consumers would be expected to start conserving energy and curbing pollution...

 

[MtnBiker]

So I wonder, what global body will enforce the complance of any treaty on emssions and pollution?

The UN has already proved that it is completely incapable of doing such thing. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has already allowed North Korea and Iran to circumvent any enforcement by the UN. The same sort of results are quite likely with any Global Warming initiative, expect the US will be held accountable by the free press and the demonisation of any politicain who would possibly oppose such a treaty. In the end it will weaken the US economy while other countries will thumb their nose at the treaty and continue to grow their economy.

 

[Annie]

So I wonder, what global body will enforce the complance of any treaty on emssions and pollution?

The UN has already proved that it is completely incapable of doing such thing. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has already allowed North Korea and Iran to circumvent any enforcement by the UN. The same sort of results are quite likely with any Global Warming initiative, expect the US will be held accountable by the free press and the demonisation of any politicain who would possibly oppose such a treaty. In the end it will weaken the US economy while other countries will thumb their nose at the treaty and continue to grow their economy.

I know. Then again, GW seems to be having a hard time staying 'tough' on all issues. It's 'legacy' time and when they start thinking that way, it's all downhill.

 

[MtnBiker]

Great more feel good legislation that's really more good for the politician than the country.

While we are at it we should let PETA join the ban wagon and elimanate beef from the american menu, after all methane gas is a large contributor to global warming.

 

[Annie]

Great more feel good legislation that's really more good for the politician than the country.

While we are at it we should let PETA join the ban wagon and elimanate beef from the american menu, after all methane gas is a large contributor to global warming.

That could be next week. Think the dems will join the bandwagon then? Hey, between Pelosi and the grandkids and Boxer knocking Condi for being single, they have suddenly picked up on 'family values.'

 

[Annie]

A bit of change:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=F1E1FD9E97F59379ED79BDF258D55042

anuary 16, 2007

Bush to address global warming in annual speech



By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will outline a policy on global warming next week in his State of the Union speech but has not dropped his opposition to mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions, the White House said on Tuesday.

"It's not accurate. It's wrong," White House spokesman Tony Snow said regarding media reports suggesting that Bush would agree to mandatory emissions caps in an effort to combat global warming. Such caps could require energy conservation and pollution curbs.

"If you're talking about enforceable carbon caps, in terms of industry-wide and nation-wide, we knocked that down. That's not something we're talking about," Snow said.

Britain's "The Observer" newspaper reported on Sunday that senior Downing Street officials, who were not named, said Bush was preparing to issue a changed climate policy during his annual State of the Union speech on January 23...

 

[8236]

The timetable may explain why Blair is so keen to remain in office until after the summit, with a deal on protecting the planet offering an appealing legacy with which to bow out of Number 10.

LoL. And there was me thinking he was just a power-hungry control freak. It does kind of make sense though; he's not leaving much of a legacy in any other respect.

 

[Gurdari]

So I wonder, what global body will enforce the complance of any treaty on emssions and pollution?

The UN has already proved that it is completely incapable of doing such thing. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has already allowed North Korea and Iran to circumvent any enforcement by the UN. The same sort of results are quite likely with any Global Warming initiative, expect the US will be held accountable by the free press and the demonisation of any politicain who would possibly oppose such a treaty. In the end it will weaken the US economy while other countries will thumb their nose at the treaty and continue to grow their economy.

The UN will always be weak until it becomes a democracy - no more veto weilding members, look at how the US has undermined the NPT, actually worse than any other country with regard to nuclear proliferation.
Also - the US pollutes 25% of greenhouse gases - why not take a little responsibility?

 

[Darwins Friend]

The mark of a true idiot - Never change course.

 

[theHawk]

The UN will always be weak until it becomes a democracy - no more veto weilding members, look at how the US has undermined the NPT, actually worse than any other country with regard to nuclear proliferation.
Also - the US pollutes 25% of greenhouse gases - why not take a little responsibility?

The UN will always be incapable of enforcing anything as long its run by a bunch of corrupt thugs who have no intention of promoting freedom and security throughout the world.

 

[Annie]

The UN will always be weak until it becomes a democracy - no more veto weilding members, look at how the US has undermined the NPT, actually worse than any other country with regard to nuclear proliferation.
Also - the US pollutes 25% of greenhouse gases - why not take a little responsibility?

The US should just get out of the UN and let all the other countries do as they damn well please.

 

[Gurdari]

The US should just get out of the UN and let all the other countries do as they damn well please.

If the US (and Russia, China, Britain, France) don't want it to be democratic, they should certainly abandon it.

 

[Gurdari]

The UN will always be incapable of enforcing anything as long its run by a bunch of corrupt thugs who have no intention of promoting freedom and security throughout the world.

I know! Who actually votes AGAINST human rights! Sheesh.

 

[Annie]

If the US (and Russia, China, Britain, France) don't want it to be democratic, they should certainly abandon it.

Has zip to do with democracy.

 

[Gurdari]

Has zip to do with democracy.

So the UN should be democratic, right? That's the general consensus?
I guess the democratic countries already (by their existence) believe so, so I guess it's up to the U.S., Britain, and France, and maybe sort of Russia (ha!) to renounce their permanent veto power and practice what they preach/bomb/etc.