Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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...
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.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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
Has zip to do with democracy.
