Bush set to scupper climate change agreement at G8

as i have already said i dont think he gives a shit about climate change .

 

I understand that - I think I asked what do you think of the proposals.
So are you saying these proposals look like he does not give a shit about the environment ?. I fear i may have given you a very easy response - but what the hell.

They prob' have Elvis Presley singing / Lucile ball cracking a few jokes and God calling out the bingo No.s
I can cofidently state we do not have a club twinned to the Bohemian Grove.

Or do we ?? *cue dramatic music*.

 

They are trying to sell the USA's proposals like this on the BBC

The americans say there are no cash incentives for poorer countries to be more energy efficient.

Now the truth:
The USA wants everyone to be able to buy and sell carbon emissions quota. The USA proposes that the poor countries should sell its emission quota to the USA - so instead of the USA becoming green - it wants the right to pay so others go green while it has bought the right to pollute !!!!


NOT FUCKING ON USA !!!!!!!!! NOT REAL _ GET REAL OR GET FUCKED !!!!!!

 

JESUS YOUR RIGHT! To be frank, he is starting acknowledge that the Environment is in danger, but he knows his best buddies, the oil industry, doesn't want to. Carbon trading will allow the US to pollute whilst other nations go green!

America seems to want to go green, but bush is holding them back!

 

I never read it on the BBC - infact it has had very little coverage on BBC TV - yes they have pretty much the majority of world news on the internet - but not much on the TV [as far as I have seen].

I don't think this is 100% accurate : ''The USA proposes''

The majority of countries are ''carbon trading'' rich / poor / somewhere in between - Infact I think many of the Kyoto signatories only make their targets because of carbon trading. That to me is looking like they are making their targets but through somewhat of a sham.
''Carbon trading'' has its place but is being abused -
If you think it is a bad idea - it is a bad idea not only for America but for everyone.

Plus think this over :

''Australia produces only about 1.5 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, a proportion that is declining as emissions from the developing nations such as China and India soar.

Despite refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, we [Australia] are closer to meeting our Kyoto objective of restraining emissions to 108 per cent of 1990 levels by 2012 than most of the countries that did sign. Canada was supposed to have reduced its emissions by 6 per cent by 2012 but has actually increased them by more than 60 per cent.''
http://www.theage.com.au/news/busin...rt-staysupright/2007/06/01/1180205512747.html

The CDM is one of two global markets which have been set up in the wake of the Kyoto climate summit in 1997. Both finally started work in January 2005. Although both were launched with the claim that they would reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, evidence collected by the Guardian suggests that thus far, both markets have earned fortunes for speculators and for some of the companies which produce most greenhouse gases and yet, through a combination of teething troubles and multiple forms of malpractice and possibly fraud, they have delivered little or no benefit for the environment.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2093815,00.html

Be critical of ALL countries not just the USA - for one thing the USA has spent more money on reducing its carbon footprint in real terms [i.e new technology ] - than any other country in the world.

Gosh I will sound like one of Bushs buddies but anyhoo - The Bush amdin' has had its eye on the environment for the last 6 years - have a read of the link I posted earlier - ok here you go http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3476586#post3476586.

Go check out any oil companys website - they all have programmes to move away from oil as a energy source.
They will stop gaining huge profits from oil - they will then move to another form of energy - more than likely ''clean'' energy.

 

i think it's silly, putting so much emphasis on signing a piece of paper that practically no one REALLY had any intention of paying any real attention to.

 

i found this series of articles in a candian news site. i think the series as a whole is very good. it's called The Deniers

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

 

There is talk that Canada is going to back Bush in his decisions on global warming. Thank you Steven Harper!

 

But the other signatories only admitted carbon trading as a concession to the USA because it wants to pull the USA toward a Eurocentric view - The USA threatened to end negociations unless carbon trading was allowed !
Now lets just say if they are going to ruin it with compromise why have a fucking kyoto agreement at all - fuck capitalism - if we cant trust them to do a good job then bring down the polluter ! Dont support its economy till it gets in line behind countries who dont want that form of irresponsible capitalism that the USA exports - fuck the usa

 

I thought Canada was full of hippies!

 

I'd like to know where you heard that ?.
As far as I am aware it was put in place so signatories could meet their targets - like I was attempting to point out.
If it is only so that the USA ''falls in line'' why are the majority if not all countries ''carbon trading''. IF their arms were twisted - it was not twisted that strenuously.

They kyoto agreement is so that ALL countries reduce their carbon emmisions not just the USA. What countries do not ''support capitalism'' . every country does.

 

you are deliberately just being an apologist for the thick headed greedy American Bastards.

The truth whether you like it or not, is that the USA insisted it would withdraw unreservedly from the Koyoto treaty because it did not believe others would sacrifice their economics to reduce polution (did you hear this one somewhere else ??? oh yeah the arms race with the USSR) so the USA would not sacrifice theirs. Then a compromise deal was reached whereby the USA said that it would not endeavour to cut emission if that meant its economy would suffer AT ALL !
They were going to walk out and then so they could save face the others suggested the USA stay on board and propose an emmisions sale agenda - they didnt want the USA pout of the loop because what would be the point ? so they thought.

Well the point would be this - the world could do nicely without the USA but the USA cannot survive on its own and sanctions would have brought those egotistical - money grabbing assholes to their senses !

you may be in need of an education but please MBworkrelated could you refrain from posting till you actually know what youre talking about !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol

 

their carbon emissions INCREASED during their term with the Kyoto agreement. but no, they got their signature on there, so whether they follow it or not, by gum, they SIGNED the stupid thing.

 

that's total bullshit, man. they started carbon trading because THEY CAN'T MEET THEIR END OF THE BARGAIN. signing a piece of paper is all well and good, but they pretty much shit on the spirit of the agreement to blithely follow the letter of it for the sake of easing their own freaking guilt. dishonest bunch of bull, hypocritical nonsense.

 

No i'm not.

I agree with you - The US signed but did not ratify the agreement because China did not have the same obligations that the US was expected to meet.
I think that is a fair reason not to sign it - imho you think the Kyoto protocol was a silver bullet and anything less would be useless. Has it actually achieved its set goals ?.

It did say it would cut emmisions but not have binding targets - it just did not believe it should be subject to conditions its nearest economical rival - China - was not subject too.

Erm no I don't think so - we may differ on our interpretations and perceptions here. Think about it the USA never ''got on board'' - if it is not ratyfying the agreement why would it attempt to negotiate through ''carbon trading'' ?. Why is every other country ''carbon trading'' or ''emmisions trading'' ?. Could it be that that was part of the deal in the first place - so was NOT a bargaining tool to be used anyway ?.
Also those types of agreements and ''trades'' have been in practice a long time before the Kyoto protocol.

What about the other countries that did not sign ?.
Plus why would there be sanctions on trade ?.

I've read that quite a few times thanks.

Matt -

 

well the very major point I am making is that it is not right for China to be up its arse about cutting back its economy either - but whereas the real news is that China said , why should we cut back more than the USA ??
so rather than lead the way, these retards up at the whitehouse get into some eye scratching school girl scrap -= now they are proving to the world they havent the maturity to be taken seriously - Europe has to lead the way without the USA and merely impose sanctions on the USA

Who gives a fuck about those other economies theyre fucking farming countries - the only factories make fish glue or watch straps whatever

Nuke china and the usa - solve 45% of the carbon footprint over night !!!!!
of course the best thing is to get them arguing so they nuke each other

 

lol. you know the nuclear cloud will be floating right on over you, too.

 

They would not have to - like other countries [ it seems from later on in your post - you do not give a fuck about] China could have engineered a process where their targets were set to a reasonable level - taking into consideration its future expenential growth. Thus making it fair.

In many respects the USA is leading the way as far as the environment is concerned - Some of Its citizens still need a reality check - but your assertion that because the USA did not sign a bit of paper - along with a multitude of other countries it is now the devil incarnate - is unfair.
It also suggests the USA does nothing for the environment - wich is untrue.

Imho I think the USA is the eaiser target for derision and protest as I do not think many people give a toss about the majority of Europe or find as much pleasure from protesting all the other capitalist countries fucking the environment up.

Imho the UK is leading Europe and the US is leading the majority of the rest of the world.

MMM yeah ''whatever'' - what decade are you in ?.

Great and create a nuclear fall out and fuck 55% of the environment up in the process - negating anything - heck pretty much everything the other 45% of the world is doing. Plus do you plan on killing everybody in those two countries ? If so then I really worry about your morals and values - and wonder what your true credentials for protest are ?.