U.S. works to block targets at climate talks

[Ladywriter 7,783]

U.S. works to block targets at climate talks

Top delegate says it's premature, U.N. climate chief feels otherwise

updated 10:39 a.m. ET, Mon., Dec. 10, 2007

BALI, Indonesia - The United States insisted Monday a "roadmap" for future global warming talks should not suggest potential targets for emissions cuts by rich nations, as a pivotal climate summit entered its final week.

However, the U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said cutting emissions by up to 40 percent was crucial for reining-in rising temperatures and winning over investors who could provide many of the high-tech solutions needed to ward off catastrophe.

Prominent figures such as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Al Gore are to arrive in Bali in the coming days to provide momentum toward finalizing the "roadmap" that will eventually lead to a successor accord for the Kyoto Protocol.

In the meantime, delegates from nearly 190 countries were huddling behind closed doors and hammering out the wording for a negotiating text, which is expected to go through several revisions.

A draft document mentions targets for reducing the amount of pollutants pumped into the atmosphere, but in a nonbinding way.

Its preamble notes the widely accepted view that industrial nations' emissions should be cut by 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and that global emissions need to peak in the next 10 to 15 years and then be dramatically slashed to half of 2000 levels by mid-century.

But most delegates and environmentalists said they expected the numbers to be removed from the final text — especially after the United States and several of its close major allies made it clear Monday they opposed mandatory targets.

'Test to watch'

"This is the test to watch this week," said Jennifer Morgan, spokeswoman for Climate Action Network, which is representing all the environmental groups. "This will show you whether governments are serious or not, whether they support these types of emissions cuts."

Harlan Watson, America's climate negotiator, said there were "many uncertainties" over the numbers and accepting them now would only limit the parameter of future discussions.

"Obviously there will need to be a lot of analysis done over the period of negotiations," he said of the range for emission cuts. "To start with a predetermined answer, we don't think is an appropriate thing to do."

The 1997 Kyoto pact, which was rejected by the United States, commits three dozen industrialized countries to cut their greenhouse gases by relatively modest average of 5 percent below 1990 levels before it expires in 2012.

Experts say a new deal will have to go farther if the world wants to head off the dire impacts of rising temperatures, from collapsing ice sheets to worsening droughts, flooding and diseases.

All eyes are on the United States, which experts say is either the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases or the second, behind China.

Many analysts say the best hope for an about face from Washington would come with a new administration. U.S. presidential elections are due late next year.

Gore, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their efforts to raise awareness about global warming, agreed.

"The new president, whichever party wins the election, is likely to have to change the position on this climate crisis," the former U.S. vice president told The Associated Press in Oslo, Norway, before the Nobel award ceremony Monday.

"I do believe the U.S., soon, is to have a more constructive role," he said.

Kerry in attendance

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, who arrived in Bali on Sunday, cautioned, however, that one reason the U.S. Senate didn't support the 1997 pact was because it did not cover fast-growing developing countries like China and India.

"Everybody globally must somehow be part of this solution," he said.

De Boer, the U.N. climate chief, said he could only hope that specific targets would make their way into the final Bali roadmap.

"It's important to give a clear signal that that's where industrialized countries intend to go," de Boer said, adding that billions of dollars were waiting to be spent on everything from new environment-friendly technology to helping the most vulnerable countries adapt.

The European Union has pledged to accept binding emissions reductions of 20 percent by 2020.

Nuno Lacasta, climate director of Portugal, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, said the draft text's mention of 50 percent emissions cuts by 2050 was not out of line.

"What's important is that we are able to have milestones along the way, for which 2020 would be appropriate," he said.

Environmentalists said Monday they were satisfied so far with the progress of the talks but it was too early to declare them a success.

"We may be getting closer to a decision ... but we are still far removed from a political deal toward deep cuts in carbon emissions," said Hans Verolme, director of WWF's Global Climate Change Program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22183032/

fuckin Bush administration

[Myk JL 1,731]

/me wants 0 emissions... Damn those oil whores.

[Mathias 426]

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, who arrived in Bali on Sunday, cautioned, however, that one reason the U.S. Senate didn't support the 1997 pact was because it did not cover fast-growing developing countries like China and India.

"Everybody globally must somehow be part of this solution," he said.

All countries must be equal in any treaty or the other parties will become a worst problem than the current leaders in pollution. 1997 would have been during the Clinton administration, so both political parties have rejected this protocol now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17522363/

EU lawyers still have to draw up the detailed rules specifying how the deal will be enforced, however Barroso said the legislation “will be subject to all instruments of community law.” That implies that the EU’s executive arm would be able to launch legal action at the bloc’s high court that could lead to the imposition of heavy fines on countries that violate the targets.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20102028/from/RSS/

The United States is not a party to the Kyoto agreement and large developing countries such as China, India and Brazil are exempt from its obligations. They are afraid they will be called on to reduce emissions after 2012, which would hurt their economic growth and poverty-eradication efforts.

Heavy fines on countries that violate the targets. In my opinion, we'd not only have to pay more for alternate sources of energy, taxes would rise to pay for the fines we'd undoubtedly accrue. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't meet the current conditions in the Kyoto Protocol no matter how much money and effort we'd throw at the issue.

In my opinion, even though the US is one of the largest polluters, we as a nation are doing more to clean it up through technological discoveries, renewable energies, and other environmental projects. A treaty meant in good faith but only forces the US taxpayers to pay a fine in the end that could have been spent to help the environmental endeavor is no solution at all.

[Ladywriter 7,783]

In my opinion, even though the US is one of the largest polluters, we as a nation are doing more to clean it up through technological discoveries, renewable energies, and other environmental projects. A treaty meant in good faith but only forces the US taxpayers to pay a fine in the end that could have been spent to help the environmental endeavor is no solution at all.

Sadly you are mistaken. This country is addicted to oil and coal. Clean energy projects (like Cape Wind) are battled over in congress. The US is not doing enough and not as much as other countries to create and maintain alternative energy resources but we puke out nearly 1/4 of the entire planets pollution. We don't even have a federal recycling program.

Do some research and you'll see. Sorry but I aint gonna go scrambling through my links tonight I have a headache.

Like the tagline says the truth is not told it is realized.

[Myk JL 1,731]

Sadly you are mistaken. This country is addicted to oil and coal. Clean energy projects (like Cape Wind) are battled over in congress. The US is not doing enough and not as much as other countries to create and maintain alternative energy resources but we puke out nearly 1/4 of the entire planets pollution. We don't even have a federal recycling program.

Do some research and you'll see. Sorry but I aint gonna go scrambling through my links tonight I have a headache.

Like the tagline says the truth is not told it is realized.

I hate it when they battle what is right. And then support what is wrong. I have my days when I think this country would be better with out congress.

[Ladywriter 7,783]

they wanna stop cape wind because the view from the richie rich bastards summer homes would be junked up with windmills

wtf

lets get some godamn priorities straight

[Mathias 426]

Can we agree that the US is trying and be positive about our efforts? I've been getting depressed and frustrated over all the negative attacks on this forum against our country's environmental efforts when there are positives to be heard. We're not perfect, fine, can we give the US a pat on the head and say good job at least a couple times? Good job on the renewable energy development US! Congratulations for developing more efficient ways to burn coal until we can remove our dependence on coal! Something? That's what our school systems do nowadays, they get gold stars as long the kids say their trying. I'm not saying we need a passing grade, but a gold star here and there would help.

It's getting to the point where all the negativeness of these biodome and news articles are making me less willing to do anything for anyone. That'll never happen, of course, but I'm probably going to stop reading these depressing categories from now on. I guess my point is, a positive article about our country here and there would be a welcome change. If I'm in the wrong here, please delete my posts in this thread and let me know I should avoid these categories from now on. Thanks.

I have moved my comment to a spoiler tag. Read it if you want. Based on another thread of how little my opinions are viewed I shall refrain from reading or posting to this category from here on out.

[Myk JL 1,731]

they wanna stop cape wind because the view from the richie rich bastards summer homes would be junked up with windmills

wtf

lets get some godamn priorities straight

I remember that from the Daily Show. One of their major problems is they'll look out for themselves instead of the people they're supposed to represent.

[Ladywriter 7,783]

I'm sorry you feel that way but I for one cant give a gold star to a country that as a whole sucks out loud in this area.

Some places are trying (my dude Jeff works for an ethonal plant) but in some states soda cans are thrown in the garbage.

no, no gold star. Instead I give our govt

[Myk JL 1,731]

I'm sorry you feel that way but I for one cant give a gold star to a country that as a whole sucks out loud in this area.

Some places are trying (my dude Jeff works for an ethonal plant) but in some states soda cans are thrown in the garbage.

no, no gold star. Instead I give our govt

If I were any crazier I'd make my own fake Death Note then start writing Govt name in it who are anti-environment...

[Kelene 268]

"I'm sorry you feel that way but I for one cant give a gold star to a country that as a whole sucks out loud in this area.

Some places are trying (my dude Jeff works for an ethonal plant) but in some states soda cans are thrown in the garbage.

no, no gold star."

I'm sorry that you feel that way, Ladywriter. The country is trying, at least that is something. I have seen shows where people recycle everything, and I mean everything. Water, urine, food, dung, plastic, aluminum... everything. And these items are used to create our food supplies. The Discovery channel shows disgusting things (I love Dirty Jobs) yet these people are helping the rest of the county.

Yes, there are those who throw everything away and I can't stand it. But I'm also not going to jump into a trash can and pull out all the recyclables. Now if there is someone out there who does that daily then I think they can say our country sucks. But unless you are one of those people then give our country some credit.

One person can make a difference.

[Ladywriter 7,783]

No I will not. Not now and not until we cut back on the pollution and waste; not until we are using clean energy on a large scale and not just dreaming about it.

1 country. 1/4 of the entire globes pollution and our toxic waste spills over into developing nations.

No, no credit and no gold stars. I stand by my

[Kelene 268]

Ok, Ok, we do have to cut back I totally agree. Any suggestions?

[Ladywriter 7,783]

recycling and bottle redemption should be federal law

support the carbon tax

outlaw standard light bulbs

make Exxon pay for what they did to Glacier Bay and set a new enviro precedent that punishes polluters with heavy fines

Support green energy

end the wars for oil

force auto industry to make cars get more mpg

to name a few

[DeathscytheX 9,732]

Its not really the Bush Administration, Its any administration. Its been going on probably since the Carter Administration. Environmentalism is only a campaigning ploy to get votes, It always has been and always will be. Big Business will be funding the politicians and America will do what is in the best interest of its economic power and not be limited by any outside organization.

No one can levy sanctions on the US, we hold a vice grip on the worlds economy and can cripple almost any nation by not buying their exports. Because of this, the US will continue to block and stop all emissions resolutions because it can and doesn't have to follow anyones regulations. Ultimate power has its advantages and disadvantages depending on your view of things. big business fund all candidates for the presidency and make sure they are well secure no matter who goes into office.

[Myk JL 1,731]

I'd say find ways to eliminate gas, coal, & other combustibles.

Also I agree with Death...