Comments on: The long journey from denier to delayer — Bush hits the climate alarm snooze button at G8

By: paulm

paulm — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:24:16 +0000

Bush is doing a good job so far! Probably not as difficult to archive as you think!

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:13:07 +0000

David Benson, it always helps to provide a reference. Here’s one:
http://www.killian.com/earl/quotes.html#Hardin

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:52:05 +0000

paulm — It won’t happen. Read Garret Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons”.

By: paulm

paulm — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:15:21 +0000

Can a global economic depression save the world from Climate Change?

This is an debate that we should seriously consider. How bad has Climate Change got…should we voluntarily shutdown our economies to fight Global Warming?

Are we at a point, given the outcome of the G8 meeting, that it would be more beneficial for mankind and nature if our economies where to collapse now, rather than march on causing climatic catastrophe.

I believe that this is a radical alternative measure which should should not be ruled out in our efforts to tackle Global Warming. What do you think?

Part II – How could this be archived?

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:06:24 +0000

Earl, They say ‘People get the government they deserve’. Its true in places like Iraq (who else but Saddam Hussain could rule the rabble?), but it also seems to be true in the US.

American’s business is business. You elect leaders who put business first and everything else second. If that means annexing Iraq then so be it – and in 2004 a majority of US voters voted for it.

Over here in the UK I have noticed a really sharp swing to the right. It has become very fashionable for radio presenters, phone-ins, blog commenters, etc to shout loudly against all forms of tax, particularly ‘green’ taxes. This is a big change from 11 years ago when Blair took office. We are definitely becoming a more short-sighted and selfish society.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:57:36 +0000

Arthur — You are correct. That doesn’t really change my view of the headline or the G8 meeting.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:44:58 +0000

Robert, the actual vote in 2000 had more ballots cast for Gore, including in Florida (according to the full recount). The only majority Bush had were 5 votes in the Supreme Court which allowed him to occupy the White House. 2004 is the really shameful story, IMO.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:48:19 +0000

The words “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.” could only come from the man that 300 million (well, a few of them anyway) voted in.

Twice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/ worldnews/ 2277298/ President-George-Bush-‘Goodbye-from-the-world’s-biggest-polluter’.html

Makes you proud not to be American.

By: Arthur Smith

Arthur Smith — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:03:53 +0000

Joe – Revkin’s blog post you quoted was *not* referring to the G8 statement, but to a follow-on meeting after the G8 meeting – that’s why the headline included “emerging” nations as well as the developed ones.

By: Lars

Lars — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:55:14 +0000

Joe, I’m pretty critical of the G8 statement, but your report isnt entirely fair. The language is not ‘watered down’, but standard UN language, used in all negotiation, and of course awfully incomprehensible.

When it talks about ‘major economies’ contributing, the meaning is that China and India has to do something too (which is considered a slap in the face in those quarters).
When it talks about ‘differentiated responsibilities’, thats UN speak for poorer countries having to do less, and thus, richer countries doing more (that is – exceeding 50 percent reduction). So its not all bad.

But your missing the crucial point: The paragraph in the text about the rich countries needing to do ‘absolute emission reductions’ in the mid-term, thats before 2020. Which is also good – hadnt it been for the loop hole you can drive a country the size of the US through:
‘and, where applicable, first stop the growth of emissions as soon as possible, reflecting comparable efforts among all developed economies, taking into account differences in their national circumstances’.
In other words, rich nations have to do absolute reductions soon, unless they dont feel like it. Lex America, i think.