G-8 Nations Can't Agree On Climate Change Plan

nytimes.com:

The world's major industrial nations and emerging powers failed to agree Wednesday on significant cuts in heat-trapping gases by 2050, unraveling an effort to build a global consensus to fight climate change, according to people following the talks.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[David Lewis]

Here's a quote that explains the developing world's position and why the G8 and the developing world failed to agree in Italy:

"This is our challenge to the West. 'You do the best you can, and we'll match it'. If the West thinks that India will subscribe to any long-term solution that is not based on per capita emissions then it is very misguided."

Pradipto Ghosh, former environment secretary of India explaining India's position during the leadup to the 2007 G8 meeting.

The G8 80% cut while the world cuts 50% amounts each G8 citizen having the right to emit 2.5 tonnes of CO2 in 2050 vrs each non-G8 citizen's right to emit 1.45 tonnes. We're telling the developed world that not only will we not compensate them for our history of using up the planetary capacity to absorb wastes as we got rich, but now that they want their share we want them to accept less per capita of what is left.

[jej89]

There is a fair way to limit greenhouse gas emissions without leaving the U. S. or Europe at a disadvantage relative to countries lacking the will to cap their own emissions. The U. S. and E.U. could apply cap and trade (or a carbon tax or both) to domestic CONSUMPTION of greenhouse gases, not to domestic PRODUCTION. Imports from nations without limits on greenhouse gases would be subject to the same rules as homegrown goods and services produced for domestic consumption, but exports would be exempt.

[BrettnCalgary]

They lack the will to cap their emissions for a reason, our per capita emissions are magnitudes higher than theirs. They likely think we should bring our per capita emissions down to their level before they need to start reductions.

..and, since this isn't going to happen nothing will get done and we and our descendants are f*cked, royally.

[StopGlobalWarmingBeVegan]

A bill that doesn't address livestock production is an unauthentic climate bill

[lbrty 2112]

Vegans are six times more likely to suffer from brain shrinkage

[buckeyedave]

Why do they call it "climate change" now instead of "global warming"?
Is it because "global warming" is a tough sell in a cooling world and now they have to change their language to try to push their power grabbing agendas?
Amazing that there are still people naive enough to buy this crap.

[Mildmannered]

the world is not flat and man did not live with the dinosaurs

[jej89]

"Climate change" is a neutral term recognizing that temperatures can rise and fall, and not by the same amounts everywhere. It's also a way of bring those in denial about the evidence into the discussion. That said, the "finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy)

[vie2012ne]

No one denies climate change -- it's been happening since God created the heavens and the earth.

[BrettnCalgary]

Glad to see you have studied the scientific evidence closely.

[econ1]

It is interesting that there is little mention of population control. It would reduce contributions to global warming and reduce pollution as well as improve the living standards of everyone. It may cost far less than the alternatives being discussed. Without it there may well be little chance the alternatives will actually work.

Here in CA per capital energy use has be dropping for the last ten years, but total use has gone up because of the increased population.

They may be just wasting their time on G-8, Cap and Trade etc..

[RichZ]

I think it's fair to say that population is the greatest single multiplier of any environmental concern one may have.

That would make the greatest factor in population growth reduction (global wealth and prosperity) the #1 environmental issue?

[lbrty 2112]

RichZ, you've had the epiphany. Now you understand what this is all about. Control of wealth, control of the populace. Freedom is fast becoming an illusion. Your sole existence, every action you take, is impacting the planet in a negative fashion and must be restricted for the common good.

[drkazmd65]

I really wish that I could state that I was surprised by this lack of resolution.

But I can't.

[vandegrasse]

If you don't care about yourselves, at least don't gamble with your children's and grandchildren's lives. If you thought there was even a one percent chance of a fire occurring in your house over the next two weeks you wouldn't let your kids sleep there.

[graceland9]

Right. It is the ultimate generational theft.

[alvdh1]

The headline should have read: G-8 Wont Agree on Climate Change Plan. If there is a will there is a way. Obviously, there is no will. Eventually, these folks will get their heads out of the sand and realize that economies will benefit from the legislation or agreements. The same excuses have been used by corporations for decades as an excuse not to comply with air and water regulations. In every case, none of the fears have ever been realized. New markets, jobs, technology and profits have been generated. China and Japan will, again, leave us in their technological dust while the doomsayers continue there worn out rhetoric.

[RomeoMD25]

ExxonMobil in a well publicized move a few years ago gave $100 million to Stanford University to study global warming issues. Much of that money went to environmentalist type projects.

First, oil companies should love the rhetoric of global warming. They would be watching with glee. If the public is conditioned to believe in alternatives such as wind at $200 per barrel of oil equivalent or solar at $1,000, if taxes are supposed to force conservation while the public uses more and more energy, guess what gift is handed to those that manage oil and gas.

[mergina]

G8 is a pretty useless waste of time and money it seems. How can they not see the writing on the wall for this planet? Perhaps they will act when huge portions of the planet are under water, but then again, with the grip greed has on this planet, perhaps they will not.

[RomeoMD25]

less than 2/1,000 of all CO2 is produced by human activity. So even if we wiped out every car,
power plant, jet liner, and human being from the face of the earth, there would be no noticeable effect on global CO2 levels.

The most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor, which evaporates from oceans, lakes and rivers.
Water vapor accounts for up to 90% of the earth's greenhouse effect.

[lbrty 2112]

Romeo, I actually think water vapor accounts for fully 95% but hey, let's not let the facts stand in the way of propaganda. They'll try and jam it through in some degree as quick as they can because the new ice age has started in earnest up here in the northeast.

[slowhand0728]

European leaders and environmental activists have placed great hope that Mr. Obama would become a powerful new leader in the struggle against climate change after succeeding President George W. Bush, who long resisted more aggressive measures sought on this side of the Atlantic for fear of the economic impact.
New Boss same as the old Boss.

[RomeoMD25]

David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

A new study using methods endorsed by the Al Gore crowd concludes that there is no “consensus” among scientists that man is contributing to global warming. Also can 31,000 scientists be wrong?

* over 2/3rds of the signatories had advanced degrees,
* 2,660 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists
* 5,017 were scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences

Hardly a bunch of “flat earth” types as the global warming mass hysteria crowd likes to call anyone that dares to challenge their scientifically weak viewpoint that man is destroying the planet by causing global warming.

So the next time you hear the media throw out the terms “consensus view” or “scientific consensus” regarding man-made global warming (or CO2 causing global warming) you'll know they either haven't done their homework or they've drank the Al Gore Kool-Aid and don't want to report the truth.

[alvdh1]

Isn't your break about over at the Exxon refinery. Better get back to work swimming in your talking points puddle of oil.