Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Talon

Bush rejects Kyoto-style G8 deal

Recommended Posts

Talon

Bush rejects Kyoto-style G8 deal

President George W Bush has ruled out US backing for any Kyoto-style deal on climate change at the G8 summit.

Speaking to British broadcaster ITV, he said he would instead be talking to fellow leaders about new technologies as a way of tackling global warming.

But he conceded that the issue was one "we've got to deal with" and said human activity was "to some extent" to blame.

Tony Blair is hoping for deals on climate change and Africa when he hosts the summit in Scotland this week.

Mr Bush said he would resist any deal that would require countries to reduce carbon emissions - similar to the 1997 UN Kyoto protocol, which the US never signed.

"If this looks like Kyoto, the answer is no," he said in an interview with ITV's Tonight With Trevor McDonald programme.

"The Kyoto treaty would have wrecked our economy, if I can be blunt."

He said he hoped the other G8 leaders would "move beyond the Kyoto debate" and consider new technologies as a way of tackling global warming.

Farm subsidies

The US was investing in developing techniques such as sequestration of carbon dioxide in underground wells, hydrogen-powered cars and zero emission power stations, he said.

"I think you can grow your economy and at the same time do a better job of harnessing greenhouse gases," he said.

But he showed signs of coming into line with general world opinion by describing climate change as "a significant, long-term issue that we've got to deal with".

In the past, he has strongly opposed any action on climate change in favour of further studies on the issue.

But he rejected the idea he should support British Prime Minister Tony Blair's G8 plan in return for his support during the war in Iraq.

"Tony Blair made decisions on what he thought was best for keeping the peace and winning the war on terror, as I did," he told the programme.

"So I go to the G8 not really trying to make him look bad or good, but I go to the G8 with an agenda that I think is best for our country."

On the other major issue to be discussed at the summit, African aid and debt relief, he signalled he was ready to abandon US farm subsidies, which have unfairly distorted the market for African farmers.

But he said he would only do it, if the European Union was prepared to scrap its Common Agricultural Policy.

"We've got agricultural subsidies, not nearly to the extent that our friends in the EU have," he said.

The G8 leaders - from Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US - meet in Gleneagles on Wednesday for the start of the three-day summit.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/worl...cas/4647383.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
__Kratos__
"So I go to the G8 not really trying to make him look bad or good, but I go to the G8 with an agenda that I think is best for our country."

Go Bush! thumbsup.gif

Why should America agree to limit it's output of green house gases, when India and China have the blank pay check? That is why he wouldn't sign the first deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iilaa'mpuul'xem

The US won't agree because they are the Worlds biggest polluters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__
The US won't agree because they are the Worlds biggest polluters.

716546[/snapback]

True, true. BUT why should India and China not have any limits?

1. United States 5,762,054.0

2. China 3,473,597.3

3. Russia 1,540,365.0

4. Japan 1,224,737.4

5. India 1,007,978.9

6. Germany 837,424.8

7. United Kingdom 558,225.1

8. Canada 521,404.4

9. Italy 446,596.5

10. Mexico 385,075.0

11. France 363,484.2

12. Ukraine 348,356.6

13. South Africa 344,590.4

14. Australia 332,377.2

15. Brazil 327,857.7

16. Spain 304,882.5

17. Poland 303,777.5

18. Indonesia 286,027.2

19. Saudi Arabia 266,083.0

20. Turkey 223,861.6

21. Netherlands 174,809.1

22. Thailand 171,696.5

23. Korea, North 168,319.8

24. Argentina 138,982.8

25. Venezuela 136,685.5

Source

They are in the top 5 countries for CO2 emissions.

Edit: Add the other 20 countries on the list.

Edited by __Kratos__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iilaa'mpuul'xem

India and China should have limits and should be psuhed in that direction but when a Western Country the one Worlds Wealthyest and most powerful is not willing to do anything about why should they even contemplate it. Bush saying we should use hydrogen-powered cars... yeh right as if he really believes that especially with all the Oil reserves he is pushing off to US companies from Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__

^

"Listen the United States for national security reasons and economic security needs to diversify away from fossil fuels. So we put out a strategy to do just that. I can't wait to share it with our G8 friends," Bush said.

Source

I guess we are going to do something.

He said: "Kyoto didn't work for the United States and frankly it didn't work for the world" because many developing nations were not included. He said he was pushing for a post-Kyoto era at the G8 summit.

Source

Again with the developing nations. I'm not for giving them a black check either, while America has to be limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
The US won't agree because they are the Worlds biggest polluters.

The US won't agree because we refuse to be dictated to by any country or the 'world' at large.

Global Warming is a myth designed by the Communist Left as a way to get their greedy little fingers into Americas back pocket and limit America's Freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whoa182

A myth?

yeah right... You got any proof to back that up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iilaa'mpuul'xem

The US hate to be dictated to and yet they love to dictate others how they should live their lives.. I agree with whoa182 do you have any proof to back it up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon

US evangelicals boost green lobby

By John Shields

BBC News

Environmentalists are blaming US President George Bush and his friends in the energy industry for wrecking a G8 deal on global warming before he has even boarded the plane to the summit in Gleneagles.

Coming from his usual critics, this is unlikely to trouble the president as he heads for the summit, but he faces growing pressure to give greater priority to the environment from one of his most loyal domestic constituencies: the religious right.

Evangelical Christians form a crucial plank in Mr Bush's formidable political base (he is an evangelical himself) and care for the environment is becoming an important part of their agenda.

Green evangelicals first hit the headlines in 2002, when Reverend Jim Ball launched a campaign called "What would Jesus drive?", claiming that gas-guzzlers are ungodly.

His call for the US government to take action to protect the environment has since been taken up by powerful leaders of the evangelical community.

'Protect God's creation'

The 30-million-member National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) published a landmark document in November calling on conservative Christians to "labour to protect God's creation".

It stated that "government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."

NAE president Reverend Ted Haggard discussed global warming with Tony Blair when the British prime minister visited Washington to drum up support for his G8 agenda last month.

Christianity Today, an influential evangelical magazine, backed a Senate bill calling for mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, something the White House opposes.

The "greening" of the evangelical movement has its roots in biblical references to mankind's responsibility to care for God's Earth.

While the presence of committed environmentalists among supporters of a president the left dubs the "Toxic Texan" may seem surprising, for Mr Haggard there is no contradiction.

"We came to the issue because of the Bible," he told the BBC News website.

"New scientific evidence is raising concerns and, since we have so many evangelical Christians in government right now, we wanted to highlight that the environment is a worthy concern for evangelicals."

Suspicions remain

The repackaging of environmentalism under the banner of "creation care" makes it more acceptable to Republicans suspicious of the secular, liberal types who have dominated green politics in the past.

But not all Christian conservatives are happy about this new departure.

Focus on the Family, which has been at the forefront of campaigns against abortion and gay marriage, says it cannot support "any issue that seems to put plants and animals above humans".

"Some worry that enthusiasm for some of the longstanding issues that political evangelicals have dealt with will be diminished if we take on too much," says David Neff, editor of Christianity Today and one of the authors of the NAE manifesto.

This concern helps explain why "creation care" has yet to have an impact on White House policy. Energy security and economic growth have taken priority over protection of the environment in the Bush White House.

Although the president has promised certain reductions to greenhouse gases by 2012, using tax breaks and voluntary schemes, he opposes mandatory emission controls.

The State Department's 2002 Climate Action Report accentuates the alleged "uncertainties" of climate change science.

But Mr Haggard is convinced that green evangelicals will change Republican policy over the long term.

"It's a biblical mandate that this generation of Christians have to address," he says.

Evangelical power

Political scientist Professor John Green of the University of Akron agrees that "because evangelicals are so important to the Republican coalition" there is "great potential" for them to cause a shift in Republican policy in the next few years.

"The abortion issue is an example of how a well-organised constituency can bring about changes," he argues.

In the same way that the need for evangelical votes has pushed moderate Republicans to take up anti-abortion positions, sceptical Republicans may be persuaded to shift their position on the environment, Prof Green says.

According to the Pew Research Center, the political clout of evangelicals is on the increase - white evangelical Christians accounted for more than a third of all votes cast for President Bush in the November 2004 election.

While their electoral power alone may be enough to persuade fellow Republicans to give greater priority to the environment, evangelicals' distinctive approach to the issue could also help.

"Traditional environmentalists blame corporations where we want corporations and government to work together. The Republicans are missing it right now because they equate environmentalism with being anti-business," says Mr Haggard.

And evangelical Christians are not alone among Republicans who see global warming as a key priority.

Signing ambitious targets on cutting greenhouse gases into law last month, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared the global warming debate finished.

"We know the science. We see the threat," he said.

While President Bush's trip to Scotland could leave the environmentalists disappointed, they can at least console themselves that one of the most powerful forces in Republican politics, along with the Terminator, may be on their side.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/worl...cas/4642241.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__
The US won't agree because they are the Worlds biggest polluters.

The US won't agree because we refuse to be dictated to by any country or the 'world' at large.

Global Warming is a myth designed by the Communist Left as a way to get their greedy little fingers into Americas back pocket and limit America's Freedom.

716671[/snapback]

Did you miss the morning news Joc? President Bush, himself said there was global warming and it was caused by humans. Are you calling the President of the United States of America a Communist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

the problem is the kyoto protocol is so near sighted, what happens when China and India finish industrialising? We'll be just as screwed if not moreso, and will also have been poked in the butt economically whilst they grow nice and strong:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mr Ed
True, true. BUT why should India and China not have any limits?

China obviously needs to catch up with the USA in the race to become an established super power. I cannot blame them for not agreeing to it, they need to show Communism works in their country.

India needs to further industrialise, it is behind the Western world.

It is all very easy for us to say 'stop using all that CHEAP and EASY TO USE technology, that is also well RESEARCHED AND FULLY DEVELOPED. instead why don't you come and use NOT FULLY DEVELOPED technology at the expense of your economy.

We did the same. Now we are industrialised and affluent we are allowed to take the moral high ground.

Edited by Mr Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SnakeProphet

the problem is the kyoto protocol is so near sighted, what happens when China and India finish industrialising? We'll be just as screwed if not moreso, and will also have been poked in the butt economically whilst they grow nice and strong:(

What do you think did the US do a few decades ago?That's what you have to deal with,if you're the world's economic leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<bleeding_heart>

Changing the technology used is the only answer caps are short sighted a lot of people are saying that Kyoto will only slow down temperature increases by 6 years.

With more energy efficient tech. it would be a permanent reduction but I guess a long drawn out process that will work out in the long run is not the flavour of the day, I guess quick fixes that ultimately have little or no impact are much more popular.

We could all put a cap on our yearly electricity bills but then we have a choice either throw out/don't use electrical appliances or sit in the dark when the limits reached.

Personally I'd rather wait until the appliances use less energy (and the energy saving bulbs I use as much as I can fit into the damn fixtures).

Bush is right to invest in new tech and spend on dealing with the issues as they arise, but he is seen as too tainted by the oil industry (true or not doesn't matter) to be taken seriously.

Edited by <bleeding_heart>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanato

ha ha ha bush wants hydrogen cars, ya right.

~Thanato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmgspycat

Im just not buying it...we all live in a world where theres hardly any such thing as national sovereignty. When it comes to profit...no government can stand and face the power and might of the energy cartels...but as soon as we the people of the world get together and demand change...these sleazy internationals go running behind their respective governments shouting "unfair regulations".

Believe me...if the energy cartels have the damned power to do what they have done in the past behind closed doors then they sure as hell could get together with the worlds governments and adopt some kind of responsible change...my god...look what the haze and pollution is doing to our atmosphere...there are kids born in the 1990's who are going to grow up and think that crappy looking sky is normal...not to mention asthma is an epidemic.

Edited by dmgspycat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frosty

Thank god Bush is smart enough not to sign. Even the countries that have signed don't give a sh!t about the treaty and are ignoring its guidlines. They only signed to give a good PR deal with the people of their countries. Bush is not that goddamn greedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.