Did Blair learn his lesson?

[Martin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6694227.stm

Germany wants all G8 members to agree timetables and targets for major cuts.

Greenpeace, who leaked the document, said it showed UK PM Tony Blair failed to persuade the US to alter its stance.

In the document, US officials make major changes to the communique.

In comments printed in red ink, the US negotiators express disappointment that earlier concerns have not been taken on board.
.
.
.
"I can't think that there's going to be many people running for presidential office next time round in the US who aren't going to have climate change in their programme," said Mr Blair.

"I think it is possible that we will see action - and at least the beginnings of that action at the G8 - I hope so. That's what I'm arguing for."

Blair's idea over the last 6 years has been that if he always supports the US and is always by Bush's side, he'll be able to influence US policy. Well, whether its shutting down Guantanamo, signing Kyoto or even agreeing on a climate communique, his poodlism simply hasn't paid off. I wonder if Brown will be any smarter.

 

[Jaha]

Even Canada dropped out of the Kyoto deal.

 

[piasabird]

Do you even know what policy it was that we refuse to go along with?

If countries like China and India do not have the same Environmental policies then how can we have free trade?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Do you even know what policy it was that we refuse to go along with?

If countries like China and India do not have the same Environmental policies then how can we have free trade?

The German agreement being discussed includes India and China.

 

[DealMonkey]

Face facts, the Bush Administration opposes science and they oppose any sort of environmental protection or advocacy because it hurts their main constituents: the energy companies.

The U.S. should lead by example and challenge the rest of the world (including China, India, etc.) to follow suit.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Face facts, the Bush Administration opposes science and they oppose any sort of environmental protection or advocacy because it hurts their main constituents: the energy companies.

The U.S. should lead by example and challenge the rest of the world (including China, India, etc.) to follow suit.

Don't pretend that the European powers actually care about environmental protection themselves. While they may believe in the science, their likely true aim lies in colonialistic attempts at slowing down the developing countries who are keen to overtake Europe's place.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Face facts, the Bush Administration opposes science and they oppose any sort of environmental protection or advocacy because it hurts their main constituents: the energy companies.

The U.S. should lead by example and challenge the rest of the world (including China, India, etc.) to follow suit.

Don't pretend that the European powers actually care about environmental protection themselves. While they may believe in the science, their likely true aim lies in colonialistic attempts at slowing down the developing countries who are keen to overtake Europe's place.

Though its indisputable that their true aim lies in their open-secret neocolonialist policies, we must dig deeper. The price of fresh blood and baby organs in european supermarkets have been very high lately, and only by exploiting native populations can the governments make sure that the european populace maintains a healthy diet. I mean think about it. Why are obesity rates in Righteous America so high, but so low in Atheistic Europe?

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Face facts, the Bush Administration opposes science and they oppose any sort of environmental protection or advocacy because it hurts their main constituents: the energy companies.

The U.S. should lead by example and challenge the rest of the world (including China, India, etc.) to follow suit.

Don't pretend that the European powers actually care about environmental protection themselves. While they may believe in the science, their likely true aim lies in colonialistic attempts at slowing down the developing countries who are keen to overtake Europe's place.

..europe and the rest of the kyoto racketers are willing to broadside the world with eco-theism and their "green" lobotomy to forward a socialist paradigm under the guise of environmentalism.

 

[extra]

Well played Martin .

Honestly, the U.S. should oppose this measure. Not because we shouldn't care about the environment, quite the opposite. We should oppose it because we shouldn't be setting some goals for the future WE SHOULD BE ACTING NOW.

Our government should act NOW, and set a strong, admirable example then shame the rest of the world into following our strong example. None of this pussy-footing around the problem. It also doesn't have to ruin the economy. It can be good for the economy and good for the environment at the same time.

A. First thing is scrap every single friggin coal plant in the country. Put oh, I duno, some of the money away from Iraq and build some new modern tech nuclear plants QUICKLY. Get some executive decisions done so we can finally dispose of the nuclear waste in a safe area underground. Make it somewhere where top scientists agree. Just do something to stop stupid baseless lawsuits.

Much of our Co2 problem would go away with that one change.

Then, instead of taxing gas and gas guzzling cars directly, do this:

B. Tax based on miles DRIVEN in gas-guzzling vehicles. Tax credits for miles driven in extremely fuel efficient (a standard which would go up every year) vehicles.

This wouldn't be difficult to do. Record mileage at beginning of year. Record at end of year. Vehicle is already registered, so you would just use the mileage along with EPA fuel economy to determine if you got a credit or if you owed money. Yes there would be people who would cheat the system just like people already cheat on their taxes.

This way someone who owned a truck but just used it when they NEEDED it wouldn't have to pay much at all. This makes sense to me. Someone using a gas guzzler as their daily driver gets stuck with a huge tax bill.

C. Large, manhatten project style development of improved battery technology, nuclear fusion, deep earth geothermal plants.

The government's budget is unlikely to be cut, as much as I would like it to be. If we are going to be borrowing from our children's futures, let us do so in a way that will pay them back BIG.


Enough talk, treaties, etc. We could be acting.

One more thing, heh, edit:

I don't get why people think dealing with pollution and emissions will hurt our economy. Dealing with climate change is an OPPORTUNITY for the United States. It is an opportunity to bring ourselves back to being way ahead of the world in technology. It is an opportunity to bringing top scientists here and encouraging students to become scientists. It is an opportunity to develope technology that we can manufacture here that the entire world will rely on buying from us. It is an opportunity to strengthen trade relations with basically the entire world.

 

[skwicz212]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Face facts, the Bush Administration opposes science and they oppose any sort of environmental protection or advocacy because it hurts their main constituents: the energy companies.

The U.S. should lead by example and challenge the rest of the world (including China, India, etc.) to follow suit.

Don't pretend that the European powers actually care about environmental protection themselves. While they may believe in the science, their likely true aim lies in colonialistic attempts at slowing down the developing countries who are keen to overtake Europe's place.

Though its indisputable that their true aim lies in their open-secret neocolonialist policies, we must dig deeper. The price of fresh blood and baby organs in european supermarkets have been very high lately, and only by exploiting native populations can the governments make sure that the european populace maintains a healthy diet. I mean think about it. Why are obesity rates in Righteous America so high, but so low in Atheistic Europe?

I have always been of the belief that people who want to lose weight should give me all their money so they cant buy food, but it never seems to sell well. :|

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Face facts, the Bush Administration opposes science and they oppose any sort of environmental protection or advocacy because it hurts their main constituents: the energy companies.

The U.S. should lead by example and challenge the rest of the world (including China, India, etc.) to follow suit.

Don't pretend that the European powers actually care about environmental protection themselves. While they may believe in the science, their likely true aim lies in colonialistic attempts at slowing down the developing countries who are keen to overtake Europe's place.

Though its indisputable that their true aim lies in their open-secret neocolonialist policies, we must dig deeper. The price of fresh blood and baby organs in european supermarkets have been very high lately, and only by exploiting native populations can the governments make sure that the european populace maintains a healthy diet. I mean think about it. Why are obesity rates in Righteous America so high, but so low in Atheistic Europe?

Obesity rates are quite high in Europe, surpassing the obese US in many countries. I recall that many Mediterannean countries have extremely high obesity rates, yet they tend to be less colonialistic. I think that your theory needs more research.

God bless the Queen.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: extra
Honestly, the U.S. should oppose this measure. Not because we shouldn't care about the environment, quite the opposite. We should oppose it because we shouldn't be setting some goals for the future WE SHOULD BE ACTING NOW.

Snip

This is one of the best posts I've read on P&N for a long time. Bravo. It's a shame more Americans don't think like you.

 

[RedChief]

Originally posted by: extra
A. First thing is scrap every single friggin coal plant in the country. Put oh, I duno, some of the money away from Iraq and build some new modern tech nuclear plants QUICKLY. Get some executive decisions done so we can finally dispose of the nuclear waste in a safe area underground. Make it somewhere where top scientists agree. Just do something to stop stupid baseless lawsuits.

Um, you do realize the the same enviros that want Kyoto are the same people who have kept a new nuke plant from being built in the last 20 years. MOst people in this country are for nuke power but most people are also NIMBY's who wont have a nuke plant near them.

B. Tax based on miles DRIVEN in gas-guzzling vehicles. Tax credits for miles driven in extremely fuel efficient (a standard which would go up every year) vehicles.

This wouldn't be difficult to do. Record mileage at beginning of year. Record at end of year. Vehicle is already registered, so you would just use the mileage along with EPA fuel economy to determine if you got a credit or if you owed money. Yes there would be people who would cheat the system just like people already cheat on their taxes.

What about the delivery driver who uses his own vehicle (I delivered pizza in college fwiw). These people wont be able to afford the new fuel efficient vehicles and their employers wont subsidize them...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: extra
Honestly, the U.S. should oppose this measure. Not because we shouldn't care about the environment, quite the opposite. We should oppose it because we shouldn't be setting some goals for the future WE SHOULD BE ACTING NOW.

Snip

This is one of the best posts I've read on P&N for a long time. Bravo. It's a shame more Americans don't think like you.

And it's nice to see people compliment posts - and I agree, he makes a good point.

Hopefully, democrats will make an issue of the environment in 2008.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Face facts, the Bush Administration opposes science and they oppose any sort of environmental protection or advocacy because it hurts their main constituents: the energy companies.

The U.S. should lead by example and challenge the rest of the world (including China, India, etc.) to follow suit.

Don't pretend that the European powers actually care about environmental protection themselves. While they may believe in the science, their likely true aim lies in colonialistic attempts at slowing down the developing countries who are keen to overtake Europe's place.

Though its indisputable that their true aim lies in their open-secret neocolonialist policies, we must dig deeper. The price of fresh blood and baby organs in european supermarkets have been very high lately, and only by exploiting native populations can the governments make sure that the european populace maintains a healthy diet. I mean think about it. Why are obesity rates in Righteous America so high, but so low in Atheistic Europe?

Obesity rates are quite high in Europe, surpassing the obese US in many countries. I recall that many Mediterannean countries have extremely high obesity rates, yet they tend to be less colonialistic. I think that your theory needs more research.

God bless the Queen.

um no, Germany actually is the fattest country in Europe - just took over the crown from the UK

 

[CyberDuck]

I don't know how reliable this one is, but it show the U.S. is clearly on top of things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bmi30chart.png

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: CyberDuck
I don't know how reliable this one is, but it show the U.S. is clearly on top of things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bmi30chart.png

That chart is the perfect example. The French are famously known for being thin. Yet they are by far one of the most destructive, colonialistic governments in the world.

 

[compuwiz1]

Tony Blair is a man of principle. He does not waiver from side to side. He takes a stand, then stands by it. That is called integrity.

 

[piasabird]

I know for a fact that China does not have the same pollution emission standards that we or most of Europe has. So any agreement is worthless.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Face facts, the Bush Administration opposes science and they oppose any sort of environmental protection or advocacy because it hurts their main constituents: the energy companies.

The U.S. should lead by example and challenge the rest of the world (including China, India, etc.) to follow suit.

Don't pretend that the European powers actually care about environmental protection themselves. While they may believe in the science, their likely true aim lies in colonialistic attempts at slowing down the developing countries who are keen to overtake Europe's place.

Though its indisputable that their true aim lies in their open-secret neocolonialist policies, we must dig deeper. The price of fresh blood and baby organs in european supermarkets have been very high lately, and only by exploiting native populations can the governments make sure that the european populace maintains a healthy diet. I mean think about it. Why are obesity rates in Righteous America so high, but so low in Atheistic Europe?

I'm more than sure that the FDA and DoA subsidies for grain and dairy have a lot to do with that, and not religion. And it's pretty hard for me to consider Europe to be "atheistic" when several member countries are still religious monarchies with public taxes paid as tithes to the state church.

And as noted, any and all international environmental measures are pointless without including China. Manchuria is a freakin' coal smog covered toxic waste dump right now.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: extra
Honestly, the U.S. should oppose this measure. Not because we shouldn't care about the environment, quite the opposite. We should oppose it because we shouldn't be setting some goals for the future WE SHOULD BE ACTING NOW.

Snip

This is one of the best posts I've read on P&N for a long time. Bravo. It's a shame more Americans don't think like you.

And it's nice to see people compliment posts - and I agree, he makes a good point.

Hopefully, democrats will make an issue of the environment in 2008.

And how much are YOU personally willing to pay for the immediate and radical changes that extra proposes? What increase in the price of goods and reduction of income will you suffer? What reduction of personal lifestyle will you accept?
If little or none, then shut up because all your talk and back-slapping is meaningless. Some of us actually try to help the environment by their own actions, as opposed to pretending you're helping the environment by mandating the actions of others with little or no change in your own lifestyle (and I'm not talking about recycling or shopping at Whole Foods).

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Jaha
Even Canada dropped out of the Kyoto deal.

'Even Canada dropped out' because we are now under a conservative government.

Nonetheless, when we were in the agreement, we didn't do much either.

I really don't know how anybody can be opposed or not believe in 'climate change'. When you're taking trillions and trillions of tons of material that's deep within the earth, and not only bring it to the surface, but make it airborne, it's bound to affect the planet. Heck, let's not even focus on climate change or global warming... just the fact that we're breathing in smog, or can't see the city from a distance except for the orange haze of smog, should be enough to convince us that it's a problem.

When are we going to realize it's a problem? When we have to start wearing masks around the city like they do in China? Will even that be enough for us to change?