NationStates Jolt Archive

So the US has 'shocked' Tony Blair by rejecting any prospect of a deal on climate change at the G8 summit in Germany next month


http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2088786,00.html

Poor Tony. You get the impression he really, really thought that he could persuade Bush and co to sign up. Misguided and wrong to the last our Tone.

Two questions: is the US ever going to accept any deal on climate change AND what will Tony Bliar's 'legacy' (other than Iraq) be?

So the US has 'shocked' Tony Blair by rejecting


http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2088786,00.html

Poor Tony. You get the impression he really, really thought that he could persuade Bush and co to sign up. Misguided and wrong to the last our Tone.

Two questions: is the US ever going to accept any deal on climate change AND what will Tony Bliar's 'legacy' (other than Iraq) be?

To the first question: Not until January 2009 at least.

To the first question: Not until January 2009 at least.

We might need another round of Congress-replacement, too.

We might need another round of Congress-replacement, too.

So not for a while then...:(

To the first question: Not until January 2009 at least.

Agreed. And, only if we don't end up with a corporatist, which means it has to be a dem, like Fiengold, or Edwards. I don't really know what the others think on this one.

Agreed. And, only if we don't end up with a corporatist, which means it has to be a dem, like Fiengold, or Edwards. I don't really know what the others think on this one.

I actually think any of the democratic candidates would be okay on this issue as president. My preferences are based entirely on who I think has the best chance of beating the republican nominee, whoever that turns out to be.

I actually think any of the democratic candidates would be okay on this issue as president. My preferences are based entirely on who I think has the best chance of beating the republican nominee, whoever that turns out to be.

As a Brit I'm not totally au fait with the candidates opinions on the matter, but is there really no republican candidate who has a different opinion to Bush on this matter? Not saying vote republican, just wondering if there is a conservative committed to climate change reversal?

Nope, not publicly so. The environment does not gain Primary voters for Republican candidates, so you won't hear a peep out of one...until post nomination.

As a Brit I'm not totally au fait with the candidates opinions on the matter, but is there really no republican candidate who has a different opinion to Bush on this matter? Not saying vote republican, just wondering if there is a conservative committed to climate change reversal?

Both parties are too beholden to the rich, but this problem is much more pronounced with republicans. They are notorious for being environmentally irresponsible. Additionally, the environment isn't the issue that gets their base out.

So the US has 'shocked' Tony Blair by rejecting


http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2088786,00.html

Poor Tony. You get the impression he really, really thought that he could persuade Bush and co to sign up. Misguided and wrong to the last our Tone.

Two questions: is the US ever going to accept any deal on climate change AND what will Tony Bliar's 'legacy' (other than Iraq) be?

Iraq and Northern Ireland; plus reinventing the Labour party and changing the face of British politics. It may not be all positive, but he's got a fair bit of it.

Good its about time the president finally did something right. Why does the EU not try to persuade Chinindia on this since Chinindia is where all the worlds growth is coming from? For all of those worried about this look to states like California who are already implementing these policies.

Good its about time the president finally did something right. Why does the EU not try to persuade Chinindia on this since Chinindia is where all the worlds growth is coming from? For all of those worried about this look to states like California who are already implementing these policies.

That's quite true. But remember, China and India aren't the boogeymen that the U.S. is! :D No one gets angry when the Chinese build another coal plant; it's just not interesting.

That's quite true. But remember, China and India aren't the boogeymen that the U.S. is! :D No one gets angry when the Chinese build another coal plant; it's just not interesting.

The US is the world's largest economy, has the highest carbon emissions in the world and has not made a single pledge to change this.

Whilst India and China are, indeed, following this incredibly worrying trend, the world looks to the economic superpowers - not the future economic superpowers - to set a precedent on this.

The US can't have it both ways; either be the most important country in the world, deal with that responsibility and quit whining when people call you on it; or alternatively fall into line behind other governments more willing to lead the world rather than pander to big business (although where these governments are is another question entirely, Sweden perhaps?).

Good its about time the president finally did something right. Why does the EU not try to persuade Chinindia on this since Chinindia is where all the worlds growth is coming from? For all of those worried about this look to states like California who are already implementing these policies.

China and India are not G8 countries.

It would be odd to try to persuade them to 'sign-on' to G8 'treaties', wouldn't it?

That's quite true. But remember, China and India aren't the boogeymen that the U.S. is! :D No one gets angry when the Chinese build another coal plant; it's just not interesting.

Add to which, China only has half the emissions the US manages (with several times the population)... and India is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol... something the US has thus far failed to manage.

Good its about time the president finally did something right. Why does the EU not try to persuade Chinindia on this since Chinindia is where all the worlds growth is coming from? For all of those worried about this look to states like California who are already implementing these policies.

Dude, Chinindia's not a country.

Both parties are too beholden to the rich, but this problem is much more pronounced with republicans. They are notorious for being environmentally irresponsible. Additionally, the environment isn't the issue that gets their base out.

They're not only environmentally irresponsible, it's part of their established economic imperative that no type of corporate responsibility impede the advance of profit. They (specifically the illustrious U.S. administration) go out of their way to alter environmental reports and releases, and propose "arguments" through pundits and faux-scientific writers so people who *don't* have the experience or expertise to understand the situation are put on similar to equal par with those who do. The administration has gone quite broadly with that attitude, actually.

They (specifically the illustrious U.S. administration) go out of their way to alter environmental reports and releases, and propose "arguments" through pundits and faux-scientific writers so people who *don't* have the experience or expertise to understand the situation are put on similar to equal par with those who do. The administration has gone quite broadly with that attitude, actually.

You know, in ancient China, when tyrants ended up on the throne, they typically killed scholars and burned books because smart people usually could see how bad they actually were and do something about it.

The US administration is just doing it on a higher level by mass marketing stupidity and ignorance.

The stupider they are, the easier they are to cow/hide your crimes.

Blair is way too much of a pragmatist for my liking, but even beyond that I have no idea why he has supported Bush in his foreign policy, in the past a Labor PM would have told a conservative like Bush to piss off if he suggested invading Iraq.