NationStates Jolt Archive

A new climate change initiative has come up over the weekend, Saturday, graced by such movers & shakers as Hu Jintao (yes, China), Vlad Putin, Alan Garcia ... and such graceless individuals as Bush. Part of the whole inclusion of folk being due to the fact that it's much more industry-friendly.
Among the most significant goals are a reduction of "energy intensity" (amount of energy needed to produce a $ of gross domestic product) by 25% by 2030 ... as well as an increase in forest cover by at least 50 million acres by 2020.

APEC leaders have charted a new international consensus for the region and the world
So, feasible? Or hot air again, and the shell game?

You mean there's some targets in it! :eek:

wow

You mean there's some targets in it! :eek:

Do you mean all those high-profile people, the "goals", or are you referring to the shell game?

A lot of the Chinese I've met here, even hard-core commies, seem very much concerned about the often very nasty pollution in their country. If anyone could really do something about pollution, I think it is the Chinese.

Whether they will remains to be seen.

Well it is a great proposition, but that is all that it is. The 'aspirational goal' is non-binding, thus anyone can say they support the notion without having to back that up with a signature at a later date.

Well I wouldn't trust much Howard says, he'll be gone by the end of the year.

Do you mean all those high-profile people, the "goals", or are you referring to the shell game?

I mean they have "numbers" to aim it.
It least there's some kind benchmark to aim it.

This is good. And more, this is possible.

Kyoto was crap. It was nothing more than an invitation for the industrialized nations to export their pollution overseas. This agreement, though, applies to every signatory EQUALLY.

Real progress, not just feelgoodism.

That was the problem that I had with the Kyoto accord. Unless all the nations participated in it equally, there was no point in anyone doing it. It would be just a few nations destroying themselves economically for the betterment of the rest of the world while all the others went ahead on with business as usual. Even Bill Clinton had the good sense not to sign the damn thing.

That was the problem that I had with the Kyoto accord. Unless all the nations participated in it equally, there was no point in anyone doing it. It would be just a few nations destroying themselves economically for the betterment of the rest of the world while all the others went ahead on with business as usual. Even Bill Clinton had the good sense not to sign the damn thing.

Er, actually, Billy-boy DID sign it. Congress then refused to ratify.

Dumb-ass move, on a Prez I generally liked. Eh, everybody has a bad day.

A new climate change initiative has come up over the weekend, Saturday, graced by such movers & shakers as Hu Jintao (yes, China), Vlad Putin, Alan Garcia ... and such graceless individuals as Bush. Part of the whole inclusion of folk being due to the fact that it's much more industry-friendly.
Among the most significant goals are a reduction of "energy intensity" (amount of energy needed to produce a $ of gross domestic product) by 25% by 2030 ... as well as an increase in forest cover by at least 50 million acres by 2020.


So, feasible? Or hot air again, and the shell game?

I say it is feasible.

A new climate change initiative has come up over the weekend, Saturday, graced by such movers & shakers as Hu Jintao (yes, China), Vlad Putin, Alan Garcia ... and such graceless individuals as Bush. Part of the whole inclusion of folk being due to the fact that it's much more industry-friendly.
Among the most significant goals are a reduction of "energy intensity" (amount of energy needed to produce a $ of gross domestic product) by 25% by 2030 ... as well as an increase in forest cover by at least 50 million acres by 2020.

So, feasible? Or hot air again, and the shell game?
It is a shell game in my opinion. Let's wait and see what the environmental experts say about this deal?

I mean they have "numbers" to aim it.
It least there's some kind benchmark to aim it.


We've seen how the bush admin. handles benchmarks.


If they can't meet them, rather than find out why, they complain that the benchmarks were to high.

We've seen how the bush admin. handles benchmarks.


If they can't meet them, rather than find out why, they complain that the benchmarks were to high.

And then, of course, they shift them, and tell everyone who *isn't* a supporter that it's too complex a situation to make such rash judgments about it.
And then they call Kerry a flipflopper again!

That was the problem that I had with the Kyoto accord. Unless all the nations participated in it equally, there was no point in anyone doing it. It would be just a few nations destroying themselves economically for the betterment of the rest of the world while all the others went ahead on with business as usual. Even Bill Clinton had the good sense not to sign the damn thing.

Myo!
:)

You weren't the only one with that perspective on the Kyoto Protocol ... that's why i specifically mentioned China in the title :D

Well I wouldn't trust much Howard says, he'll be gone by the end of the year.

A lot of folks aren't happy with him - the main reason i didn't labour to have a different quote on the OP.
*nods*

Real progress, not just feelgoodism.

Or, in the least, a persuasive and strong appearance of progress.

Wait, it actually holds the industrialized powers accountable to certain standards? I'm shocked!

It's a step in the right direction. Remember, Asia is home to the world's fastest growing emerging economies and it would be absolutely criminal to force them in to developed-nation environmental standards when they are simply incapable of achieving those kinds of targets without massive economic duress. It may not be as aggressive a target as those used in Europe, but it's a step in the right direction nonetheless.

It's better to have some progress on greenhouse-gas emissions cuts than zero progress. Not to mention reduced energy intensity means both less susceptibility to energy price swings as well as lower prices for consumers, something which benefits the developing world immensely.

Wait, it actually holds the industrialized powers accountable to certain standards? I'm shocked!

As long as their memories don't fail them ... :/

It's a step in the right direction. Remember, Asia is home to the world's fastest growing emerging economies and it would be absolutely criminal to force them in to developed-nation environmental standards when they are simply incapable of achieving those kinds of targets without massive economic duress. It may not be as aggressive a target as those used in Europe, but it's a step in the right direction nonetheless.

It's better to have some progress on greenhouse-gas emissions cuts than zero progress. Not to mention reduced energy intensity means both less susceptibility to energy price swings as well as lower prices for consumers, something which benefits the developing world immensely.

Vetalia's vote of approval, then?

Vetalia's vote of approval, then?

I support limits on GHG emissions, provided they are fair and economically logical.