Breakthrough on climate protection!
The leading industrialised nations (G8) aim to at least halve global CO2 emissions by 2050. The Heads of State and Government agreed at Heiligendamm to achieve this goal together as part of a UN process. The big emerging economies are also to be incorporated in the process.
The German Chancellor and G8 President was convinced and visibly pleased that this was "the most important decision for the coming two years." Many participants had moved their positions quite considerably. The agreement that binding goals on reducing emissions were necessary was "an important signal", said Angela Merkel.
The resolutions adopted by the EU, Japan and Canada form the basis of the agreement reached on climate protection at Heiligendamm. The approach suggested by the United States was added to this, namely of incorporating the biggest greenhouse gas emitters outside the United States, especially China and India.
This is not a good news day for Stephane Dion.
* * * *
Update: A Voice of Sanity in the Wilderness: (Harper; not CBC):
"We committed to targets without thinking those targets through 10 years ago and then we were unable to reach them," he said.
"When others [G8 leaders] say we want a full discussion before we determine what reasonable targets are, I think that's something we have to be flexible on."
26 comments:
This is not a good news day for Stephane Dion.
Any why would that be, Joanne? It's a great news day! It's only the CPC/BT attack machine that has to figure out how to spin this to its own partisan advantage.
Is the CPC/BT attack machine finally figuring out that climate change is real, not a big lie?
Is the CPC/BT attack machine finally figuring out that climate change is partly caused by human activity?
Is the CPC/BT attack machine finally figuring out that we need to work together with the rest of the world on this?
Is the CPC/BT attack machine finally figuring out that it is more important than petty politics? I can answer that. Unless something changed overnight, no. We continue to be the only country that features its current leaders at international gatherings trying to score cheap internal partisan points based on its previous leaders and parties in power.
It's a great news day if something is being done at all. Even softball targets are good if the alternative is continued stonewalling, claiming the problem does not even exist, and doing nothing.
As Merkel says, "agreement that binding goals on reducing emissions are necessary" is the most important.
L.S. - Maybe you should consider switching to decaff? ;)
It's a great news day if something is being done at all. Even softball targets are good if the alternative is continued stonewalling...
I totally agree. But Dion had an all or nothing attitude: Challenge the U.S.
Tell George Bush off!
Lofty rhetoric doesn't work in negotiations where there are a whole bunch of egos to massage.
And anyway, Harper making Canada look good on the world stage makes Dion look bad.
You go grrrl (meant in a non-misogynist, non sexist, friendly way)
there is a "global warming" in the heads of the left because Harper Did It!
nana nana .. nana nana .. good bye!
west coast teddi and a CPC voter
Teddi,
12 yr. olds can't vote.
12 yr. olds can't vote.
Gee Anon, that's too bad for you.
Bottom line - Harper is a diplomat and he now owns 'climate protection'.
Even though the agreement is not legally binding, Merkel was sure that "no-one can escape this declaration".
Steve says: "just watch me!"
L.S.- I think "Steve" is moving in the right direction. Personally, I see pollution a much bigger threat to my health right now than climate change. If I can go out for a walk in the summer and not have to check the air quality to see if it's safe, I'll be a happy camper.
We need a short term and long term approach. Knee-jerks reactions are for jerks.
Yes. Partisanship aside, the important thing is governments are onside and this is on the agenda. Then they can set standards, fund the ongoing science and be there to provide the economic incentives when needed. That example of the SUV's being treated as subsidized farm vehicles is a good example of government providing the wrong incentive, at least as far as fuel efficiency goes.
There is still suspicion about whether Steve is just following polls or actually believes there is a real problem needing global cooperation. But it doesn't really matter what he thinks if the results happen.
harper and bush support intensity based targets. as i'm sure you know joanne,this kind of approach allows overall emissions to increase. no one is fooled here.
harper has alrady said that an actual agreement with hard numbers is months if not years away.
harper returns from the G8 looking like bush's lapdog.
i've never sensed an overwhelming committment from this blog to reporting on the dangers of climate change. in fact, you tow the bloggingtories line of skepticism with the best of them.
no one is fooled when those who have denied that a problem even exists suddenly turn up with half-baked climate cookies.
L.S. - I can probably find quite a lot to agree with on your last comment.
I think the most important thing is that they all now realize that there is a problem. And I believe it was Tony Blair that said something about this not even being possible a year ago; that so many countries would be onboard in agreeing that there is actually a problem that needs to be addressed.
But what exactly is the problem? Is it GHG? Is it climate change? Is it smog, which is choking so many industrialized cities all over the world?
People seem to think that GHG and smog are synonymous. I think that is where an education is needed. They are related; but there are not synonymous. IMHO.
harper and bush support intensity based targets. as i'm sure you know joanne,this kind of approach allows overall emissions to increase. no one is fooled here.
Jeff, there must be a sensible middle ground here. If we prevent oil production for example in order to achieve our targets, then many other things suffer in our economy, including our ability to assist others in poorer countries.
On the other hand, I was reading today that many tar sand projects are shutting down due to the high dollar so economic forces may help climate change. How ironic.
"harper and bush support intensity based targets. as i'm sure you know joanne,this kind of approach allows overall emissions to increase. no one is fooled here."
Psst! FYI:
http://tinyurl.com/2u7ynj
"Former environment commissioner Johanne Gelinas expressed doubt last year the Liberals' plan to regulate greenhouse gases would lead to total reductions, because it too was based on reducing the intensity of emissions by 15 per cent over four years ending in 2012."
AND
http://tinyurl.com/2pf77q (pdf)
"The previous federal government, in its April 2005 Project Green, also used an intensity-based approach to emissions from Canada’s industrial sector. The Liberals lost the January 2006 election without having put the Large Final Emitters (LFE) system into place but it would have failed as well to reduce GHG emissions. Documents from Natural Resource Canada in fact show that, had all industrial sectors met their target to reduce their emissions intensity by 15 per cent, emissions from LFEs would still have increased by 27 to 55 per cent."
So if you're basing your argument on the fact that the Conservatives' intensity-based approach would be ineffective, the Liberals had a similar plan ... Were they Bush's lapdogs too?
Bottom line - Harper is a diplomat and he now owns 'climate protection'.
hahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaha
sure of course. whatever you say!
Economics in a free market is a non-partisan self regulating force.
Inability to understand how things work is a hallmark of the lunatic and the typical leftist. They try to impose their will on systems that are completely beyond their grasp.
For example - our most favoured socialist province just announced a new tax. Calling a gas tax "Carbon" tax does not change anything. Yet many will accept this because of the label ..... and not comprehend the consequences.
Same thing for the boobs that think the global carbon transfer ponzi scheme is something that will help the human race.
It will do nothing but cause efficient economies to subsidize inefficient ones. But if history is any guide (and it always is if you take the time to study it) the "Free" economic boost given to the non-performing economies will have negative consequences. One consequence of such transfer of wealth into an economy that has no means to absorb it is hyper-inflation.
If you need any examples just take a look at what happened to every last socialist economy in the 20th century. Other consequences are social upheaval and the collapse of institutions.
All of that is what is in store for a world that choses to latch on to the pie in the sky promises of Kyoto and such utopian accords.
What the G8 have done is to take the role of responsible adults in spite of the wailing and babbling of the perpetual juveniles of the left. As exampled in extreme by the protesters of the event.
So if you're basing your argument on the fact that the Conservatives' intensity-based approach would be ineffective, the Liberals had a similar plan ...
Nice catch, Gabby.
Calling a gas tax "Carbon" tax does not change anything. Yet many will accept this because of the label ..... and not comprehend the consequences.
Chucker had a great post on that today!
What the G8 have done is to take the role of responsible adults in spite of the wailing and babbling of the perpetual juveniles of the left. As exampled in extreme by the protesters of the event.
Exactly. Kyoto is a brand; like a hot label. Now the grownups have to tell the kids, oh sorry but what you want is too expensive but we will try to come up with something that still achieves your objectives in terms of function, but is a bit more practical.
Kyoto is a brand; like a hot label.
The Prague Spring on this thread did last an hour or so, didn't it? It was a breath of fresh air.
But I see it's back to business as usual!
I'm just saying that Kyoto had fine objectives in reducing GHG emisssions, but the timeline is not realistic. And having a reaching a consensus on realistic objectives is far better than a few parties walking away in a huff.
Or did I misinterpret the thrust of your sarcasm?
=bzzzt== crackle =
This just in from BT Central:
BTer's, here is today's talking point. Please cut and paste into your blogs following the instructions in the BT101 course you took last year. This release has been approved by the BT Central Committee.
-start- (do not include this line)
Stephen Harper, in a brilliant strategic move, has once again stupendously stupefied everyone by singlehandedly solving the world's most pressing problem! We now have an agreement that all the countries will each do their very very best to so something. Each country will do it in its own way, so we can celebrate the diversity of cultures in our wonderful world! And if any of the countries do nothing, we will all be politically correct and congratulate them for trying anyway, even if they didn't! And nobody will check up on them for 43 years!
Yay!! Three cheers for Steve! Do I hear the sounds of "Steve for World Emperor!" from the cheering throngs of millions? It's a great day for Canada, and a great day for the G8, and a great day for the whole world!!
-30- (do not include this line)
L.S. - Cute.
I was just kidding! You weren't supposed to actually put it in your blog!
lol! Well, now all the Blogging Tories have their talking points.
I thought it was pretty funny, actually.
It's a great day for Canada, and a great day for the G8, and a great day for the whole world!!
You forgot 'the universe', BTW.
Post a Comment