EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
Popular content
Today's Top News
The World Must Isolate Bush Over Climate Change
Tony Blair may have only a little more than three weeks left in office, but that gives him plenty of time for his greatest ever international triumph, or for his biggest betrayal yet. How he handles his relationship with President George Bush over the next week is likely to determine whether or not the world will seize the best (and quite possibly the last) chance of tackling global warming before it is too late.
This weekend, the familiar scent of betrayal is in the air, as the Prime Minister appeared once again to rush to provide cover for his war-mate in the White House, just as it looked as if he may finally be forced by being isolated, both at home and abroad, to change his ways.
For months, pressure has been building on the President to give enough ground to make possible a breakthrough at this week's G8 summit. Last week, although he changed his rhetoric over climate change, at the same time he sought to kick the issue into touch by proposing a new series of US-led talks, vaguely aimed at agreeing a series of non-binding measures by the end of 2008.
Sigmar Gabriel, the environment minister of Germany, which is hosting the summit in the Baltic resort of Heiligendamm, immediately denounced the proposal as an attempt to "torpedo the international climate protection process". By contrast, the Prime Minister promptly hailed Mr Bush's move as "a huge step forward", raising fears that his instinct to cosy up to the Toxic Texan will relieve the pressure at the most crucial moment.
One former Downing Street adviser yesterday described it as "Blair's Munich moment". And if he does indeed let the President off the hook at Heiligendamm, he is likely to destroy international attempts through the UN to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, fatally defer moves in the US Congress to curb pollution at home, and deny himself the chance to go out on a high, with a foreign policy success finally under his belt.
The Prime Minister's intimates insist that nothing could be further from his mind. He is trying to encourage the President to move much further, they say, and will continue to keep up the pressure until he does.
They may be right, but it is an argument we have heard before. A similar public stance made it easier for the President to go to war illegally in Iraq. And if it confirms his obduracy again, the Prime Minister's contribution to the negotiations over climate change will merely reinforce it in obloquy.
So it's all down to Mr Blair. Yet, up to last week, he has done well, as I have acknowledged. With Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, the summit chair, he has striven to build a coalition of those willing to tackle global warming, and to persuade Mr Bush to join it.
He helped to enlist the EU President José Manuel Barroso, who had previously downplayed the environment, and Japanese premier Shinzo Abe, who promised to keep up the pressure as host of next year's G8 summit. He constantly cajoled Mr Bush, while increasing domestic pressure on him by forming a public alliance with the Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger, his chief Republican critic on the issue, and by meeting sympathetic congressional and business leaders. He even helped convert Rupert Murdoch to the cause.
It seemed to be working well. Nicolas Sarkozy, the new President of France, has pledged to make climate change one of his top priorities, adding a powerful new presence to the summit table. Even Mr Bush's two closest international allies on global warming, the Australian premier John Howard and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, have had to change their stances under acute electoral pressure, isolating him still further.
In the US, a raft of Bills to tackle climate change have been introduced in a previously sceptical Congress and presidential candidates are rivalling each other in promising action. A raft of Republican and Democratic governors, led by Schwarzenegger, are implementing tough measures of their own. A coalition of top business leaders has called for deep cuts in emissions of CO2, and many from the religious right are pressing for this, as well.
Merkel, backed by Blair, has drawn up a firm, but realistic communiqué for agreement at the summit. Bush has so far rejected it, but neither of the two key sticking points should be impossible for the United States to accept.
One, a target of limiting the warming of the earth to 2C is what the world's scientists agree is needed to head off really dangerous climate change. The second - introducing national allowances of greenhouse gas emissions which can be bought and sold - was originally an American idea; the US used it effectively to combat acid rain.
George Bush has only ever shifted his stance on global warming when isolated, and last week he cracked again. For the first time, he accepted the principle of an international target to reduce emissions, and dropped his outright opposition to a global agreement. But those were just words; his only concrete proposal for the new series of talks would do far more harm than good, reducing pressure for legislation at home, while concentrating on producing meaningless and unenforceable voluntary agreements abroad.
The world has reached a new stage of environmental awareness. Politicians (David Cameron and Gordon Brown among them) vie with one another to display green credentials, but Mr Bush seems essentially unmoved. Mr Blair's greatest legacy would be to create an irreversible shift in his position. But his warm welcome for Mr Bush's proposal will reduce the President's isolation at the summit, and make it harder for Mrs Merkel and other leaders to get him to agree to the 2C limit, the ultimate litmus test of success and failure.
Everything depends on what Mr Blair does next. If he goes back to keeping up the pressure on the President, as we have been promised, there is a chance that the summit will produce a breakthrough, speeding the path to international action and allowing him to go out with a bang. If, on the other hand, he lets Mr Bush get away with his diversionary tactic, he will depart instead with that familiar poodle's whimper.
Further browsing: Get all the summit news at g-8.de/Webs/G8/EN/Homepage/home.html
© 2007 The Independent
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


27 Comments so far
Show AllWhy is the world waiting on Blair to convince the Little Psychopath? There's no question on LP's criminal denial of the problem. The G8 group and every other rational government should be lashing out at the LP verbally, and in private, and should be seriously discussing sanctions against my country, not only on the environmental issue, but on the war. Blair has shown he's a toad who can't be trusted, who thinks his salvation lies in sucking up to LP. Bush should be arrested, not coddled.
GLOBAL WARMING DIVERSION:
After six years of stonewalling & deception to impede global warming mitigation, Bush now throws a bone to appease the world community with comparable meaningless rhetoric. The dangerous manipulation of essential scientific data used by his team to conceal and derail corrective measures for this threat and other vital environmental reforms has always been apparent--and his recent ambiguous remarks show that their motives have not changed.
Contrary to their assertions, measures to reduce greenhouse gases could only improve our economy by lessening our trade deficits, and improving our security by reducing our dependance on foreign oil. We could also regain some of our lost world respect that has resulted from our opposition Kyoto while arrogantly contributing disproportionally to carbon pollution.
Evidence linking carbon pollution to warming has been as close to certain as science can be for many years. Its causes, consequences, and mitigation requirements have been documented by many dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists.
Often overlooked is the fact that the same measures needed to mitigate global warming would be necessary even if it were not an issue. Conservation, alternative energy development, anti- pollution refinements, etc are essential for other vital environmental reforms such as air and water quality, reductions in toxic waste generation, land preservation, etc.
The environmental and social damage from our indifference to carbon pollution and related environmental measures can only worsen if we allow this reckless and unlearned president to continue this war on the environment.
Robert Settgast
San Rafael, CA
rhsettgast@hotmail.com
It is not rational to think that there is any possibility of Bush agreeing to the 2C limit. It would make more sense for the international community to proceed without him and to economically isolate nations that do not meet the limit by the end of '08. That would create pressure to meet it and would undermine the campaign of resistance by the US corporate oligarchy.
I can think of a great place in which to isolate the demented Texas winker: Guantanamo.
Treasonous Tony should be hung by his balls from London Bridge, if he has any...I am sick of him playing Mussolini to Bush's Hitler
there's a big question though. how many american bigwigs will tolerate a restraining order coming from an unamerican judge? something bigger than the future is at stake: millions of egos.
Jaded Prole: Bush won't agree to the 2C limit because he hasn't a freaking clue as to what that means.
In any event, I think the rational course on a personal level is to plan on governments not doing enough to stop the process, if for no other reason than that it would require massive economic dislocations around the world. Make your own plans for survival,folks. We're not looking at a hundred years anymore before major, obvious events overtake us. Given the unexpected acceleration of the process, I'd bet less than fifty, a lot less than fifty.
to clayhughes :
ANYTHING! just not this cliimate bullshit again.
Do you have a problem of walking and chewing gum at the same ? The problems of occupation-persistance and warming-persistance are caused by the reticence of and denial by one man.
Actually , come to think of it , it's a multi-benefit deal and you know or should know the rest of them .
Both global warming and the war in Iraq revolve around the use of fossil fuels, so the issues are indeed connected.
The science behind global warming is well understood, and it's also well understood that there were no nuclear/biological weapons in Iraq, and no ties between Saddam and 9/11.
The solution to both problems is to replace fossil fuels with solar, wind and sustainable biofuel production. For the amount of money spent on the Iraq war and subsequent occupation, this country could already have eliminated all foreign oil imports and gone a good way towards getting rid of coal-fired electricity as well.
It's only a matter of time before everything is run with renewables - we could be doing that right now. See www.internalcombustionbook.com (an outstanding new book by Edwin Black, author of IBM and the Holocaust) for the detailed history of how we got into this mess.
Global warming is a hoax to tax the people, is it? So the 2 trillion we borrowed to finance the illegal invasion - which was a hoax - and the illegal occupation - which is also a hoax - that our kids and grandkids will pay for via higher taxes. That's okay?
Sadly, the world still feels obligated to listen to the Bushes and Blairs, no matter how shredded their credibility, no matter how many laws and treaties broken, no matter how many bait and switches. Now why is that?
"A target of limiting the warming of the earth to 2C is what the world's scientists agree is needed to head off really dangerous climate change."
The World (whatever that is) will isolate nothing.
Good points Robert Settgast. Watch Bush hire Karen Hughes (or the next WORD/PR "magician") to doctor up the FACTS. They'll release all this feel good propaganda, PRETEND they are behind programs and call it the COOL EARTH project or some other Orwellian moniker. Anything not to be caught doing the right thing or living truthfully.
There's a word at the UN: UNITED. It has something to do with WWI and WWII, and how divided countries let misunderstandings fester until megadeath was the only option. Bush wants to kill the UN, and his climate plans are the latest attempt to do so. His new 'coalition of the swilling' will set voluntary targets all its own, but his larger purpose is to kill the UN and have the US usurp all or part of its role on the world stage. Maybe its time to have that discussion, but we should never forget why the world created the UN in the first place. Division is the initial step to megadeath. Bush's ignorance of world history means he's probably blissfully unaware of the potentially ruinous road he wants to take us all on.
I'm not sure the respondents understood what clayhughes wrote:
His remark "9-11 was an inside job" refers to the belief in a peculiar faction of the antiwar movement that the WTC was actually brought down through controlled demolition, using explosives secretly planted by agents working for the Bush administration. What the airplanes would have been for is never explained; some say the planes were actually remotely controlled into the buildings and there was no hijacking at all. Some of them also believe that the pentagon was hit with missile, not a airplane.
Yes, it is nutty, but it is nutty in exactly the same way as global warming denial. They start with an assumption of a unsubstantiated nefarious plot, then use their reasoning based on scientific and engineering illiteracy to question some details of the physics of the event, then in a logical leap in which "non-sequiter" would be an understatement, suggest that the uncertainties of the phenomenon (or utterly wrong notions - like an isistence heat doesn't weaken steel) must imply their presupposed nefarious conspiracy.
In the case of the WTC, they assumed a plot by the Bush Administration to create the needed state of fear among the populace to move forward with their war and removal of civil-liberties agenda. In the case of global warming, it is once again a secret plot to scare the populace into giving up their freedoms. In both cases, science aside, their purported conspiracy requires so many thousands of perfectly cooperating actors that to say it is not credible is an understatement.
I find it very disturbing that the same 9-11 nuts might now be turning their sights on global warming.
If the large Oil companies would have somehow managed to install a President in the white house - I don't think that President would do things much differently than Bush.
Something to think about.
The G8 is irrelevant. The International Peasants' Movement is the thing.
ubrew12, yes; but you do realize that the G8 is not the UN, and in fact is a group designed to usurp the UN in the first place?
Bush wasn't the candidate installed by large Oil companies?
I've encouraged a number of environmentalist activists to seek an answer to the question: Where would the US be today regarding Kyoto targets, if we had adopted the carbon tax proposed by Bill Clinton in 1993?
I haven't had any takers. Does anyone know if this question has been researched?
The article's conclusion is an understatement. The world needs to isolate the US Government completely, because it has turned the US into the biggest, most dangerous rogue nation in the world. There needs to be a worldwide movement to shun the US until it reverses its armed aggression against Iraq, pays reparations to the Iraqi people, and promises not to launch any more preventive wars. Until these demands are met, the US will remain the world's worst threat to peace, with Israel and Britain in 2nd and 3rd place.
blair + bush = blush
as much as any feelings of sadness or anger over the so-called leadership coming out of the u.s. great britain alliance, is out and out embarrassment and shame. really, you only have to look at the notion of "fighting them over there (we don't do body counts)" or who suffers most from global warming denial to see the utter contempt these people have for humanity. our respective countries will be paying for the insane hubris of these idiots for many years, and we may NEVER recover our honor, if there was any to begin with.
PDJ: My belief that 911 was an inside job has nothing to do with how the buildings burned. It has to do with MOTIVE and opportunity, exactly what any defense attorney seeks to establish. Isn't it a little too convenient that once the job was "done" Bin laden was allowed to disappear? There was no real attempt to go after him. The elaborate dealings of CIA and other "underworld" operatives is so labyrinthian that I could not begin to imagine how they all connect; but compelling enough legal data to challenge Bush's presidency was fomenting, and before the chance to OWN all three branches was lost, the neocons got their magic genii out of the bottle.
Ubrew12: Bush wants to kill the UN as much as the World Court and ANY body that would presume to thwart his objective of absolute power, power to cannibalize the resources that belong to other tribes, lands and peoples. Bush and his ilk are NOT loyal to the US as increasingly the global corporations they identify with and profit by answer to no sovereign nation. They USE the US military to do their bidding, but as a recent important article on this site explained, the WTO is eviscerating laws that were hard won by environmentalists and social justice activists. We are looking at the complete submergence of human liberty (even in things like food choices that are NOT bio-genetic monsters) as these giant corporations take over the reins to aspects of commerce that directly control our lives (but for the few who can live entirely OFF the grid.)
Did Germany, at one time, propose arresting Don Rumsfeld for war crimes?
If so, perhaps Germany can arrest Bush? Wouldn't that be something!
Like Charles Taylor, George Bush plans to not attend the hearings, as he will be meeting with Cindy Sheehan at Camp Casey, Crawford, Texas. At the former house of the 41st President of the United States, which is now A Remembrance Site: Never again will we support American wars of aggression, George W. Bush will listen to Cindy Sheehan as she tells of the sorrow she and her family and friends endured. After this George W. Bush will begin listening to the families of the dead soldiers until he has heard every single one tell their story.
Bush isn't the problem. He's just a hideously f'd up little puppet for the insanely greedy ruling elite. He's taking lots of the heat for them.
They don't care about human rights, truth or justice. Those things are their enemies.
They think that the purpose of life is to make lots of money. They are the most horrible menaces to mankind we have ever faced, and we must find a way to defang them very soon.
It's high time the rest of the world stops trying to appease Mr Potato Head (and by implication a significant portion of the American public who are either too ignorant or unconcerned or unwilling to pressure their leadership to take action). People we have about 10 years to turn the ship around. Its time to start imposing a carbon tax on imports from the US. It would be no different from countries imposing their own health and quarantine regulations regarding eg agricultural imports from other countries. The US cannot legitimately object to it because the duties would be based on scientific and economic basis.