We’ve Been Suckered Again by the US. So Far the Bali Deal Is Worse than Kyoto
America will keep on wrecking climate talks as long as those with vested interests in oil and gas fund its political system
“After 11 days of negotiations, governments have come up with a compromise deal that could even lead to emission increases. The highly compromised political deal is largely attributable to the position of the United States, which was heavily influenced by fossil fuel and automobile industry interests. The failure to reach agreement led to the talks spilling over into an all-night session.”
These are extracts from a press release by Friends of the Earth. So what? Well it was published on December 11 - I mean to say, December 11 1997. The US had just put a wrecking ball through the Kyoto protocol. George Bush was innocent; he was busy executing prisoners in Texas. Its climate negotiators were led by Albert Arnold Gore.
The European Union had asked for greenhouse gas cuts of 15% by 2010. Gore’s team drove them down to 5.2% by 2012. Then the Americans did something worse: they destroyed the whole agreement.
Most of the other governments insisted that the cuts be made at home. But Gore demanded a series of loopholes big enough to drive a Hummer through. The rich nations, he said, should be allowed to buy their cuts from other countries. When he won, the protocol created an exuberant global market in fake emissions cuts. The western nations could buy “hot air” from the former Soviet Union. Because the cuts were made against emissions in 1990, and because industry in that bloc had subsequently collapsed, the former Soviet Union countries would pass well below the bar. Gore’s scam allowed them to sell the gases they weren’t producing to other nations. He also insisted that rich nations could buy nominal cuts from poor ones. Entrepreneurs in India and China have made billions by building factories whose primary purpose is to produce greenhouse gases, so that carbon traders in the rich world will pay to clean them up.
The result of this sabotage is that the market for low-carbon technologies has remained moribund. Without an assured high value for carbon cuts, without any certainty that government policies will be sustained, companies have continued to invest in the safe commercial prospects offered by fossil fuels rather than gamble on a market without an obvious floor.
By ensuring that the rich nations would not make real cuts, Gore also guaranteed that the poor ones scoffed when we asked them to do as we don’t. When George Bush announced, in 2001, that he would not ratify the Kyoto protocol, the world cursed and stamped its foot. But his intransigence affected only the US. Gore’s team ruined it for everyone.
The destructive power of the American delegation is not the only thing that hasn’t changed. After the Kyoto protocol was agreed, the then British environment secretary, John Prescott, announced: “This is a truly historic deal which will help curb the problems of climate change. For the first time it commits developed countries to make legally binding cuts in their emissions.” Ten years later, the current environment secretary, Hilary Benn, told us that “this is an historic breakthrough and a huge step forward. For the first time ever, all the world’s nations have agreed to negotiate on a deal to tackle dangerous climate change.” Do these people have a chip inserted?
In both cases, the US demanded terms that appeared impossible for the other nations to accept. Before Kyoto, the other negotiators flatly rejected Gore’s proposals for emissions trading. So his team threatened to sink the talks. The other nations capitulated, but the US still held out on technicalities until the very last moment, when it suddenly appeared to concede. In 1997 and in 2007 it got the best of both worlds: it wrecked the treaty and was praised for saving it.
Hilary Benn is an idiot. Our diplomats are suckers. American negotiators have pulled the same trick twice, and for the second time our governments have fallen for it.
There are still two years to go, but so far the new agreement is even worse than the Kyoto protocol. It contains no targets and no dates. A new set of guidelines also agreed at Bali extend and strengthen the worst of Gore’s trading scams, the clean development mechanism. Benn and the other dupes are cheering and waving their hats as the train leaves the station at last, having failed to notice that it is travelling in the wrong direction.
Although Gore does a better job of governing now he is out of office, he was no George Bush. He wanted a strong, binding and meaningful protocol, but American politics had made it impossible. In July 1997, the Senate had voted 95-0 to sink any treaty which failed to treat developing countries in the same way as it treated the rich ones. Though they knew this was impossible for developing countries to accept, all the Democrats lined up with all the Republicans. The Clinton administration had proposed a compromise: instead of binding commitments for the developing nations, Gore would demand emissions trading. But even when he succeeded, he announced that “we will not submit this agreement for ratification [in the Senate] until key developing nations participate”. Clinton could thus avoid an unwinnable war.
So why, regardless of the character of its leaders, does the US act this way? Because, like several other modern democracies, it is subject to two great corrupting forces. I have written before about the role of the corporate media - particularly in the US - in downplaying the threat of climate change and demonising anyone who tries to address it. I won’t bore you with it again, except to remark that at 3pm eastern standard time on Saturday, there were 20 news items on the front page of the Fox News website. The climate deal came 20th, after “Bikini-wearing stewardesses sell calendar for charity” and “Florida store sells ‘Santa Hates You’ T-shirt”.
Let us consider instead the other great source of corruption: campaign finance. The Senate rejects effective action on climate change because its members are bought and bound by the companies that stand to lose. When you study the tables showing who gives what to whom, you are struck by two things.
One is the quantity. Since 1990, the energy and natural resources sector - mostly coal, oil, gas, logging and agribusiness - has given $418m to federal politicians in the US. Transport companies have given $355m. The other is the width: the undiscriminating nature of this munificence. The big polluters favour the Republicans, but most of them also fund Democrats. During the 2000 presidential campaign, oil and gas companies lavished money on Bush, but they also gave Gore $142,000, while transport companies gave him $347,000. The whole US political system is in hock to people who put their profits ahead of the biosphere.
So don’t believe all this nonsense about waiting for the next president to sort it out. This is a much bigger problem than George Bush. Yes, he is viscerally opposed to tackling climate change. But viscera don’t have much to do with it. Until the American people confront their political funding system, their politicians will keep speaking from the pocket, not the gut.
George Monbiot is the author of the best selling books The Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order and Captive State: the corporate takeover of Britain. He writes a weekly column for the Guardian newspaper.
© 2007 The Guardian
The oiligarchy. But we’ll binge as long as we can and worry about it later. If we don’t, the Chinese will.
Is there intelligent life on this planet? I wonder.
Doesn’t our conscious environmental self-destruction, war, nuclear weapons
at the ready, the rich watching the poor starve, prove otherwise.
The biological life forms & precious ecosystems of the earth are stunning.
There have been many indigenous societies across the earth that lived in
harmony & more closely with this creation. They consciously respected &
loved the inner & outer forces of this world.
I personally feel that the European Christian attitudes of conquest, evil & good,
their superiority over all races has infected the world. When you believe that all
of creation is under your dominion this can me plundering & killing it off is
your destiny. This is contrary to the actual teachings of Christ. Oh well . . .
“If we don’t, the Chinese will”
In per capita emissions the Chinese are far, far below us. It is completely unreasonable to state that it is up to the Chinese to show they are serious about cutting their emissions. If we in the US cut our emissions in half and the Chinese doubled theirs, we would still be emitting more greehouse gases per capita than them.
It is up to us to show we are serious first. If they don’t follow suit - and there is no reason to believe that they won’t - then we can start to complain.
There is intelligent life on the planet–just not among human beings. Other species are quite intelligent but the human sense of superiority over others-the supremacy myth, creates blindness to this. Even a worm has more common sense.
As for China–it must take responsibility too. They are one horrendously deadly global polluter–look at the fish farm article. But the US, canada etc must act regardless of what the Chinese do–but the Chinese must do their part.
most intellient species know enough not to shit where they eat….except for pigs and Amercians.
After another LOSERbiot article, here’s a better idea.
1. Get a REAL Left that will fight to SHUT DOWN THE PHONEY “WAR ON DRUGS” and allow plants like Cannabis to put their 25000 industrial uses into the market.
2. Work to make alternative renewables such as solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, plants for fuel that require no petroleum to begin with such as hemp, jute, flax, algae, etc …
3. Stop condescending frugal consumers. Typical latte/limousine “liberals” are nothing but corrupt SHITFACES that say “Yeah, well get used to it LOSER, you aren’t rewarded for saving !” George Monbiot is a perfect example as his crummy articles show.
4. Vote for pols that will actually level the fields out instead of kissing the ASSES of Big Oil/Coal/Nuclear/Chemical/Military/etc…
Globalization. It’s the same BIG corporations behind every government, jerking the puppet strings.
How can Gore represent the US Govt at Bali? He’s not a civil servant. What am I missing here?
Canuckchuck, this is the second time lately that I’ve seen you in hate-America mode. Very ugly. Often you share wit, but today it’s just sh*t. Getting lazy or what?
Like Iran, the bad guys account for only a few percent of the population in the US. They are in-between the rest of us and Kyoto/Bali/etc. Why blame the majority who live very Canadian lifestyles?
Will the rich watch the have-nots battle over the last can of non-poisoned tuna from their sky boxes, clinking their champagne glasses and chuckling over our desperate status, roaring with laughter as the poor scratch each other faces throw the weaker to the ground to have something to eat for one more day?
At what point will our desperate cry be heard - Oh God?
“Oh wait”, God replies, I haven’t given up on you yet.
Not yet
maxpayne–you are full of shit about Monbiot. He is currently engaging in DIRECT ACTION to save yours and my sorry asses, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=57&ItemID=14508
So until you’re ready to stop the massive numbers of coal trains leaving the Powder River Basin, you should just shut up about brave folks like George Monboit.
Stilba, Maybe you are not aware of it but Canadians are “Americans” also. Just hint to a Canadian that the term “Americans” refers only to those in the U.S. and they get all red faced and surly.
SCIENTISTS DISCOVERY REMARKABLE EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISM
Researchers at the Max Planck Institue for Evolutionary Biology believe they have discovered a remarkable method that certain plant species use to propogate their genes. Apparently, certain plants (chiefly cannabis, the opium poppy, and coca plants) produce psychoactive substances, that, when ingested, place delusions in the minds of users that the plants can save the world if only they are cultivated in sufficient quanitities. Delusions of the “plant as messiah” have been documented in cannabis, crack/cocaine, and opium users.
maxpayne,
Those are the best ideas. I hate it when the “doom and gloom” losers such as Monbiot just tell us to “stop”. He’s as “good” as Nancy Reagan and her “just say no to drugs” BULLSHIT and we all know that turned out to be a MISERABLE FAILURE. The truth is idiots like Monbiot and Gore cry over spilled milk but in the end offer no real solutions. Sure, we all want to stop raping the planet but what are the alternatives? Most loser-minded lefties such as “cyon” are no different from the righties in their opposition to your first suggestion which I can tell you from a farmer’s perspective would go a long way to ending dependence on petroleum, foreign or domestic, and save the environment and cut down global warming but these losers believe in the Reefer Madness. As for the second suggestion, there too many hypocrites on the left including Gore, Monbiot, karlof1, etc … who rely on fossil fuels even while trying to lecture us not to use them. They’re the ones that rub us voters in Middle America off the other way just like the fuckers in Hollywood and the Business world who never completed high school and yet have the nerve to lecture us about “education” ! I wish the so-called “liberals” would actually convince us of solutions instead of forcing more bullshit down our throats like the rightwing.
“Until the American people confront their political funding system, their politicians will keep speaking from the pocket, not the gut.”
No, we need to confront our political election system. The two parties perpetually try to wedge away politically disaffiliated factions from the one other party, until the American public is split dead 49% to 49%. Then the richest party, the one that sells out the most, buys the last 2%, the sucker vote, and wins.
Personally, for now I’d like to start another set of government elections online, based on the choice form of proportional representation. It wouldn’t be a real government, but as in “What’s Up, Tiger Lily”, it would be next on the list.
“The truth is idiots like Monbiot and Gore cry over spilled milk but in the end offer no real solutions…”
Are you talking about a different George Monbiot? The Monbiot I know has writen extensively on measures to achieve the deep CO2 emission cuts we need to save ourselves.
Barn Burner, I do not use the term “Americans” above (are you referring to Canuckchuck?) …the closest I use is “hate-America,” and I think we all know what I’m talking about (not Canada, Mexico, Brazil, etc.)
Someone better come up with a human-cockroach hybrid fast or we’re going the way of the dinosaur.
Looks like we are really just a virus here.
jjpeter, you asked, “Will the rich watch the have-nots battle over the last can of non-poisoned tuna from their sky boxes, clinking their champagne glasses and chuckling over our desperate status, roaring with laughter as the poor scratch each other faces throw the weaker to the ground to have something to eat for one more day?”
Yes. And they will think it quite a sporting affair - they might even bet on who wins. They will also congratulate themselves on being so much more ‘civilized’ than the savages.
Hmmm, sounds vaguely Genghis Khan-like, doesn’t it?
A very sad commentary on our spiritual evolution.
One would think that ExxonMobile and the like would be such big targets that the ‘left’ could manage to aim their fire in their direction. But if you read this thread, its pretty obvious that we find it far more useful to constantly aim our fire at ourselves.
@jjpeter and jld_overseas
I do not agree with you. As Orwell wrote in 1984, the Proles, though living in the destroyed districts, far from the rest of the society, are free to think. The Party keeps them ignorant and poor by using alcohol, prostitution, false lotteries, etc. Among them there are some agents of the ThoughtPolice with the purpose to eliminate the few learned people that could become new rebels.
Remember, just before Winston and Julia are arrested, Winston observes a prole washerwoman, obviously happy hanging the washing and singing simple ditties learned from TV.
The Party needs the Proles, the workers, needs them happy and stupid. Not angry and smart.
If everyone on the Titanic had spent all their time posting inane blogs while the ship was going down, there would have been no survivors.
Until the American people confront their political funding system, their politicians will keep speaking from the pocket, not the gut.
The system is an outcome of the culture, not vice versa. You have to change the culture, and then the people will naturally change the system. Do not bother trying to change the system because the culture will resist.
Let’s look at the influences upon western culture. Obviously there have been many writings glorifying the Roman Empire, the British Empire, et al. The glory of empire is embedded in the childrens’ stories - Cinderella, et al, the settings of these stories trumpet royalty and empire. The colonial period and the industrial revolution are depicted with a positive spin in the storybooks. Discovery and adventure, technical advancements are all presented as net positives.
Plagues and pandemics were stopped by medical science but it was colonialism that spread the plagues. Mechanized industry enabled larger cities which enable greater political control over people.
Systems are outcomes. Cultures, or collective intentions, drive those. What has been the over-arching collective intent of the Europeans?
World Domination.
Let’s focus our energies on doing something about the culture of domination. Let’s DIRECTLY challenge the domination intent. It’s very easy.
Each individual may do their part by shfiting individual exchange/association away from the power centers, but putting social pressure on people to give up the domination intent. It’s kind of like social pressure to not commit violent crime. You don’t have to compromise your principles to help suppress the domination intent.
There was one flicker of a bright spot on npr the other day. They were interviewing a woman delegate from China. So far China has been dragging its feet as much for not wanting the US to have a “free ride” when everyone else cuts back emissions as for any other reason.
She said there are climatologists in China, and the government is aware the glaciers feeding the rivers are disappearing, the desert has engulfed Beijing… There is something of a consensus building in the government that there really is a problem and it is foolish to wait for the US to take the first step. They are becoming more in sync with the European governments.
China is not a democracy. They don’t have to listen to special interests or worry about the next election. Once the government decides to take steps, it will probably be done.
There is an old story that Mao was happy to accept Stalin’s help building a citrus canning plant. Until he saw the rail lines and port facilities (whatever) to ship 100% of the production to Russia. He probably told Stalin this ain’t frickin’ East Germany and, if he dosen’t get it, he’ll kick some sorry Russian behind all the way to Leningrad. What I’m getting at is the Chinese will realize sooner or later they are ripping up their environment so American big biz can squeeze a few more pennies out of BS consumer junk.
This article is more than a good start, and CanuckChuck isn’t all off the mark with even his roughness. We Americans want to think Uncle Sam is a saint, if not some damn tin God, but the real deal is so damn different, and most Americans aren’t near as damn wonderful as they damn think they are, excluding, in all modesty, myself.
Just put the word “is” in between the words “article” and “more.”
I had 1476 seconds showing to edit, but thanks anyway.
maxpayne and nabraskanathan
No, Monbiot’s article did not offer guidance on how to fix the world’s problems. It was focussed only on the Bali event, its conduct, the results and the implications. Nowhere in the article did he talk about energy alternatives, and he certainly did not dismiss them.
I dont think that there is anything that he wrote that you disagree with. You attacked the person, and did not seem to find a single thing wrong that he wrote.
So I wish to ask you both, if you are not the same person, is there something that he wrote IN THE ARTICLE that you actually disagree with? If so, what is it?
I can see that you dont like him. I like him, because he is astute, has honesty and integrity, and because he lays down the cold, bare unpleasant facts. I can tell you that he has NO problems with alternative energy and I dont think he would disagree with or take a stand against any of your suggestions.
In some other articles that he writes, you may well like to disagree with his conclusions that alternative energy cannot come close to replacing coal, oil and gas UNLESS we change our lifestyle to reduce our consumption A LOT. But then, that would not be relevant to the article. It would be off topic.
rtdrury December 17th, 2007 6:20 pm
Our culture is one that we have adopted from the television. It is given to us by the system.
The Bali agreement only provides more time for delays in meaningful US participation, which have been the greatest obstacle for meaningful progress. Untill focus is directed to meaningful measures, rather than carbon caps, more discusons, etc, reducing in carbon pollution can never be achieved.
Success can never be achieved without dramatic reduction of fossil fuel use along with development of alternative energy sources. Despite the assertions of the energy cartels and this administration, this is possible; but it will require concerted efforts. A significant increase in fuel tax is the most logical (& probably the only) means to promote & encourage these deveopments. The resulting alledged hardships on the need, which are being used as an arguement against this tax, could be readily delt with by adjusting the income tax structure and eliminating penalizing taxes such as phone taxes.
Contrary to right wing assertions such measures would aid rather than damage our economy and security by reducing dependence on imported oil and improving our air & water quality. Often overlooked is te fact that these measures are necessary for other environmental concerns, even if warming were not an issue.
Ah, but the good news is that catastrophic climate mutation is accelerating at such an alarming rate, this will most likely be the last really super successful meeting of the worlds best and brightest and most Earth-friendly greedy lying sons-a-bitches we will ever have to talk about.
The focus of the 2017 climate meet-up will be what to do with all the dead bodies and starving refugees.
canuckchuck
CANADA SUCKS - You won’t even give American soldiers who are trying to resist the war in Iraq sanctuary. All Canadians suck, that’s why America doesn’t float out to sea!
See how silly that sounds to paint everyone with the same brush?
Clean up your act Chuck!
Gee braithwa842,
Just because more than one person disagrees with LOSERbiot makes ‘em the same person ? People who disagree often have more valid points compared to the monotone “yeah, I agree” LOSERS who rant the same BULLSHIT. braithwa842 and karlof1 are the same person. Most people could care a fuck less about Monbiot’s crap because he only convinces “enlightened” LOSERS such as yourself who are already the typical “know-it-all” elitist snobs anyway. Frankly, I couldn’t tell the different between you and the Limbaugh hacks. No wonder the fake “left” LOSES to the “right”!
All this hot air (pardon the pun) is in vain. Global warming WILL happen.
maxpayne and NebraskaNathan may actually have a point. America is full of amoral people but then what country isn’t these days? Most average Joe and Jane sixpacks could read this article and walk out with a “so what?” attitude given that the only thing the author wants to say is “just stop using natural resources” and then it just stops right there with nothing to replace it in sight. People are depedent on them and so too is Monbiot or he wouldn’t be getting his boring baloney out there. Sure, we all can duke it out and call ourselves “guilty” with nothing to make up for it. On the other hand, bringing up better alternatives isn’t a bad idea. The rightwing fought for their cause when they were not happy with what was going on and they’re still at it today. The rest of us are still stuck wondering why them voters somehow don’t “get it”. Well, you have to convince the voters that dependence on fossil fuels just ain’t worth it and offer them better solutions to make it all better. The ideas of solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, petroleum-free biofuels, and other renewable alternatives are great and it’s long past time we made use of all of them since no one solution is perfect. Back in the early 20th century, we were on our way to putting those renewable resources in high gear until the fraudsters in oil, natural gas, coal, and later nuclear ruined it against our will. Let us all do our homework, research on the alternative renewables, and make them mainstream first before jumping to conclusions that they are less reliable sources of energy.
Wow Folks:
Alot of hate and discontent bantering about. I’ll keep mine simple. Money talks, we all know it and it makes us all sick. We all feel that damn near the entire world is corrupt (well maybe not all).
Here are the facts folks. Approximately every 40 years, this planets human population will double. Our climate is changing at an alarming rate. When the population of the southern United States has to move north due to high water, the western states have to move to where ever due to lack of water and our infrastucture will not be able to handle it.
Just like natural progression with an over-populated deer herd - starvation and disease follows and it is going to hit this planet like an asteroid.
Try and fix the corruption, the global warming trends. Use alternative energy, buy green, ride your bike, vote your conscience. Bottom line people……there are too many of us and that will change as nature will dictate, not us.
I sometimes grieve for my children as to what challenges they will face and someday I may say “I apologize to you for what the human race has left you”.
Keep the peace folks - there’s already enough hate going around.
I wish the rest of the world would just ignore the Americans and go ahead with Kyoto/Bali. We can no longer aford to wait for them.
There is alot of pain and dispare floating around this thread. There is enough blame to go around so everyone can have some. We need to change how we live and change is hard, that is the truth.
We need some progress and it takes time.
@twistoflex
How I wish some countries COULD just go it alone. Unfortunately the rest of the world cant just go ahead without the USA, or the USA will continue its trajectory until it pollutes more than the entire rest of the world combined.
Pollution is not a problem that market forces can solve. Market forces work well on the supply side, but fail miserably on the disposal side, because the real costs are externalized. The entire planet pays eventually for atmospheric and oceanic poisoning.
The third world is competitive, not only because it has low labor costs, but also because they have permissive pollution standards. Cutting emissions wont happen for free, and the countries that dont participate will have an economic advantage over those that do. Those who do not participate get to externalize their costs, and the whole world pays. Their industries will grow and pollute more.
International agreements and laws are absolutely necessary, or the whole world is stuck. That is why the US attitude is so disappointing. The US electorate needs convince their government to forget the needs of their corporate donors and put the whole world first. The third world will most likely suffer first, but this is a single planet and we either all make the necessary changes, or we will all be doomed eventually.
maxpayne and nabraskanathan
Read Monbiots book - Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning
then comment on what you think about his suggestions, ’till then stop making yourself sound ignorant
Stilba, AD and MikeBinSC - you should tell canuckchuck that men in glass houses should draw the drapes before using the toilet. What canuckchuck was probably doing was baiting you to see if you know that the article made a grave error blaming what happened in Bali only on the Americans - or even mainly on the Americans - which I plan to correct. Environment Minister John Baird went to Bali to sabotage talks and did quite well at it actually.
It is American Arrogance to blame anyone other than Baird for this fiasco in Bali.
You also don’t have to pull this Canadians are anti-American BS - it is Harper and Bush and, like it or not, they represent us. As far as your American soldier War Resisters - Olivia Chow is doing her best. She did get the following Motion through committee:
The Committee recommends that the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals.
braithwa842 December 18th, 2007 4:07 am
twistoflex says: How I wish some countries COULD just go it alone. Unfortunately the rest of the world cant just go ahead without the USA,
Oh yeah, accept John Baird’s argument as gospel!
As far as what happened in Bali, I think that it’s fair to get on the “Let’s blame Canada bandwagon:
NDP blasts Conservatives for diluting climate pact
“Tougher measures sidetracked in favour of tar sands interests,” says Layton
OTTAWA – NDP Leader Jack Layton blasted Harper’s Conservatives today for helping to dilute the United Nations’ goals on climate change at the Bali conference.
The change comes just days after Canada’s own negotiator in Bali, Pierre-Marc Johnson, openly admitted that Canada lacks credibility on climate change.
“While Australia’s new Labour government is on board and U.S. presidential candidates are tabling concrete solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Harper’s Conservatives are busy protecting the interests of the tar sand developers rather than future generations,” said Layton.
“After years of Liberal inaction, Bali was an opportunity for real Canadian leadership,” said Layton. “They blew that opportunity.”
Layton made the remarks today at a press conference with former Quebec environment minister and NDP MP Thomas Mulcair (Outremont).
The NDP challenged the government and other opposition MPs to support Layton’s Climate Change Accountability Act which is now being debated at the House of Commons standing committee. The act would compel the government to set out interim greenhouse gas emissions targets at five year intervals, culminating in a legislated commitment to an 80% reduction in Canadian greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by 2050.
On December 11th, 1997, more than 160 countries gathered in Kyoto, Japan and agreed to enter a global agreement to fight climate change together.
“Kyoto was a testament to what can be achieved through tough negotiations and collective political will to tackle a problem that goes beyond borders and beyond generations,” said Layton. “Its time to take action and this legislation is the first step.”
http://www.ndp.ca/page/6033
And this is a gloss of what the Bloc are saying:
John Baird and the oil ones on a journey to Bali
(John Baird et les pétrolières en voyage à Bali)
Whereas the international Conference of the United Nations on the climatic changes proceeds in Bali, Canada is made criticize of many parts by various countries of the world. Over there, the minister of the Environment John Baird, supposed to represent Canada, defends of the ideas which are really not those of the majority of the citizens.
In this crucial stage for the future of the Protocol of Kyoto, the conservatives went to Indonesia as if their opinion were the only one to exist here. Breaking with the tradition, they refused the presence of leaders of the opposition. On the other hand, one finds in Bali, in the official delegation of Mr. Baird, of the representatives of the oil companies. A conference on the climatic changes, a minister of the Environment and… oil companies! During this time, Mr. Baird announces an environmental program which N’is qu’a copy D’a program that its party had abolished a few months ago. Here is a form of recycling to which John Baird is accustomed.
http://www.blocquebecois.org/fr/audiovisuel.asp?id=188
Even the Liberal - right-winged as they may be themselves, know enough to blame Baird for this (like the others, dated Dec 14:
Baird’s Belligerence Wreaking International Havoc
OTTAWA - Environment Minister John Baird’s actions at the UN climate change conference have crossed the line from right-wing Republican rhetoric to outright belligerence and obstructionism, said Liberal Environment Critic David McGuinty.
“There is no longer anything subtle or measured in this government’s actions at the UN conference,” said Mr. McGuinty. “This government is actively attempting to kill or dramatically weaken the critical agreement between 190 countries to fight climate change.”
Today in Bali, Mr. Baird has ordered his officials to demand that all references to the greenhouse gas cuts that the science requires be removed from the final agreement. Mr. Baird did not show up at the critical high-level meetings with the world’s environment ministers where the final wording of the agreement is being hammered out. He failed to attend at least one of the “Friends of the Chair” meetings where the most important 40 environment ministers have been working out their differences.
“The Prime Minister and his Minister have stated in the House of Commons that Canada has the toughest greenhouse gas reduction targets in the world,” said Mr. McGuinty. “How can that be? Because now that the chips are down, Mr. Baird is fighting tooth and nail to have targets removed from the agreement. If Canada truly had aggressive targets we would be demanding that the rest of the world sign on.
“The Minister is at least being consistent: he continues to mislead Canadians whether he is in Canada or abroad,” added Mr. McGuinty. “The fundamental problem remains the same: nobody believes their climate change spin amounts to a plan or that we will make any progress with it, and as a result the Minister is not in a position to put it forward as an example to follow.”
Today is the deadline for adopting an agreement on how the world will negotiate the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol. Delegates to the UN conference are working late into the night to try to reach an agreement. Yet even at this late stage reports from Bali indicate that it is primarily Canada that has stepped up its efforts to undermine ongoing negotiations.”
“Mr. Baird thinks that this is all about politics and elections, and shock-and-awe communications, but it’s not,” said Mr. McGuinty. “The world’s scientists have warned that if we fail to hold global warming to two to four degrees it will cause catastrophic changes to life as we know it. Mr. Baird refuses to accept what must be done, and is personally and actively urging the world to ignore the scientists. That is conduct unbecoming of a Minister of the Environment and is extremely irresponsible. The Minister would be better off to come back to Canada to finish his Christmas shopping and prevent any further international embarrassment for this country.”
http://www.liberal.ca/story_13431_e.aspx
Max pain in the rear end, you have it so wrong. Are you a neo con and just trying to neo con the rest of us. Hey, I just tell like it is. Oh, and I know cananuckchuck was a bit rough, but what I said about us Amercans (and as a rule internationally people use it to refer to the people of the United States) thinking they’re always the damn exception is absolutely true, and we need get out of that BS. God hasn’t appointed us to be judge, jury, and executioner for other nations. It’s way past time we got that through our heads.
could the vitriol poured on monbiot have anything to do with his taking the name of saint gore in vain?
hazmat - carbon credits is an issue that should be discussed and Monbiot did us a great service by discussing it.
What is wrong with criticising saints!
On another thread about toys and China, I criticised Saint Nick for laying off his higher paid unionised elves and contracting out to China where the elves work for less.
The only thing that I am criticizing is that blaming the US for Bali is Conservative propaganda and I don’t want anyone falling for it. This is the neo-Con line right here and you guys are buying it hook line and sinker.
Monbiot says “We’ve been suckered” but he is wrong as to who did the suckering:
Baird regrets ‘watered down’ climate deal
Delegates who had hoped to launch the talks with clear targets in hand were disappointed by a deal that eschewed mention of hard numbers and replaced them with fuzzy references to reducing greenhouse gases.
Canada helped gut some of the substance from Saturday’s deal and then expressed regret when the final agreement was ultimately watered down even more than it had hoped.
But Environment Minister John Baird hailed the talks as a positive first step toward an effective global climate treaty.
“We were naturally disappointed in the language that weakened and watered down the agreement,” Baird said.
“But it’s better than no agreement.”
He said he was disappointed that the deal was almost completely stripped of any reference to numbers and targets that could have been the starting point for the discussion. …
Canada and its allies steadfastly rejected clear references in the main summit text to a goal for developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 45 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020.
Baird said Canada could never reach that target.
He dismissed the European-sponsored objective as unattainable, arguing that Canada would need to slash emissions by 38 to 53 per cent within only 12 years to reach that target.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071215/baird_bali_071215/20071215/
No climate deal without U.S. signing: Baird
BALI, Indonesia — Canada’s environment minister has dismissed the notion of signing a climate-change treaty without the United States, saying it would handicap the Canadian economy without reversing greenhouse gases. …
He used a military analogy to suggest that Canada would leave its economy at a disadvantage by adopting environmental restrictions without its closest neighbour and trading partner following suit.
“Our major economic competition is with the United States,” Baird said in the interview before he arrived in Bali this weekend.
“You can have unilateral disarmament. Some might call it noble — but it’s not necessarily smart.”
He derided the logic of closing a coal plant in Ontario, for instance, only to import more coal power from Michigan. The end result would be lost Canadian jobs with no benefit to the atmosphere, he said. …
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071209/cda_bali_071209/20071209/
fred, nathan,
Thanks. I don’t expect these CUCKOO LOSERS to learn jack shit. It is completely laughable that they even have the nerve to call us true liberals neocons when they themselves are no different. With the current situation economically and in times like these where Corporate America has successfully pitted the economy and the environment against each other, it is totally pathetic that we have to live in a black and white world. Monbiot himself misunderstands good biofuels from bad ones and will therefore badmouth any plant for fuel as somehow contributing to “global warming” even when it’s not necessarily the case. I wouldn’t be surprised to find a lot of LOSERbiot clones on this forum any more. They can go to hell for all I care.
maxpayne:
Are you 12? You’re the most immature person on this whole thread. Any decent ideas you might offer are drowned out by venom and brattiness. LOSERbiot? Lost me right there.
Oh, and I take exception to your first comment. Pigs do not eat where they shit, unless they’re stuck in industrial feedlots. Given a real habitat, they’ll walk away from the mud heap and do their business. If Americans could install a toilet in their lazy boy, while eating pizza and watching football, they would. Give pigs a little credit; they’re as smart as dogs, you know.
Now, please go wallow in your own shitty attitude.
-From one hemp advocate to another-
Progressives have already lost if they allow the rapacious capitalist bastards to destroy their faith in and connection to the entire human family. The predatory capitalists work on destroying that connection, and any so-called progressives who verbally attack the human race do so as unwitting tools. Don’t let the bastards win.
“I personally feel that the European Christian attitudes of conquest, evil & good,
their superiority over all races has infected the world. When you believe that all
of creation is under your dominion this can me plundering & killing it off is
your destiny. This is contrary to the actual teachings of Christ. Oh well . . .”
is it contrary? xians are taught they are going to fly away to heaven in the “rapture”. so what the hell do they care? their mythical sky daddy is coming back at any time to pull them off the same planet they destroyed. give one good hard read thru the OT where yahweh laid waste to cities, countries, people. is it any surprise then, about the attitude?
“Peace Czar” ? What an OXYMORON. Because I tore down your fake “peace” bullshit, you call me 12? Like the rest of the LOSERS, you didn’t even read the article or you would have instead said “You know something, Monbiot doesn’t have a solution except to tell us to just stop drilling. No alternatives, nada. Just shut up and die is all he advocates. Besides, it’s time to stop buying into the drugwar bullshit and put nature to work and quit badmouthing real solutions.”
kivals,
The so-called “capitalists” already won 70 years ago when they outlawed cannabis and shut down any growth in solar, wind, geothermal, plants for fuel, tidal, etc … I’m saying we need to bring them all back but the LOSERS don’t fucking get it !
Comment on the usefulness of “climate conferences”:
“You cannot solve a problem with the same way of thinking that created it in the first place”.
(attributed to)Albert Einstein
Blaming the US for the failure of Bali or Kyoto may be justified but it is really not the main point. The real problem is that the politicians attending those conferences A R E the problem. The representatives of the industrialized world have all succumbed to the greatest totalitarian system the world has ever seen: Market rule and the doctrine of eternal economic growth. Here in Europe (Germany to be precise)not a day passes without someone reminding us that economic growth is the ultimate goal of all political activity since it is supposed to create jobs (read prosperity and peace) for all.
We all know by now that this is an illusion since “making the cake bigger” does not really solve any problems as the rules of the system ensure that the dominant parties get ever bigger slices and the rest has to be content with the crumbs.
Already thirty years ago prominent thinkers wrote books about the incompatibility of infinite “growth” with ecological laws and human spiritual needs(the most famous probably “Small is beautiful”) but nothing has changed in the meantime. We go on exploiting the earth without asking: when will it be enough? We do not need to produce more (rubbish) but we need do distribute the abundant wealth differently and strive for better quality not quantity.The most important question is: Who makes the rules under which an economic system operates and what are the real consequences of this system? (The sub-prime loan scandals are called “turbulences on the financial markets” as if they were a weather anomaly but the real causes for this disaster are not discussed…)
To uphold personal freedom in a consumer society means that neither the producer nor the consumer accept any responsibilty for the ecological and social cost of the production process and “the market” does not give a shit either. Shouldn´t it be the state then, that cares about the dangerous consequences (climate change is just one)of unlimited production? It does of course in principle but once you adopt “growth” (read: ever increasing profits for TNCs)as your overriding economic principle, most moral and ethical considerations go down the drain sooner or later.
The result: Moral behaviour is for the ordinary citizen, not for the business and political elite who prefer Machiavelli´s writings over the bible (or other sources of ethics)
This attitude has blown up the ruthless PR-industry to unprecedented heights because ordinary people still have a need for moral authority in their leaders so they have TO APPEAR to be honest and decent with the common good as their highest priority.
Arundhati Roy described this boundless hypocrisy so excellently when she described the visit of Bush to India where he paid his respects to Ghandi´s burial place: “it was like a butcher pouring blood on the grave of a man who fought for non-violent change all his life” (to say nothing about the “war on terror”…)
European politicans have also learned to appear “decent” with the aid of PR-agencies. So whether it´s climate change conferences, or “End poverty” campaigns, etc. it is always the same illusion: They just pretend to be caring, responsible and acting for the common good while in reality their ties to one industry or another ensures that their interests will outweigh ours.
So George Monbiot is right: our political system is so corrupt and its main players so blind(not only in the US, the magnitude is just bigger)that expecting those guys to save the planet is a naive fantasy….
If they really meant it, they needed to tell us that the whole economic system must be changed: a ministry of ecology would have to override all other departments and all production must be evaluted according to its ecological consequences before production starts. Organizations like the WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, etc. have to be replaced by regional instutitions who give economic advice but do not coerce nations to follow hare-brained economic schemes in order to get loans (they can never repay)which “enable” them to devastate the environment like we do….
All agriculture must be converted to the only viable production system: organic farming which follows the natural production cycle, operates with local sources and stops the crippling dependence on agrichemicals which in the long run reduce soil fertiliy, the most important asset a farmer has.
Energy production must be de-centralized (it will, if renewable and local energy-sources are used sensibly), big cars (let alone SUVs) will have to disappear completely - as all other incredibly stupid products who are sold only because the buyer is tricked into believing that it increases their social status, that they can feel superior to others….
Does not sound very appealing, does it? Personal freedom for producer and consumer would have to be curbed immensly in order to boost collective responsibility and save the planet from stupid and inefficient production methods where the most important cost (ecological consequences” are simply “externalized” to society. Privatize profit and socialize cost will no longer do.
This nightmare vision of a controlled economy would give “free market” advocates a heart attack and would imply that all that talk about “growth” was in effect a lot of BS because it ignored the fact that it is not the economy that is the basis of our life but intact ecological systems (nature).
So,like the Titanic we keep steering towards the iceberg though this time it will sink us after dissolving into the sea….
Thanks for proving my point, maxpayne.
Did you ever have credibility on this site, because it’s long gone by now. You’re tossing around the word loser like this is some bad 80’s teen movie.
So if we follow the plot line, you end up mocked and alone by the closing credits. Pity…
Try dialogue next time. It’s not like I disagree with any of your actual points, but on principle no one’s going to help your argument or indulge your rants.
MaxPayne,
I agree with Peace Czar. You’re not helping.
Firstly, could you please explain, preferably without calling me a loser, how you can use a plant for fuel without burning it? Otherwise, unless I was lied to by my chemistry teacher, combustion creates CO2.
Secondly, I think the issue the article is dealing with is that, without some kind of government intervention, nobody is going to bother to look for new ways to cut emissions or use any of the ones we already have. It’s all fine and dandy to propose a solution, but until the government creates a situation where said solution is more economically viable than fossil fuel, I’m afraid we’re not going to see any action. I also think he’s correct in saying that our elected officials care more about big oil’s bucks than their constituent’s concerns.
minitru,
Great points! I especially liked:
“Moral behaviour is for the ordinary citizen, not for the business and political elite who prefer Machiavelli´s writings over the bible (or other sources of ethics).”
That reminded me of how the corporate media constantly implies that the non-elites are going to have to make all the sacrifices, because the elites are too smart to do it. It’s basically saying that the non-elites have to accept losing because the elites are the smart ones and they are determined to win no matter what, and so it is better to accept losing than to fight a hopeless battle. Or, the elites will never blink first, and so the non-elites must blink or we all lose.
However, I might quibble with the statement:
“it is not the economy that is the basis of our life but intact ecological systems (nature).”
Non-human nature does not provide for human needs without human manipulation of that nature (that nature itself, or at least the living part of it, is a collection of a huge variety and number of different animals and plants manipulating their surroundings to meet their own needs). Long ago the Chinese came up with a framing of the struggle that is clearly superior for the long-term to the Western framing — the goal is achieving harmony with nature, finding harmony between meeting human needs and maintaining the health and beauty of the environment. That makes it even more tragic that the Chinese have completely abandoned that approach in their determination to catch up with the West, so as not to be dominated, by adopting reckless Western capitalist attitudes and policies.
AnguselheimStudios = “Peace Czar” = braithwa842 = karlof1
You LOSER(S) are completely pathetic. A simple google search on “hemp” and “global warming” would show you how not all plant fuels contribute to global warming unless you LOSERS are too fucking lazy to try that for a change. Of course BIG Government isn’t going to make it easy because you LOSERS keep begging them to “support” you even as they’re selling your ASSES to Wall Street in silver platters ! Until you vote for leaders who actually believe in their constituents and not the Big Money jerks, you’re just rendering yourselves into the LOSERS’ column but I understand you crybabies don’t fucking get it.
Alright, so I sounded like a “sargeant” pissing too many of you off but I still am not backing off my arguments. I still believe in harmless transitions instead of rough-shedded ones like what Monbiot proposes.
All right, here it goes:
maxpayne,
I did your little google search as soon as I had the time, and this sit was a the top of the list:
http://www.ukcia.org/industrial/hemp/globalwarming.html
“Biomass production still produces greenhouse gases, although the idea is that the excess of carbon dioxide will be used up by growing hemp plants”
There are already a lot of hemp plants growing now, and global warming is still an issue. I feel some of the other alternatives, such as solar or wind, would be a more efficient way to curb greenhouse gas emissions. As I stated earlier, when you burn shit it produces CO2. In any event, the best way to stop this problem is to convince the masses to STOP BUYING SO MUCH SHIT!
As for your unfounded insults, I’m not just asking the government to “support” me. I’m demanding that they stop “selling our asses”… and what exactly makes you think I don’t vote for leaders who believe in their constitutes? The fact that I vote for the right person doesn’t really mean they’re going to get elected. I mean, for fuck’s sake, do you really think I voted for Dubya? The problem isn’t that we’re voting for the wrong people, it’s figuring out how to convince the rest of the nation to vote for the right people. I’d also like to add that not calling everybody who disagrees with my opinion a “looser” doesn’t make me a crybaby, and it does make you seem like a 12 year-old. Learn to have an adult discussion or take a fucking hike.
maxpayne:
Don’t assume we’re all mainline Democratic shills canoodling with Wall Street, you little pissant.
You’ve got a pretty binary understanding of the world. If we don’t unanimously agree with you, we MUST be part of the problem.
Try telling the world that hemp is the here-all and end-all.
Monbiot is right… a slightly uncomfortable paradigm shift is in order ASAP, NOW. Otherwise, as even Al Gore says, it will get more and more difficult (and painful) down the road.
What are you, anyway, some angry protester kid with your newfound love for Rasta culture, ranting about Narcs and espousing hemp as the way to salvation. GROW THE FUCK UP.
What LOSERbiot FUCKtards such as AnguselheimStudios aka “Peace Czar” don’t want you to know about hemp and its uses and contributions to better manufacturing of solar panels and wind mills/turbines I shall present here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rwy65J5hyI
http://www.taima.org/en/fibre.htm
Anyone who says that hemp contributes to “global warming” didn’t read/watch those two sources above.
I never said I was against hemp for other purposes, all I’m saying is BURNING SHIT RELEASES CO2! I think it’s counter-productive to burn ANY kind of oil, hempseed oil included. Yes, growing the fucking hemp plants will clean CO2 from the air, but what I’m asking is why burn the oils the plants produce and put CO2 back into the air, when there are other means of creating energy that release NO CO2 WHATSOEVER? If you were talking about using the hemp plant only for fibers, wood, and cooking oil, then I’d agree with you. When you talk about biomass you’re talking about putting back some of what we’re trying to take out. If you can’t understand why some of us feel that is a little silly then I think you need to go smoke a joint and OPEN UP YOUR MIND!
I take that back, perhaps the problem is that you need to lay off that grass for a little while and clear up your mind. There is such a thing as too much dope, you know.
AnguselheimStudios aka “Peace Czar”,
You’re a PATHETIC LOSER like LOSERBiot and you make me laugh my fucking ribs off but nothing’s gettin’ into your RETARDED brain. Because I smashed your LOSERBiot’s opposition to biofuels false claims, the only thing you can do is parrot the rightwing argument of “weed causing brain damage”. Tell you what. Go ahead and keep poisoning your DAMAGED brain and body with “Happy Meals”, Viagra, alcohol, tobacco, tv with sleazy BULLSHIT, etc … You’re the LOSER who needs to GROW UP FIRST.
I speak my own opinions, and I’m speaking from experience on the too much dope deal. By the by, the right wing stance on pot is that “Any is too much”. You didn’t smash any of my claims. Combustion causing CO2 emissions is a reality you’re going to have to face.
Maxpayne,
Calm down!!!
Yyou are right about hemp. You are right that it is an important PART of the solution.
I dont actually disagree with the things that you have said. NO WAY am I against viable energy alternatives. NO WAY is Monbiot against such alternatives either. I think we are on the same side here, as far as I can tell. We absolutely do need the alternatives if we do manage to stop the oil and coal.
I am no expert, but my GUESS is that hemp is carbon neutral. While growing, it takes carbondioxide from the air and releases oxygen into the air. While burning, the reverse happens. So it takes part on both parts of the carbon cycle.
I know that hemp is not marijuana. This has nothing to do with narcotics. I tried smoking hemp while I was in China. It ruins your lungs, but smoke as much as you like, it has nothing in it to get you stoned. The laws against hemp in the USA and other western countries are jsut plain STUPID! Hemp (and perhaps not marijuana) needs to be legalised so that commerce can start using it for for clothing, for food and for alternative energy. I am also aware that it is vastly more efficient than growing corn. The real reason behind the marijuana/hemp mixup is because hemp makes better cheaper clothing than cotton, and doPont funded the anti-hemp campaign in order to wipe out its major competitor.
But oil and coal have provided us with a free ride. So much concentrated energy for only the cost of pulling it out of the ground. Once we stop that, everything is going to cost a lot more. And, as Monbiot points out, we absolutely need to drastically reduce our energy consumption down to a level that these alternatives can provide or life on this planet is eventually headed for oblivion.
I’ve grown cannabis for forty years – and never sold an ounce. I may be a backwards fool in not making money off the weed but perhaps a backwards magician in helping the atmosphere – if not enlightening the atmosphere of this forum; maybe more in working with life to really count.
I cultivate the weed then rework the roots and stems (mainly carbon parts) back into the soil which sequesters it (so it’s not carbon neutral) and also plays a role as green manure for growing other crops organically. Cannabis can grow so thick it also suppresses unwanted weeds in successive crops. I eat and smoke the leaf which also sequesters carbon in my lungs and increases the chances of me dying from cancer – but,eh, that helps too in curbing population growth.
Don’t take yourself so seriously. Emotional losers get so serious in swearing and project problems onto others. Denying what others see does a lot to reveal the negative in ourselves. Jesus said it best: “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? We are all part of the environmental problem one way or the other. Work positively without the negatives.
Loof
Alright, I did a little more homework, and, while I didn’t really learn anything new, I feel I now have the vocabulary to state my argument a little more clearly, so that even if you don’t agree with me, you should be able to at the very least understand my point of view. In order to protect the environment from further damage, I feel we need to reduce not only our net carbon emissions, but also the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere.
The carbon cycle, caused by the plant’s absorption of CO2, and the Cannabis-Methanol’s combustion, is a “closed-cycle” in that it “causes no net increase of atmospheric CO2″.
I found the information here:
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/hemp.htm
Hemp Seed Oil would be perfectly fine, that is if we hadn’t been burning fossil fuel pretty much ever since we found out it burns. After we’ve reigned in the CO2 already affecting our climate, for instance, I could see this as an option. I’m just not willing to settle for “Not making it any worse”, I want to fix this problem.
Dig?
Anyhow, here’s my compromise:
Grow the hemp, but use it only for some of it’s other uses until we hit an atmospheric CO2 level similar to which we had before the industrial revolution. I’d say that’s about as win-win as we’re going to get.
maxpayne:
I say this with compassion. You’re fucked in the head. Paranoid, unbalanced, with some serious deficiencies.
I am NOT AnguselheimStudios nor any other moniker, nor do I spike my Happy Meals with Viagra. Last I checked, I was a non-smoking vegan.
Tell you what… when I go home tomorrow for Christmas, I hope they’re some pot kicking around for a holiday toke!! Yet you imply I’m for the drug war and against hemp. I just said I am all in favor of hemp in a previous post!!
You, lad, are an unhinged nutjob. Are you in withdrawal or did you spike your hallucinogens with meth, because you’re verge on violently psychotic.
Hemp may be one of the best biofuel crops, but it would still only be a tiny fraction of the fossil fuel energy we consume. The only thing on the shelf right now that could possibly make a big dent in CO2 emissions and maintain the current standard of living is nuclear power, and even that would be a crash project of hundreds of reactors over 20 years.
Sooner or later, the world will have to drastically ration fossil fuel energy while we build an all electric or electric/hydrogen/biofuel economy. That will mean alternative ways to pay for goods and services as most of us won’t have jobs. Almost no cars. Electricity on only a few hours per day. Air travel would be almost completely eliminated. Heating a single family (and especially single person) house will no longer be possible until non-fossil electric is available. We will have to share our rations in large groups.
All this probably won’t happen until those 100 degree heat waves are 105 degrees, crops are failing everywhere, water is gold, and people are starving by the millions. The polar bears, walruses, and penguins might not make it unless zoos or reserves can keep breeding populations going. Life might be miserable for several generations, but we can eventually turn the earth into the garden it was meant to be.
That is one reason why police left Marc Emery’s seed selling business alone because the only way you can tell the difference between marijuana seeds and hemp seeds is if you planted them and waited to see what they grew into. They figured that they had more important things to worry about - unlike the Americans.
The Americans want us to extradite Marc Emery so that they can put him in jail for the rest of his life.
Seems that Harper wants Canada to do everything the Americans want us to do.
However, I think that the former Alliance branch of the Conservative party will always have a soft spot for Alberta oil, so they would be doing the same environment policy even if Kucinich became President.
Don’t let Baird convince you that he was only holding out to get the Americans on board.
maypayne:
What about the problem of biofuel production crowding out food production and increasing food prices?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/18/5885/
The Bush Administration’s environmental destruction is just as bad as the ‘mess’ made in Iraq —if not worse. As much as I try to understand why anyone would want to literally destroy our beautiful earth, like the most of the Republicans seem aimed at doing, it is mind boggling.
What the Bush Administration and other Republican’s (like Sen.Inhofe or OK) is absolutely criminal.
http://theearthblog.spaces.live.com