Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
G77: 'US Should Spend as Much on Global Warming as War'
Poor countries have demanded that the US spends as much on tackling climate change as it does on warfare.
The row between the rich countries and the developing world intensified at the Copenhagen summit, as China and its supporters blamed America for "endangering the world" by refusing to hand over more cash.
A banner calling for 'Climate Justice' hangs from a church in Copenhagen December 5, 2009. Copenhagen is the host city for the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009, which lasts from December 7 until December 18. (REUTERS/Bob Strong) Developing nations are pushing for £120bn ( $200bn) to help them tackle the effects of global warming, which is double the amount of money currently on the table.
In a new twist to the negotiations, Lumumba di-Aping, chief negotiator of the China and the G77 group of nations, made a direct appeal to US politicians to reapportion cash currently set aside for global financial emergencies.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) holds billions of pounds to bail out countries suffering cash shortages.
Developing nations now argue that it should be offered in loans, so that they can they can build sea defences, plant forests and invest in renewable energy.
"The American Congress has to be asked: you approve billions of dollars in defence budgets. Can't you approve $200bn to save the world?" Mr di-Aping said.
The proposal to use the emergency funds was first suggested by George Soros, the billionaire US investor.
Mr Soros warned that the row now engulfing Copenhagen could "wreck the conference".
The rift was sparked by Tuvalu, the tiny island state, that has staged noisy protests at the talks. It is calling for any deal to restrict warming to a rise of 2.7F (1.5C).
It was backed by other vulnerable nations in Africa and the leaders from developing nations that make up more than half the world's countries.
However, this would be almost impossible and most countries have made it clear they would not sign up to such a strict target.
Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, US President Barack Obama called on countries negotiating at Copenhagen to "reach for the world that ought to be".
But at the summit, developing countries renewed their strong criticism of the President for refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol - a key source of disagreement.
They want to keep the global treaty, which forces rich countries cut their carbon dioxide emissions by fixed amounts but makes developing countries exempt from binding targets.
Others want a whole new treaty forcing both rich and poor countries to reduce their greenhouse gases.
Under former President George Bush, the US consistently refused to sign the treaty and it still does not have legally binding targets to lower emissions.
"We ask President Obama and the US to go into the Kyoto Protocol, because the world cannot achieve an equitable and a just deal that would save the planet without the participation of the US," Mr di-Aping said.
The European Union, including the UK, was also under pressure today as leaders met for the European Council. Again developing countries want the block of nations to increase funding to fight climate change and put up targets to cut emissions from 20 to 30 per cent by 2020.
- Posted in
23 Comments so far
Show AllIt is War or all the other stuff.
The world is gettin it now.
Global warming will only stop when the US collapses. No funds will ever be diverted from war to save the planet. That's total utopia.
The US is not only the world’s greatest polluter but also the most vile imperial force humanity has known. The greatest consumer of illegal drugs, the greatest exporter of arms, the greatest sponsor and financier of terror and guerrilla, not to mention the home of 95% of the world's serial killers, the fattest, the least educated and the most sexually repressed among the developed world. The US map's an ugly stain on the face of the Earth.
Its society's corrupt with greed, driven to irreversible decline by its thirst for profit. The sooner the collapse comes, the cleaner the air we breathe will be.
Them's fightin words unc_charlie..! Sometimes, being No. 1 is a sad commentary.
Of the litany of sins stated above, about the only thing that needs further explanation is that here in the US, like Nazi-Germany, the serial killers control all the weapons of mass destruction.. including nuclear!
What's truly unfortunate is that the relative peace that might exist for some seasons when the US is finally neutered, will be shortlived until other maniacal folks rise to the ocassion of world domination by any means necessary.
It's not a US issue, it's a human issue.
Damn!
You are not very bright. Maybe your feelings of inferiority vis America are clouding your vision.
The worlds greatest polluter is China.
The most vile imperial force humanity has known was the USSR.
95% of all serial killers who are CAUGHT are caught in the US. In Ciudad Juarez, in Vancouver, in Russia, the cops are too incompetent to catch them.
The worlds fattest country is Mexico.
The most sexually repressed are the Arab countries, the Arab world is also the least educated.
Sorry to break your inferiority wrought bubble.
Glenn Beck is that you darling.
Liar.
UC --- I think you put yourself out on a limb, and I think it just got sawed off--- While a couple of these are open to interpretation, those which can be objectively judged are properly stated by the person with whom you so disagree ---- (not that I think the US is utopian or deserves sympathy as a country), but IMO you sort of got carried away in your statement. dh
"The worlds greatest polluter is China."
I wouldn't go that far. You forgot to mention that "free trade" fraud called the "Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China" that is responsible for giving you your "cheap" products because you want everything so "cheap".
"The worlds fattest country is Mexico."
That sir is totally wrong unless you have evidence to back that claim that the USA doesn't exceed that.
"The most sexually repressed are the Arab countries, the Arab world is also the least educated."
I don't think that you can completely said that the Arab countries are the most sexually repressed. As far as education is concerned, it all depends on what you define as "education". At least they don't have to brainwash themselves with corporate trash.
"95% of all serial killers who are CAUGHT are caught in the US. In Ciudad Juarez, in Vancouver, in Russia, the cops are too incompetent to catch them."
The US is filled with serial killers unlike those countries where few if anyone ever bothers to be a serial killer in the first place. The economic and pro-war sentiment in this country make serial killers too easy to produce unlike other nations where very little of the economy is tied to the Military Industrial Complex.
I love my country the USA too but she ain't perfect either and correct it we must. You can't be a slave and have power at the same time.
Duh, have you read a book lately? Are you still in high school? You clealry believe in the fairy-tales you saw on TV. I got some land south of Key West for sale cheap, nice weather too.
The anger in this post by UC makes it extreme.
It shocks.
This extreme tone is fully justified.
The USA needs to be given a bloody nose, day in day out until it throws the insanity out.
For proof, read Obama's acceptance speech for the peace prize at the UN.
The President of the USA is eloquently mad.
Ah - the US doesn't spend money on "war", according to President Obama. It spends it on peace. Granted it kills a lot of people on the way, but its intentions are peaceful. Remember that next time you see Afghan or Pakistani villagers mourning their dead, blasted to bits by expensive US weaponry.
Kind of like the '60's and '70's mantra: "KILL FOR PEACE!"?
What is the "carbon footprint" of Mister Obama's Global Wars?
Good point, the US military has done a great job of releasing all sorts of chemicals, radiation, and gases into the atmospere. Not to mention destroying entire countries and killing millions.
It doesn't take money to resolve global warming but warfare costs money because of the money, talks, and other resources required to manufacture those weapons, lie and bribe recruits into the military, and putting people into a sense of a war mode. Cutting back on global warming on the other hand means resorting to peaceful ideas and lifestyles and it doesn't cost money to do it. It doesn't have to cost millions, billions, trillions, etc... to reduce global warming. While at it, why not provide incentives for more truly green jobs? How much does that cost compared to doing the dirtiest jobs such as coal mining and oil drilling?
This rift between rich and poor nations is a global version of 'every man for himself'. Unable or unwilling to see the train wreck coming, and which has been obvious for 20 years, countries are now going to bail on one another and let each one float separately (in the case of Tuvalu, literally).
Its obvious to most of us that Iraq and Afghanistan are about oil. So, the U.S. can spend trillions of dollars securing future oil supplies, but can't drop a dime in a bucket for global warming?
This is every man for himself. The ultimate triumph of conservative theory.
And, it just may ultimately, be the issue that unites a "coalition of the willing" to take on the US militarily. While we posess the world's greatest stockpile of WMD's, could we afford to use them, and cause others to join such a coalition? Use against all would be suicidal ---- "Houston, we have a problem". dh
There's an article worth reading (Hopenhagen's Dirty Secret) in Asia Times written by Pepe Escobar:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KL10Ad01.html
As with all the articles by Pepe they match or exceed the eloquence of Obama's writing but are devoid of the doublespeak and BS.
Amazing really, since English is something like Pepe's 4th or 5th language.
There's one major problem with the title of this article. America should be spending a lot on global warming INSTEAD of on war. We should not be in EITHER Afghanistan OR in Iraq. We should bring our troops home from ALL of the countries where we have military posts.
Why do we need American military personnel stationed in over 120 countries around the world? Why do we need 60,000 troops in Germany? Why are we still occupying Germany and Japan, almost 65 years after the end of WW II?
The Bush Regime did not need to spend billions trying to gain control over the Middle East because of oil. Perhaps some would have went toward Global warming, but most for the citizens of our country. Obama has continued what Bush and Gates demand, but don't blame Obama for the 8 years pior.
Wrong! If the US put aside its warmongering and concentrated in climate change, it could probably accomplish it all by itself.
How many of you get your power for your computer from a coal burning plant?
How many of you drive an internal combustion engine or use public transportation that uses fossil fuel of one kind or another?
who walks to work?
who has solar panels on their home?
who puts on a sweater and turns the heat down to 60 or 50?
"Let he who is with out sin cast the first stone"
Only $200 billion? If they only knew how much we actually spend waging war. We are the evil empire.
The United States just makes me vomit! The "cancer" of the Earth, affecting every corner of the planet.