| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| New climate deal upsets nations in Kyoto pact (Heh) |
| 2005-07-31 |
| A new American-led initiative to combat global warming met with a cool reaction yesterday as Europe and environmentalists warned that it risked undermining the Kyoto Protocol. To the bewilderment and irritation of some of Washington's allies who knew nothing in advance of the pact, America, Australia, China, India, South Korea and Japan unveiled a plan yesterday to seek new technology to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Robert Zoellick, the US deputy secretary of state, insisted the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate was not a threat to the Kyoto agreement, which sets strict targets for cuts in emissions by 2012. America and Australia are the only developed nations to have refused to sign up to Kyoto. They say it penalises industrialised nations by not incorporating developing nations, and also that it threatens jobs. "We are not detracting from Kyoto in any way at all. We are complementing it," Mr Zoellick said, as the plan was announced in the Laotian capital, Vientiane, on the sidelines of an Asian security forum. "Our goal is to complement other treaties with practical solutions to problems," he said. The new initiative does not set targets for emissions, as desired by Britain at the Gleneagles G8 summit earlier this month. Rather it calls for voluntary unenforceable targets, and also for new technologies from "clean coal" and wind power to a new generation of nuclear fission to reduce pollution and address fears over climate change. Washington has long been looking for a way to sideline Kyoto and hailed the involvement of China and India, two of the world's major polluters, which have ratified Kyoto but are not subject to the 2012 deadline. But it met scepticism in Brussels, where a European Commission spokesman expressed concerns about its emphasis on exploring cleaner technologies, rather than efforts to reduce energy consumption. Leading environmentalists also expressed misgivings. Lord May of Oxford, president of the Royal Society, said: "The science points to the need for a Herculean effort to make massive cuts in the amount of greenhouse gases that we pump into the atmosphere. So, while this encouraging new deal may play a role in this, it will only be part, and not all, of the solution. "But we have serious concerns that the apparent lack of targets in this deal means that there is no sense of what it is ultimately trying to achieve or the urgency of taking action to combat climate change. And the developed countries involved with this agreement must not be tempted to use it as an excuse to avoid tackling their own emissions." The plan was hatched in secret over the last year and took British officials by surprise, although this was denied by a spokesman for the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs. "We have known about this in general for some time. We welcome any action taken by governments to reduce greenhouse gases in order to combat dangerous climate change," said a Defra spokesman. John Howard, Australia's prime minister, who is seen in some conservative circles in Washington as President George W Bush's only ideologically consistent ally, called the deal a "historic agreement" and "superior to the Kyoto protocol". Heh. Rock on, John. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #7 Classic NIHS - "Not Invented Here Syndrome" |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-07-31 17:36 |
| #6 Actually I think that transfer of wealth was supposed to be from the US to the EU. The Europansies can choke on it, especially the Greens. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-07-31 16:14 |
| #5 Not for the socialists LOL. |
| Posted by: anon ex-lib 2005-07-31 13:35 |
| #4 That bastard Bush! First he liberates Afghanistan and Iraq, then he inks an agreement that actually does something about emissions, unlike that feel-good Kyoto pap. Will the horror never end? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-07-31 13:16 |
| #3 You got it, Deacon. Transfer of wealth. Not solving the problem. "Our goal is to complement other treaties with practical solutions to problems," he said. Diplospeak, for sure by Robert Zoellick, but right on the mark. The group's aim is to solve problems, to bring every up. Not bring the countries with wealth down. Hope that it works out. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-07-31 12:57 |
| #2 The Kyoto supporters don't like the new agreement because it doesn't transfer wealth from the Big Bad US and Australia to the Poor, Little developing Nations. In this regard it does conflict with Kyoto. Kyoto has never really been about reducing "greenhoud gasses" but the transfer of wealth. The new agreement does promise real reductions through technological advances. The only thing the Kyoto agreement does is ask people in developed countries to quit driving and quit generating electricity while encouraging India, China, and undeveloped countries to increase production of "greenhouse gasses". |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-07-31 10:53 |
| #1 And Reagen actually pushed for a reduction in overall nuke holdings rather than an agreed to higher ceiling of previous treaties, only to be portrayed as a warmonger. Its all about power, never about the particular subject matter being spit out by the critics. |
| Posted by: Speretch Thromomp3699 2005-07-31 08:44 |