You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
International-UN-NGOs
Key climate decision should wait for new Democrat US president: UN
2008-04-01
A global decision on how much rich countries should slash their greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade should be made after the United States has a new Democratpresident, the UN climate chief said Tuesday.
Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Convention on Climate Chang™e which is chairing talks in Bangkok, said the highly sensitive issue should be thrashed out next year, after the US elections in November.

"There are some topics which it makes sense to leave for later in the process, for example what sort of targets or commitments are industrialised countries going to agree to," he told reporters.

"That is something which is perhaps more sensibly discussed with a new administration."

Under President George W. Bush, who will leave office in January, the United States backed out of the Kyoto Protocol, the landmark pact on cutting emissions whose obligations expire at the end of 2012.

Bush argued that the treaty was unfair by making no demands of developing countries. But the three major candidates vying to replace him have all pledged tougher action on Global Warming™.

Frustration with the current US stance grew so great during landmark talks in Bali, Indonesia, in December last year that American delegates were booed during the conference's closing hours.

All participants eventually agreed to reach a new pact on post-Kyoto commitments by the end of 2009.

But the Bali Road Map contained no explicit mention of emissions cuts for rich countries.

The United States is pushing for fast-developing nations such as India, China and Brazil to sign up to binding carbon emissions cuts, while Europe is leading calls for rich countries to slash emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020.

De Boer said US participation had so far been positive at the Bangkok talks, which aim to lay out an action plan for negotiations toward next year's pact on halting the ravages of climate change.

"The US is very much engaged in the process here. That doesn't mean that we immediately have consensus and everybody is ready to sign up to a final deal," he said on the second day of the Bangkok meeting, which ends Friday.

He said the US delegation has been "constructive" in the Bangkok talks, including by putting forward an idea on how to organise key parts of the discussions on reaching a new treaty.

De Boer, who has warned that time is running out to forge a new pact on Global Warming™, said he was encouraged with progress in the Thai capital.

"We could potentially have had a big fight over the agenda, we didn't. We could potentially have had a fight over the fact that very interesting meetings are happening in parallel. We didn't," he said.

"I take from that a sense that countries really want to get down to work, rather than fight procedural wars."
Posted by:anonymous5089

#10  Well, Byrd and Hagel will probably be in the Senate next year. They can always reintroduce their resolution.
If these people really believed in glowbull wormening, they would be having teleconferences rather than flying around the world for their conferences. Or better yet, discussing it via regular mail, sent by sailing ships, since any other means of communication contributes to global warming.
Posted by: Rambler in California   2008-04-01 16:08  

#9  A global decision on how much rich countries should slash their greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade should be made after the United States has a new Democrat president, the UN climate chief said Tuesday.

Doesn't have to be a democrat - look at McCain's position on GW...
Posted by: Pappy   2008-04-01 13:41  

#8  I hope you understood 'Twas only a pun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square

Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-04-01 13:33  

#7  Well, at least I didn't try to confuse them with sciencey words like Maunder Minimum and Sun Spot Cycle 23.
Posted by: SteveS   2008-04-01 13:11  

#6  SteveS,

Insulting journalists about "more changey" makes you a mean square.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-04-01 13:08  

#5  They aren't supposed to know all that...stuff.

If they could deal with icky stuff like facts, history and arithmetic, they would not have gone into journalism.

Personally, I think we should shut down the gloabal economy NOW! Each day we waste is another day colder. I mean, warmer. Errr, more changey.
Posted by: SteveS   2008-04-01 13:03  

#4  The left were always into the Big lie stuff, and you can't get a bigger lie than Gerbil Worming.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-04-01 12:13  

#3  Hey, they're reporters. They aren't supposed to know all that...stuff.
Posted by: tu3031   2008-04-01 10:33  

#2  "Under President George W. Bush, who will leave office in January, the United States backed out of the Kyoto Protocol"
Bull crap. Total bull crap. In 1997, three years before Bush was elected, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations. In 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol anyway. The Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified by the U.S. Senate. It has never come even remotely close to ratification. Blaming Bush is absurd. Blame Al Gore for living a fantasy and disrespecting the will of the U.S. Senate.
Posted by: Darrell   2008-04-01 10:10  

#1  I think they have concluded that Bush has realized that they are not only full of shiat, but are trying to get the US to do all the heavy lifting while they cash in with a scummier scam than food for oil.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-04-01 10:02  

00:00