U.S. Pushes G8 to Remove Climate-Change Goals From Agreement

3 Comments – May 17, 2007

This article discusses a draft copy of the statement that will be made on climate change at the upcoming “Group of Eight” meeting. All such announcements or statements are circulated among the member nations so that they can each make changes or modifications of the document. This draft is newsworthy because it has fallen in line with current US official policy on the matter and, for the most part, disagrees with the recommendations of the IPCC reports put out over the last few months.

The U.S. requested changes to a Group of Eight declaration on climate change that eliminate some targets for reducing greenhouse gases and delete language stressing the need for urgent action.

The items the U.S. wants deleted are limits on global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), targets for a reduction of greenhouse gases to half of 1990 levels by 2050, and language that says tackling climate change is an “imperative not a choice.”

One passage that is crossed out in the draft states: “Climate change is speeding up and will seriously damage our common natural environment and severely weaken global economy with implications for international security. We underline that tackling climate change is an imperative not a choice. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed.”

The draft document calls for “a clear message on the further development of the international regime to combat climate change” to be delivered at the UN conference, another passage the U.S. wants deleted.

Kristen Hellmer, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. “There certainly is consensus that the Earth is warming, and we are working with G8 partners and developing countries to address this.”

, ,

Tags: , , , , , , ,

3 thoughts on “U.S. Pushes G8 to Remove Climate-Change Goals From Agreement”

  1. admin says:

    Scott –

    This has been a constant fear. The EU tried to “lead the way” on reducing their carbon footprint but leadership only works in sports teams not in international politics, IMO. Poorer nations have a very difficult decision to make – employ their people or be carbon friendly. The US and EU allowed their industries to get massive and keep their people employed throughout the 19th and 20th century. Now the 3rd world countries want to do that and there may not be room in the environment for them. So now the EU is hurting because they thought they could cut back and now they find that the rest of the world is taking advantage of them. Even worse, they are crippling themselves by limiting their options – no nuke plants (because of why?) and no gas plants because of geopolitics. WAKE UP EUROPEANS! Hurting your economy is not the answer to the world’s problems!

  2. Scott says:

    No nuke plants because of environmentalist Gaia worshippers who stir up public paranoia. Even though in 50+ years of hundreds of nuclear power stations, there were only two mishaps – Thre Mile Island (which was contained) and Chernobyl (which was due to the engineers fooling around and ignoring procedure, and maybe due to Communist era workmanship).

    But there is a legitimate danger today: Post 9-11, one could crash an airplane into a nuke station and cause tremendous contamination. The hawkish conspiracy theorists must see how petro-dollars and funding of terrorism might be hand-in-hand to keep the world reliant on fossil fuels.

Comments are closed.