Poor Bush, he just can't get a break. He announces a shiny new climate-change strategy, and what does he get? Nothing but grief.
Nancy Pelosi called it "the same stale proposals he has repeatedly put forward to the international community."
Al Gore called it "purely and simply smoke and mirrors [that] has the transparent purpose of delaying the efforts that could start now."
Dan Froomkin called it an "attempt to muddy the debate about the issue and derail European and U.N. plans for strict caps on emissions."
Britain and Germany are not amused:
Britain and Germany yesterday joined forces to warn President George Bush that talks on climate change must take place within a United Nations framework and not in an ad hoc process floated last week by Bush.
...
'For me, that is non-negotiable,' the German Chancellor Angela Merkel said of the need to ensure that climate change negotiations take place within the existing UN framework.
And what about the right? What's the reaction from Bush's eternally faithful base? Mark Levin says this to the president:
You expanded the federal role in education, and we held our nose because of the war. You signed McCain-Feingold in the dead of night, and we held our nose because of the war. You expanded Medicare by adding prescription drugs, and we held our nose because of the war. You increased farm subsidies, and we held our nose because of the war.
Today you disparage us for opposing a massive amnesty program that endangers our economy and national security. Today you even embrace the religion of global warming, a stunning shift from prior policy (your administration even went to the Supreme Court and argued correctly that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant). What's a conservative to do?
I won't answer that last question.
Merkel decides to attend Copenhagen climate summit
Environment ministers meet to prepare climate summit
Merkel threatens no-show at Copenhagen climate talks
Comments
View as Threaded
Delay And Deny Posted 4:01 am
03 Jun 2007
When opposition party candidates, pundits and Europeans carp -- you know Bush must be right.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:07 am
03 Jun 2007
They say they want to do cap and trade.
But a "Better" system than what the UK is doing that "won't hurt the economy".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6716429.stm
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:20 am
03 Jun 2007
I like unilateral solutions that individual countries can adopt -- rather than trying to get everyone all at once to establish a standard (analogous to the difference between Breton-Woods and free floating exchange rates).
I think a better way to reduce pollution -- and also to make the consumer feel the result -- is for countries to create import taxes based on the amount of CO2 that was expended to make a product. This would make an efficient producer who puts the capital into scrubbers and efficiency not have to compete with a low cost polluting manufacturer (who is "dumping" CO2 goods on the market).
The other result of this is that people who are jumping up and down shouting "global warming" will be made to pay the price for wanting things a certain way. In some sense the ideal system would not be amoung nations, but amoung individuals. I have already proposed a logarithmic pricing scheme for energy consumption.
This plan would recognize that the middle class person is trapped into a system (autos, homes) that he cannot easily escape, and is forced to consume a certain amount of energy to survive.
However, that doesn't mean that others can inflate themselves into lifestyles that use twice, ten times or one hundred times that amount of energy ( Paris Hilton, Steve Ballmer, Sultan of Brunei would pay through the nose).
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 5:36 am
03 Jun 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:22 am
03 Jun 2007
Apparently, if Texas were a country.
It would be the seventh largest CO2 emitter in the world.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4856720.html
I guess you could call that leadership...
Permalink
Billhook Posted 9:16 am
03 Jun 2007
is the small matter of disrupting any G8 momentum for the adoption of binding targets and transitional national emission entitlements, served by trading in the latter.
Yet this assessment rests on giving credence to the regime's obsession with BRIC nations' verifiable, and enforceable, participation.
In reality, as Bush has now made very plain,
the regime does not wish the BrIIC nations
(Brazil - Indonesia - India - & China) and others
to sign up to binding commitments to an anuual cut in GHG outputs,
let alone transitional national emission entitlements,
served by trading in the latter.
"Long-Term Aspirational Goals," that will be agreed over an arduous 18-month US-hosted negotiation,
are apparently the desired outcome.
So, just supposing that this is merely the bidding front rather than the real ambition,
just what is the latter ?
It seems safe to assume that Haliburton's peers foresee GHG constaints looming,
and will now be looking to shape those constrains to optimize US corporate benefit.
As far as I can see, that requires the allocation of tradeable emissions entitlements by so-called "grandfathering,"
rather than by wealth (auctioning)
let alone by public (per capita) distribution.
Under this system, the major extant polluters are gifted entitlements by the state
not only to profit reliably from incremental GHG cuts,
but also to maintain market share by their raised advantage over new entrants to the market.
This is, of course, no less than the hasty privatization (siezure) of the entire national stock of personal GHG emission entitlements,
by the corporate state.
Sadly it appears that US E.NGOs are, once again, all too likely to be outflanked -
for while the somewhat shrill campaign for a Federal Carbon Tax
must appear like a gift-horse for GOP election strategists,
and an embarrassment for their Dem counterparts,
and a clear non-starter for the requisite bi-partisan consensus with future GOP presidencies,
that Carbon Tax option is in reality a neat diversion of attention from the efficient, equitable and electable alternative to "Grandfathering,"
namely the national distribution of tradeable personal emission entitlements.
What is just shameful is that Blair & his ilk are already remarking that EU & US must use "the same"
trading system for it to be effective -
i.e. the quislings are seeking to grant the US regime design rights on the system to be deployed,
when in fact that is a decision for all member-nations of the UNFCCC.
As to Bush's gambit, no doubt it will, if allowed, advance the day when the US eventally deigns to adopt that perverse allocation system,
but only if they are allowed to get away with it !
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
tico89 Posted 12:36 pm
03 Jun 2007
"The Brazilian position is clear cut," Mr Lula said. "I cannot accept the idea that we have to build another group to discuss the same issues that were discussed in Kyoto and not fulfilled.
"If you have a multilateral forum [the UN] that makes a democratic decision ... then we should work to abide by those rules [rather than] simply to say that I do not agree with Kyoto and that I will develop another institution."
...
"I am open-minded about talking to President Bush ... I will never refuse to discuss any idea, but we should respect the decisions made in the multilateral forums. It is the only thing we have all agreed on in a democratic way," he said. "If the US is the country that most contributes with greenhouse gases, in the world, it should assume more responsibility to reduce emissions."
Now, if we could just get him to rethink his take on biofuels...
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
Pathos Posted 4:41 pm
04 Jun 2007
Essentially two carbon taxes, one for manufacturers based purely on carbon footprint, and one for individuals based on actual energy use and income. Is anyone else digging this notion?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:51 am
05 Jun 2007
There are two chairs.
One produced by a factory in Illinois using highly paid American workers.
The other produced by 10 year olds in Cambodia.
Yet, the American chair is cheaper!
Why? Because all of its processes are run by solar panels, that generate their own hydrogen and which is pumped into fuel cells.
Imagine --
You drive up to the gas pump (or hydrogen filling station) in your fuel efficient, 150mpg Chevy Volt. You fill it to the brim -- and drive away paying $10 dollars!
Right behind you, a Hummer, which is part of a fleet, driven by Paris Hilton's profligate sister. She's on her way to a party at Bill Gates' mansion, which will be lit by old fashioned light bulbs, blazing into the night and have air conditioned tents.
She gets her first 10 gallons for $10 -- but each additional gallon costs her $10 more! Because she's exceeded her monthly "reasonable energy use level".
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink