<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Bush administration, other G8 leaders agree to halve emissions by 2050]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Mike Frew http://www.grist.org/article/summit-of-its-parts/ Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:37:54 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/summit-of-its-parts/1 one step forward to get 16 back

...good to see the BBC point out that this commitment was made by everyone at Rio in 1992.

]]> one step forward to get 16 back

...good to see the BBC point out that this commitment was made by everyone at Rio in 1992.

]]> Comment #2 by Jake Schmidt http://www.grist.org/article/summit-of-its-parts/ Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:22:50 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/summit-of-its-parts/2 Who's leading the G8...Developing Countries?

While I think some are viewing this agreement as a success, I think it is important to put in context what could have been in the agreement if we had bolder leadership on this issue.  I actually did a comparison of what the G8 committed to at this meeting and what they committed to at the G8 last year and the recent meeting in Bali (it is available at: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/yup_just_as_ i_predictedno_g8_l.html).  What is new in this commitment isn't as bold as is being claimed when put into context.

In fact, the South African Environment Minister called into question the leadership of this statement and, as I mentioned in my commentary, more was put on the table by the developing countries in the lead-up to the meeting. Thankfully, they reiterated this statement in public as a part of the "Plus 5" statement (China, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, South Africa, and India) so we'll have a record of their proposal that can be built upon. This statement is available at: http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=40146.

Jake Schmidt International Climate Policy Director Natural Resources Defense Council


]]> Who's leading the G8...Developing Countries?

While I think some are viewing this agreement as a success, I think it is important to put in context what could have been in the agreement if we had bolder leadership on this issue.  I actually did a comparison of what the G8 committed to at this meeting and what they committed to at the G8 last year and the recent meeting in Bali (it is available at: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/yup_just_as_ i_predictedno_g8_l.html).  What is new in this commitment isn't as bold as is being claimed when put into context.

In fact, the South African Environment Minister called into question the leadership of this statement and, as I mentioned in my commentary, more was put on the table by the developing countries in the lead-up to the meeting. Thankfully, they reiterated this statement in public as a part of the "Plus 5" statement (China, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, South Africa, and India) so we'll have a record of their proposal that can be built upon. This statement is available at: http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=40146.

Jake Schmidt International Climate Policy Director Natural Resources Defense Council


]]> Comment #3 by Paleocon http://www.grist.org/article/summit-of-its-parts/ Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:00:16 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/summit-of-its-parts/3 Money smells stronger than pollution

It is interesting to the educated observer that the focus seems to be on places where money can be extracted as opposed to the places like India and China where the pollution exists and will continue to grow explosively. Clearly this touches a nerve when brought up because the point is mocked incessantly, but never addressed.

The fact that there is a job title of "International Climate Policy Director" is an indication that the tipping point has been reached. Too many paychecks depend upon Big Environment.

All the rest of us can do is "shrug" at some point. Cease the activity that produces the tax dollars that fund the machine.

 "Eventually environmentalists run out of other people's money."

Often misunderestimated

]]> Money smells stronger than pollution

It is interesting to the educated observer that the focus seems to be on places where money can be extracted as opposed to the places like India and China where the pollution exists and will continue to grow explosively. Clearly this touches a nerve when brought up because the point is mocked incessantly, but never addressed.

The fact that there is a job title of "International Climate Policy Director" is an indication that the tipping point has been reached. Too many paychecks depend upon Big Environment.

All the rest of us can do is "shrug" at some point. Cease the activity that produces the tax dollars that fund the machine.

 "Eventually environmentalists run out of other people's money."

Often misunderestimated

]]>