What constitutes a global-warming ‘compromise’ in Bush World

December 15, 2007

For most of the week, the U.N.’s global-warming conference in Bali wasn’t going well, in large part because of the Bush administration’s obstinacy. The good news is, delegations reached a compromise early this morning. The bad news is, it’s painful to realize what constitutes a climate-change “compromise” in Bush World.

A U.N. climate conference adopted a plan Saturday to negotiate a new global warming pact, after the United States lifted opposition to a call by developing nations for technological help to battle rising temperatures.

The adoption came after marathon negotiations overnight, which first settled a battle between Europe and the U.S. over whether the document should mention specific goals for rich countries’ obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

So, what was the problem? As delegations worked on a document outlining future goals, European countries included language in the preamble mandating that industrialized countries reduce emissions by 25% — to 40% below 1990 levels — by the year 2020. The Bush administration balked.

The breakthrough came after over-night negotiations, when an Indonesian official recommended that the emissions targets remain in the preamble, but only as a “footnote” to the preamble. Chief U.S. negotiator Harlan Watson was satisfied, saying the Bush administration’s delegation could “live with” the footnote change, because it was an “indirect” mandate.

I vaguely recall a time in 2001 when Republicans rejoiced that “grown-ups” would finally be in charge at the White House. In retrospect, their glee looks almost quaint.

And what happens next? Another round of discussions.

Upcoming talks, to be completed in 2009, may help determine for years to come how well the world can control climate change, and how severe global warming’s consequences will be. […]

The broadly worded “roadmap,” in any event, doesn’t itself guarantee any level of emissions reductions or any international commitment by any country — only a commitment to negotiate.

That’s right — this week’s discussions, which the Bush gang resisted at every step, weren’t about establishing measures to combat global warming, they were about negotiating a framework for future negotiations.

Delegations will meet again next year, at which point the Bush administration’s delegation can resist any substantive progress all over again.

If these people realized what is going to happen to us they’d be scared enough to do something.
If it were not so tragic it’d be comical.
Consequences in this case are inevitable.All who ignore this inconvenient truth will be remembered in history.

  • Bush’s vested interests and political allies profit from no change in policy toward climate change. The entire international exercise to seriously and soberly address this now near future global worry is to placate or “appease” the nation that has already shown to the world it will wage aggressive war to capture a sovereign nation’s oil resources. More and more I see the current WH crowd trying to create a 4th Reich here in America. -Kevo

  • Rather than negotioating bad treaties, signatories should go ahead and produce the toughtest treaty they can get and don’t even bother approaching the US until Bush is out of office. It’s gonna take a Democratic President and 60 vote majority in the senate to get the United States into a CO2 reduction treaty.

    I say, quit offering up even the opportunity to reject a global plan.

  • Protect rainforest and fisheries? Eliminate clear-cut logging? Tax carbon fuels? Subsidize energy research? Curb weapons proliferation? Human (reproductive) rights? Economic fairness? End racism? Stop fueling religious zealotry? Promote democracy?

    Look at our actual priorities! Look at the indesputible data; We’ve stoked unsustainable developement. Cancer cells grow, but is it healthy growth?
    So, are we off-a-cliff? We’re leaving the natural world behind. But because we have powerful technology, some will continue to do better than ever,
    while others will struggle and/or die. Yes, it’d be ideal if we worked together
    for a common good. But drives to consume & reproduce overwhelm…If no all-out nuke war, or super-valcano, then life goes on.

  • Creation is a circle of evolution and we are approaching the big bang phase. The US is saying no to sustaining the human race and time is not on our side. Events that are predicted not to happen until far into the future will suddenly find reasons to be happening now.

    The Bush crowd think they can survive it all anyway perhaps by making underground hide aways for themselves and their wealthy friends leaving the rest of us to die on the surface to the events caused by climate change.

    All of it, the whole thing begins and ends with impeachment. History will document that all that occurs as a result of not standing up for the constitution at this time and impeaching this regime ultimately ends up dooming the human race. From all sides it comes that impeachment is the answer. The stubbornness of our democratic leaders on this issue defies logic. They not only refuse to help but do everything imaginable to block it’s occurring. It will become a deciding moment in history when conditions could have been prevented and even turned around that will end up affecting millions of American lives. The continuing damages from this administration are becoming irreversible yet impeachment is still being treated as a political issue rather than a moral or criminal issue. Justice is being ignored and that is deeply regrettable.

  • Note to U.N. diplomats about global warming tipping points: If, at the end of the Cold-war, Bush 41 had lead a worldwide redirection towards non-carbon energy sources, we might have acted soon enough to avert disastorous temperature increases. [Actually, the science was there for taking strong action in (heaven-forbid!) Reagan’s 1st term…Come to think of it, maybe that’s why we had a Reagan 1st term.]

    Now, looking at current trends, things seemingly are moving so fast [runaway-warming] that it may be only a slight exaggeration to suggest that the best to hope for is some effective triage from nurse’s Nancy & Hillary.

    • Comments are closed.