G8 Agrees to Emissions Cuts

[jdperren 0]

G8 Agrees To Emissions Cuts

So, far the agreement appears pretty vague, except for this one frightening statement:

"But the EU source said that in the final G8 text, leaders would acknowledge the desire of the European Union, Canada and Japan to cut emissions by at least 50 percent by 2050 -- in line with Merkel's stated target."

However, if you read carefully, it says they acknowledge a desire, not agree to take action. Given that it's a G8 statement, and the leaders have announced intentions to involve the UN, its likely no coherent action will be taken. But that they agree in principle to the goal is troublesome enough.

The rest of the article talks mostly about Bush's soft-peddling Putin's agressive statements.

[Jay P 0]

G8 Agrees To Emissions Cuts

So, far the agreement appears pretty vague, except for this one frightening statement:

"But the EU source said that in the final G8 text, leaders would acknowledge the desire of the European Union, Canada and Japan to cut emissions by at least 50 percent by 2050 -- in line with Merkel's stated target."

However, if you read carefully, it says they acknowledge a desire, not agree to take action. Given that it's a G8 statement, and the leaders have announced intentions to involve the UN, its likely no coherent action will be taken. But that they agree in principle to the goal is troublesome enough.

The rest of the article talks mostly about Bush's soft-peddling Putin's agressive statements.

Setting a goal that is ridiculously unachievable (50% cuts) and also so far off in the future, tells me that this is just grandstanding - these are promises that don't mean anything.

By 2050, most, if not all, of these people will be dead, and in any case, some summit back in 2007 will be so far in the past that nobody will remember it. None of them will lose his job because the goal isn't met. So they're saying things that they probably hope will please the ecofreaks (who will of course never be satisfied) at no cost to themselves.

It'd be kind of like if our politicians were to promise to "fix" the social-security welfare mess by 2050.

As far as I know, no country is even on target to meet the far more modest goals of the Kyoto treaty by 2012. The European countries sure aren't. They're going to fail - which will be a good thing, considering the evil of this treaty.

Environmentalism remains a threat, but it hasn't gotten any worse here if all they can achieve is to get some politicians to express a "desire" for something to happen (by unspecified means) in 43 years, without anybody committing to any action.

About the only bad thing is these people agreeing that we need to "do something" about "global warming", but that's what they already thought anyway, so it's nothing new. These fools aren't going to be around to say what happens over the next four decades.

43 years is plenty of time to bury environmentalism.

[Tom Rexton 0]

Setting a goal that is ridiculously unachievable (50% cuts) and also so far off in the future, tells me that this is just grandstanding - these are promises that don't mean anything.

By 2050, most, if not all, of these people will be dead, and in any case, some summit back in 2007 will be so far in the past that nobody will remember it. None of them will lose his job because the goal isn't met. So they're saying things that they probably hope will please the ecofreaks (who will of course never be satisfied) at no cost to themselves.

It'd be kind of like if our politicians were to promise to "fix" the social-security welfare mess by 2050.

As far as I know, no country is even on target to meet the far more modest goals of the Kyoto treaty by 2012. The European countries sure aren't. They're going to fail - which will be a good thing, considering the evil of this treaty.

Environmentalism remains a threat, but it hasn't gotten any worse here if all they can achieve is to get some politicians to express a "desire" for something to happen (by unspecified means) in 43 years, without anybody committing to any action.

About the only bad thing is these people agreeing that we need to "do something" about "global warming", but that's what they already thought anyway, so it's nothing new. These fools aren't going to be around to say what happens over the next four decades.

...

They may not be around by that time, but the thousands of hordes from universities (nowadays indoctrination begins at grade school) in Europe and the US who take environmentalism and global warming more seriously will be, so I wouldn't brush their "desire" aside any time soon. It will likely take longer than 43 years for the generations of people who were raised to take environmentalism seriously to die away, assuming life expectancies continue to lengthen in the future. Of course, if eco-freaks succeed in their de-industrialization schemes they'll drastically reduce world population and likely wipe themselves out! Unfortunately, they'll kill many other innocent people as well.

[jdperren 0]

By 2050, most, if not all, of these people will be dead, and in any case, some summit back in 2007 will be so far in the past that nobody will remember it. None of them will lose his job because the goal isn't met. So they're saying things that they probably hope will please the ecofreaks (who will of course never be satisfied) at no cost to themselves.

It'd be kind of like if our politicians were to promise to "fix" the social-security welfare mess by 2050.

As far as I know, no country is even on target to meet the far more modest goals of the Kyoto treaty by 2012. The European countries sure aren't. They're going to fail - which will be a good thing, considering the evil of this treaty.

Environmentalism remains a threat, but it hasn't gotten any worse here if all they can achieve is to get some politicians to express a "desire" for something to happen (by unspecified means) in 43 years, without anybody committing to any action.

About the only bad thing is these people agreeing that we need to "do something" about "global warming", but that's what they already thought anyway, so it's nothing new. These fools aren't going to be around to say what happens over the next four decades.

43 years is plenty of time to bury environmentalism.

You make some good points, as does Tom Rexton. But do you not think that even the attempt to meet such goals, say over the next 10-15 years or more can do great harm? And, the fact that they all agree is principle, while not new, is disturbing. Here's one area where gridlock among politicians is very helpful. (I agree that it's mostly grandstanding, but even rhetoric can have a chilling effect.)

I do agree that 43 years is sufficient to 'bury environmentalism' as an active, forceful political movement. It will be an unfortunate irony if China turns out to be one of the major forces helping to bury it, by (among other things) resisting this sort of nonsense.

[Jay P 0]

You make some good points, as does Tom Rexton. But do you not think that even the attempt to meet such goals, say over the next 10-15 years or more can do great harm? And, the fact that they all agree is principle, while not new, is disturbing. Here's one area where gridlock among politicians is very helpful. (I agree that it's mostly grandstanding, but even rhetoric can have a chilling effect.)

I think that environmentalism is still a big threat; I just don't think that the G8 summit has made it any worse.

There already is the potential for great harm over the next 10-15 years. (In fact, here in Washington, the harm is already on its way, since we are no longer allowed to "import" any electricity that's generated by burning coal, and it's now law that by 2020, 15% of our electricity has to come from "renewable" sources.)

Let's say the G8 summit ends with a resolution that there's a "desire" to cut greenhouse gasses by 50% by 2050. But there are no timetables for intermediate reductions, and no requirements for anybody to do anything. I don't think that would lead people to pass any new laws that would further restrict CO2 production, because there'd be no requirements to do anything. People are already fretting unnecessarily about CO2 and passing bad laws, but they were already doing this before G8. They'll continue to do this.

Put it this way: if nobody cared about "global warming" in America, we could just shrug G8 off and do nothing.

And as for the politicians agreeing that global warming is somehow a threat, well, they had already agreed on this. So again, I don't think G8 has made it any worse.

If anything, I see the fact that the G8 summit could not produce anything more than a toothless statement of "desire" as a good thing. It might mean some of these politicians don't really want to do anything, so they just threw out some empty words as a sop to the ecofreaks. I don't know. I assume that the other politicians are as spineless as Bush is - probably even worse - so they could change their minds any time anyway.

I do agree that 43 years is sufficient to 'bury environmentalism' as an active, forceful political movement. It will be an unfortunate irony if China turns out to be one of the major forces helping to bury it, by (among other things) resisting this sort of nonsense.

Yes, what's happening in China is interesting. My understanding is that there's a new coal-fired plant (one "big enough to power a city the size of San Diego," in one article I read somewhere) starting up there about every week. I suppose that one possibility is that energy-intensive industries might move to China and leave the US. That would mean our CO2 production would drop, but of course it would be increasing in the world as a whole.

(Here's a possible irony. In the Pacific Northwest, because of our previously very cheap and plentiful (hydroelectric) electricity, we used to smelt large quantities of aluminum here. Producing aluminum - which is done in electrolytic smelters - takes about 6.5 kWh per pound. But, as electricity has gotten more expensive, the smelters have closed, one-by-one. So who's going to make the aluminum now?? It wouldn't surprise me to see the Chinese making it - perhaps using electricity that they generate by burning coal. And I'll bet the Chinese coal plants are nowhere near as efficient as American ones would be, and they also probably produce more real pollutants (things that could be genuinely harmful - I don't mean carbon dioxide of course, which is good stuff.))

I don't know what's going to happen to environmentalism in the future. It isn't really a guide to life - as for instance religion purports to be - so it isn't the sort of thing people can turn to to solve problems that are likely to come up in this culture in the coming years. It amounts to nihilism - a suicide pact. I think people will end up rejecting it because of its complete lack of giving any guidance to sustain human life. If some real crisis comes up - say for instance the Islamists manage to take out the core of a few US cities with atom bombs - people aren't going to be turning to environmentalism for answers and guidance about what to do. I think they'd be likely to drop it like a hot potato; I think that people turning to religious fundamentalism would be more likely. (Today around here, I see environmentalism mostly as a plaything of the elitist leftwing snobs who like to tell other people how to live their lives.) I probably won't live to see its demise, but my prediction is that "Earth Day" will be gone before its 100th birthday. Just like the Soviet Union in that respect.

Meanwhile, of course, environmentalism can and will do a lot of damage. Lots more people are going to die because of it - just look at the millions killed by malaria that could have been eradicated by DDT. It's frustrating for me to watch it, because I grew up during its rise to power and realized how bad it was back then. A destructive ideology if ever there was one.

[bborg 0]

You make some good points, as does Tom Rexton. But do you not think that even the attempt to meet such goals, say over the next 10-15 years or more can do great harm? And, the fact that they all agree is principle, while not new, is disturbing. Here's one area where gridlock among politicians is very helpful. (I agree that it's mostly grandstanding, but even rhetoric can have a chilling effect.)

Although this question wasn't directed at me, I have some thoughts on it.

I recently read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, in which an environmental group plans to stage climate disasters in order to bolster support for the movement. The seed of truth in the novel is the increasing desperateness of the environmental movement. Because environmentalists lack scientific evidence to support their claims, they rely on rhetoric. However rhetoric that's repeated doesn't have the same effect, and the media just loses interest. In a speech delivered to the Senate, Sen. Inhofe noted that, "Over the last 13 years, the IPCC has published three assessments, with each one over time growing more and more alarmist." There's a an article covering it here, although it's quite hard to read now (looks like the paragraph formatting was lost). Inhofe also spoke about the slanted coverage by the media and its use of doomsaying in “Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming”.

The point is, even though their case hasn't been improved at all, environmentalists act increasingly confident and they rely more on fear to spread the message. Skeptics are labeled "deniers" and Al Gore has done more than anyone to repeat the lie of a "scientific consensus" in order to intimidate anyone still sitting on the fence. Environmentalism is no longer even presented as something that can be debated, but as a fact that only "Big Oil" and those on the payroll would deny. There's a commercial that's been recently airing in my area. A man is standing on railroad tracks, and you hear a train approaching from behind him. The man says things like, "50 years? that won't affect me" and steps away from the track, revealing a little girl behind him and the train's impact imminent. Not a single fact in support of catastrophic global warming is presented in the commercial, but instead you are scared into supporting its message.

More scientists are coming out to criticize the movement. There's the recent program that was aired in Britain, called The Great Global Warming Swindle. I think in fact that there are more skeptics than ever, and the outrageous rhetoric from environmentalists used to intimidate their way into political control is now working against them. It was one thing to say that carbon emissions may be a contributing factor in the recent warming trend. To say, on the other hand, that humans are the dominant influence on climate and that if we do not adopt drastic economic regulation we doom future generations is a hard pill for many to swallow.

I think that we'll really see whether environmentalism will persist or disappear within the next couple years. The movement has reached its apex ideologically, and many who were just naive before are seeing its true nature now. The liberal media of course is going to continue to give global warming lip service, but they're now losing supporters rather than gaining them. Of course education is an issue, as environmentalism is being preached as science in public schools. However I'm hopeful that the conflict will turn the corner before that generation gains political influence.

[bborg 0]

What timing! Just after I posted that, the commercial aired. You can view it online at http://fightglobalwarming.com/viewads.cfm?video=train

Incidentally, the figure used was 30 years, not 50.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I recently read Michael Crichton's State of Fear, in which an environmental group plans to stage climate disasters in order to bolster support for the movement. The seed of truth in the novel is the increasing desperateness of the environmental movement. Because environmentalists lack scientific evidence to support their claims, they rely on rhetoric.

[...]

The point is, even though their case hasn't been improved at all, environmentalists act increasingly confident and they rely more on fear to spread the message.

Here's an example from a widely syndicated AP story I found in my newspaper yesterday:

NEW YORK (AP) - Rising seas, spreading deserts, intensifying weather and other harbingers of climate change are threatening cultural landmarks from Canada to Antarctica, the World Monuments Fund said Tuesday as it released its latest list of the world's most endangered sites.

This year's "100 Most Endangered Sites" list which includes sites in 59 countries on every continent is the first to add global warming to a roster of forces the organization says are threatening humanity's architectural and cultural heritage. Other factors include political conflict, pollution, development and tourism pressures, and a thirst for modernity in buildings and lifestyles.

"On this list, man is indeed the real enemy," Bonnie Burnham, the president of the New York-based fund, said in a statement. "But, just as we caused the damage in the first place, we have the power to repair it."

You can read the entire article here.

[bborg 0]

Incredible. Half the article doesn't even have anything to do with global warming, and the part that does blaims man for every weather event and climate change ("spreading deserts"?? how's that for imminent?). They don't even cite sources!

This is what I'm really hoping for, though. In order to retain the headline, global warming activists become more and more hysterical, to the point where even pseudoscience won't support their claims. The movement is coming to a head. People see the hysteria, and they see the calls for government regulation, but they no longer see the "science".

[PhilO 0]

In order to retain the headline, global warming activists become more and more hysterical, to the point where even pseudoscience won't support their claims. The movement is coming to a head. People see the hysteria, and they see the calls for government regulation, but they no longer see the "science".

It's no more a science than Christianity or Islam, but the latter do not want for lack of adherents, including fanatical ones.

[bborg 0]

It's no more a science than Christianity or Islam, but the latter do not want for lack of adherents, including fanatical ones.

That's true, but neither Christianity nor Islam have claimed that their beliefs are based on science.

[oldsalt 0]

I won't quote anything from this most excellent post at Melanie Phillip's Diary. Just go and read, and revel in the fact that not everyone, not even every leader, buys into the the human caused global warming scam.

The green shoots of reason.

[oldsalt 0]

Although it isn't strictly on point, I thought readers might also appreciate this archived article, published on July 4, 2005, in Der Spiegel, on aid to Africa, another outrage perpetrated at G8 conferences and actually a part of the Green agenda. Obviously, no one listens to those who are living in the hell of the West's "virtue."

"For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"

The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid Proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

P.S. After reading the two articles I've linked to, perhaps you wonder, as I do, why these things are not being said by the supposed leader of the free world.

[B. Royce 0]

Although it isn't strictly on point, I thought readers might also appreciate this archived article, published on July 4, 2005, in Der Spiegel, on aid to Africa, another outrage perpetrated at G8 conferences and actually a part of the Green agenda. Obviously, no one listens to those who are living in the hell of the West's "virtue."

"For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"

The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid Proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

P.S. After reading the two articles I've linked to, perhaps you wonder, as I do, why these things are not being said by the supposed leader of the free world.

Very interesting articles, Janet. Why aren't these things being said by the leader of the free world? Every "good" Christian, needs to be needed.

[PhilO 0]

Has Melanie Phillips read Ayn Rand? Some of what she writes seems to come from somebody who's studied Objectivism.

[bborg 0]

I won't quote anything from this most excellent post at Melanie Phillip's Diary. Just go and read, and revel in the fact that not everyone, not even every leader, buys into the the human caused global warming scam.

The green shoots of reason.

This is a great find. Just FYI, Melanie Phillips does link to the full speech, however I think this link is a bit better for general distribution. Given that he was answering questions from the US House of Representatives, I was a bit disappointed that I could not find the transcript on a US .gov site, where it belongs.

I found a related interview cached in the yahoo system, previously hosted by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. For some reason the direct page is inaccessible. You can reach the cached page here. In the interview, Klaus calls global warming a "false myth", blasts the IPCC as a politicized group and reproaches the interviewer for asserting that man is ruining the planet. He responds that, "Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't." He also points out that the more wealthy and technologically advanced a society is, the better its environment is treated, and that historically societies that deny private ownership suffer more environmental problems than ones with free markets.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I won't quote anything from this most excellent post at Melanie Phillip's Diary. Just go and read, and revel in the fact that not everyone, not even every leader, buys into the the human caused global warming scam.

The green shoots of reason.

Another courageous female commentator! Melanie Phillips is absolutely wonderful. It's great to know that she is not just a one-issue advocate but seems to be for reason and Western Civilization in general.

[bborg 0]

I gave her site a second look, and her writing really is impressive. I was reading one of her diary entries on the boycott against Israel, which was surprisingly insightful. I decided to post about the page on my blog.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The point is, even though their case hasn't been improved at all, environmentalists act increasingly confident and they rely more on fear to spread the message.

Pacifists and environmentalists share the same anti-reason, anti-capitalism, anti-Western Civilization orientation and the two are beginning to merge explicitly. A recent article in New Scientist claims that a significant cause of war may be -- global warming!

Rainfall records could warn of war

30 May 2007

NewScientist.com news service

Jim Giles

EVERY month, the International Crisis Group makes predictions it hopes won't come true. The non-profit organisation, which has its base in Brussels, Belgium, monitors regions where conflict is brewing. By tracking precursors of armed struggle, such as political instability, it raises awareness about looming wars in the hope of stopping conflicts before they begin. And as of this month, it will start talking about whether to include another variable in its analyses: climate change.

The discussions come after a wave of interest in the link between climate change and conflict. Last month, a group of retired US admirals and generals said global warming would act as a "threat multiplier", with events such as droughts toppling unstable governments and unleashing conflict. The UN Security Council has devoted time to the matter, and media reports have described the crisis in Darfur, Sudan, as the first "climate change war", due to the decades of droughts that preceded the conflict.

....

Read the rest of the article here.

[B. Royce 0]

The point is, even though their case hasn't been improved at all, environmentalists act increasingly confident and they rely more on fear to spread the message.

Pacifists and environmentalists share the same anti-reason, anti-capitalism, anti-Western Civilization orientation and the two are beginning to merge explicitly. A recent article in New Scientist claims that a significant cause of war may be -- global warming!

Rainfall records could warn of war

30 May 2007

NewScientist.com news service

Jim Giles

EVERY month, the International Crisis Group makes predictions it hopes won't come true. The non-profit organisation, which has its base in Brussels, Belgium, monitors regions where conflict is brewing. By tracking precursors of armed struggle, such as political instability, it raises awareness about looming wars in the hope of stopping conflicts before they begin. And as of this month, it will start talking about whether to include another variable in its analyses: climate change.

The discussions come after a wave of interest in the link between climate change and conflict. Last month, a group of retired US admirals and generals said global warming would act as a "threat multiplier", with events such as droughts toppling unstable governments and unleashing conflict. The UN Security Council has devoted time to the matter, and media reports have described the crisis in Darfur, Sudan, as the first "climate change war", due to the decades of droughts that preceded the conflict.

....

Read the rest of the article here.

Now, if they can just get it right----War causes global warming!

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Now, if they can just get it right----War causes global warming!

Actually, war and "drought" have the same cause. Radio commentator and Russian Studies expert Dennis Prager noted that Communist countries have a hard time producing enough food and tend to blame their famines on "drought." Prager said, "The first thing that happens when Communism takes over is that the rain stops falling."

[Tom Caldwell 0]

The Cool War

I have a book about current events to recommend. It is about low-level asymmetrical warfare. I recommended it to a friend 6-8 years ago because I knew that he had government contacts. I just looked the book up on the Internet because I did not remember the name of the author.

I discovered that the book is now among the recommended reading for government officials who deal with problems such as asymmetric warfare. It is a fiction book, and the story is not that good, but the nature of the activity (and the examples) is worth reading about.

The title of the book is "The Cool War" by Fredrik Pohl. For those of you who are not interested in asymmetrical warfare, other reasons (current events) you might read it are:

1. The deliberate salmonella contamination of produce in Washington state years back.

2. The hoof-and-mouth disease in pigs in England, 2001, killed 40,000.

3. The e-coli contamination of lettuce, spinach and other produce.

4. The multiple ignition sites of brush fires in California, and Georgia recently.

5. The arrival of an airplane load of people from Hong Kong, all with the flu.

6. Multiple and repeated outbreaks of Norovirus on cruise ships.

7. Dole Cantaloupe Salmonella contamination

8. Oscar Mayer's chicken strips with Listeria

9. Wesley Farms mushrooms with e-coli

10. Salmonella contamination in Peter Pan peanut butter -- an unusual type of salmonella at that.

11. Train wrecks involving hazardous chemicals

12. Truck wrecks involving hazardous chemicals (recently in California)

13. The number of chlorine gas cylinders that are being stolen in many US states.

14. 5.5-6.5 million pounds of hamburger meat contaminated with e-coli.

... And, much more in the years to come Welcome to the real world.

The important fact about low-level asymmetric warfare is the difficulty in proving it intentional and in catching the culprits. #1 Was only accidentally discovered when the commune behind the contamination was raided for other reasons, and the records and lab were discovered. #4 is believed to be arson because of the multiple ignition points.

Do you think it is possible that there are Muslims working in the food supply chain? Consider the consequences if most suppliers had their food supplies all contaminated at the same time. The only solution for safe food from suppliers is irradiation.

US security officials have commented many times about the number of Muslims seeking driver's licenses for Hazardous Materials. It has already been demonstrated that a tanker truck accident under a cloverleaf of highways can bring down the overpass and block the highways. Tanker trucks filled with chlorine are already used by terrorists in Iraq.

My Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, searches discovered there are lots of copies of _The Cook War_ available.