Britain talks tough to Bush on Kyoto

Perhaps Britain will lead the world in combatting climate change

Published on February 15, 2004 By EMacy In Current Events

"Inaction due to questions over the science is no longer defensible"
What will it take to convince the Americans? They laugh and compare present data to data in the 70's, back when they called it*Global Warming* The propaganda makers ( US Giant multi-national companies) doesn't want the truth told_it isn't good for business...once again business scores over life as we know it on this planet.

Britain talks tough to Bush on Kyoto
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
15 February 2004

Britain has attacked President George Bush's administration for failing to take action on global warming, as part of an intensifying drive to get the United States to treat the issue seriously.

Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, took the opportunity of a speech on Friday at the American Association for the Advancement of Science to brand the President's position as indefensible.

Arriving straight from talks with senior officials in Washington, he pointedly reminded the US that it has signed up for the Kyoto protocol on combating global warming, which the President has been trying to kill.

And he added: "Climate change is real. Millions will increasingly be exposed to hunger, drought, flooding and debilitating diseases such as malaria. Inaction due to questions over the science is no longer defensible."

Sir David's speech is the latest shot in a campaign that opened last month when he published an article in the US magazine Science, saying that the Bush administration "is failing to take up the challenge of global warming" even though the US accounts for 20 per cent of the pollution that causes it.

He is speaking with the backing of the Prime Minister, who has decided that trying to make progress on tackling climate change should be a key priority when Britain both chairs the G8 group of the world's richest countries and holds the presidency of the European Union next year.

His close adviser, Peter Mandelson MP, said last week that Mr Blair regarded climate change as a threat second only to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

Downing Street sees differences on global warming as an opportunity to demonstrate that Mr Blair is not Mr Bush's "poodle". However, senior officials are worried that he will nevertheless fight shy of a direct personal confrontation with the President on the issue

Comments

EMacy

on Feb 17, 2004

Hmm...the quiet here is deafening.

Solitair

on Feb 17, 2004

It's a topic that has been hotly debated within the past few months here.

It's about time that Britian joins the rest of the EU in trying to make the US see the serious anture of this issue. I personally don't believe the US will budge under the current president. It may yet come to a WTO appeal against unfair trade advantages due to lenient environmental laws. That would make it a trade issue leading to a trade war and that's the only thing that seems to hurt. Look at how Bush backed down when the EU proposed tarriffs on products in important states to Bush's re-election hopes!

Paul.

Draginol

on Feb 17, 2004

You do know that it was curing the Clinton administration that Kyoto was rejected.

As for the treaty, it has no chance of passing in the United States. None whatsoever. The EU needs to get over it. Bush did propose having emissions tied to GDP output and it would have no special treatment for countries. A much fairer system. Rejected by the EU.

The US has very restrictive environmental laws already. I provided a chart not that long ago that demonstrated that the US is essentially as efficient with energy as the UK and Germany and such and more so than Italy, Poland, Czech. I don't consider CO2 a pollutant. If so, maybe you guys should stop breathing so much.

Draginol

on Feb 17, 2004

BTW, I would love to see the EU try to put up massive tarrifs on the US. It would wreck the EU economy more so than the US. The US has a huge domestic economy. It doesn't really need the EU. Perhaps you should look at t4he balance of trade sometime.

EMacy

on Feb 17, 2004

Thanks for comments. Brad I am sorry about the lack of concern you seem to have for the damage being done to *our* eco system. I'm sure our great- great-Grandkids will appreciate what we've left them. The attempt to reduce emissions and address pollution is wide and varied here in Holland( we signed the treaty) from loads of taxes depending on which sort of fuel you burn(diesal, petrol and LPG) , the cheaper the fuel the higher the road tax, and vice versa, a good international railway, that is efficient and another bonus of the Marshall Plan, thank you America,_a renewed infrastructure is still evident_ie: no above ground electric cables. Everything tucked safely away from future attack!
Solitair I think EPA has a clue what's happening and who is being paid off to continue emitting non-allowed gasses to flow freely. Like many States they have these clauses_that surpass EPA standards if they are " Grandfathered- before 1973" ( check Texas and how much they pay special interest groups to insure the " grandfather" clause remains in tact_they pay in large contibutions to whoever will grant continuance of burning dirty fuel, a practice that defies EPA regulations....Texas is full these "old boys" who are above EPA law_because they are paid off annually.
Until we, as people, rise above the almighty dollar, nationalties_or politics_the planet and our own humanity is the one who will suffer in the hands of those so determined to exploit for the sake of " profit" if America could stand behind the principles that were instilled in me and every other American :The Bill of Rights,the constitution, or The Bible_then they would see where the hypocrisy lies in not setting the example or trend of "right" no matter what the costs_ an effect that would have natural and long lasting benefit to generations to come.
Consigning themselves to a costly,but effective, treaty to simply reduce the harmful emissions ( in opposition to profits_short term...) that the country, itself is responsible for_by signing the Kyoto Treaty...maybe, we could put the brakes on a natural phenomonom, that will happen regardless, we have the power to apply the brakes on our eco-system_only the leaders take money to insure that this suicide of our Earth will inevitably happen sooner rather than later
As an intelligent race_we, EU or US or Timbucktoo, could slow down the process and place humanity before capitalism, we could demand our leaders place limits on the poisons they are freely allowed to emit...The science is there_but is " played down" lest Profits be a margined.
Just a concern...It's a fragile organism we are fortunate enough to live on and all bear witness to her demise ( progress, ain't it great?)
C

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!