“President Obama had hoped to emerge from this week’s Group of 8 summit meeting in Italy with a tentative agreement uniting rich and developing nations in a common fight against global warming. Instead he got a lesson on how divided the world remains on the issue — and how hard he will have to work to pull off an agreement,” a New York Times editorial argued. The editorial noted that Obama and the other leaders of the developed world “have yet to come up with the right mixture of pressure and incentives to get the developing countries to commit.” It argued: “If there is any chance of pulling this off, the developed countries are going to have to take away all excuses from China, India and other developing nations. The Europeans have already committed to deep cuts in their emissions. The United States is doing a lot better under Mr. Obama, but it is still lagging.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
33 Comments
China has well over one billion people and India more than one billion people. These two developing nations contain some 1/3 of the World’s uncounted, unaudited but rapidly increasing population. Each individual in the World’s 6 to 7 billion population want a standard of living like American’s have. That’s going to take a lot more food, energy, clean water, infrastructure, education, etc. The U.S. won’t have corner on these amenities much longer.
“The editorial noted that Obama and the other leaders of the developed world “have yet to come up with the right mixture of pressure and incentives to get the developing countries to commit.” It argued: “If there is any chance of pulling this off, the developed countries are going to have to take away all excuses from China, India and other developing nations.”
________________________
Weird how other countries are more concerned with their own interests than those of other countries. Geez, George Washington knew that in the 1700’s!
It’s what I can’t get over, that politicians believe the world runs on political fiat and speeches. The solution’s simple…create something better than oil! Until then, Obama’s peeing up the proverbial rope.
It’s the only way to truly cripple places like Russia, Middle East, Venezuela, Algeria, etc, which are all places that hate us and run virtually their entire country on oil that costs about 10% of what it costs us to produce oil here.
I’m all for alt forms of energy, but alt forms that are BETTER. Right now, that pretty much means nuclear power. All other forms fall shamefully short without the market manipulation of cap & tax self mutilation (funny how many Dems here like to make fun of Opus Dei folks self punishing, but feel it’s good to do in the face of the global economy). Figure out electricity storage and wind/solar make a lot more sense, not to mention that storage would make the “smart grid” & about 1/2 the existing power plants in all nations obsolete. But that doesn’t exist…when it does, “green energy” might make sense, but until then, (just for another peeing reference), Obama’s p’ing in the wind and telling us it’s raining.
The ‘Warmers’ forgot the one who has the biggest and most important vote in climate change – ‘Mother Nature.’
Ecclesiastes 1
Everything Is Meaningless
1 The words of the Teacher, [a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:
2 “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”
3 What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.
The group of 8 spent more time on Global warming; trying to reach a political agreement on something that Man has control over. We have other problems with Rogue nations wanting to kill somebody else. Terrorists that will kill anybody in their way. WE you don’t know what is going on either with your little petty articles. There is bigger fish out there than climate change up or down.
The US needs to lead by example in conservation and innovation, something we have neglected for far too long. We cannot ignore the obligation any longer.
Regular posted July 11, 2009 at 7:43 am
The ‘Warmers’ forgot the one who has the biggest and most important vote in climate change – ‘Mother Nature.’
——————
That’s partially true. . . ‘Mother Nature’ will amplify the warming humans triggered by raising CO2 levels by 100 ppm (and still rising).
george posted July 11, 2009 at 9:19 am
The group of 8 spent more time on Global warming; trying to reach a political agreement on something that Man has control over.
—————–
Looks like george has finally figured out that humans do have some “control over” global warming. That’s progress. . .
outlander posted July 11, 2009 at 8:49 am
Ecclesiastes 1
Everything Is Meaningless
. . .
——————-
Yes outlander, your denial of AGW science is definitely “meaningless”.
The leaders in the G8 has no clue what causes global warming or cooling. It’s all political. Mankind has no control over global warming or cooling in my opinion. I’m not a scientist, nor do I need to be. My money and freedom is at stake with these political clowns. As I said countries and people destroying each other now is more important than trying to project blue sky.
See, here’s what I don’t understand:
In just about any other context, most sane people would respond to intentional and industrial poisoning with a simple, “Don’t do that.”
“Hey, I’m gonna fill your baby’s bottle and put just a little strychnine in the formula. Okay?”
Or…
“I just drew the bath for the twins but first I’m gonna add some cyanide!”
Or (an Oldie-but-Goodie from the 70s)…
“You can’t take lead out of gasoline or else my Pinto will ping!”
In the grand scheme of things, it seems like a pretty good idea to stop pumping farts in the space suit that is our Spaceship Earth.
Climate change?
That’s a real issue as far as civilization is concerned. But a lot of it is economic and political; Germany and Norway would have a much different economy if it had Alaska’s weather (but they’re both on the same latitudes of the Moose-Dresser’s porch).
And, given a natural process of converting poisonous Carbon Dioxide with life-sustaining Oxygen that comes from jungles, might tip the balance a tad when you’re deforesting Brazil at the rate of one New Jersey a week.
Let’s add into the fact burning fossil fuels releases billions of years of captured poison Carbon Dioxide into the life-support system of Spaceship Earth… sorta like mining nuclear waste far into the future. (What could possibly go wrong?)
“I know you kinda like your grandkids, but what harm could a little arsenic in their mac & cheese cause for you or me?”
Wanna know what’s “ALL POLITICAL?”
The fossil-fuel-funded opposition to alternative energy technologies, that’s what.
“Let me add a little formic acid to that toddler’s Happy Meal! For taste!”
That’s the issue.
And CONs keep coming out Pro-Poison.
Good luck with that.
triggered by raising CO2 levels by 100 ppm
That’s 100 parts per MILLION
(chortles)
Boxer, lib witch would like us all to bow down to climate change laws. Not.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090711/sc_mcclatchy/3269899
fleettwood posted July 11, 2009 at 4:31 pm
That’s 100 parts per MILLION
(chortles)
——————
fleettwood can only ‘chortle’, because s/he cannot refute AGW science.
#
BlueJay
Posted July 11, 2009 at 9:24 am | Permalink
The US needs to lead by example in conservation and innovation, something we have neglected for far too long. We cannot ignore the obligation any longer.
—————
The US has been leading in conservation and innovation and always has.
Why do you hate the US Ryan?
‘Redistribution of wealth’
The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1893/Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-About-Global-Governance
______________
We know their ultimate motive is a one world socialist government and of $billions in profits
for Gore and the liberal elitists from carbon trading. This far out weighs the profits of the coal industry.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 11, 2009 at 10:12 am | Permalink
george posted July 11, 2009 at 9:19 am
The group of 8 spent more time on Global warming; trying to reach a political agreement on something that Man has control over.
—————–
Looks like george has finally figured out that humans do have some “control over” global warming. That’s progress. . .
__________
The AGW globalist they are the messiahs of the world and are more powerful than mother nature.
Praise Be NOT.
correction: The AGW globalists THINK they are the messiahs of the world and are more powerful than mother nature.
Praise Be NOT.
As cap-and-trade advocates tie their knickers in knots over so-called “global warming,” Mother Nature refuses to cooperate. Earth’s temperatures continue a chill that began 11 years ago. As global cooling accelerates, global-warmists kick, scream, and push their pet theory ? just like little kids who cover their ears and stomp their feet when older children tell them not to bother waiting up for Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.
Consider how the globe cooled last month:
? June in Manhattan averaged 67.5 degrees Fahrenheit, 3.7 degrees below normal _ the coldest average since 1958. The National Weather Service stated July 1: “The last time that Central Park hit 85 in May… but not in June was back in 1903.”
? In Phoenix, June’s high temperatures were below 100 degrees for 15 days straight, the first such June since 1913. In California’s desert, Yucca Valley’s June average was 83.5, 8.5 degrees below normal. Downtown Los Angeles averaged 74.5 degrees, five below normal.
More at link
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/07/160_48299.html
Former Vice President Al Gore, whose “An Inconvenient Truth” video epistle on the claims of global warming has not weathered recent scientific research, now has promised at a conference in the United Kingdom that the impending virtual energy tax under the U.S. “cap-and-trade” legislation will bring about “global governance.”
Gore, who this year famously left his Nashville mansion’s driveway brightly illuminated during the “Earth Hour” event that promoted energy savings, was speaking at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment.
He cited the “cap-and-trade” legislation in the U.S. Congress that by President Obama’s own estimate would cause utility bills to skyrocket for American consumers.
Those taxes are good, Gore said.
http://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/israelnews/new-world-order-news/60-nwo/1483-gore-boasts-global-governance-coming-with-carbon-tax.html
donndublin,
You seem to be claiming (10:44 am) that when someone says a factor has “some “control over” ” something, then that person is saying that factor is “more powerful” than all other factors.
Why do you make that false claim?
It looks like donndublin doesn’t want to explain his 10:44 am post.
cosMo, why do think along with all the other globalists that man control the temperature.
http://www.thehotjoints.com/2009/07/08/g8-leaders-agree-to-control-earths-temperature/
It is a false statement to claim such a thing.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 13, 2009 at 8:11 pm | Permalink
It looks like donndublin doesn’t want to explain his 10:44 am post.
__________
cosMo,
I’m too busy doing consulting work on storm water management, waste water treatment, and underground pollution projects as well as a wind turban project, to answer your stupid question.
I do more in a week to clean up the environment than you will in a life time.
LOL!
donndublin cannot defend his 10:44 am post.
Allocation Economics: Cap and Trade
It doesn’t work
Ben Liberman
Each of these regulated entities would be given for free or be required to purchase enough “rights” to emit carbon dioxide to cover their activities. These rights to emit an amount of carbon dioxide, called allowances, would be tradable commodities, so those who have extras can sell them to those who don’t. That’s the trade part of cap and
trade. Over time, the annual amount of these allowances goes down, as I mentioned, culminating in an 83 percent reduction in allowances in 2050. So in that year, everyone who uses fossil fuels would be fighting for allowances that cover only 17 percent of our 2005 greenhouse gas emissions.
Prices have to go up enough to force people to use less energy, and so for those not bought off with free allowances that means the costs are that much higher. For those of you in this room who haven’t hired one of the 2,400 lobbyists working on this issue, it probably means that whatever free allowances they get for their clients, Waxman-Markey will cost you that much more.
In our analysis, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill’s provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach over $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 per year over that span.
Electricity costs go up $468, gasoline goes up $565, and natural gas goes up $161 by 2035. That’s a 58 percent increase in gas prices, 90 percent for electricity, and 55 percent for natural gas. Cumulative higher energy costs for a household of four from 2012-2035 would reach nearly $20,000.
But direct energy costs is only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey as reflected in the cost of the allocations and offsets, and divide these costs by the population, you get a total impact attributable to a family of four averaging $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035. And most of that $2,979 per household would be passed on to the general public so it is a good gauge of the ultimate cost.
The increase in the national debt by 2035 for a family of four is 26 percent or $115,000.
Bottom Line – Capn and Trade doesn’t work
European emissions have been rising more quickly than those in the U.S. That’s right:
Many nations with cap and trade have had faster rates of emissions growth than the U.S. has had without it.
The only thing that has decreased in Europe is the amount of free use money in their respective wallets.
But…
All that “Clean Coal” technology makes Cap & Trade a moot issue, doesn’t it?
Ben Liberman?
LOL!
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 14, 2009 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
LOL!
donndublin cannot defend his 10:44 am post.
___________
cosMo is too stupid to understand the point I was making…. but we already knew that.
Algore$, Mann$, Hansen$, RC.com$, Desmbolg.com$$ ROFLMAO
Those left wing extremists thinking they know something about science it really funny!
Study shakes foundation of climate theory! Reveals UN models ‘fundamentally wrong’ – Blames ‘Unknown Processes’ — not CO2 for ancient global warming
‘Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong’
Tuesday, July 14, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
A new peer-reviewed study may shake the foundation upon which man-made global warming fears are based. The new study discovered “something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”
The study, which was published on July 14, 2009 in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience, found CO2 was not to blame for a major ancient global warming period and instead found “unknown processes accounted for much of warming in the ancient hot spell.” The press release for the study was headlined: “Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong.”
“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”
http://climatedepot.com/a/1955/Study-shakes-foundation-of-climate-theory-Reveals-UN-models-fundamentally-wrong–Blames-Unknown-Processes–not-CO2-for-ancient-global-warming
Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong
Unknown processes account for much of warming in ancient hot spell
http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=12794&SnID=2075327496
cosMo, all the energy you use on blogging doesn’t offset the your passive solar system.
Shame on you! What would Henrik Tikkanen think about that?
donndublin posted July 15, 2009 at 9:11 am
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 14, 2009 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
LOL!
donndublin cannot defend his 10:44 am post.
___________
cosMo is too stupid to understand the point I was making…. but we already knew that.
————————
Exactly what point were you making donndublin?
Or is donndublin too stupid to explain/defend his own point?
————-
cosmos_originally
Posted July 13, 2009 at 11:11 am | Permalink
donndublin,
You seem to be claiming (10:44 am) that when someone says a factor has “some “control over” ” something, then that person is saying that factor is “more powerful” than all other factors.
Why do you make that false claim?