Summer Banks
SaraJCan they agree?
December 8th 2007 01:19
:
UN Bali Conference: Can they Agree?
I guess the $50 million question, sorry these markets are worth Billions now aren't they...... the $50 billion question is (ok $70billion to be preciseish) can the leaders of the free world - and some not so free- agree on a new frame work at the UN Bali climate talks.
There is a lot of noise out there as to whether the two sides will be able to agree; just as a bit of background we pretty much have a first world v third world battle going on here or if you want to be more PC Developed v Developing nations. The dilemma is that the Developing nations are increasing emissions at a rapid rate - in fact China is now the largest Global Polluter - yet their per capita emissions are still well below those of us in the first world. They argue we have been allowed to develop without the costs associated with emissions control and so should they. Fair point, but it still produces a dilemma when countries such as the US claim they will not sign unless China and India agree to reductions as well. One could argue that these so called "developing nations" have been around just as long as us, if not longer, and have had every chance to develop and its not our fault they are so far behind, and its our demand for their goods that is financing this development anyhow - not that I ever would argue that because thems is fighting words people -
This seems like a catch-22 HOWEVER the US is so far out of this that they are not really a factor, yes it would be good if they came to the table and were co-operative but given Europe has embraced this issue whole heartedly there is a big chance we can all meet in the middle somehow, without them.
China has been making some really positive noises via "leaked" internal documents and their demands seem fair, help us with technology and we will come to the party.
As I have said before, here's hoping. What I don't understand is why the US is bothering to be negative, either be positive or don't come, the world doesn't need them. Internally the people of the US are embracing similar principles and making great leaps, just let their Government stay out on the limb. The important thing at the end of the day is the emissions being reduced, not who is saying what and why they say it.
cheers
Louie
There is a lot of noise out there as to whether the two sides will be able to agree; just as a bit of background we pretty much have a first world v third world battle going on here or if you want to be more PC Developed v Developing nations. The dilemma is that the Developing nations are increasing emissions at a rapid rate - in fact China is now the largest Global Polluter - yet their per capita emissions are still well below those of us in the first world. They argue we have been allowed to develop without the costs associated with emissions control and so should they. Fair point, but it still produces a dilemma when countries such as the US claim they will not sign unless China and India agree to reductions as well. One could argue that these so called "developing nations" have been around just as long as us, if not longer, and have had every chance to develop and its not our fault they are so far behind, and its our demand for their goods that is financing this development anyhow - not that I ever would argue that because thems is fighting words people -
This seems like a catch-22 HOWEVER the US is so far out of this that they are not really a factor, yes it would be good if they came to the table and were co-operative but given Europe has embraced this issue whole heartedly there is a big chance we can all meet in the middle somehow, without them.
China has been making some really positive noises via "leaked" internal documents and their demands seem fair, help us with technology and we will come to the party.
As I have said before, here's hoping. What I don't understand is why the US is bothering to be negative, either be positive or don't come, the world doesn't need them. Internally the people of the US are embracing similar principles and making great leaps, just let their Government stay out on the limb. The important thing at the end of the day is the emissions being reduced, not who is saying what and why they say it.
cheers
Louie
| 125 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
I doubt whether they have things really worked out, it's just that people think THEY do.
Comment by Mountain Fog
The climate change thing, we are being led to believe, can be controlled if we all stop polluting. Personally, I think it is a fantastic idea that we work towards a negative impact pollution wise, but, it will not stop what is coming down the shoot, for it has happened before, and on a regular basis.
What we should all be doing, is preparing the populace of each nation so they can cope. We should be implementing solar energy generation, food gardens that are insulated, water tanks etc, on a house by house basis for whatever is needed in a particular area, to limit the loss of life.
For that is what we are facing, a massive loss of life, on a global scale. The northern areas will freeze, and the southern ones dry up...so some scientists say.
But, the 'powers that be' would know all this.
And, as it is with AIDS in developing countries, particularly Africa and South America, the West is sitting back and watching them die. The whole 'over population' problem has been debated since the 1960s.
The Pentagon, Kissinger and others in the sixties/early seventies wrote papers, funded research regarding overpopulation and it seems most concluded that it should be controlled in Africa...somehow...
Today, the Vatican still pushes, through its bishops in Africa, that no condoms are used, people should simply 'restrain themselves'. Big pharma companies who control the drugs most useful to combat death from AIDS still refuse to allow African countires ot create cheap and readily available generic copies. The Bush Admin funds for assisting with the crisis is to be phased out next year, and while it operated, it delayed and stricly controlled the supply of drugs, compared to the numbers of infected, not many people got onto the treatment plan in the first place..
Since April 23 1984 the predicted spread of AIDS in the West has not occurred. Yet Africans infected with AIDS is 40 percent in some areas and many African countries are 25 percent infected. The United Nations' AIDS in Africa reports "The probability that you die from AIDS when you are 15 today is over fifty percent."
We, the West, like to think we are not racist...anymore...but the truth is...
cheers
fog
P.S. Nice to see you back gurrlish, thought you'd chucked it all overboard at Orble!!