Posted by Mark Silva
ROSTOCK, Germany – President Bush appears to be getting precisely what he wanted from the G-8 summit on the question of climate change: A commitment of the G-8 nations and several others to work together on developing a global standard for reduction of greenhouse gases by 2009 – which an official communiqué from the summit of world leaders here will call "the Heiligendamm Process.''
It falls far short of the hard standards for pollution control that German Chancellor Angela Merkel sought in the three-day summit underway in nearby Heiligendamm.
The communiqué commits the G-8 nations – the U.S., United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Japan and Canada – as well as four others, China, India, Brazil and South Africa – to international discussions on improving energy efficiency and cooperation in technology with an aim of reducing C02 emissions – a believed contributor to global warming.
"There needs to be a long-term global goal to substantially reduce emissions,'' said Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, calling it "a consensus document'' that charts "a way forward.'' The document will acknlowedge the "different… aspirational goals'' of several nations. "The commitment is to the development of a longterm global goal.''
Critics already are calling it far too little.
"President Bush came to Germany with a clear message for the other leaders: 'Not on my watch,'' said Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, speaking here in Germany.
""President Bush rejected every solid proposal on the table to cut global warming pollution, and the US is fundamentally isolated from the rest of the world on the issue once again,'' Clapp said. "The only thing the president was willing to agree to was that his successor can negotiate a new agreement after he leaves office in 2009. ''
The major industrial nations – all of which were represented at this summit that centers on the G-8 but invites leaders from others as well – will conduct talks under the supervision of the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The "dialog'' will start later this year, the communiqué says, and the next annual G-8 summit, to be conducted in Japan, will see an "interim report'' on the progress made. A final report is promised for the G-8 summit of 2009 in Italy – which is only somewhat later than Bush's proposal to reach consensus on a global goal by the end of '08.
The president, who never has agreed to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, will present this as a triumph that moves negotiations on climate change forward. The key, Bush says, is involving fast-growing nations such as China, India and Brazil rather than basing an agreement solely on G-8 nations.
Critics are certain to call the communique a stall-tactic, averting specific targets for greenhouse gas emission that Germany and others were ready to accept this year.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
As usual, the only "critics" who count to Mark Silva are the unnamed and unquoted Gore-worshippers.
People who'd laugh at the G-8 Enviro-hypocrites and the whole sham-process to fix a sham-problem are never going to be mentioned in the "Swamp". In order to provide some balance, here's a snippet from Point Carbon, who observes:
"EU ETS emissions of CO2 rose 0.3% in 2006
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from installations participating in the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) rose by 0.3 per cent in 2006 - well below EU economic growth of 3.0 per cent, the European commission said on Thursday.
...and way above where it had to be for any semblance of a legitimate claim to emerge that this scheme will lead them to their Kyoto reduction. And, way above the US reduction of a percent and a half over the same time with even stronger economic growth.
Again we see "world leadership in reducing emissions" means increasing them with an excuse of how they could've been worse."
Posted by: Bruce | June 7, 2007 11:52 AM
2009? Bush will have fallen off the edge of the earth by then, which is, according to his science advisors, flat.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | June 7, 2007 11:58 AM
Let me try to give you wacked out left wing nutjobs a lesson in common sense: Carbon dioxide is a heat trapping gas. If X represents naturally occurring CO2 in the atmosphere, Y will represent CO2 produced by human activities. If more Y is produced, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased. X + (Y+Y) =fun times for everyone. Common sense and logic will tell you liberal cooks that adding more heat trapping CO2 to the atmosphere will NOT trap more heat. Therefore CO2 produced by human activities should not be reduced because as we all know problems will indeed fix themselves if you ignore them long enough.
Posted by: Ronnie Rey Starling, Jr | June 7, 2007 12:18 PM
Oh Kenny, it's time you woke up. There are thousands of scientists who dispel man-made global warming, thousands -- but they are all being forced to shut up, just like the NASA administrator.
But you Lefters will never understand reality or anything that you weren't brainwashed in.
Posted by: John D | June 7, 2007 12:38 PM
JFK Democrat,
You just don't get it. The science is in. Artificial global warming is real.
This isn't a partisan issue. This is a matter of leaving a legacy of respect, caring and love for our kids, grandkids and all who follow us on planet Earth.
This is the kind of conservatism I respect.
Posted by: Doug Zook | June 7, 2007 12:46 PM
John D,
Last time I asked you to produce more than a dozen, you produced 60, the majority of which are on the payroll of ExxonMobil-the only big oil company left that refuses to accept the undeniable evidence and peer-reviewed science behind man-made GW.
Myself, and others, have produced the thousands of scientists from Pew Center, NASA and the IPCC that support the undeniable truth of GW.
Please provide us with the thousands you claim are being forced to shut up.
And until you do, follow their lead.
Posted by: Bubba | June 7, 2007 1:38 PM
For those who want to learn some "inconvenient truths" about the faith-based global warming alarmism, read the series of articles in the Canadian "National Post":
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af
Money quote: "Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."
So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.
Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent."
Posted by: Bruce | June 7, 2007 1:56 PM
I knew the "earth is flat" RR dead enders would be knuckledragging on this post and Bruce and Little Johnny Doolittle raised their hands first again.
Well done, robots!
Posted by: John E | June 7, 2007 2:12 PM
John D,
You're not helping by leaking freon.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | June 7, 2007 3:55 PM
Kenny Bunkport, it depends on the refrigerant. Your old-fashioned "freon," which are your CFCs are basically no longer used in the U.S., except for some chillers, but in a few years those CFC-using chillers will be gone too.
HCFCs, which are being phased out, actually have very little global warming potential. HFCs, have more global warming potential, but no ozone-depleting potential.
Refrigerant leakage is a problem, though most businesses are working very hard to prevent that (it hurts energy efficiency and refrigerant is not cheap). No leakage, no global warming potential.
But energy efficiency is the key anyway. Just like with compact fluorescent light bulbs -- which use less energy, hence less pollution and less global warming emissions, though the mercury in the bulb can be a problem in the home or business -- the more energy efficient the hvacr system, the better off the environment is. HFCs tend to be very efficient, moreso than many refrigerants, including JJ's favorite -- propane.
Hopefully, this little education will help you, but I highly doubt that!
Posted by: John D | June 8, 2007 8:46 AM