I heard on the radio that the US didn’t sign on to this. Hope that’s all there is to it but, being somewhat cynical and not having much faith in the word of politicians and especially this administration, I really don’t know. In other words, I should say little as I clearly would not know what the hell I was talking about when it comes to the deeply scientific stuff. Mostly I hear from the folks who want to ban cars from downtown and make all sorts of claims with regard to planet poisoning and of course, saving the children of the next generation from choking to death on carbon fumes. Locally, they may be small in number but they make far more noise than they deserve. And they are very quick to shout down opposition cos we all know folks on the other side of this argument are Nazis and anti social types and money ppl who are not interested in anything but profit.
So anyway, I caught this article and wondered if by chance America has missed being hit by this left wing bullet. But reading further I found this disquieting quote.
vital step towards a new global pact meant to be agreed in 2015 and enter force five years later, which will for the first time set legally-binding targets for every nation, including China, India and the US.
AND the USA?
So, we’ve joined or on the brink of joining the EU? OK not that and yeah, that is meant with extreme unpleasantness and in a snide manner.
Britain poised to sign costly climate deal that could tie us into stringent new emissions targets
By Nick McDermott
Britain is set to sign a new international climate treaty which could require us to meet stringent — and expensive — new emission targets.
After a fortnight of fraught negotiations between 194 nations at the UN climate talks, which are expected to conclude in the early hours of today, a deal to replace the historic Kyoto Protocol is almost on the table.
Under the deal, Europe is committed to cutting its emissions by a fifth by 2020, with each member state set an individual target. But Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary Ed Davey is supporting a bid to raise that pledge even further later this decade, which would force Britain’s to reduce greenhouse gases by up to a quarter more than the current ambitious level of 34 per cent.
The UK has already pledged £2.9 billion to support windfarms in Africa and greener agriculture in Colombia, known as climate aid, over a four-year period ending in 2015.
And only last month, the Government announced a green energy strategy which will treble the costs levied on power bills from £2.35billion a year to £7.6billion. So any further environmental pledges would likely prove unpopular at home.
Peter Bone, Conservative MP for Wellingborough, said: ‘We need to expand our economy and focus on growth, and we won’t do that by increasing the cost of power and signing up to increased targets.
Can it get any dumber? Can it get any more crazy? What’s with this govt.? Windfarms where? And is that figure right? Almost $4 BILLION. And “climate aid” for who? They are cutting services left and right and falsely claiming that, “We are all in this together.” Oh come on. There isn’t one single solitary person anywhere in the UK who actually believes that BS. Not even the left are that stupid and self delusional. As usual, the bureaucrats are telling lies.
Sure thing England. Tighten your belts some more so that the govt. can grab the cash to make friends in Africa and Columbia. What utter tosh. Rubbish.
‘A lot of carbon targets could be met in the future with new technologies, so by signing this deal we are just handicapping ourselves and hard-working families.’
The new pact has already come under fire for lacking any real ambition as it is only expected to cover a mere sixth of the world’s polluters — Europe, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, Ukraine and tiny Lichtenstein — but does not require action from the biggest emitters, the US and China.
To fulfil Europe’s commitment to reduce emissions by a fifth by 2020 compared to 1990, the UK must produce 34 per cent less carbon dioxide. This is the same figure set out under British domestic law.
A clause within the new agreement will allow signatories to set tougher legally-binding targets for 2020 later this decade.
If Europe raises its ambition to a 30 per cent reduction — a pledge supported by Mr Davey — Britain would face much tougher and more expensive green commitments, with estimated emission cuts of 42 per cent needed.
A DECC spokesperson said: ‘This is speculation as the final text of the agreement has not yet been decided.
‘If this scenario does occur, it would commit all parties in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to review their level of ambition by a set date. This date has not yet been finalised.’
Speaking yesterday between negotiations, Mr Davey said: ‘That money has actually helped change the dynamics of these negotiations. Our early pledging of that money has catalysed others.’
The new deal is seen as a vital step towards a new global pact meant to be agreed in 2015 and enter force five years later, which will for the first time set legally-binding targets for every nation, including China, India and the US.
The goal of the UN talks in Doha, Qatar, is to keep temperatures from rising more than 2C, compared with pre-industrial times — the level scientists say is needed to prevent dangerous climate change.
I found this photo caption amusing.
Qatar has come in for criticism as it has so far failed to set clear targets for reducing its own emissions, despite having the world’s highest per capita carbon footprint
Right. Go after those Arabs you gween activists.
On the other side of things there was this. I’ve done a lot of editing for space so see link for all. Pretty interesting stuff.
Thought we were running out of fossil fuels? New technology means Britain and the U.S. could tap undreamed reserves of gas and oil
By Nigel Lawson
Blackpool is sitting on one of the biggest shale gas fields in the world with a reserve of 200 trillion cubic feet lying under the Lancastrian countryside.
sections of U.S. manufacturing are even repatriating their activities from China.
Sadly, however, Europe’s leaders have wholly failed to face up to this energy revolution and many European policy-makers are blocking shale gas developments.
There are a mere two dozen test drills around Europe, compared with an estimated 35,000 fracturing sites in the U.S.
As a result, instead of benefiting from cheap shale gas, new industries and hundreds of thousands of new jobs, Europe is constraining itself with self-imposed green limits to growth.
This is despite the fact that gas-fired power stations emit roughly half the carbon dioxide that coal-fired power stations do, which is why the U.S. is the only country to have significantly reduced its CO2 emissions in recent years.
By going for those green energy targets, countries such as France and Germany are making their energy-intensive industries increasingly uncompetitive. Germany’s largest companies have warned that they are already losing out against their U.S. competitors thanks to rising energy costs.
Sign nothing, agree to nothing, throw the UN out even if it means going to war. Not that they would be much of a challenge. Piss on the UN.
You speak for me also Grayjohn. Have long thought that way.
When we already had enough oil to last us for somewhere around 100 years and now have (at least in theory) the possibility of access to enough for thousands of years, it’s pretty stinking sad that we consider $3.25 a decent price for gas and $3 to be “low”.
I had a friend who once told me that the rise in gas prices were no big deal because they hadn’t kept up with inflation. I told him, “You know why that is? Because gas prices are inflation!” Every item in this country has been shipped from somewhere else, and every single mile adds to the cost of the item in fuel costs. When fuel costs go up, so do the prices of everything else.
If we actually wanted to help the poor, rather than just enslave them in government “assistance” programs, we would find a way to get gas prices back down to $1/gallon or less. Every person and business in the US would find themselves off in much better shape financially almost immediately. And the percentage benefit would overwhelmingly favor the poor, which is supposed to be what the libtards want to do. (Which, of course, is strong evidence they’re lying through their teeth.)
Which is why fracking is under attack, both for natural gas and oil shale. It’s not because it’s bad for us or the environment or anything else. It’s because Obama hasn’t yet found a way to somehow “prove” that his beneficent magnificence has provided our new-found wealth.
Stupid is really on the march on that side of the pond these days huh.
Frankly, Even ol Scary Harry doesn’t have the clout to get the Senate to ratify that turd and survive re-election.But Im sure lots of green fools will play it up in the media as much as possible, to which I say; FUCK EM.
Over the last few years I’ve come to the conclusion that God has blessed the Earth with renewable energy – OIL!
I figure it would be a ‘oneglowball’ world deal on global warning OR bowing down to the UN gun ban - that will FINALLY wake up the 51% of America to say - not NO but HELL NO.
And I agree - the Senate would not commit suicide by voting for this pos ‘treaty’ - as it would be an instant turn around for the DemocRATS - and insure that they won’t get elected for another 40 years.
Yes, I’ve seen what oil booms do for everyone - it is a shame that the people who really ‘want’ the entitlements are too stupid to realize where that money comes from - and too stupid to realize that a vote bought with a cell phone - is selling out cheap.
I wonder if anyone on the right and in the middle is going to wake up before real economic disaster hits.