The G-8: Touting failure as success
Share your Thoughts
Posted on June 8, 2007
Filed Under Global warming/Climate change, Greenhouse gas emissions, Fossil fuel dependency
Fostering Ecological Hope
Today from Margaret Swedish:
I know it’s important for world leaders to make the impression that intractable problems have become, well, tractable. No one wants to come out of meetings admitting to failure, especially when the issues are so grave.
That said, it’s hard to see what came out of the G-8 summit as anything but a strategic defeat in the effort to get the world’s richest countries to agree to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Not that we should be surprised. Bush stubbornness is now legendary even in the face of disaster.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel certainly put a brave diplomatic face on it, but, come on. Her proposal was a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050 and to keep global temperatures from rising more than another 2 degrees centrigrade. What she got from Bush was an agreement to “seriously consider” the proposal.
Meanwhile, because Bush does not know how to participate as an equal partner in international negotiations, he insists that he will initiate his own conversation, this one with the world’s 15 largest carbon dioxide emitters, including China and India. The purpose of these talks will be to set long term nonbinding goals to reduce emissions, allowing each country to try to meet them within the framework of their own economic and security interests.
This, folks, well, I don’t have to tell you — this is more of the same global warming policy that we have seen for 6 1/2 years.
What I don’t understand is how this is being touted as some great breakthrough, even by some environmental organizations. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) called the agreement “an important step forward.” How? How is this a step beyond where we are?
It’s as if getting Bush to acknowledge the problem and to agree to think about stuff is some great success story. It’s as if getting his people to the table with other countries to talk about it, as long as no one tries to make the US government submit to international rules and regulations, is some great leap forward.
All it does is buy more time for this government to do nothing meaningful.
Philip Clapp, director of the National Environmental Trust got it right, I think. In the Wash. Post article linked above, he called the G-8 statement “a pretty thin landmark.” Indeed.
Clapp was also quoted in the New York Time article this morning:
[Bush] has only agreed to consider the goal. This is the kind of language that emerges from a discussion in which people say, ‘We have to have something to take back to our publics.’
Right. Reporters said Merkel was visibly relieved. You can imagine the impact if the G-8 leaders had come out with nothing at all.
But, as I pointed out yesterday, the Democrats in Congress aren’t doing much better. Those beholden to automakers are intent on scuttling proposals that would increase standards for gas mileage and tailpipe emissions. Evidence of their bad intent, they also plan to prevent California from enforcing its new tailpipe emission standards.
Okay, we have the Bush administration refusing to take action on global warming. But here we have Democrats actually preventing action on global warming. Leading this charge is Rep. Rick Boucher from the Big Coal state of Virginia and Rep. John Dingell from the automotive company state of Michigan (Dingell met with the CEOs of the three big automakers yesterday). Over in the Senate, there’s Levin, also of Michigan.
We have two political parties with members beholden to the auto, oil, natural gas, and coal industries. Follow the money, as they say. To read a concise summary of this mess, read this editorial in today’s Washington Post.
Now House Speaker Pelosi is a California Democrat with strong environmental credentials. She wants meaningful legislation to address global warming and energy independence by the Fourth of July. It will be interesting to see where this battle goes from here. You can read more about it here and here.
The EDF says part of the good news of Bush’s grand leap forward is that the pressure is now on Congress to take action. Right. Gives me a lot of confidence.
Folks, unless our people are willing to not only make the sacrifices necessary, indeed to insist on them, nothing is going to really change. This is still a work of our people, all of us, from the grassroots up.
Now I see the churches are getting more involved, and this is good news — but their voices, too, are divided. In testimony yesterday before the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, mainstream Protestant denominations spoke of the moral imperative to address global warming because those who suffer first and most will be the poor. Evangelical leaders, on the other hand, said the poor will pay the costs of switching to clean fuel technologies.
I will write more about this in a later post, but thought I’d mention the hearings and point you to an article in the Wash. Post about it.
Just one editorial comment — the poor are already suffering the consequences of global warming in many parts of our world. And as for the costs of helping developing countries develop with cleaner technologies — those costs should be borne by those who created the climate crisis — starting with those G-8 countries that agreed to think and talk about it some more.
Technorati Tags: G-8 climate agreement, Angela Merkel, Bush “seriously consider, ” nonbinding goals to reduce emissions, Environmental Defense Fund, National Environmental Trust, tailpipe emission standards
Comments
2 Responses to “The G-8: Touting failure as success”
Leave a Reply
There are too many global warming deniers out there, it seems like more and more every day, calling the anti-emissions movement a global swindle and hoax, a myth, a conspiracy of depopulationists, global government types, and self-serving politicians like Paul Watson, Maurice Strong and Al Gore; and saying that we believers and activists are zealots of some new “Ecotheist” religion; that we are dupes, victims of pop-culture hysteria - and worse! They seek to obscure the facts and deny the consensus about the most critical issue of our time and the direst threat ever faced by our precious Mother Earth!
I would love to see a skilled writer tackle some of these books and review/debunk them. These books distract from the fact the debate has long been over and the time for action is now. We are running out of time to get the populace fully behind this. We can’t just ignore these heretics and traitors. Everyone who is concerned about this issue should read some of these books to see what their enemies are up to.
“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism” by Christopher C. Horner.
“Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming”, by Patrick J. Michaels
“Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years”, by Dennis T. Avery
“Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media”, by Patrick J. Michaels
“The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming”, by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr.
“The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World”, by Bjorn Lomborg
“The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change”, by Henrik Svensmark
“Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death”, by Ronald Baily
“Global Warming - Myth or Reality?: The Erring Ways of Climatology”, by Marcel Leroux
“Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming”, by S. George Philander
“Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry About Global Warming”, by Thomas Gale Moore
“It’s the Sun, Not Your SUV: Co2 Will Not Destroy the Earth”, by John Zyrkowski
“Global Warming: The Truth Behind the Myth”, by Michael L. Parsons
“Global Warming in a Politically Correct Climate: How Truth Became Controversial”, by Mihkel M. Mathiesen
“Global Warming: Opposing Viewpoints”, by Tamara L. Roleff
“Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?”, by Dixie Lee Ray
“Hot Talk Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate”, by S. Fred Singer
“Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming”, by Christopher Essex
“Apocalypse Not: Science, Economics, and Environmentalism”, by Ben Bolch
“Silencing Science”, by Steven Milloy
“Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds”, by Charles Mackay
“State of Fear” by Michael Chrichton
Okay, try not to take it out on your nails, though I can relate. I hesitate to give space here for your long list of climate change naysayers, and I’m not sure reading all these books is the best use of our time — though I agree that someone should and debunk them!
Because we are running out of time, we need to get to work. The cultural climate IS changing as polls show that a majority of people in this country now think that global warming is one of the most serious problems of our time, and a growing majority think the government is not doing enough about it.
Sadly, folks still oppose some of the most effective ways to cut emissions, like gas taxes.
Here’s one poll worth looking at: http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm
In any case, the best way to debunk the naysayers is to insist on the truth, raise consciousness about what we need to do, and organize like crazy to impact the political culture.
Thanks for the comment.
Margaret