Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

G8 agrees climate change deal to halve emissions
The Guardian ^ | July 8, 2008 | Patrick Wintour & Larry Elliot

Posted on 07/08/2008 2:32:24 AM PDT by steelyourfaith

In meetings at Hokkaido, Japan, the leaders of the G8 made a breakthrough on climate change when they agreed to adopt a goal of at least halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to a draft communique.

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: climatechange; g8summit; globalwarming; hokkaido
The signing of the statement means that attention now shifts to the UN-led climate change talks that are set to conclude in Copenhagen in December 2009. These talks are due to set a framework for a deal to replace the Kyoto protocol when it expires in 2012.

~~ snip~~

"This is a strong signal to citizens around the world," the European commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, said today, adding that the EU's benchmark for success at the G8 summit in northern Japan had been achieved.

"I am very happy. A new, shared vision by the major economies in the climate challenge within the UN framework has emerged. The science is clear, the economic case for action is stronger than ever. Now we need to go the extra mile to secure an ambitious global deal in Copenhagen that will enable the world's nations to rise to the challenge together," he said.

~~ snip~~

Gordon Brown will be pleased with the deal since it keeps open talks ahead of the new US president taking over in January, leaving nearly a year for talks to reach a conclusion at the end of 2009.

1 posted on 07/08/2008 2:32:24 AM PDT by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

This is just plain depressing.

“Settled science” my foot! The government in Australia is trying to lumber us with an emissions trading scheme by 2010 and the closer you look at it the more crazy its seems.

The asylum is being run by the lunatics. Its just unbelievable.


2 posted on 07/08/2008 2:37:12 AM PDT by Nipfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith; Entrepreneur; Defendingliberty; WL-law; Genesis defender; proud_yank; FrPR; ...
 




Beam me to Planet Gore !

3 posted on 07/08/2008 2:37:19 AM PDT by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

“The communique also said mid-term goals would be needed to hit the shared target for 2050, but that it would be up to individual countries to adopt them.”

“But environmental campaigners said the G8 agreement did not go far enough. “At this rate, by 2050 the world will be cooked and the G8 leaders will be long forgotten,” said Antonio Hill, spokesperson for Oxfam International.”

A “goal” two generations away, by which time all the principle actors will be dead, is a cheap way to paper over disagreements on the issues. As always, statements of grand rhetoric made at the end of such summits are meaningless. The end result is “Someday somebody somewhere should really do something about this”.

Leaving it up to the individual states with no enforcement means there is no deal to actually DO anything, as the activists plainly see.


4 posted on 07/08/2008 3:05:32 AM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

stupid and evil.


5 posted on 07/08/2008 4:26:06 AM PDT by ken21 ( people die + you never hear from them again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith
Its impossible. There's no way such an ambitious goal can be met by 2050. By then signatories and most us alive now will be long gone! Who are they kidding?

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

6 posted on 07/08/2008 4:36:32 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb
Exactly. Its pie in the sky utopianism. The science isn't settled and the objective isn't realistic. One thing is certain: consumers around the world will be saddled with billions in higher costs to appease a handful of environmental extremists attempts to roll back the standard of living in the G8. We all need to say NO to the destructive scheme disguised as a Save The Planet initiative!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

7 posted on 07/08/2008 4:39:58 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

I’m certain China and India will be the first to sign on.


8 posted on 07/08/2008 4:42:38 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (Tom Manion '08-My only reason for voting this year)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; ...
DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

G-8 endorses halving global emissions by 2050

Global Warming on Google

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

9 posted on 07/08/2008 10:32:03 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less! Sign the petition at http://www.americansolutions.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Its impossible. There's no way such an ambitious goal can be met by 2050.

Exactly. Everybody knows this is just lip service, especially the greenies, hence all their whining.

10 posted on 07/08/2008 11:33:18 AM PDT by palmer (Tag lines are an extra $1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tlb

Since there is absolutely no feasible means to reduce the current load in the atmosphere, cutting back new emissions to zero would still have no effect on the future environment except for leaving us all dead.


11 posted on 07/08/2008 11:51:32 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tlb

A “goal” two generations away, by which time all the principle actors will be dead, is a cheap way to paper over disagreements on the issues. As always, statements of grand rhetoric made at the end of such summits are meaningless. The end result is “Someday somebody somewhere should really do something about this”.

-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—

Yup!

In 2050, I’ll be 99 years old. Frankly, this stupidity amounts to exactly that, and it does not distress me in the least.

The only thing that concerns me is knowing how many people are so stupid as to actually support anything along this line.


12 posted on 07/08/2008 1:58:56 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
In 2050, I’ll be 99 years old. Frankly, this stupidity amounts to exactly that, and it does not distress me in the least.

I'll be 92.

Let's meet somewhere then and toast the death of this stupidity on a glacier somewhere in, say, upstate New York....

13 posted on 07/08/2008 4:10:11 PM PDT by dirtbiker (I 'm a liberal's worst nightmare:A redneck with a pickup, a library card, and a conceal carry permit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dirtbiker

It is my honest, scientifically informed opinion, supported as well by historical political and sociological trends, that by 2050 it is about 85% likely that the current AGW hypothesis will have been absolutely discredited. It isn’t likely we’ll have NY glaciers by then, though. I would be happy to meet you at glacier in Alaska or Washington or Greenland, though, for that toast.


14 posted on 07/08/2008 4:36:30 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
Agreed

I'll have to make a side trip south of me (to Franklin County, VA) for some "corn squeezins" for a proper toast. I have some family down there (wink, wink)....

15 posted on 07/08/2008 4:44:32 PM PDT by dirtbiker (I 'm a liberal's worst nightmare:A redneck with a pickup, a library card, and a conceal carry permit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

I’ll believe it when I see anything substantive actually happening.


16 posted on 07/09/2008 7:46:50 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
It is my honest, scientifically informed opinion, supported as well by historical political and sociological trends, that by 2050 it is about 85% likely that the current AGW hypothesis will have been absolutely discredited. It isn’t likely we’ll have NY glaciers by then, though. I would be happy to meet you at glacier in Alaska or Washington or Greenland, though, for that toast.

Sign me up. There will probably still be a few glaciers available that could provide a location. ;-)

17 posted on 07/09/2008 8:12:03 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson