the dowie wrote:
Thankyou for that timely reminder. The matter was raised here before. But i think it deserves it's own thread today.
Trumpeteers are such gullible idiots.
Just want to let you know, I did NOT
lose my global warming article , like I thought. I was looking under the wrong name. I kept asking for Climate change, I filed it under GLOBAL WARMING. So, you will be happy for me, like before, that, I DID NOT LOSE THAT INFORMATION
Global Warming and UN who
punish USA 12-10-2012
days ago, the 18th United Nations conference on climate change wrapped up. As
they did at the previous 17 conferences, developing nations demanded that the
United States and other developed countries pay them for the climate’s effects.
In short, the joke’s on us. And these U.N. conferences are becoming
Poor nations, including small islands, are seeking a new “international mechanism”
to have developed nations pay for storm damage to their countries. This is
based on the assumption that global warming is causing stronger hurricanes, typhoons,
and the like, which is still unproven.
Heritage’s Brett D. Schaefer, Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory
Affairs, and Nicolas Loris, the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow, have a simple
message for America’s leaders: “the U.S. is wasting millions of taxpayer dollars
attending and financing these conferences.”
The main result of this year’s conference was extending the Kyoto Protocol, the
international climate change agreement that has been in force since 1997,
through 2020. The United States has never signed on to this agreement, which
restricted greenhouse gas emissions in 37 industrialized countries.
But the Kyoto agreement has never put restrictions on China and India—two
densely populated countries with growing economies—and other nations with
emerging economies. Schaefer and Loris note that “even with perfect compliance
and U.S. participation, Kyoto would not significantly arrest projected global
Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Russia opted out of the new extension last
week. The Associated Press reports that this means the treaty now “covers only
about 15 percent of global emissions.” As Schaefer and Loris explain:
basic approach is unworkable. The Kyoto Protocol essentially placed the entire
economic burden of addressing climate change on a few dozen countries while
asking nothing from more than 150 countries. Perhaps this makes sense if the
industrialized countries alone could address the issue by reducing emissions,
but that is impossible.
…For a number of reasons—including sluggish economies and a shift toward energy
sources (such as natural gas, nuclear, or renewable energy) that emit fewer
greenhouse gas emissions—most industrialized countries have seen their
emissions stabilize or fall. In fact, U.S. emissions are at their lowest level
since 1996, according to the U.N.
While the U.S. has reduced its emissions, other countries are busy increasing
theirs—and demanding that the U.S. pay for storm damage around the world. China
passed the U.S. as the largest source of emissions in 2006, and by 2009, its
emissions were already 45 percent higher than America’s.
Instead of continuing this futile exercise, the U.S. should pursue more serious
steps on its own, Schaefer and Loris write. America should:
- Undertake independent efforts to more accurately
determine the severity of climate change and verify U.N. claims.
- Work with a smaller group of nations through informal
arrangements such as the Major Economies Forum to undertake appropriate
steps that are both cost effective and effective in reducing warming.
- Refrain from attending future U.N. climate change
conferences and call for a moratorium on conferences that emphasize
financial transfers and reinforce the flawed, ineffective Kyoto
- Resist and cease attempts to address climate change
unilaterally. This includes removing onerous and unnecessary regulations
on fossil fuels that are driving up the cost of energy, stopping wasteful
and ineffective attempts to subsidize carbon-free energy sources, and
preventing an implementation of a carbon tax. Attempting to address
greenhouse gases unilaterally comes at great cost to the taxpayer and
energy consumer for no meaningful environmental impact.
For far too long, the U.S. has played on the United Nations’ terms on climate
change. It’s time to give up these failed negotiations, focus on protecting
American taxpayers, and reject conferences that produce completely unserious