Why is the role of China and India in climate change negotiations crucial?

  • News
  • Thread starter Andre
  • Start date
In summary, the G8 summit failed to produce any binding commitments from the world's major economies to fight climate change. Germany was disappointed with the lack of support from the United States, while China and India refused to commit to any binding emissions targets.
  • #1
Andre
4,311
74
"Don't'" reveals more than "do"

The take of Benny Peiser (worlds only apocaholic consultant) on the global warming agreement at the G8 at Heiligendam:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=439bd9a8-7627-4f05-8bd8-3ff0974bdee9&k=22409

Comment: Bush has taken on Europe’s role as a green champion
Insists China and India join any climate alliance

Benny Peiser, National Post
Published: Friday, June 08, 2007

When the history of Europe's waning pre-eminence and the rise of Asia's new superpowers is written, the German G8 summit that has just ended in the Baltic seaside town of Heiligendamm will be regarded as a momentous turning point. It will also be seen as the moment when the Western powers decided to bury their hatchets over Kyoto and start exerting pressure on their Asian challengers.

The failure of Germany and its European Union partners to push through their key goals stands for a diplomatic defeat that epitomizes Europe's shrinking influence in international climate negotiations. German Chancellor Angela Merkel had set three ambitious climate goals for the G8 summit. She wanted to sway the United States and other G8 countries to commit to cutting emissions by 50% by 2050. She also wanted them to limit the world's temperature rise to 2C and to increase fuel efficiency by 20%. In the end, not one these targets was accepted by her non-EU partners.

German and European diplomats were taken aback during the negotiations inthe run-up to the summit; not only the United States, but Japan, Canada and even Russia opposed Europe's concept of unilateral G8 targets. Germany's original plan, to push for ambitious goals with the aim of isolating President George W. Bush, fell short as even China and India came out against the idea of mandatory emission caps.


But nothing caused Angela Merkel bigger upset and sheer dismay than the refusal of Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to back Germany's position when she visited Berlin just days before the summit. No words of support from Al Gore either. Instead, the U.S. Democrats showed Merkel and the EU the cold shoulder - implicitly at least...

What the heck is going on here. The main savior of the Earth, guru of global warming is silent as well all his followers when they should cheer and support Merkel with everything they could. And yet, Gore is silent? Why?

Or was it not about the world needs to be saved rather than that he should be doing it? Apparantly, this is not according to the plan.

H.L. Menckens predicting observation just moved from hypothesis to theory

The urge to save humanity is (almost-deleted) always a false front for the urge to rule it
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hidden agendas and one upmanship, politicians do not really care about the
long term, except when it comes to their pensions, i doubt if many of them
would risk alienating industry through expensive modifications to plant etc.
 
  • #3
You might try including the point.
For those who still don't get Ms. Pelosi's and Mr. Gore's veiled message, Tony Blair made it perfectly plain why a Democratic U.S. president would not yield either: "Whoever U.S. president is in office, they will not agree to a climate-change deal which doesn't have China part of it."
 

1. What does "Don't reveals more than do" mean?

"Don't reveals more than do" is a phrase that emphasizes the importance of not giving away too much information or revealing more than what is necessary. It is often used in a scientific context to remind researchers to only include relevant and accurate data in their findings.

2. Why is it important to not reveal more than what is necessary in scientific research?

Revealing more than what is necessary in scientific research can lead to biased or misleading results. It is important for scientists to only include relevant and accurate data to ensure the validity and reliability of their findings.

3. How can "Don't reveals more than do" be applied in the scientific method?

In the scientific method, "Don't reveals more than do" can be applied by only including necessary and relevant data in the research process, from formulating a hypothesis to analyzing and interpreting results. Scientists should also avoid making assumptions and presenting biased or incomplete information.

4. What are some potential consequences of revealing more than what is necessary in scientific research?

Revealing more than what is necessary in scientific research can lead to inaccurate or biased results, which can undermine the credibility of the study. It can also lead to misinterpretation of the findings and hinder the progress of scientific knowledge.

5. How can scientists ensure that they are not revealing more than what is necessary in their research?

To ensure that they are not revealing more than what is necessary, scientists should carefully plan and design their experiments, use reliable and valid methods, and critically evaluate their data before including it in their findings. They should also avoid making assumptions and presenting biased information.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top