Bush visits Europe (no Holiday in prospect)

Magwitch

Aside fom the Grecians and Kosocarians Bush cannot expect a warm welcome. His various envoys, powerful though they were, have totally failed in selling ABM to the Allies. This coupled with the European abhorance of his scraping of the Kyoto accords (especially by an out spoken Germany) have further damaged US credability with Europe.

Now we see Bush himself visit Europe in a last dutch attempt to find a compromise. Before he left Washington he stated that Climate change had to be tackled, in itself an admission there is a problem where as before he (or his oil lobby) denied it.

But what can he take back with him? He expects I think to dangle a carrot of Environmental reform in exchange for acceptence of the ABM systems development. But i think too much damage has been done. Just to get Getmeny on talking terms again (and France to stop laying into him) he would have to pre-offer that. So All he will take home with him is a paddled butt and a slice of humble pie.

This does however have an effect on Ireland as his visit will have a direct bearing on the Nice treaty. The proposed European Rapid Reaction force is a direct threat to NATO, with France insisting that the intelligence gather capabilities of that force are seperate from NATO, thus freezing out America from European affairs before neutralising their NATO influence. The other members states will therefor ratify Nice, as they have already stated they would, without any renegioation for Ireland.

---

Keep your powder dry and your pants moist

yankinlk

sigh...here we go. i get to listen to a week of america baddd.

DadaKopf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">What yankinlk said:
sigh...here we go. i get to listen to a week of america baddd</font>

Well its true! Deal with it .

[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 12-06-2001).]

C B

Firstly, Bush has continually said that climate change needs to be tackled urgently right from the beginning of his campaign.

Secondly, the Kyoto Protocol as it stands will never pass the US senate (when Clinton tried to pass it it was defeated 98 votes to 0)

Thirdly, many of the ammendments which the Bush administration have propsed will improve the treaty such as,
1. increase the environmental integrity of the accord by forcing China and India to take responsibility for their future growth,
2. result in the same environmental performance in a shorter time scale at less cost by full use of Joint implementation and emissions trading,
3. creating incentives for sustainable forest management by allow a broad definition of "antropogenic" activities under Article 3.4.

You should also examine more closely the EU's claim to have the moral high ground because it's insistance on supplementarity (Brussels speak for minimum domestic action) and the establishment of a conctrete ceiling on emissions trading will do much more damage to the treaty than many of Bush's actions. also the list of allowable activities for the Clean Development Mechanism presented to the developing countries sent them straight into the hands of the US at the previous negotiations.

---

In case anyone gets the wrong idea I still think Bush is a right wing as$hole

Magwitch

I disagree with those points CB. Forestry first. Research points to evidence that forests do not retain or process CO2 as America claims, they release it in huge quantities when the seasons change. So the "polution sinks" that the US is proposing via forestry is fatally flawed. On that same point the planting of trees is only being done to cover future emmisions, not reduce present ones. In planting more trees Bush argues America can pollute more (extending permited levels). The result is still increased emmissions.

Secondly. China and India are cited as pollutors, and indeed they are. But for instance China, even though it is third in the polution league tables, when per heaad of capita is countered they are mid-table at best. India the same. Americas insistance is only method of using Kyoto to wage economic war on another front.

You second point is at odds and fails to point out that America is contesting whether CO2 is a green house gas at all. It claims excessive amounts do no harm and add to an already abundant natural gas present in the environment. The Jury is out (maybe) on CO2 but the Whitehouse and American Industrial policy is definitly behind that opinion and has made up its mind.

Emissions trading is a tool where richer countries can litterally buy a licence to polute from poorer countries. Given the position of poorer counties this is a system open to flagrent political abuse and bullieing.

Though I do agree that what you have stated is American policy, I would amend that it is all in the Bush lobbies interest and not the environments.

I do agree Bush is an A$$hole, but see this politicing over the environment as pure business greed by him and his oil friends. European countries (though not saints themselves) do have populations that understand better the risks of climate change.

C B

Magwitch,

As I see it you've made three points,
1. Carbon Sequestration is a myth,
2. The Bush administration denies that humans are playing a role in global warming, and
3. That emisions trading is a method of "buying" a way out of the problem.

I'll take each of these points in turn.

1. Read the IPCC special report "Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry" available at http://www.ipcc.ch , or read anything by Roger Sedjo of Resources for the Future available at http://www.rff.org . If you wish I can give you a fuller reading list onthe potential of organic matter for sequestration, Irish figures are available at http://www.coford.ie . It is true to say that the Clinton administrations position at the COP-6 negotiations in the Hague would have allowed for non-anthropogenic sequestration to be counted and given America's vast wilderness this would have resulted in a very small drop in total emissions. However if you talk to anybody actually in the Hague they will inform you that this was merely a negotiation strategy which John Prescott forced them to drop until the other EU countries intervened. The result would have been a definition of article 3.4 which would have allowed only for anthropogenic sequestration, which by definition would have resulted in more sustainable forest management policies.

3. I'll come back to point two in a moment.

Your understanding of emisions trading is pathetic. Firstly, what you attempt to describe is Joint Implementaion not emissions trading which actually takes place at a company not country level. Emissions trading allows us to reach the desired target at the lowest cost by harnessing and encouraging the lowest cost abatement strategies and therefore results in the least long term economic disruption. emissions trading provides a competitive advantage to those companies who are environmentally innovative. I have absolutely no interest in giving you a basic lecture in economics or environmental economics. Good explanations of the rationale for emissions trading can be found in any text book by Tom Teitenberg, if you want a more non technical overview you can find it here http://www.ucd.ie/~envinst/envstud/download.html

2. It's just not true. Bush has continually said that global warming is a serious policy issue. This is accepted by "anti-Bush" journals such as "Resources" and "The American Prospect".

---

I repeat the disclaimer thai I beleive George Bush is an a$$hole who will be seen in the long run as a disaster for the environment.

yankinlk

Got this email today lads from across the pond....so i guess not all americans agree with Bush...we cant all be baddddd...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">President Bush recently announced that the United States Government will not honour its commitments under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases.


The United States, with less than 5% of the world's population, produces 25% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, a gas believed to be a major contributor to global warming. According to numerous credible studies, global warming is already occurring. If it continues, the con-sequences for humans and many other species could be catastrophic. The oceans will rise, coastal lowlands will be submerged, and massive displacement of populations will occur. Global cropland may decrease, causing famine. The geographic range of infectious diseases may increase, leading to new epidemics of tropical illnesses such as malaria and dengue. Entire ecosystems could be destroyed.


Show that you disagree with the Bush Administration's decision to withdraw from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming! Urge President Bush to support the treaty. Demand that he commit to a plan to reduce the giant US contribution to global greenhouse emissions to a proportion commensurate with its small population. (Giving up driving wouldn't hurt, either.)


Sign your name, town and country of residence at the bottom of this e-mail, copy the entire text of this e-mail into a new message, and send it to as many people as possible. (Please do NOT simply forward the petition, as this mangles the formatting unimaginably.)


If you see 100 people have signed this message before you, send this e-mail to the White House at president@whitehouse.gov to show Mr. Bush the world is watching. Then start a fresh copy of this message with your name as the first signer. This petition will expire when Mr. Bush agrees to meet the obligations incurred by his predecessor. </font>