Bush rules out support for climate deal!!!

digitally-yours

The news just broke :eek: :eek: :eek:
this man bush is least worried about the rest of the world i would say

"The US President, George W Bush, has said he will not support any Kyoto-style deal on climate change at the G8 summit meeting in Scotland this week.

Speaking in an ITV interview, Mr Bush ruled out committing the United States to any sort of legally binding limit on carbon emissions.

Mr Bush said the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, should not expect any special favours on climate change in return for his support over Iraq.

Mr Bush made it clear that his agenda at Gleneagles would be driven by an assessment of US interests and that any Kyoto-style deal on carbon emissions would wreck the US economy.

Instead, Mr Bush is proposing new technologies to deal with climate change.

His remarks will anger environmental campaigners and demonstrators gathering in Scotland in advance of the G8 summit, where a massive security operation is underway for demonstrations that are expected to draw thousands.

Over 10,500 officers, more than half of them drafted in from England and Wales, will be involved in policing the summit, which begins on Wednesday, and the associated demonstrations.

Also in advance of the summit, a G8 bicycle protest is due to arrive in Edinburgh from London later today and anti-nuclear weapons campaigners are planning a blockade of Faslane nuclear submarine base in western Scotland.

courtesy of
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0704/g8.html

frootfancy

"Mr Bush made it clear that his agenda at Gleneagles would be driven by an assessment of US interests and that any Kyoto-style deal on carbon emissions would wreck the US economy. "

just like relying on finite resources won't? still the way Bush is going i don't think its an issue we'll have to worry about. won't be anyone to use anything once the Earth becomes a smoking husk.

bonkey

Why is this newsworthy? I mean...seriously....

"Bush maintains same stance since he first came to office" would be just as accurate a headline, but somewhat less interesting.

Bush has never supported Kyoto nor Kyoto-style appraoches to the problem, so why its newsworthy that he still doesn't support them is beyond me.

jc

Nuttzz

If the US isnt going to follow the Kyoto protocols, why should Ireland bother? We are set to pay millions if not billions in emmision funds as we havent met our targets, considering that the US will contribute more to C02 emmission than ireland ever will why should the irish taxpayer fork out on emissions trading?

jman0

Nuttzz wrote:

If the US isnt going to follow the Kyoto protocols, why should Ireland bother? We are set to pay millions if not billions in emmision funds as we havent met our targets, considering that the US will contribute more to C02 emmission than ireland ever will why should the irish taxpayer fork out on emissions trading?

Well, i suppose we could lead by example.

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

Bush has never supported Kyoto nor Kyoto-style appraoches to the problem, so why its newsworthy that he still doesn't support them is beyond me.

jc

I guess people (maybe Blair himself) thought that Blair might get some concessions from the child president for Iraq.

Nuttzz

jman0 wrote:

Well, i suppose we could lead by example.

yeah, or we could use the money in our health system, road network, public transport system, housing problems, meeting our GDP commitment to aid for africa, naa that would be a waste, lets pay it to carbon brokers instead....

digitally-yours

Mr Bush made it clear that his agenda at Gleneagles would be driven by an assessment of US interests and that any Kyoto-style deal on carbon emissions would wreck the US economy.

and what about the other poor economies ?? are they not human ??
do they not have the right to live

i really liked what brad pit have to say on live 8
Actor Brad Pitt said: "Let us be the ones who say we do not accept that a child dies every three seconds simply because he does not have the drugs you and I have. Let us be the ones to say we are not satisfied that your place of birth determines your right to life."


you dont decide where your born
so ur birth place shud not determines ur right to live

frootfancy

http://www.natenergy.org.uk/co2mment.htm

I suppose its news-worthy in the sense that when you consdier just how much CO2 the US chucks into the atmosphere. You'd hope the political leaders of America might want to try and do something about it.

Hobbes

Nuttzz wrote:

If the US isnt going to follow the Kyoto protocols, why should Ireland bother? We are set to pay millions if not billions in emmision funds as we havent met our targets, considering that the US will contribute more to C02 emmission than ireland ever will why should the irish taxpayer fork out on emissions trading?

I believe the way the system works is you can trade in pollution currency with other countries that do meet it well below the level. You have a link to where we didn't make our limit?

mr_angry

Nuttzz wrote:

If the US isnt going to follow the Kyoto protocols, why should Ireland bother? We are set to pay millions if not billions in emmision funds as we havent met our targets, considering that the US will contribute more to C02 emmission than ireland ever will why should the irish taxpayer fork out on emissions trading?

Because Ireland, along with all the other countries that signed up to the Kyoto protocol agreed that the long-term effects of carbon emissions continuing at current or increased levels would seriously damage our environment. (That includes Ireland.) In a similar spirit to Live8, its worth at least trying, even if it doesn't succeed in all its original aims. At least we're attempting to address the problems, and it should also lead to the discovery of new, less-harmful technologies as more money is thrown at R&D in that area. This might even make the Kyoto countries world leaders in future energy technology, and benefit the economy significantly when finite resources run out.

Lets face it - all the extra money given to the health system / roads authority wont make a blind bit of difference if Ireland gets hit by a Tsunami or frozen if the gulf stream stops functioning because of climate change.

bonkey

mr_angry wrote:

Because Ireland, along with all the other countries that signed up to the Kyoto protocol agreed that the long-term effects of carbon emissions continuing at current or increased levels would seriously damage our environment. (That includes Ireland.)

Yeah, but isn't it more than likely a case where it would be more accurate to say it will seriously damage our environment, but only seriously impact our descendants.

Why would any rich, successful, power-grabbing capitalist in his 50s or older give a sweet crap about what's gonna happen to the climate over the next century.

jc

pickarooney

Ah, we'll just all move to America when the tidal wave hits, Bush will ensure that the US is safe from that sort of carry-on.

Nuttzz

again with the funking links mantra....

http://www.greenparty.ie/en/news/green_voice/green_voice_may_2005/kyoto_in_force_but_government_has_so_much_more_to_do

Ireland's case we promised to limit the increase in emissions to 13% over 1990 levels by the year 2012. Ireland has experienced huge growth in that period and emissions today are over twice the increase that we signed up to seven years ago

http://www.rte.ie/business/2003/1126/SEI.html

http://www.irish-energy.ie/content/content.asp?section_id=787&language_id=1&publication_id=1315

http://www.dcmnr.gov.ie/Energy/Sustainable+Energy+Division/Green+Paper+on+Sustainable+Energy/Implementation/Full+Chapter+Content/

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/papers/article.php?sid=5558&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

http://www.boc.ie/Downloads/B%C3%93C_GHG_Doc4.pdf

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=27543


If the worlds leading CO2 producer is going to ignore kyoto, why are we penalising ourselves???

toiletduck

i gotta agree with bonkey, why is this newsworthy? America will never sign up to kyoto

netwhizkid

Originally Posted by jman0
Well, i suppose we could lead by example.

No Ireland should not cut back out Co2 emmsions, We are a drop in the ocean. Why should the irish economy suffer when climate change will happen anyway. I also feel no other country should bother either, although we should maintain our effeciency and encourage greater effeicency. If the bulls***ing americans don't cut back why should we. They are the cause of all world problems and the brits are a major contributer to this too. They have caused all the trade problems in africa. American capitalism won't work it will destroy the world and cost millions of lives. I am a socialist, and i belive that capitalistic ideas like the chap in the corner shop selling newspaper and sweets should be encouraged. It is bush and $hell and €$$o are whats wrong with the world. Corporate greed. I belive that there is nothing wrong with a fair free and transparent open market and competetion can work if it is regulated right. EG. Right wing capitalist harney gives private bupa a break in risk equalisition:- they knew that would happen when they entered the market. No VHI rises premiums by 12.5%. It is the same with Eircom we have a low broadband rate here because of unfair competition. Eircom are too restricted.
Basically my rant is Bush and Capitalism will ruin the world and this statement by him will be remembered in History as a bad day. Hopefully this week will be remebered for better reasons ala live 8 and G for greed 8 on Wednesday.

Regards netwhizkid

Nuttzz

netwhizkid wrote:

Capitalism will ruin the world

socalism hasnt been a great success though has it.....

thanks to capitalism we have things like the internet and boards.ie where we can discuss and argue. couldnt see it happening in a socalist paradise, e.g. chinas internet restrictions

4Xcut

Apperantly if everyone took the day off and stayed in bed and used no fuel whatsoever this would allow for a huge repair to the atmosphere. Now i'm talking every engine, machine, factory, everything to be shut down. Can't remember where i heard that. Only thing is that there would be a huge population boom in 9 months.

jman0

Nuttzz wrote:

socalism hasnt been a great success though has it.....

thanks to capitalism we have things like the internet and boards.ie where we can discuss and argue. couldnt see it happening in a socalist paradise, e.g. chinas internet restrictions

What are china's internet restrictions? I work with a Chinese lady and her parents have broadband at home. They IM all day and send stuff back and forth via email etc.

ando

"F*ck Kyoto"



Bring back Clinton, he was brilliant. Even H Clinton will do

Nuttzz

jman0 wrote:

What are china's internet restrictions? I work with a Chinese lady and her parents have broadband at home. They IM all day and send stuff back and forth via email etc.

here you go comrade.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2145865.stm

There are already restrictions on which foreign websites can be accessed.

Beijing also plans to order licensed net cafés to install software which can prevent access to up to 500,000 foreign websites.

The software would tell police when surfers try to access illicit pages, the Information Centre for Human Rights and Democracy said earlier this month.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4617657.stm

The Chinese government has announced plans to police web forums, chat rooms and blogs alongside other websites.
Websites in China have long been required to be officially registered.

The authorities are now determined that blogs should also be brought under state control.

It said cafes must also register the identity of their customers.

jman0

I see, one step ahead of America then.

mr_angry

bonkey wrote:

Why would any rich, successful, power-grabbing capitalist in his 50s or older give a sweet crap about what's gonna happen to the climate over the next century.

I've been thinking about this reply for a couple of days now, and the only answer I can give is that even rich, successful, power-grabbing capitalists in their 50's have some sense of what is morally right and wrong. Its fairly clear that even George W. Bush has a fairly strong sense of what it right and wrong. In fact, he lives by it - "You're either with us, or against us". In this case, he is against any Kyoto-like strategy. However, given the mounting scientific evidence of climate change, and the now obvious logic behind trying to stop it, I believe its conceivable that GWB could be swayed to the other camp on this issue. What needs to be done is to manouvre him away from the oil companies whispering in his ear, and more towards the other governments who are attempting to address the problem. I'm not for a minute suggesting this is an easy task, but I don't think it is impossible, as some people are suggesting. Its called politics.

On another note, I really take issue with people who say we should abandon plans to cut greenhouse emissions because the US aren't doing the same. If you see a pick-pocket working a street, do you join in and start robbing people? No, you don't. And before someone suggests that that is a poor analogy, that is not what I'm getting at. I realise we cannot "arrest" or punish the US for not signing up to international treaties, but the fundamental reason for not pick-pocketing people is not that it is an arrestable offence - it is because it is morally wrong. So in this situation, should we join the US in doing something morally wrong because ours is on a lesser scale and because it suits our short-term economic benefit, or should we take a stand based on principle and lead by example? Some of the people claiming the US is the greatest evil in the world should look at themselves and their own stance on this matter, and wonder where the difference lies.

Nuttzz wrote:

socalism hasnt been a great success though has it.....

thanks to capitalism we have things like the internet and boards.ie where we can discuss and argue. couldnt see it happening in a socalist paradise, e.g. chinas internet restrictions

I would have thought someone who comments so frequently on Politics would be able to distinguish between oppressive communist dictatorships and socialism by now. If anything, the Internet and Boards.ie are 2 of the most obvious opposites to capitalism available as example to us. If you don't know why, I suggest reading the history of the HTTP protocol (specifically Tim Berners Lee making it available royalty-free to the rest of the world), and the history of Boards.ie (specifically how much money the founders have made out of it, possibly contrasting with how much enjoyment they have gotten out of it).

Boggle

I hate to say this - actually sickened - but I can see bush's point. I cannot see the american people all of a sudden giving up air-con and big engines. If you tried to force them then you'd get a revolt.

I firmly believe that the solution lies, not in limiting energy consumption, but in developing cleaner methods of generating this energy.

So maybe Europe should be ploughing money into actually finding a solution instead of stopgap measures like Kyoto.

toiletduck

Boggle wrote:

I firmly believe that the solution lies, not in limiting energy consumption, but in developing cleaner methods of generating this energy.

So maybe Europe should be ploughing money into actually finding a solution instead of stopgap measures like Kyoto.

i agree. i think it may be better to spend the money that will go into reduce emissions, the fines for exceeding limits, etc. into new, cleaner tech

mr_angry

Boggle wrote:

So maybe Europe should be ploughing money into actually finding a solution instead of stopgap measures like Kyoto.

But what's the best way to get both public and private industry to put significant research into these solutions? I would imagine international treaties and hefty fines for exceeding limits on carbon emissions are a very effective way to stimulate this research.

Kyoto is not just about reducing carbon emissions in traditional economies. Its about creating a demand for new technologies that don't have such harmful effects on the atmosphere, but still allow us to generate the energy to power our economies. Without things like Kyoto, there is little or no incentive for governments to promote such research.


Edit: In fact, its written into the Kyoto protocol directly:

ARTICLE 5:
RESEARCH AND SYSTEMATIC OBSERVATION

In carrying out their commitments under Article 4, paragraph 1(g), the Parties shall:

(a) Support and further develop, as appropriate, international and intergovernmental programmes and networks or organizations aimed at defining, conducting, assessing and financing research, data collection and systematic observation, taking into account the need to minimize duplication of effort;

(b) Support international and intergovernmental efforts to strengthen systematic observation and national scientific and technical research capacities and capabilities, particularly in developing countries, and to promote access to, and the exchange of, data and analyses thereof obtained from areas beyond national jurisdiction; and

(c) Take into account the particular concerns and needs of developing countries and cooperate in improving their endogenous capacities and capabilities to participate in the efforts referred to in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above.

Nuttzz

mr_angry wrote:

I would have thought someone who comments so frequently on Politics would be able to distinguish between oppressive communist dictatorships and socialism by now.

considering Bertie calls himself a socialist one cant help being confused

mr_angry wrote:

If anything, the Internet and Boards.ie are 2 of the most obvious opposites to capitalism available as example to us. If you don't know why, I suggest reading the history of the HTTP protocol (specifically Tim Berners Lee making it available royalty-free to the rest of the world), and the history of Boards.ie (specifically how much money the founders have made out of it, possibly contrasting with how much enjoyment they have gotten out of it).

Ahh but the expression of freedom to use the internet for free and the freedom to debate like this on sites like boards.ie wouldnt happen in a unfree society, capitalist societies tend to be freer, IMO.

bonkey

Boggle wrote:

I firmly believe that the solution lies, not in limiting energy consumption, but in developing cleaner methods of generating this energy.

It lies in both.

There are new engines in the latest (or coming) generation of some American cars which can run on less cylinders when power isn't needed. So the car will still have its big engine, with all those horses ready to push at need....btu when they're not nedeed the car will run on fewer. So a V8 can run as a V6, or even a V4.

SciAm did an article on this engine about a year ago. One staggering figure was that the introduction of this engine was reckoned to be able to contribute more to reducing emissions than hybrid engines like in the Prius.

It gives the best of both worlds. The "I want my big Detroit engine" car-driver doesn't have to compromise, especially when (s)he puts the boot down in terms of power delivered, but the overall package will run massively more efficiently. You get your big ol' engine, and you get reduced emissions.

So its not just about generating more cleanly. Its about using more intelligently.

jc

mr_angry

Nuttzz wrote:

Ahh but the expression of freedom to use the internet for free and the freedom to debate like this on sites like boards.ie wouldnt happen in a unfree society, capitalist societies tend to be freer, IMO.

This is pretty off-topic, so forgive my indulgence here. I think thats a pretty massive generalisation that isn't backed-up by any scientific data whatsoever. There are plenty of Islamic websites that the US government don't want you visiting aswell. I'm not trying to say communist China is "more free" than the US, but I think there is no eveidence to suggest that the US is "more free" than socialist-led Germany, Spain, or Britain.

Also, it is misleading to suggest that inventions / discoveries in the US (or even Switzerland in this case) are automatically down to capitalism, especially in a society of 280 million. Its like saying that a man running a factory in China must automatically be a communist, even though his ideology clearly contrasts with typical communist thinking.

Anyway, in an attempt to go back on-topic, I feel we have a moral obligation to prevent climate change, regardless of what the rest of the world is up to. Just because some of the other peoples of this world have not yet come to the same realisation as us is not reason to discontinue the good work we are doing. It only means we should try harder to convince them, and what better way than to develop clean technologies that produce as much energy as traditional ones?

Nuttzz

mr_angry wrote:

and what better way than to develop clean technologies that produce as much energy as traditional ones?

this is exactly what we should be doing, however I do have an issue about the irish taxpayer forking out €€€€€ in carbon emission trading while the largest CO2 producer gives us the 2 fingers and protects its economy.

I think the socalist debate is for a different thread..but....is the british labour party really socialist???

SkepticOne

Nuttzz wrote:

If the US isnt going to follow the Kyoto protocols, why should Ireland bother? We are set to pay millions if not billions in emmision funds as we havent met our targets, considering that the US will contribute more to C02 emmission than ireland ever will why should the irish taxpayer fork out on emissions trading?

Unfortunately it is precisely this "uh, the other guy isn't doing his bit so why should I?" attitude that results in things like the Kyoto agreement not working.

From a US Government environmental website:

This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.

India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. These and other developing countries that are experiencing rapid growth face challenges in reducing their emissions without harming their economies.

Just because the US is not doing its bit doesn't mean we should not do ours.

Nuttzz

SkepticOne wrote:

Just because the US is not doing its bit doesn't mean we should not do ours.

I have no problem with reduced emiisions, but again I'll say it, why should the irish taxpayer fork out €€€€€€ for carbon emission trading when the US wont. I would love to see more RE used (Ive signed up for airtricty for example) but why should we make traders etc richer while the US ignores the kyoto treaty?

Boggle

But what's the best way to get both public and private industry to put significant research into these solutions? I would imagine international treaties and hefty fines for exceeding limits on carbon emissions are a very effective way to stimulate this research.

Hefty fines will not effect the way companies carry out their business as they are already looking to streamline their energy consumption in order toi reduce the factory cost. How is an added fine going to help? They'll just heave anchor and pull back to a non-Kyoto country.

It lies in both.

There are new engines in the latest (or coming) generation of some American cars which can run on less cylinders when power isn't needed. So the car will still have its big engine, with all those horses ready to push at need....btu when they're not nedeed the car will run on fewer. So a V8 can run as a V6, or even a V4.

Here is an interesting point. There are people here critisising Bush on his energy policy and yet they are ignoring how our own govt is blatantly ignoring the treaty that they signed so readily. How else would you explain the fact that there is a more economic car available (the Prius in this case), yet there is no incentive for the people to buy one?
Does this not indicate that OUR govt doesn't care??

bonkey

Nuttzz wrote:

why should the irish taxpayer fork out €€€€€€ for carbon emission trading when the US wont.

Why shouldn't we?

Our recycling, car efficiency, and I daresay a myriad other factors regarding our ecological friendliness are better than the US's at present.

Should we just stop with all of this, on the grounds that refusing to stay in with the "let our kids sort it out, cause we want the money dammit" crowd in these regards also places us at an economic disadvantage?

Funny...I always thought the argument behind environmentalism wasn't financial.

jc

bonkey

Boggle wrote:

There are people here critisising Bush on his energy policy and yet they are ignoring how our own govt is blatantly ignoring the treaty that they signed so readily.

Are they? There's large moves to meet our growing energy demands with renewable and clean energy sources, for a start.

How else would you explain the fact that there is a more economic car available (the Prius in this case), yet there is no incentive for the people to buy one? Does this not indicate that OUR govt doesn't care??

There is an incentive to buy one. Its called a lower fuel bill over a car of comparative price. Its the same type of incentive there's been for decades to buy lagging jackets for your hot water tank, or energy-saving lightbulbs.

Now, it could be argued that the government could invest in additional incentives, but to do that, you'd have to work out how much its worth.

Its easy to say that our government should do more to make these vehicles attractive, but the simple truth is that it simply may not be cost-effective to do so. If it will cost more money to fund the upkeep of Prius-type vehicles than it will to pay the carbon-tax if we don't....is it still a good idea? If not...then do we know our government are being irresponsible, or do we just assume it? Has anyone worked out what our government should be funding into this as a cost-effective return on investment?

And lets not forget that until Russia signed on board, Kyoto wasn't binding. So we had a choice of implementing it early, and risking the cost of that implementation for no economic benefit were Kyoto to die with the Russians. or we could do as we did, and wait until we knew (or were more sure) that it would come into force, and then see what we could do.

Would ppl have been praising our govt. if it had spent billions on cutting emissions etc. only to have Kyoto never come into force, thus removing the reason for those billions being spent? Given that its the economic aspect of environmental change that ppl seem to be focussing on, I would suggest the answer can only be no for many.

The most important lesson, IMHO, that Kyoto has made clear to the signed-up nations is that change takes time. (well, I'm not sure its been learned, and positive its so obvious it shouldn't have needed to be made clear) Momentum especially takes time to build. The only nations remotely close (that I'm aware of) to meeting their agreements are the ones who didn't wait for Kyoto to gain enough signatures, but who decided they were going to do it anyway, regardless of whether it survived or fell as an agreement.

Funnily, as we sit here today, with people arguing to the effect of "why should we do this when the US won't sign up", I would posit that in a handful (or two) of years, we'll be sitting looking at the early-adopters and asking why our government let us down so badly by waiting so long to actually start doing anything.

jc

SkepticOne

Nuttzz wrote:

I have no problem with reduced emiisions, but again I'll say it, why should the irish taxpayer fork out €€€€€€ for carbon emission trading when the US wont. I would love to see more RE used (Ive signed up for airtricty for example) but why should we make traders etc richer while the US ignores the kyoto treaty?

We should not be paying other countries. We should be cutting our emissions. My point is that just because the US does not feel the need to cut theirs does not make any difference to our responsibility. At the end of the day, the environment doesn't care where the cuts come from.

mr_angry

Boggle wrote:

Hefty fines will not effect the way companies carry out their business as they are already looking to streamline their energy consumption in order toi reduce the factory cost. How is an added fine going to help? They'll just heave anchor and pull back to a non-Kyoto country.

I disagree entirely. The added fine is an incentive for the Irish government to promote research into clean energy sources among companies resident in Ireland. Rather than do that through law, the way to achieve it is through research grants etc. Necessity is the mother of invention, and if it is necessary for the Irish government to find new forms of energy production, it will be done. Hitting the Irish government in the pocket is the only way to get them to do this, and it would seem that a lot of the comments on this thread back that up. The companies will not pull back to non-Kyoto countries if the Irish government is throwing money at them to do research.

I'm also interested to know where the fine money goes to. Having looked at the Kyoto documents, I still can't determine where that is. If I was making the treaty, I would have thought it was a good idea to pump the fine money back into the R&D sector of the Kyoto-compliant countries, hence providing even more of an incentive to be Kyoto-compliant and do research. Since all research on the subject is shared between the countries, this would be entirely fair. However, this is pure speculation on my part.

Boggle

Are they? There's large moves to meet our growing energy demands with renewable and clean energy sources, for a start.

Like what? I don't hear of any windfarms being built at the minute...

There is an incentive to buy one. Its called a lower fuel bill over a car of comparative price.

And at a rough cost of E28.500 (motornet). If they wanted to promote these hybrid cars they would have reduced VRT on them. Then they would become an attractive option.

Would ppl have been praising our govt. if it had spent billions on cutting emissions etc. only to have Kyoto never come into force, thus removing the reason for those billions being spent? Given that its the economic aspect of environmental change that ppl seem to be focussing on, I would suggest the answer can only be no for many.

Actually what I am getting at is that the govt HAS signed up to a treaty which, binding or not, comitted Ireland to work towards a greener future. Why then have we apparently done nothing??

Funnily, as we sit here today, with people arguing to the effect of "why should we do this when the US won't sign up", I would posit that in a handful (or two) of years, we'll be sitting looking at the early-adopters and asking why our government let us down so badly by waiting so long to actually start doing anything.

Only if we get fined. Otherwise I won't be too bothered - like I said, its a stopgap measure. Developing countries will continue to need more energy and as such the only solution liess in developing new clean energy sources.
Why didn't they just set up an energy counsel charged with developing new energy sources? At least then all countries would pay a fixed amount for a few years and ALL would reap the rewards when the time came...

Hitting the Irish government in the pocket is the only way to get them to do this, and it would seem that a lot of the comments on this thread back that up.

But as usual, the govt will do nothing. They will simply pass the cost on to businesses. May I point out that this is already a relatively uncompetetive location costwise. (We have advantages in a common language with the states and relatively high skill levels but this will only buy so much lee-way)

mr_angry

Boggle wrote:

Like what? I don't hear of any windfarms being built at the minute...

But as usual, the govt will do nothing. They will simply pass the cost on to businesses. May I point out that this is already a relatively uncompetetive location costwise. (We have advantages in a common language with the states and relatively high skill levels but this will only buy so much lee-way)

IIRC, Bertie opened the largest off-shore windfarm in the world off the south east coast last month. Similarly, the largest campus-based wind turbine in the world is currently under construction at DKIT, and correspondingly, we have a centre for renewable energy located just across the hall from me.

http://www.credit.ie/

The government are providing grants to them to carry out research into renewable energy which will provide power to the entire DKIT campus within a few years. Now, you are well within your rights to argue that the government are not doing enough to help meet the requirements of the Kyoto protocol, but you cannot say that they are not doing anything.

As I said previously, I don't believe Kyoto is a stopgap measure - it is specifically designed to encourage research into clean and renewable energy technologies, not just to limit emissions. Half of the treaty is dedicated to the nature and sharing of the research - to say it is just a stopgap measure is inaccurate.

The Saint

IIRC, Bertie opened the largest off-shore windfarm in the world off the south east coast last month.

If I'm not mistaken that new wind farm was built by Airtricity, a private company, like pretty much all wind farms in the country. Why does the state owned ESB not invest in renewables?