Why is the USA blocking progress at the Bali climate conference?

Question

"Nobel laureate Al Gore accused the United States on Thursday of blocking progress at the U.N. climate conference, and European nations threatened to boycott U.S.-led climate talks next month unless Washington compromises on emissions reductions."

"The United States, Japan and several other governments are refusing to accept language in a draft document suggesting that industrialized nations consider cutting emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent by 2020, saying specific targets would limit the scope of future talks.

European nations said they may boycott a U.S.-led climate meeting next month unless Washington compromises."

"Gore urged delegates to reach agreement even without the backing of the United States, saying President Bush's successor, who will take office in January 2009, would likely be more supportive of binding cuts."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bali_climate_conference

Why does the US continue to undermine worldwide efforts to decrease GHG emissions?

Answer 1

Honestly who knows. I may be skeptical about what's causing the warming but I'm definitely down for cutting our pollution and becoming less dependent on foreign oil. I don't know what the hell this current administration is up to and we haven't known since he's been in office for last 7yrs. It's really scary to know and think that our government has gotten so greedy that they don't want to become less dependent on foreign oil due to what is filling their back pockets with cash. And cutting carbon, I don't understand why they can't reach an agreement. It's for the good of all, it may not change the climate but it can't hurt. Also as long as it is done right to where it doesn't hurt the middle or lower class citizens. I'd have to read and find out exactly what how this plan is suposed to work out.

Answer 2

A better question would be, "Why are so many European countries not blocking progress at the Bali climate conference?" The answer has nothing to do with whether American leaders really believe Al Gore is right or wrong.

The U.S. has only 4 and 1/2 percent of the world's population, but it uses 25% of the world's oil output. The U.S. is addicted to cheap oil. In Europe, gas costs the equivalent of $7 to $8 per gallon, and the result is that the people there have much better public transportation than we do and they drive smaller cars. Nobody there really suffers because of the price of gas.

The U.S. has cheapest gas prices of any non oil exporting nation, but people still complain about pain at the pump when the price goes up a few cents, because they want to be able keep driving their gas guzzeling SUVs, with no sacrafice. Oil is a limited resource. Over half of the world's supply may already be used up. - But many Americans would rather keep using it as fast as possible, than save some for the next generation. Meanwhile we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the military, in part to keep the cheap supply of oil coming in.

It is rare to see a problem, the solution to which help solves so many other problems.

Cutting down on the use of oil in the U.S. would-

- Save some oil for the next generation.
- Reduce our dependence on oil imports - with all the problems that causes.
- Help the global warming problem.
- Stimulate business growth in industries that produce clean and efficient technologies.

Answer 3

Yes; If global warming wipes out half the nations, it is such a disaster. Al Gore knows what he talks. He sacrificed the US presidency for environment movement. He organized world wide SOS music marathons. He lead the new pop and cultural paradigms. Let us all demand new world order and as a force wipe the national boundaries and give a way for elite few to rule us into the future. Only they can face and crush the world terrorism. It is time that world adopt "new world order" and make Al Gore the "president of the world." Even pop starts love Al Gore; why not you?

Answer 4

Bush apparently has made the decison to stall any progress with reducing global warming emisions. According to far right-wing conservatives, the GOP loss in the congressional elections last year was was due to the party's shift away from the right-wing core constituency. They say that this is a wake-up call for Bush to pay attention to their base.

That's why since the elections, Bush has vetoed various higher spending bills. Reducing global warming pollutants is not seen as a priority for the far right-wing establishment, to say the least.

That being said, many business leaders want legislation passed before the presidential switch. They feel that they can get a better deal with Bush as president, as opposed to a democratic president, or a more left-leaning republican president.

Answer 5

Because the US is money- and oil obsessed, and its leaders (who often have ties to the oil industry) freak out at anything that might hurt their immediate bottom line. It's an old story, really.

Oh, and you skeptics, I love how you throw out stuff like: the climate wasn't always the same as it was at the turn of the last century, therefore our actions cannot be responsible for the current radical changes in our climate. Standard bait and switch going on here... what *is* different is the *rate* at which the global climate is changing. As I said in a related post, go visit the Alberta Tar Sands (without driving your big SUV to get there, preferably) and then tell me that we don't do enough nasty things to have an effect on the environment.

Answer 6

Because the methods the "worldwide" effort are calling for will destroy economies, kill untold millions of people while having absolutely no impact on climate change.

Once again the US is the voice of reason.

Answer 7

Why do you believe what Al Gore says anyway? Gore is a Liberal Democrat. They always blame America for all the worlds woes.
Not only that, who in their right mind would believe that the earths climate remains static and never fluctuates? Morons that hang on Gores every word, that's who.
I'm all for pollution control, but puny man cannot alter a natural warming cycle.

Answer 8

Simply because this is the right thing to do.

The US is reducing carbon emissions voluntarily. The only reason to sign a reduction agreement into law is to give the signers the ability to use the full force of gvmt to accomplish the same goals.

Answer 9

Because it is a farce.

There was a little thing from 900-1200 where the climate was much warmer then than it is now. No SUVs, no planes, no trains, and a much smaller human population. This is how Greenland actually got it's name, because when the Vikings found it, it was lush and green. In fact grapes were grown there during this period.

The UN report itself, if you dig into it many scientific reports actually say the opposite of the summary. In other words, green house gases are a lie. It is nothing more than a ploy to hand more control to the one world government, the UN, and to redistribute wealth to countries who are either too lazy, or too dumb to get them selves out of third world status.

Answer 10

Because the US knows that global warming is a natural cycle the earth undergoes and is not caused by man. The US and Japan also know that it is just a money extortion scheme to get the US to pay for most of the cost of something we can do nothing about.