What do you make of the US climate representatives' position?

Question

The USA is the largest per capita greenhouse gas emitter among developed countires.

The USA is the only developed country not to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

The Bush Administration has undermined worldwide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout his entire presidency.

The US has been blocking progress at the Bali climate conference.

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

Considering all that, what do you make of this statement by one of the US representatives at Bali this week?

"James Connaughton, one of the US negotiators, remained defiant. "The US will lead, and we will continue to lead, but leadership also requires others to fall in line and follow," he told reporters."

http://green.yahoo.com/news/afp/20071213/ts_alt_afp/unclimatewarmingus.html

Do you think it's the correct policy for the USA to expect other countries to "fall in line and follow" us with regards to climate policy?

Origin - a bit of advice for you. If you want people to take you seriously, don't link to a story that calls one of the world's foremost climate scientists a "Global Warming Bureaucrat".

Your second point is irrelevant, as you yourself note ("part of").

Jello - cue the words "per capita".

Oh wait, I already did.

Yet another Jello lie. What a shock.

Rationality - you're quoting "a European diplomat". Your quote does not refer to the US representative, nor does it reflect what he was saying.

Origin - Hansen is one of the foremost climate scientists. I refer you to his 1988 climate model. I also asked a question about this model for you, so if you're implying that I got your question deleted, you might want to rethink your comments.

Answer 1

It seems the Almighty USA does have an attitude problem with the rest of the world. Appeasing the oil merchants and car manufacturers seem to be USA government's prime motivation. Hopefully the next government won't be so corrupt and more conscious of the fact that they have a moral obligation to keep this planet green and unpolluted.

Answer 2

The news story you cite answers your own question. It states, "He meant the United States could not be ignored, given its gigantic economy and the fact no climate solution can be envisaged without its help." With the enormous greenhouse emissions of the United States, any attempt to substantially reduce global greenhouse emissions without falling in line and following whatever lead the United States chooses to set would be futile. Other countries might not be satisifed with the approach taken by the United States, but the United States, as a sovereign nation, has no obligation to appease other countries. So, the position of U.S. climate negotiators is entirely realistic.

Addendum: You ask about an expectation of "other countries to 'fall in line and follow' us with regards to climate policy?" Then, you complain that I'm "quoting a European diplomat" (while I'm actually quoting the reporter's paraphrase of the European diplomat, not the European diplomat). If a "European diplomat" is not representative of the "other countries" you refer to in your question, then who is? If you didn't want to me discuss "other countries" in my answer, then why did you include it in your question?

Answer 3

Cue the word "developed". The USA is no longer the leading produced of ghg's. We have been continually reducing ghg's, and now China is the leading producer.

However because the AGW argument depends heavily on guilt, the facts are twisted to make the USA appear to be the largest emitter of these suspected gases.

So what does signing a piece of paper do to reduce emissions? Nothing, but make people feel good by giving the appearance that something is being done.

Answer 4

Socialists will only be happy with socialism. They are not interested in cleaning the environment and saving the world. There are some useful idiots that are but they are unaware of the real agenda. If the rest of the world wants to reduce their ghgs, why should they wait for us. If they think it will save the world, they are obligated to reduce. The fact of the matter, they want us to reduce our energy production. It is the poor in the world that will suffer from the socialists. It always is, yet they claim to be for the poor. I don't see how they can live with themselves and continue to make the poor worse off with their misguided policies. Socialisms should have been thrown on the scrap heap of history but it has been rejuvenated with the so called environmentalists.

Answer 5

What happens when you put and Ice cube on the side walk in the summer? It melts? Every 10k years approx there is an ice age. What happens after the Ice age the glaicers regress and melt then it gets warmer then the climate heats up a fewdegrees and the the cycle reverses.

Gore is all hot air! The day he spoke on global warming two years ago it was the coldest day in a 100 years -40 degree's w/ wind chill in boston.

Don't listen to people with political agendas that have never held a real job.

Answer 6

Al Gore has an insatiable ego. He would like to be emperor of the world. "It's the fault of the US", give me a break. The results of what a commitment to an agreement to the new green house gas emissions would mean to the US should be spelled out to the average American. I am sure if half of the US population just stayed home with no heat or electricity it would reduce our emissions. Get real.

Answer 7

Bush talked a lot about the "technology approach"...

So where is the result now?

Or does he want another meeting to agree on a consensus to decide about the next step to an agreement to discuss future decisions on an agreement?

Answer 8

We don't need to lead here.. we just need to make sure we don't follow.

If other countries want to destroy their economies and kill untold millions of people over something with this weak of supporting science.. let them. But it doesn't mean we have to.