U.S. Rejects G-8 Greenhouse Climate Proposals
Despite recent press reports suggesting that the United States might at least start to inch towards the same page on greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. has rejected a German proposal that reportedly enjoyed great support in Europe — sharply pitting the Bush administration against European governments more than ever on environmental issues:
The United States has rejected Germany’s proposal for deep long-term cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, setting the stage for a battle that will pit President Bush against his European allies at next month’s meeting of the world’s richest countries.
In unusually harsh language, Bush administration negotiators took issue with the German draft of the communiqué for the meeting of the Group of 8 industrialized nations, complaining that the proposal “crosses multiple red lines in terms of what we simply cannot agree to.â€
“We have tried to tread lightly, but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position,†the American response said.
Germany, backed by Britain and now Japan, has proposed cutting global greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who will be the host of the meeting in the Baltic Sea resort of Heiligendamm next month, has been pushing hard to get the Group of 8 to take significant action on climate change.
Just how isolated the United States now is on this issue is underscored by another fact brought out in the New York Times piece linked above:
It had been a foregone conclusion that the Western European members of the Group of 8 — Germany, Italy, France and Britain — would back the reductions. But on Thursday, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan threw his lot in with the Europeans, and proposed cutting carbon emissions as part of a new framework to replace the Kyoto Protocol, whose mandatory caps on gases end in 2012.
Consequently, the Times reports, European diplomats are “furious” and one says the United States remains “virtually isolated.”
The U.S. opposition is also a blow to the reputation of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Guardian notes:
Despite Tony Blair’s declaration on Thursday that Washington would sign up to “at least the beginnings” of action to cut carbon emissions, a note attached to a draft document circulated by Germany says the US is “fundamentally opposed” to the proposals.
The note, written in red ink, says the deal “runs counter to our overall position and crosses multiple ‘red lines’ in terms of what we simply cannot agree to”.
This is embarrassing for Mr Blair, who said on Thursday with some confidence that the US was moderating its position on climate change as the summit approached. Before visiting the White House this month, the prime minister suggested that he was close to persuading George Bush to accept the establishment of carbon trading schemes, one of five main proposals drawn up ahead of the G8. But Washington rejected the sections on carbon trading, saying to back trading schemes would imply acceptance of emission caps.
The result? The Guardian reports that the EU and the United States are now so far apart that any kind of agreement that will be reached will be “meaningless.”
The BBC adds more details on this issue that will accentuate differences between the United States and Europe on this issue at a time when the United States is increasingly isolated and criticized by European governments about its conduct of the war in Iraq:
Correspondents say the document hints at a looming struggle over the issue of climate change at the G8 summit, to be held on 6-8 June in Heiligendamm, Germany.
Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to use Germany’s presidency of the G8 to secure a major climate change deal, including:
* Agreement to slow the rise in average temperatures this century to 2C
* A cut in global emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2050
* A rise in energy efficiency in power and transport by 20 percent by 2020.
Greenpeace Director John Sauven described the US position as “criminal”.
“The US administration is clearly ignoring the global scientific consensus as well the groundswell of concern about climate change in the United States,” he said.
Mrs Merkel should make it clear the US was isolated on the issue among G8 members, he added.
And the BBC also underscores how political embarrassing this is to Blair:
Speaking on 24 May, British Prime Minister Tony Blair suggested the US – could be on the verge of altering its climate policy.
The US has not signed the 2001 Kyoto Protocol, which sets out targets for lowering emissions until 2012.
“I can’t think that there’s going to be many people running for presidential office next time round in the US who aren’t going to have climate change in their programme,” said Mr Blair.
“I think it is possible that we will see action – and at least the beginnings of that action at the G8 – I hope so. That’s what I’m arguing for.”
The problem with a country becoming isolated on key issues is that the spillover reduces the country’s overall clout on other matters. Politicos in Congress may work with the Bush administration on issues of joint self-interest despite huge disagreements on some issues but the administration’s clout has shrunk.
Similarly, look for opposition to the Bush administration to increase in Europe as European governments and their increasingly assertive leaders begin to conclude that the U.S. isn’t interested in consensus (something the Bush administration usually ignores in domestic policy and which most other American administrations of both parties have tried to create). These EU government leaders will likely start to count down the days until Bush and his unique American administration leave office. Just as many members of Congress of both parties are already doing.
SOME OTHER WEBLOG OPINION:
–Americablog: “The G8 leaders should not give Bush anything at all unless he’s willing to move forward and he’s not interested in this. Any concession given to Bush will only be manipulated and rubbed in their noses, much like he did this past week on the Iraq spending bill. If this means no announcement, fine, but give him nothing. Concessions by others will be considered a victory for Bush.”
Two days ago Tony Blair declared that George Bush would make some gracious concessions on climate emissions during the next G-8 summit. Yesterday I argued that the soon-to-be former British PM must be be insane to expect our president to start respect him as a lame duck. I don’t even know how many times Blair tried to leverage his loyalty into concessions from his special friend across the Atlanti. Sometimes it involved war planning, for example the Brits frantically asked for contingency planning in case the major post-hostilities problem proved to me something more serious than finding a place for all the candy and flowers. More often Blair asked for even the smallest concession on carbon emissions. Blair came home empty handed every single time. For some reason the guy who lives under a queen never figured out the difference between loyalty and fealty.
–Daily Kos’ Meteor Blades: “The Bush Administration has been pretending for a couple of years that it acknowledges the reality of global warming. When it comes to more than words, however, the acknowledgment is nowhere to be found. And, as numerous doctored scientific reports and censored scientists attest, some words aren’t allowed either. By its behavior the Bush Administration simultaneously continues to make the United States the planet’s biggest global warming generator and its most outrageous global warming denier.”
13 Responses to “U.S. Rejects G-8 Greenhouse Climate Proposals”
Did China, India or any other potentially massive polluter sign up to this? If not, then the Euros can take their new Eco Religion and shove it.
[...] The Moderate Voice (Joe Gandelman) – “… Despite recent press reports suggesting that the United States might at least start to inch towards the same page on greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. has rejected a German proposal that reportedly enjoyed great support in Europe — sharply pitting the Bush administration against European governments more than ever on environmental issues… ” [...]
phin- The US is the sole global superpower, not to mention that we create 1/4 of the world’s pollution. We should be taking the lead on this issue not pointing fingers at developing countries like India and China that do not share our values, and may never come around. If we were to take the lead a new technological direction could be initiated by our scientists to avoid future catastrophe and market workable solutions to the rest of the planet. It is shameful that this administration has taken the head-in-the-sand approach, to the point that states like California are suing the federal government to allow them to implement their own environmental standards. It has totally caved to business lobbies on this issue.
kr – Thewhat about India and China is similar to the terorists torture so we should do the same to prevent a WMD attack. For born-again W to be on the moral high ground…
Rudi- With any luck we could even end up with a CIC next time that doesn’t believe in evolution and wants to ban schools from teaching sex ed to students (though they’d probably allow lectures on abstinence, lol) Bible classes are being added to the Texas curriculum. That is the way forward into the future.
phin and those who share his view apparently don’t grasp the idea of leading by example.
kritter
The US may be the #1 polluter but
- it accounts for about 20% of the world’s GDP. That said, if you use per capita figures, my own country Canada comes out ahead. And Canada signed the Kyoto crap back in the 90s under the supposedly ecofriendly Liberals. They did absolutely nothing for the entire time they were in power. Nothing but cheap rhetoric. Only when they were thrown out did they become ecowarriors again, under the tutelage of the Goracle’s Canadian apostle Stephane Dion. Why did they do nothing? Because it would have been economic suicide and for what? For a theory, a “science” that has NOT really been settled quite yet.
- China, within a couple of years will overtake the US and probably India within a decade or so assuming their economic growth continues. And I’m willing to bet that they will most likely be more inefficient than the US ie heavier polluters. And you know what, they don’t give a shit what the Followers of Global Warming and their Prophet the Goracle have to say. Can you imagine if most of the developing world starts to achieve the kinds of economic growth and development that we have become so accustomed to? Who do you think will be “killing Mother Earth” then?
Look, I’m not against producing technologies that will make us more “environmentally responsible”. And I’m certainly for technology that will make us as independent of Middle Eastern oil as is possible and as soon as possible. But let’s be reasonable. Let’s leave aside all the gloom and doom and all the environmental evangelicism. Global Warming is not a religion, nor should it be a political ideology; it’s a scientific theory that may or may not be wrong. For instance, taking care of the environment is a worthy cause even without Global Warming, err, Climate Change.
And you know what else, there is such unbelievable self-absorbed, self-centered arrogance and hubris on the part of Global Warming Believers. It’s nauseating. To wit, one of the goals is an “agreement to slow the rise in average temperatures this century to 2C”. I’m sorry, but do the Earth and the Sun get a vote on this? Cause, you know, they have their own internal cycles independent of what we little gods on Earth do or do not do. I’m not saying that we have no effect whatsoever, but a little humble perspective would be nice and a honest acknowledgment of our limitations. A bunch of feel good nonsense. As if we would ever be able to manipulate and control the Earth’s environment like that. And would we really want to anyway?
Unfortunately for phin’s arguments climatologists aren’t idiots. They know better than most what goes into the natural cycles of climate and the overwhelming majority of them have come to the conclusion that the greatest contributor to the current warming trend is human activity. I consider those people who constantly denigrate the specialists in this field by insisting they must be wrong to be the nauseating people, placing their own narrow interests and beliefs above actual inspection of the situation.
Canada is a very cold and sparesly populated country. This accounts for the per capita carbon use.
I’d like to see more info on why Germany’s approach (carbon tax/cap and trade) is right and the U. S. approach (technological solutions e.g. scrubbing, sequestration) is wrong. Perhaps, as Jim Satterfield suggests, the U. S. is leading by example but intransigent Europeans are insisting on their own impractical approaches. I just don’t know and this particular article doesn’t help me much.
I believe that global warming exists and that human activity contributes to it. The question is what’s the right way to deal with it?
Practically all of the real reductions in carbon emissions in the U. S. and Europe over the last ten years have come as a consequence of exporting manufacturing to China. Is that a winning strategy? That’s what would happen, at least at the margins, in the Germany approach. I’m skeptical.
I suspect that this strategy will result in even more carbon emission in China rather than in Europe or the U. S. and, once it’s moved to China, the problem becomes intractable.
The U.S. approach would be correct if the encouragements for this new technology was somewhat stronger than being the equivalent of pushing a one ton boulder with your pinky.
Germany Confronts the United States and Russia
The Moderate Voice quoted the New York Times earlier this week: In unusually harsh language, Bush administration negotiators took issue with the German draft of the communiqué for the meeting of the Group of 8 industrialized nations, complaining t
Then why not start helping to push the boulder instead of decrying those who are trying to do so?
Dave Shuler is right- I think it was he, in another thread here, who called the European approach a shell game.