| | Datum: | 11.07.05 | | Titel: | CCNet 91/2005 - 11 July 2005 : WELCOME TO THE CLUB, TONY! PM EMERGES FROM G8 SUMMIT AS A DECLARED 'CLIMATE HERETIC' | | Link: | | | Details1: | CCNet 91/2005 - 11 July 2005
WELCOME TO THE CLUB, TONY! PM EMERGES FROM G8 SUMMIT AS A DECLARED 'CLIMATE HERETIC'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, [Tony Blair ...] said that he took
a "heretical view" on climate change - because he believes that the
United States is not necessarily the massive block to progress that many
commentators allege.
--The Sunday Telegraph, 10 July 2005
Lord May, president of the Royal Society, said the communiqué on climate
change was a "disappointing failure", a view challenged by Margaret Beckett,
the environment secretary. It was "absolute rubbish" to say the G8 had
made no progress on climate change, she said.
--The Sunday Times, 10 July 2005
Blair is destroying Kyoto and selling out the EU position, which demands
binding commitments to reduce carbon emissions. This is a fast lane to
climate chaos.
--Stephen Tindale, Greenpeace director, CNN, 7 July 2005
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman R K Pachauri has
welcomed the G-8 declaration on climate change, saying it was a step
in the right direction. "It has opened a few doors [for] countries like
India... We should make use this opportunity while protecting our
interests," he added.
--DeepikagGlobal, 10 July 2005
(1) WELCOME TO THE CLUB, TONY! PM EMERGES FROM G8 SUMMIT AS A DECLARED 'CLIMATE HERETIC'
The Sunday Telegraph, 10 July 2005
(2) G8 CLIMATE STATEMENT: A DECONSTRUCTION
Max Beran
(3) DOOMSDAY WING COMPLAINTS THAT G8 CLIMATE PLAN 'LACKS BITE' ...
News@Nature, 8 July 2005
(4) ...WHILE THE USUAL WHINGERS MOAN
EPolitix, 8 July 2005
(5) G8 CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNIQUE REFLECTS BUSH'S PRIORITIES
Dow Jones Newswires, 8 July 2005
(6) G8 STATEMENT AFFIRMS BUSH ON GLOBAL WARMING: EUROPEAN LEADERS MOVING TOWARD U.S. POSITION
Competitive Enterprise Institute, 8 July 2005
(7) IPCC CHAIRMAN: LET'S USE G8 STATEMENT TO "PROTECT OUR INTERESTS"
DeepikagGlobal, 10 July 2005
(8) THE PENNY HAS DROPPED: GOOD-BYE KYOTO TREATY
New Scientist, 8 July 2005
(9) G8 WINNERS
(10) G8 LOSERS
(11) THE BIGGEST LOSER
(12) SPIN DOCTORS
(13) REALISTS
(14) G8 (4 & 7) HITS THE BUTTONS
Nigel Holloway
(15) RE: G8 ADOPT NEW CLIMATE AGENDA
Jack Perrine
(16) OVERCOMING SUPERSTITION
Marie-Claude Pasteur
(17) WE ARE ALL LONDONERS, NOW
Hermann Burchard
(18) CAUSE FOR OPTIMISM: GLOBAL WARMING SCARE MAY HAVE PEAKED
Numberwatch, 8 July 2005
(19) AND FINALLY: STATEMENT BY THE UK GOVERNMENT'S CHIEF SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR
10 Downing Street, 8 July 2005
=================
(1) WELCOME TO THE CLUB, TONY! PM EMERGES FROM G8 SUMMIT AS A DECLARED 'CLIMATE HERETIC'
The Sunday Telegraph, 10 July 2005 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/10/npol10.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/10/ixportal.html
Blair is left stronger after toughest week of his career
By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor
Tony Blair has defended the achievements of the G8 summit at Gleneagles and said yesterday that "very substantial progress" had been made on aid to Africa and climate change.
The Prime Minister said the £28.8 billion aid package was "incredibly important". It would help poorer African countries to build infrastructure and boost health and education budgets.
Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, he said that African leaders must "abide by the proper rules of governance" or risk throwing the package into jeopardy.
He also said that he took a "heretical view" on climate change - because he believes that the United States is not necessarily the massive block to progress that many commentators allege..
===============
(2) G8 CLIMATE STATEMENT: A DECONSTRUCTION
Max Beran
Benny
I've had some fun reverse engineering the main G8 statement on climate change. Perhaps it
might entertain, even inform, CCNet members
Max
-----------
G8 Gleneagles 2005
1. We face serious and linked challenges in tackling climate change, promoting clean energy and achieving sustainable development globally.
It is not absolutely explicit whether "climate change" is being used here sensu
UNFCCC who define it to mean man-made climate change. I guess given the references
that follow the Americans must realise this, so this is a shift in their policy.
(a) Climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. We know that increased need and use of energy from fossil fuels, and other human activities, contribute in large part to increases in greenhouse gases associated with the warming of our Earth's surface. While uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate science, we know enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow and, as the science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.
Saying "serious and long-term" rather than "serious long-term also represents
a "softening". However "potential" rather than "actual" does suggest that someone
is awake. It is significant that the word "know" prefaces increase in greenhouse
gases, the word is absent from the climate link, but reappears in what follows.
Saying "act now to put ourselves on a path to slow ..." rather than the simpler "act
now to slow ..." is a diplomatic masterstroke. I regard the "as the science justifies"
as a signal that G8 think that it does not, else the phrase would have prefaced
the "slow" action as well as the "stop" action.
(b) Global energy demands are expected to grow by 60% over the next 25 years. This has the potential to cause a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change.
Here again the word "associated" is used - it is a little clearer this time that
the association is with "increases in greenhouse gases" rather than the more neutral
- almost tautologous - "greenhouse gases".
(c) Secure, reliable and affordable energy sources are fundamental to economic stability and development. Rising energy demand poses a challenge to energy security given increased reliance on global energy markets.
(d) Reducing pollution protects public health and ecosystems. This is particularly true in the developing world. There is a need to improve air and water quality in order to alleviate suffering from respiratory disease, reduce public health costs and prolong lives.
(e) Around 2 billion people lack modern energy services. We need to work with our partners to increase access to energy if we are to support the achievement of the goals agreed at the Millennium Summit in 2000.
These three clauses are off-topic and they point in conflicting directions as
regards climate change and (environmental) sustainability but if anything are
broadly negative in relation to both. Of course they would allow any country that
chooses to focus on these at the expense of the other climate-related clauses still
to be able claim that G8 legitimises their actions.
2. We will act with resolve and urgency now to meet our shared and multiple objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving the global environment, enhancing energy security and cutting air pollution in conjunction with our vigorous efforts to reduce poverty.
Another diplomatic masterstroke as this, the strongest paragraph of the statement,
omits any mention of climate change.
3. It is in our global interests to work together, and in partnership with major emerging economies, to find ways to achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and our other key objectives, including the promotion of low-emitting energy systems. The world's developed economies have a responsibility to act.
Note that this is not an action; "It is in our global interests" is more just a
statement of principle. The much vaunted responsibilities of the developed nations
is not, as per Kyoto, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions alone, but to partner China,
India, Brazil etc in "finding ways" to do so jointly. This therefore is a double
softening of Kyoto. The final "action" sentence adds nothing as clearly the G8
countries at a G8 summit can speak only for themselves.
4. We reaffirm our commitment to the UNFCCC and to its ultimate objective to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. We reaffirm the importance of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and look forward to its 2007 report.
I'm intrigued about what's going on here. There is a not-so-subtle difference between
the warm-and-cuddly reaffirmations offered to the two bodies. The first is to
the UNFCCC's objective, in other words, its mission statement (but not its work).
The second is to the "importance" of the work of the IPCC (again, not its work).
The absence of a commitment to its work might be significant as mention of the
importance of the actual findings might have been expected from a grateful G8 if
it were truly grateful nem con. But maybe I'm adding 2 and 2 and making 5 as
obviously there are limits to what G8 can and cannot re-affirm given that is does
not "own" either body. Anyway, why "re-affirm" rather than just "affirm"? Had there
been an earlier affirmation dating from a previous summit, or is it a way of
doubling up on the strength of the current one-time affirmation?
5. We face a moment of opportunity. Over the next 25 years, an estimated $16 trillion will need to be invested in the world's energy systems. According to the IEA, there are significant opportunities to invest this capital cost-effectively in cleaner energy technologies and energy efficiency. Because decisions being taken today could lock in investment and increase emissions for decades to come, it is important to act wisely now.
Reads like the result of a drafting committee in "proverbial camel" mode. Clearly
the first draft was all about green energy but someone though that this gave carte
blanche to over-clean and blow the expense so got the words "cost-effectively"
inserted. Its effect on practical energy policies is ambiguous but at one limit
would certainly nullify the original intent.
6. We will, therefore take further action to:
(a) promote innovation, energy efficiency, conservation, improve policy, regulatory and financing frameworks; and accelerate deployment of cleaner technologies, particularly lower-emitting technologies
(b) work with developing countries to enhance private investment and transfer of technologies, taking into account their own energy needs and priorities.
"Taking into account" phrase reads like a late addition, presumably to satisfy some
party about something - can't work out what, maybe protecting national sensitivities,
maybe a get-out clause not to provide assistance for the "undeserving".
(c) raise awareness of climate change and our other multiple challenges, and the means of dealing with them; and make available the information which business and consumers need to make better use of energy and reduce emissions.
Can't imagine what other "multiple challenges" are referred to and why it was
inserted into a sentence that makes more sense without the words. Are they
climate related? One supposes so otherwise the solutions wouldn't follow.
7. Adaptation to the effects of climate change due to both natural and human factors is a high priority for all nations, particularly in areas that may experience the most significant change, such as the Arctic, the African Sahel and other semi-arid regions, low-lying coastal zones, and small island states also subject to subsidence. As we work on our own adaptation strategies, we will work with developing countries on building capacity to help them improve their resilience and integrate adaptation goals into sustainable development strategies.
Important and welcome. Note (i) the inclusion of "natural" factors and (ii) that
they come before human ones - that is really significant and must makes Greenpeace
et al hopping mad. I also liked "subject to subsidence" as it means that the other
7 now recognize that Tuvalu's problems are little if anything to do with sea level rise.
8. Tackling climate change and promoting clean technologies, while pursuing energy security and sustainable development, will require a global concerted effort over a sustained period.
That's good; no quick fixes or massive life-changing interventions.
9. We therefore agree to take forward a Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development, and invite other interested countries with significant energy needs to join us. We will:
(a) address the strategic challenge of transforming our energy systems to create a more secure and sustainable future;
(b) monitor implementation of the commitments made in the Gleneagles Plan of Action and explore how to build on this progress; and
(c) share best practice between participating governments.
One in the eye for Sir David King! Placing security ahead of everything else
- come to think of it the word "climate change" doesn't even appear (unless its
embedded in the weasel word sustainable which might refer to an environmental or
an economic objective).
10. We will ask our Governments to take the Dialogue forward. We welcome Japan's offer to receive a report at the G8 Summit in 2008.
11. We will work with appropriate partnerships, institutions and initiatives including the International Energy Agency (IEA) and World Bank:
(a) The IEA will advise on alternative energy scenarios and strategies aimed at a clean clever and competitive energy future.
(b) The World Bank will take a leadership role in creating an (sic) new framework for clean energy and development, including investment and financing.
12. Following the success of the Energy and Environment Ministerial Roundtable held in London in March, the UK will hold meetings to take the Dialogue forward in the second half of this year, including by identifying specific implementation plans for carrying out each of the commitments under the Plan of Action.
13. We welcome the Russian decision to focus on energy in its Presidency of the G8 in 2006 and the programme of meetings that Russia plans to hold.
Not much on climate in the last three points.
14. We acknowledge that the UNFCCC is the appropriate forum for negotiating future action on climate change. Those of us who have ratified the Kyoto Protocol welcome its entry into force and will work to make it a success.
Fat chance
15. We will work together to advance the goals and objectives we have agreed today to inform the work of the UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal 2005. We are committed to move forward in that forum the global discussion on long-term co-operative action to address climate change.
=========
(3) DOOMSDAY WING COMPLAINTS THAT G8 CLIMATE PLAN 'LACKS BITE' ...
News@Nature, 8 July 2005 http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050704/full/050704-15.html
Michael Hopkin
Industrial nations knocked for failing to agree firm course of action.
World leaders attending the G8 summit in Britain have released their eagerly awaited statement on climate change, agreeing that the issue is a "serious long-term challenge". But environmental groups have criticized their plan, saying that it lacks firm targets and timetables for action.
The group of eight industrialized nations' official position on climate change calls for "resolve and urgency" in cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. But although seven members reaffirmed their commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, which puts fixed targets on reducing emissions, the US president George W. Bush has maintained his opposition to it.
The issuing of the report tops a hard week for the British prime minister Tony Blair, who headed back to London on 7 July to help address the terrorist attack on the city. More than 50 people died following bombs that went off on the underground subways and a bus.
Technological solution?
The G8 leaders agree that investment in clean-energy technologies is important. Their statement says that some US$16 trillion of investment will be required over the coming 25 years, a period during which the world's energy demands will increase by 60%, mostly in burgeoning economies such as India and China.
Possible technologies that could be deployed to combat greenhouse-gas emissions include alternative power sources such as the Sun, wind, water and nuclear fission or fusion. Perhaps the biggest challenge will be to equip developing nations with the technology to burn fossil fuels more cleanly, for example, by 'scrubbing' carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants.
But the summit has failed to agree on a timetable for such investment, environmental groups point out. "It's well nuanced but there's no real action," says Mark Kenber, policy director for The Climate Group, a think-tank based in Surrey, UK.
The leaders acknowledged that global warming has been caused, in large part, by human activities. The statement adds: "While uncertainty remains in our understanding of climate science, we know enough to act now."
Beyond Kyoto
The statement also argues that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which the Kyoto Protocol is part, remains the best way forwards for tackling the issue.
All G8 countries, including the United States, agreed that the overarching convention provides the appropriate framework for research into the issue. Many observers say this is not enough.
"The Bush administration has again done its best to derail international action to tackle climate change, but this is by no means the end," says Tony Juniper, vice-chairman of the pressure group Friends of the Earth International, headquartered in the Netherlands. "There are many good initiatives happening in the United States to tackle climate change and it is only a matter of time before the president will have to follow suit."
Lord May, president of the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academic body, says: "At the heart of this communiqué is a disappointing failure by the leaders of the G8 unequivocally to recognize the urgency with which we must be addressing the global threat of climate change."
Blair has called for the G8 nations to reassemble in November to continue discussing climate change. And Russia, which will hold the G8 presidency next year, has pledged to put the issue at the top of its agenda.
Copyright 2005, Nature
==========
(4) ...WHILE THE USUAL WHINGERS MOAN
EPolitix, 8 July 2005 http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200507/398be6bb-1272-40b4-b903-5a2b2dbde91b.htm
Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians have expressed disappointment about the lack of progress on climate change issues.
G8 leaders have pledged to begin a process of dialogue on how to tackle the problem of global warming.
Oliver Letwin, shadow environment secretary, said: "This summit has produced a lot more words on climate change, but not much action.
"At the end of last year, Tony Blair said that he would make climate change one of only two priorities of Britain's presidency of the G8. Six months later he has got very little to show for it."
Letwin welcomes agreement on the science of climate change.
"But a similar agreement was achieved 13 years ago when America signed up to the UN framework convention on climate change," he said.
"There does not appear to be any serious package of support for environmental technologies, which is disappointing given the earlier indications that such a package would be included."
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said: "The prime minister's comments on the issue of climate change are disappointing.
"Whilst 'dialogue' between G8 nations and the developing economies such as China and India is an important step forward, what we need is a plan of action as a successor to Kyoto.
"Once again, the prime minister's 'special relationship' with President Bush has failed to deliver."
Copyright 2005, EPolitix
============
(5) G8 CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNIQUE REFLECTS BUSH'S PRIORITIES
Dow Jones Newswires, 8 July 2005 http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2005070817050002&Take=1
By Alex Keto
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
GLENEAGLES, Scotland -(Dow Jones)- The language of the Group of Eight industrialized nations's communique on global warming Friday largely reflects U.S. President George W. Bush's priorities, indicating most of the compromises reached at the summit were made by the other G8 members.
Bush sought to avoid mandatory reductions of greenhouse gases in the communique, which didn't include any but said the G8 and key developing countries need to "work together" on cutting emissions.
The document also referred to climate change as a "serious and long-term challenge," language nearly identical to Bush's description of the problem in recent speeches.
And the communique said the problem of greenhouse gas emissions must be considered in conjunction with other issues. These include ensuring countries have access to energy supplies, making energy available to the 2 billion people who currently have no access, and reducing pollution in the developing world.
The document said the G8 and developing countries should invest heavily in clean technologies that allow energy to be produced without increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
Bush and other U.S. officials have repeatedly made the argument that climate change must consider a broad range of issues, not just greenhouse gases.
In defending the document, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair said that unless a way was found to include the U.S. in the debate over climate change, there would be no possibility of bringing China and India into the dialogue either.
He added that without the agreement of these three countries, any effort to cut emissions of greenhouse gas reductions was bound to fail.
Blair said the G8 leaders would hold new talks on climate change Nov. 1 in the U.K.
-By Alex Keto, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9256; Alex.Keto@dowjones.com
Copyright (c) 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
=========
(6) G8 STATEMENT AFFIRMS BUSH ON GLOBAL WARMING: EUROPEAN LEADERS MOVING TOWARD U.S. POSITION
Competitive Enterprise Institute, 8 July 2005 http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,04666.cfm
July 8, 2005
Washington, D.C., July 8, 2005-The Bush Administration's position on global warming received a strong endorsement in the concluding communiqué to the G8 Summit of industrialized nations this week. The joint statement affirmed concern over the possibility of future climate change and echoed many past statements of U.S. policy that any governmental response to global warming be gradual, be based on technological transformation, and proceed only "as the science justifies."
"The G8 communiqué on climate change is a victory by President Bush on behalf of all the people of the world, especially the poor in developing countries," said Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming & International Environmental Policy. "The Kyoto Protocol's dead-end approach of mandatory reductions in energy consumption was hardly mentioned. Instead, the leaders at the G8 summit have recognized that global warming must be put in the context of other, more serious challenges."
While some observers had hoped that Summit host Tony Blair would leverage his relationship with the President to pull the U.S. closer to the European position, the final agreement makes it clear that the opposite is the case. Particularly now that the majority of the nations pledged to cut emissions under the Kyoto Protocol are realizing that they will fail to reach their reduction targets, the consensus among industrialized nations has shifted definitively against the agenda of energy poverty.
"The leaders at the G8 summit agree that the world cannot afford to be put on an energy starvation diet," said Ebell. "The communiqué addresses the need for much greater energy consumption in the future if nearly two billion poor people in developing countries are to enjoy the benefits of modern industrial civilization. And it emphasizes technological innovation and adaptation in dealing with future environmental challenges."
===========
(7) IPCC CHAIRMAN: LET'S USE G8 STATEMENT TO "PROTECT OUR INTERESTS"
http://www.deepikaglobal.com/ENG3_sub.asp?ccode=ENG3&newscode=110887
New Delhi, July 10 (UNI) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman R K Pachauri has welcomed the G-8 declaration on climate change, saying it was a step in the right direction. For the first time the global problem of climate change has received the attention it deserved, Dr Pachauri, who was also the Director General of Tata Energy Research Institute, told reporters here yesterday. "It has opened a few doors [for] countries like India... We should make use this opportunity while protecting our interests," he added.
==========
(8) THE PENNY HAS DROPPED: GOOD-BYE KYOTO TREATY
New Scientist, 8 July 2005 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7644
[...] There was confusion among observers over the communiqué's remark that the UN's 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change was the "appropriate forum" for negotiating future controls on greenhouse gases. Some saw it as a welcome boost for the upcoming negotiations. Others saw it as a snub for the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, with its legally-binding targets and timetables.
Many governments want the protocol to be succeeded by a similar agreement - dubbed "son-of-Kyoto" - with tougher emissions targets. But the US wants the international community to abandon the protocol's legal rulebook in favour of a new start under the softer 1992 convention - which it had signed up to.
Europe has yet to take a position on that. But the UK government, which currently chairs the EU, may be preparing to back the US and scupper the protocol.
Earlier in 2005, a senior British climate negotiator, Henry Derwent, said: "We must accept the future may not be like the past; an alternative to the target-and-trading approach might be necessary."
At a press conference after the summit closed, UK prime minister Tony Blair hinted at the same thing. He says he has not changed his view on emissions targets, but that if it was impossible to bring the US back into the consensus on climate change, then the world could not solve the problem.
==========
(9) G8 WINNERS
All of us agreed that climate change is happening now, that human activity
is contributing to it and that it could affect every part of the globe.
We will take measures to develop markets for clean energy technologies,
to increase their availability in developing countries, and to help
vulnerable communities adapt to the impact of climate change.
--Tony Blair, 8 July 2005
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7883.asp
George Bush emerged from the Gleneagles summit yesterday once again the
victor on climate change, appearing to compromise but in reality giving
no ground. The US administration repeated in Scotland the tactics it has
used at every conference where global warming has been an issue since
Johannesburg in 2002. It makes minor, vague concessions, other countries
claim a breakthrough, but nothing much changes.
--The Guardian, 9 July 2005
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1524738,00.html
The official communique of the G8 leaders on global warming represents a significant victory for President Bush. There are no targets or timetables, no ominous declarations of immediate global catastrophe, and no calls to reduce world energy consumption. Instead, the statement recognizes that the threat is long-term and stresses the need for adaptation to deal with the challenges. Moreover, there is recognition that the world actually needs to increase power consumption to help the 2 billion people who have little or no access to energy. In effect, the G8 has adopted the American position on global warming as the consensus position (even the language about science comes straight from Administration documents). This statement relegates global warming to its proper place in world affairs - one to keep an eye on, and work to mitigate with appropriate, low-cost strategies, but not an immediate priority. It also means that the Kyoto treaty, mentioned almost as an afterthought, is effectively dead, yesterday's solution to yesterday's conception of tomorrow's problem. The Europeans are still bound by it, however, and unless they have the courage to admit that it is the wrong course, they will continue to struggle with it until it collapses as a result of its own contradictions.
Tony Blair's role in securing the President's victory should also be acknowledged. Although his instincts are those of the left, he can see the right path, in his own Gladstonian way, when someone is courageous enough to put the case forcefully, as the President has done. Without his efforts, I'm not sure this victory would have been as complete as it has been.
--Iain Murray, National review Online, 8 July 2005
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_03_corner-archive.asp#068908
=======
(10) G8 LOSERS
Blair is destroying Kyoto and selling out the EU position, which demands
binding commitments to reduce carbon emissions. This is a fast lane to
climate chaos. We can only hope other G8 leaders have the courage to say 'no'.
--Greenpeace director Stephen Tindale, CNN, 7 July 2005
Environmental campaigners dismissed the G8 statement on climate change
as a "missed opportunity", and said any suggestion of US concessions
were just "spin". Campaigners say the language is hardly different from
comments made by Mr Bush as far back as 2001.
--The Daily Telegraph, 9 July 2005
========
(11) THE BIGGEST LOSER
Environmentalists said the summit had failed to make any progress on climate change
and blamed Mr Bush for blocking action by the other leaders. The president of the Royal Society, Lord May, labelled the communique on climate change a "disappointing failure".
He said: "Make no mistake, the science already justifies reversing - not merely slowing
- the global growth of greenhouse gas emissions." But the environment secretary,
Margaret Beckett, said it was "absolute rubbish" to claim the G8 summit had not
signed up to anything new.
--The Guardian, 9 July 2005
Lord May, president of the Royal Society, said the communiqué on climate
change was a "disappointing failure", a view challenged by Margaret Beckett,
the environment secretary. It was "absolute rubbish" to say the G8 had
made no progress on climate change, she said.
--The Sunday Times, 10 July 2005
===========
(12) SPIN DOCTORS
Scientists and environmentalists concluded that the G8 communiqué on climate
change "could have been worse". And most agreed with French president Jacques
Chirac who claimed: "We have noticed a shift in the American position."
--Fred Pearce, New Scientist, 8 July 2005
It is welcome that the communiqué accepts the science of climate change.
--Simon Retallack, Institute for Public Policy Research, 8 July 2005
=======
(13) REALISTS
It is not a document that, as the Prime Minister himself acknowledged,
is destined to transform the world overnight, but it does represent a
reasonable package. It will not be accepted as such by many in the
"anti-poverty lobby", the doomsday wing of the environmental movement
or anti-globalisation "activists" who sought to disrupt proceedings at
Gleneagles. The accord struck, by contrast, has the virtue of realism.
There is an acceptance that the Earth's temperature does appear to be
increasing and that human activity is playing a part in the process -
quantifying precisely how much and why is not as exact a science as
some of those involved in this debate would have it. The G8 has further
recognised that a credible deal has to involve the developed economies
of today and nations which will soon be powerhouses, and it must focus
on technological innovation. A new dialogue, starting with a conference
to be held in Britain in November, is a sound step forward.
--The Times, 9 July 2005
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-1686629,00.html
The agreement at Gleneagles by China, India and other leading developing
nations to start talking to the G8 countries about their greenhouse gas
emissions is the most important step to counter climate change since the
signing of the Kyoto protocol in December 1997. The failed agenda that
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the World Wide Fund for Nature and others
were complaining of - that the US has still not agreed to cut its carbon
dioxide emissions - was the green groups' own agenda, not the British
Government's. Tony Blair never remotely saw this meeting as an occasion
where George Bush would rejoin the Kyoto protocol.
--Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor, The Independent, 9 July 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/article297935.ece
In most sports, a numerical advantage of seven to one would guarantee victory.
But Scotland is home to some unusual events - tossing the caber, haggis hurling,
and now the Gleneagles Go-around, where it appears that naming your team "the
United States" is the real guarantee of victory. [...] Then there is the science.
By ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Mr Blair and the leaders of Canada, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia have indicated their belief that greenhouse
gas emissions need to fall within the next five years. Now, apparently, those
same leaders are able to approve a document indicating that reductions in
emissions may not be needed now, but at some future time "as science justifies".
By choosing to leave the Kyoto process, Mr Bush indicated his belief that
emissions cuts are not urgently needed.
--Richard Black,,BBC News Online, 8 July 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4665993.stm
========
(14) G8 (4 & 7) HITS THE BUTTONS
Nigel Holloway
Dear Benny,
At last some sense on Global Warming. Amongst the hand-wringing texts in the G8 statement are two new gems of common sense - paragraphs 4 and 7.
Para.4 suggests that we find out the level of CO2 which will be dangerous. That is sensible. It also implies that there may be levels below that which won't be dangerous - indeed some of us think they might be quite good for us - and we have no reason to stop them happening.
Para.7 mandates adaptation. At last we have the recognition that adapting is what we do best, and that this is the effective way to deal with increasing CO2.
The rest may contain text that says things about stopping and reducing, but the real meaning is "This is going to happen anyway, even if we try to stop or reduce it."
With 4 and 7, we have some chance of success. Most of the previous ideas in this matter were doomed to failure.
Nigel Holloway
===========
(15) RE: G8 ADOPT NEW CLIMATE AGENDA
Jack Perrine [mailto:Jack@minerva.com]
The one significant thing about this Climate nonsense that no one seems to mention is that while Climate Chage might actually exist there is no doubt at all that education is getting worse by the year. Since, it requires a fairly high level of competence / technology to use energy at the rate it is currently being used as the average level of competence in the
industrialized worlds decreases each year closer to the level of the stone
age. One would naturally expect that rather quickly energy use would decrease with or without Tony Blair.
The world is filled with those using high technology....as I am as I send this E-mail, but the world is very short of those who understand and can fix any of the technology. At present it matters not because most can borrow enough to replace or fix most of what is used, but it seems much more
definite than the world will be destroyed by climate change that the world will be destroyed as all consume more than they produce....expecting to borrow the difference............
Jack
Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574
-----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | ---------------
Jack@Minerva.com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-398-8620
==========
(16) OVERCOMING SUPERSTITION
Marie-Claude Pasteur
Please be reminded of Carl Sagan's work on the dangers of supestition in
'Deamon-Haunted World'.
Only if intelligence and science overcome religious superstition can we
live in peace
Marie-C Pasteur
Institut de Botanique, Universite de Montpellier
FRANCE 34090
===========
(17) WE ARE ALL LONDONERS, NOW
Hermann Burchard
Dear Benny,
please allow me to echo the sentiment so well expressed by others, "We
are all Londoners, now." This itself is an echo of President Kennedy's
declaration of solidarity with Berlin in the days of their needs.
Finding such appropriate expressions reflecting my own sorrow for last
week's losses suffered by the British nation and for the disgust toward
the perpetrators, whoever they may have been, is an inner need.
Quoting an even older source, I sent to THE TIMES (London) this excerpt
from the 34th Psalm that has been a comfort through the ages for those
unjustly injured:
Many are the troubles of the righteous,
but the LORD will deliver him out of them all.
The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous,
and his ears are open to their cry.
The righteous cry, and the LORD hears them
and delivers them from all their troubles.
The LORD is near to the brokenhearted
and will save those whose spirits are crushed.
With sincere regards,
Hermann G. W. Burchard
Prof. Appl. Math.
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK 74078-0613
=========
(18) CAUSE FOR OPTIMISM: GLOBAL WARMING SCARE MAY HAVE PEAKED
Numberwatch, 8 July 2005 http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2005%20July.htm
This from our man in Puerto Rico (Jaime Arbona)
I'm beginning to believe that the human-forced global warming myth, scare etc. has peaked. Many indicators of this have appeared during the past year, even if the Kyoto treaty was finally approved.
1. The M&M issue has significantly weakened (if not debunked) the infamous hockey stick
2. There have been many recent papers that tend to indicate that climate change is mostly natural.
3. There seem to be many more scientists than in the past that are willing to voice their skepticism.
4. The EU is showing increasing signs of recanting (heck they can't meet their own targets) and the G8 summit seems to be in turmoil. I think we will see some surprises there.
5. Some EU Commissioners seem to be having second thoughts.
6. The recent French and Dutch votes against the EU constitution have thrown a monkey wrench (or is it a spanner?) into the works.
7. The Russian Academy of Science and the US counterpart have thrown some cold water over the fabled consensus of the science academies. Seems there was another May-mess there.
8. And now the House of Lords, too.
I usually don't pay much attention to "feelings" and "hunches" but I'm sort of "sensing something in the air" as if a page has been turned or maybe as if some type of threshold has been crossed. The renewed popularity of nuclear power (even by some greenies who seem desperate) tends to point to this, too. Who would have believed that several years ago?
============
(19) AND FINALLY: STATEMENT BY THE UK GOVERNMENT'S CHIEF SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR
10 Downing Street, 8 July 2005
Memo (reminder; 2004 memo)
Ivan Rogers, Mr Blair's principal private secretary, told Sir David King, the Prime Minister's chief scientist, to limit his contact with the media after he made outspoken comments about President George Bush's policy on climate change.
In January, Sir David wrote a scathing article in the American journal Science attacking Washington for failing to take climate change seriously. "In my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism," he wrote.
Support for Sir David's view came yesterday from Hans Blix, the former United Nations chief weapons inspector, who said the environment was at least as important a threat as global terrorism. He told BBC1's Breakfast with Frost: "I think we still overestimate the danger of terror. There are other things that are of equal, if not greater, magnitude, like the environmental global risks."
Since Sir David's article in Science was published, No 10 has tried to limit the damage to Anglo-American relations by reining in the Prime Minister's chief scientist.
In a leaked memo, Mr Rogers ordered Sir David - a Cambridge University chemist who offers independent advice to ministers - to decline any interview requests from British and American newspapers and BBC Radio 4's Today. ...
From The Independent, 8 March 2004 - http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=6123&fcategory_desc=Global%20Warming%20/%20Climate%20Change
------
CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To subscribe/unsubscribe, please contact the editor
Benny Peiser (b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk) - http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/. Information
circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only. The attached
information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission
of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions,
beliefs and viewpoints of the editor. | | Datei1: | | | Details2: | | | Datei2: | | | Details3: | | | Datei3: | | | Details4: | | | Datei4: | | | Details5: | | | Datei5: | | | Details6: | |
|
|
