Political Hotsheet
July 9, 2009 1:38 PM

Obama, World Leaders Announce Climate Change Deal

(AP Photo/Haraz Ghanbari)
President Obama and other world leaders at the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate today announced international commitments to reducing polluting emissions worldwide -- but also acknowledged there is a long way to go in addressing the problem of global warming.

"We've made a good start, but I'm the first one to acknowledge progress on this issue will not be easy," Mr. Obama said from L’Aquila, Italy. "It is no small task for 17 leaders to bridge thier differences on climate change."

The countries represented at the forum agreed to recognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels should not to exceed two degrees Celsius. With that objective in mind, the nations agreed to what President Obama called a "historic consensus on concrete goals for reducing carbon emissions," with developed nations agreeing to reduce them by 80 percent by 2050 -- a goal the climate change bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives aims for. Developing nations agreed between now and the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen to negotaitie concrete goals to reduce their own emissions by 2050.

"As I wrestle with these issues politically in my own country, I have come to see it is absolutely critical all of us go beyond what is expected of us if we are to achieve our goals," Mr. Obama said.

The nations in attendance also agreed to consider proposals for establishing international funding arrangements to assist developing countries.

World leaders will have to "fight the tempation towards cynicism," Mr. Obama said, even though he acknowledged that "it's even more difficult in the context of a global recession."

He said, though, "there is no contradiction between environmentally sustainable growth and robust economic growth."

Economic concerns, however, are already slowing down the progress of climate change legislation in the United States.

"Each of our nations comes to the table with different needs, different priorities, different levels of devlopment," Mr. Obama said. Developed nations like the United States, he said, "have a responsiblity to take the lead."

The leaders who participated in today's forum represented Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Watch a report from CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid about the G8 conference below.


Tags:
climate change ,
Barack Obama ,
Major Economies Forum
Topics:
The Environment
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 36 Comments
by erasmus111 July 10, 2009 3:14 PM EDT
by juwboy July 10, 2009 2:00 AM PDT
Which of the following two extreme climate situations causes more deaths?

(A) a hot summer
(B) a cold winter

The answer is (B) by a huge margin.


Are you sure?

I have always heard that people can tolerate cold more than heat.
Reply to this comment
by gregneubeck July 10, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
With the Nation in a deep recession, the Democrats in the House Of Representatives, without even knowing the content, blundered thru Obama's "Cap and Tax Bill". Legislation that could well topple our economy into a depression. Pure fiscal insanity. For the Kool-aid addicts who believed Obama when he said that he would give a tax break to 95% of Americans, hold on to you wallets and prepare for the largest single regressive tax increase in American history. This "Global Warming" fraud will prove to be the biggest jobs killer ever conceived; and, simply ship millions of America jobs overseas to countries such as China and India. The next time you hear the ranting of an Obamanite, ask them why there is "NO" statistical correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures (the latter which actually have slightly decreased over the last decade) -and- why the temperature variations on Mars tracks identically with that on earth. ((Hint: the Sun is the only common denominator.)) Now you know why the inventor of the internet, Albert Gore, refuses to debate the issue. The logic in this dilemma is exceedingly simple, our Dictatorial Marxist, Barack Obama, simply wants more control over your activities and lifestyle; and, the health of the American economy be dammed. It's essential that we clean house in the upcoming elections. Greg Neubeck
Reply to this comment
by nazdackster July 10, 2009 7:39 AM EDT
Here is another few climatologists recommending no action (new letter today)

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf

Piers Corbyn is predicting 100 years of cooling... No doubt due to the current extended solar minimum (looking perilously like a Maunder or Dalton type event) I hope he's not right, cooling is always detrimental to human prosperity.
Reply to this comment
by juwboy July 10, 2009 5:00 AM EDT
Which of the following two extreme climate situations causes more deaths?

(A) a hot summer
(B) a cold winter

The answer is (B) by a huge margin.

So, why aren`t we doing everything we can to promote and accelerate global warming until the figures for hot and cold weather deaths are comparable?

That`s when our planet will have its ideal, optimum temperature.

At the present time, it`s too cold.
Reply to this comment
by erasmus111 July 10, 2009 2:23 AM EDT
by darthcheney345 July 9, 2009 8:33 PM PDT

by slownewsday_05 July 9, 2009 3:09 PM PDT
I don't know if global warming is man-made or not
---------

That's the whole point. Nobody does. Surely humans make some difference. But there is no scientific way to sort out how much is man-made and how much is natural.


The point is that if you don't know for sure, it's much better to do something than nothing. What if you are wrong? Do you want your children and grandchildren to suffer? If there is even the slightest doubt, how can you ignore it? If everyone just does what they can afford, that is better than nothing at all. Some things can be done, and it costs nothing.
Reply to this comment
by spudder8 July 10, 2009 2:05 AM EDT
Spudder writes: Perhaps the G-8 should have read this
Scientist letter to Congress
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of ?almost certain? thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.
The facts are:
The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.
The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact
THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.
The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not just computer projections, and not false claims about the state of the science.
SCIENCE IS GUIDED BY PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS
Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Alarmists are rolling in wealth from the billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken. It is always instructive to follow the money.
Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences
Reply to this comment
by darthcheney345 July 9, 2009 11:27 PM EDT
Obama is a total failure.

Obama is the worst president in 100 years.
Reply to this comment
by bwav July 9, 2009 10:00 PM EDT
obama sucks! my husband has worked 30 long years for the position he is in.. we have a nice life and we are going to be taxes to hell and back.. be aware... everyone is going to pay higher electric and gas bills......Is this Obama person (who wont show reveal his birth certificate) single handedly trying to ruin our nation. Get ready for the ride folks. There is no freaking global warming.. cap and trade sucks too!!!!!OBAMA U SUCK!
Reply to this comment
by ubrew12 July 9, 2009 10:23 PM EDT
I only hope you live near the ocean. You're going underwater, and deserve to drown.
by ubrew12 July 10, 2009 12:37 AM EDT
Thanks for that. But of course, I don't really want anyone to drown. I just get really upset about the denial going on in America.

Twenty years ago, I did a year at the PhD level in Atmospheric Science. Even though I was studying mesoscale meteorology, Global Warming was the talk, and it was clear to everyone in that department: AGW is a no-brainer. Clearly, this would have been of some concern, but you know, Americans would get it right, as they always had in the past. They would understand the danger, and LEAD (not follow) the world toward a solution. So, tired of the math, and the fact that the atmosphere is a system you can't actually DESIGN, I returned to engineering, and settled for a Masters. Its been like watching someone you love sink into QUICKSAND to watch this great nation deny itself into the quagmire that is Global Warming. What was obvious to the PhD's in atmospheric science 20 years ago has only slowly recommended itself to the general population, who seem completely unaware of the many positive reinforcement mechanisms by which EARTH can turn our minuscule 'forcing function' into a black-hole from which the human race might not return. THIS COULD VERY WELL HAPPEN. I'm simply ASTONISHED at the 'cowboy' cavalierness with which many Americans are trotting alongside this event horizon. They talk about how their grandchildren could be impacted negatively by the cost of remedial efforts, blissfully unaware of the potential impact to their grandchildren of DOING NOTHING. Hey, earth is just another planet. If you want to know what planets think about the conditions that lead to biology, including humankind, take a look at Venus or Mars. Hot enough to melt LEAD, and cold enough to freeze CO2. The anthropomorphic EGO displayed in these pages is disheartening, to say the least. We should display a BIT more humility, I think, toward God's creation. Which, by the way, includes A LOT OF EARTH-LIKE planets that would suck the life out of a man in a heartbeat.
by wmsshields July 9, 2009 9:31 PM EDT
Climate changes come and go, humans cannot stop them. Governments try all angles to put their hands into your pockets, citizens cannot stop them. June was a very cold month according to hundred year records. July here is averaging 8 degrees below average so far. So I should let BoBo put his hands in my pocket to stop global warming?
Reply to this comment
by kaylag04 July 9, 2009 9:07 PM EDT
Never has so much "Scientific Consensus" been built around so little actual science. In fact, until this issue, scientific thought had revolved around the idea of hypothesis testing - now the scientific method is focused on voting on a hypothesis, rather than testing it. That's change I can't believe in.
Reply to this comment
by ubrew12 July 9, 2009 10:19 PM EDT
News flash sparky. We can't build another earth to test our hypothesis. But the science has been vetted as well as it could be, and the conclusions are inescapable. EVERY ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ON PLANET EARTH HAS SIGNED THE IPCC CONCLUSIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING: that it is REAL, its Human-caused, and is a Danger to both societies and nature.

Meanwhile, here in America we're still waiting for sh*t-for-brains gorilla's like yourself to FIGURE IT OUT. (the rest of the world figured it out a long time ago). Step past your considerable EGO, imagine a world in which you're just another part of it, and see the direction EVERYONE ELSE IS SAYING WE NEED TO TAKE. Fvck, you people are stupid!!!
by kaylag04 July 10, 2009 2:35 PM EDT
Sparky? Ouch. I'm gonna burn a collection peer reviewed research results from the last two-decades that may indicate little or no carbon based influence on climate...oh wait - that'll create some more CO2 (and H20!!)! Can I just file it? I'll put it with all the incorrect NOAA weather forcasts I collected. Honest though, I'll get in lock-step with what "everyone else" tells me to think. Just stop calling me Sparky.
by zonkzilla July 9, 2009 8:42 PM EDT
It is good to see that while many don't agree with global warming, they are not attacking President Obama for trying to deal with the issue along with our neighbors on the planet.
Of course there are some racist hypocrites who attack Obama but we know they are fools because McCain also said he would deal with global warming (McCain was the Republican golden boy if you remember.)
McCain is a good man, and I think he said it best when as presidential candidate he said " I don't know if global warming is real or not or manmade but reducing pollution in the air we breathe is always a good thing". I don't believe in global warming but McCain's statement is my policy on the issue. Reducing pollution is always a good thing.
So when Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck (fascists) attack Obama just remember they are attacking their ex Republican candidate also and spewing lies, but then again that is what hypocrites do isn't it?
Well said Senator.
Reply to this comment
by u-r-right July 9, 2009 8:28 PM EDT
Michael Jackson has DIED people!!! Who has time to care about this climate change business?
Reply to this comment
by earl21048 July 9, 2009 4:15 PM EDT
Fine, let's say there is man made global warming. How much should we invest for how long? If scientist are convinced that the cooling we are experiencing now is also related to man made global warming then I suspect they would want us to sacrifice indefinitely.Personally, if China and India won't participate, then no matter how much we pay, it would be for not. I would rather have incentives for people to invest in green than to penalize us in cap and trade and businesses being forced out and sent to China and India. But i'm sure you'll feel good, won't you.
Reply to this comment
by ubrew12 July 9, 2009 5:34 PM EDT
What cooling? The last 10 years have been the hottest on record. Now that we're heading back up in the sun-cycle and we're entering another El Nino, expect the upward trend to return.

But, of course, by then there'll be another set of arguments about how it ain't true, by people who flunked out of climatology, if they even gave it a moments thought. Some people get an electrical engineering degree, and suddenly they're an expert on the climate. Kinda like asking your plumber to fix your car.
by daffy64 July 9, 2009 4:14 PM EDT
I guess it really doesn't matter how much scientific data can be presented, how many scientists support the theory, even pictures of the polar caps melting...

If "neocons" who hate "liberals" think it's a "commie plot", AIN'T NOTHIN' GONNA CHANGE THEIR MINDS.

BTW the world is flat and they never landed on the moon either.
Reply to this comment
by schotzy81 July 9, 2009 4:33 PM EDT
"If "neocons" who hate "liberals" think it's a "commie plot", AIN'T NOTHIN' GONNA CHANGE THEIR MINDS. "

Ditto, right back at you. Despite the fact that the global temperatures have been steady or cooling over the past decade, this still doesn't faze the alarmists. As you said, "AIN'T NOTHIN' GONNA CHANGE THEIR MINDS".
by erasmus111 July 9, 2009 4:56 PM EDT
Some Americans live in the state of paranoia. They think everyone is out to get them. They think that Al Gore has made this all up so that he can make money. I heard about "global warming" from a scientist in Canada, LONG before I heard it from Gore.

I don't think they realize that there are many other countries out there with very smart scientists. HUNDREDS of scientists that are sure that there IS man-made global warming. Of course that just makes it a "global conspiracy", doesn't it?
by ubrew12 July 9, 2009 10:12 PM EDT
gulliberal said: "JUNK SCIENCE!"

You are either passing judgment on thousands of climatologists, over the last 30 years, with peer-reviewed articles in magazines like 'Journal of Climatology', 'Science Magazine', and 'Nature'

or you're passing judgment on yourself. My take is you're an idiot with a anti-communist ego that colors everything you read. America is full of sh*t like you, and it won't get better until you die off or leave.
by nazdackster July 9, 2009 11:08 PM EDT
Actually it does matter, see my post above. Real scientists use real data. That's evidently fine until it interferes with a social agenda, then facts don't matter. The fact is, there are only a few so-called "climatologists" in the world, less than 100, others study the rest of the physical sciences which make up climate, of which there are thousands who contribute to climate science. How many authored the IPCC reports? 52. Many of them are now (and were then) very vocal opposing the fact that the approved scientific documents (which found NO attribution to CO2) were changed in a back room by Ben Santer to say that there was a link. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Ben_Santer.pdf Many will no longer even deal with the corrupt UN IPCC over this huge transgression of science. There has never been any evidence of a link of CO2 to temperature as measured in the real world (even though theoretically, there should be an influence). Well, if the facts don't matter even at the IPCC, I would suggest that the process is broken and unreliable. Even the climate here on earth won't listen to the IPCC, but I presume it knows better.

So we have 52 lead authors who know different subjects, but thousands of peer reviewed papers used. How many scientists signed a petition to congress to not be swayed by alarmist projections? More than 700. How many signed the petition project? 31478, of whom 9029 have PHd's. So, yes, I suggest you listen carefully to the scientists, especially those with the majority position. There IS NO climate crisis, never was, never will be. There is a very good new paper out by Spencer and Idso, 880 pages, with thousands of peer reviewed references, which takes the IPCC reports apart, point by point, and leaves not a single alarmist conclusion left standing. I suggest you read it (downloadable): http://nipccreport.org

Let me ask you this... With climate scientists seeming to come out of the woodwork almost daily now against Cap & Trade, climate alarmism (even if they are warmists), and moving to the climate realist position, can you name ONE, JUST ONE scientist that was in the realist camp, and suddenly changed to a position of alarm over CO2? I really need to find one such person, but I've searched for years and can't find one. Please let me know. Thanks.

Even Jim Hansen thinks Cap & Trade is a joke: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/07/09/nasas-hansen-obamas-cap-trade-bill-less-worthless
by ubrew12 July 10, 2009 12:56 AM EDT
nazdackster: that is a true and heartfelt critique. All I can say is I will forward your statement to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and see what they say in response.

For the record I, like James Hansen, no longer support cap n trade. Its too subject to the gambling pressures of the Wall Street banksters to be employed. I favor a straight carbon tax (with tax cuts elsewhere so the tax effect is neutral). This is much more direct and difficult to 'game' by the well-connected.
by nazdackster July 10, 2009 11:29 PM EDT
Thanks ubrew12, I appreciate a reasonable response this time, I remember discussing things with you before. As for the NOAA, "we've met". I get much of my data there, and for the most part have no major complaints. As far as their policy pronouncements, they seem a little cheesy and over branded, given that their responsibility is to maintain good data and measurement systems, which is no small task and of utmost importance. I don't think "they" as a government agency would have any opinion on my conclusions, they keep the data, they do a decent job of interpreting it, and the conclusions are obvious. Now, is there controversy on any given measurement system NOAA or anyone else uses? You bet. It's not easy, but the controversy is what keeps the process aligned.
by Joe_NY_15 July 9, 2009 4:10 PM EDT
Horray !!!! The socialists all got together to come up with a plan to rape the people again, all in the name of Environmentalism
Reply to this comment
by ubrew12 July 9, 2009 7:06 PM EDT
Thanks for posting gulliberal.
We all hate Social Security and would rather live without it (LOL).
by nazdackster July 10, 2009 1:13 AM EDT
Reveal5, if you refuse to look at facts, there is nothing I or anyone else can do, you will continue to base your decisions on faith. I will not. If you care to refute anything I have to say, please do so, with evidence. Until then, it is you who are blowing smoke, not I. If you don't know what the LIA is, frankly you have no business discussing climate. Buck up reveal5, let's see what evidence you have of causality... Still waiting.

And yes, I am quite well qualified to make estimates of recovery from our cooling phase, based on facts, as possibly even you could be if you studied the science. If you had any inkling of the actual mechanisms of climate, the terms I use would seem anything but obtuse, they would have a very specific and crystal clear meaning to you. But since you haven't studied climate and get your information from National Geographic and Nova, I can understand why you are very confused. You can start by reading the links I posted, then you can follow the references in the articles, and then the references in those papers, and in less than a year, if you study every day for several hours and follow the literature where it leads (or just start analyzing the data yourself - it's public you know), you will begin to get a handle on it. After 2 or 3 more years of that, check back with me and let's see if you are still an alarmist. I predict zero chance.

But until you are willing to look at facts, I see exactly where you are coming from.
by nazdackster July 10, 2009 11:53 PM EDT
Dear reveal5, thank you for demonstrating the typical alarmist argument. Witness is unresponsive. All previous questions remain. Do you care to address the questions at hand? Do you have a cogent argument to refute my points? In science, the burden of proof is on the one proposing the hypothesis. Do you have ANYTHING? Still waiting. I would have given up, but I have a love of science and I think based on our conversation that you have the capacity to be a good student, perhaps even a scientist one day. Make your argument and prove it. I've given you ample evidence. Refute it, good scientist! And have a good night.
by MissMaryJoyce July 9, 2009 3:04 PM EDT
If what I learned in science hasn't changed, trees take in CO2 and give off Oxygen. Would it not be easier, quicker and less expensive if we just planted trees to replace the ones cut down by all the roads, parking lots, etc that are being built?
Reply to this comment
by ubrew12 July 9, 2009 3:39 PM EDT
There you go making sense again.
Also, cutting down trees is OK as long as its not for fuel but for construction. But definitely, we should be out planting like screaming banshees. But, to plant we would have to admit that we needed to do something, and if you read the posters here you see why there's no sense of urgency in America on this issue. Many are trained by Limbaugh to think that being critical of this issue means they are 'independent thinkers'. I just think they are mindless clones.
by schotzy81 July 9, 2009 3:46 PM EDT
Actually, ubrew, I would suggest the alarmists are the mindless clones since very few can really explain why they believe in MMGW other than resorting to the mindless mantra of "The debate is over. There is a consensus". Can you explain why we should dramatically change our economy based on a theory from 18-years of data that has failed to explain the period both before and after the cherry-picked data?
by ubrew12 July 9, 2009 5:31 PM EDT
I'm not going to say where you pulled your '18 years of data' out of, but its original, if nothing else. BTW, how is planting trees going to 'dramatically change our economy'? (speaking of alarmist)
by schotzy81 July 9, 2009 2:51 PM EDT
The whole man-made global warming theory is based on the global warming from around 1980-1998 (18 years) but was unable to explain the stable/declining temperatures in the 30 years preceding them and failed to predict the stable/cooling temperatures that the world has seen since 1998.

My question is, since the MMGW theory is based on only 18 years of history and we've since had 11 years of climate data that disputes that theory, how many more years of stable/cooling temperatures do we need before the alarmists question their beliefs and fix the damage they are doing to the global economy?
Reply to this comment
by xinunus July 9, 2009 2:41 PM EDT
OBAMA EATS ENDANGERED BELUGA STURGEON WITH PUTIN

Quote:
Russian agencies, quoting the government's press service, said Putin treated Obama to black caviar with sour cream, smoked beluga with pancakes and tea made in the traditional Russian samovar, a big coal-fired kettle.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE56657E20090707

http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSTRE5661Q520090707

WIKIPEDIA:
--------------
IUCN classifies the beluga as Endangered. It is a protected species listed in appendix III of the Bern Convention and its trade is restricted under CITES appendix II. The Mediterranean population is strongly protected under appendix II of the Bern Convention, prohibiting any intentional killing of these fish.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has banned imports of Beluga Caviar and other beluga products from the Caspian Sea since October 6, 2005.
Reply to this comment
by schotzy81 July 9, 2009 2:58 PM EDT
If PETA got mad about Obama slapping a fly, what are they going to say to this???
See all 36 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER