U.S., Australia Pushed To Ink Kyoto Pact

Officials, Environmentalists Seek Reduction In Greenhouse Gas Emissions After Global Warming Report

(CBS/AP)  Officials and environmentalists pressed the United States and Australia to sign the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and urged other governments to cut pollution after a U.N. report warned of catastrophic global warming.

Maldives Foreign Minister Ahmed Saeed said rising oceans could devastate low-lying countries like his coral island nation, which is three feet above sea level in the Indian Ocean.

"If the sea level rises permanently, it will submerge the whole country forever," Saeed said.

Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar predicted that the sea will swallow about 2,000 of his country's estimated 18,000 islands within three decades.

"Developing countries must make binding commitments to cut emissions by 40 to 60 percent," he said in the capital, Jakarta, where torrential rain has caused massive flooding in the past few days.

"And we in Indonesia must guard against the burning of our forests and better monitor our industries," he said.

South Africa's Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk described the report as "a wake-up call to the world's largest emitter, the United States."

The United States and Australia are the only industrialized countries that have refused to commit to Kyoto emission targets for reducing heat-trapping greenhouse gas pollution.

But U.S. President George W. Bush's administration and Australian Prime Minister John Howard stood fast against mandatory targets despite the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reporting Friday that there is a 90 percent certainty that human activity has caused escalating temperatures, glacial melting and rising oceans.

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman warned of possible "unintended consequences" — including job losses — if the government puts caps on carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

Bodman said technological advancements will cut emissions, promote conservation and hasten the development of non-fossil fuels.

But Democrats newly in control of the U.S. Congress said Mr. Bush's administration should do more to combat global warming.

At the United Nations, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the head of the Senate Environment Committee, said the president should show "real leadership" on the issue by convening "a summit at the White House of the 12 largest global-warming emitters."

The U.S. each year contributes about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, though the share from China, India and other developing countries is growing.

There was no immediate reaction to the IPCC report from China, which is expected to surpass the U.S. as the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter in the next decade.

In India — another country of more 1 billion people that faces the challenge of how to develop economically without ruining its environment — an official said the climate change panel is "a network of scientists" who cannot set policy.

"This is a group of climate experts attempting to reach a scientific consensus. It doesn't commit governments to any course of action," said Pradipto Ghosh of India's Ministry of Environment and Forests.

Australian leader Howard dismissed the Kyoto pact and renewable energy sources like wind or solar power as ways to fight climate change, arguing that Australia must take the unpopular step of introducing nuclear power.

"Let's be realistic. You can only run power stations in a modern Western economy on fossil fuel, or, in time, nuclear power," Howard told reporters Saturday.

Opposition leader Kevin Rudd, who will take his center-left Labor Party into elections later this year, said Australia has to sign the Kyoto deal, use renewable energy sources more and create a national strategy to reduce electricity consumption.

A Japanese newspaper editorial criticized developing economies for failing to share the responsibility of reducing greenhouse gases.

"Although countries like China and India are major polluters, they are not obliged to cut emissions just because they are still developing," the Mainichi Shimbun said. "But those countries, as major polluters, have a global responsibility to cut down."

The landmark IPCC report, from the world's leading climate scientists and government officials, said global warming is "unequivocal," "very likely" man-made and will "continue for centuries" — findings bleaker than its last report in 2001.

[olgreyghost]

starlight88:

Even The Report says we can't stop it or slow it so what we must concentrate on is how to survive GW. The predictions are a bit exagerated for dramatic purposes and GW might turn out to be good for mankind (i.e. more crop production as plants "breathe" CO2, respond better to warmer temperatures, and the melting ice caps can lead to more moisture in our atmosphere which falls as rain). So prepare to move to higher ground and look into natural methods of cooling your local environment (home, workplace, etc.) would be a place to start. Look for advancements in alternate energy (non-fossil fuel) sources but don't rush to invest in one yet as the technology is in its infancy and not as energy-efficient as current fossil fuel-based technology. And don't immediately dismiss fossil fuel - we'll need this energy to develop the next.

[starlight88-2009]

What a shame the comments here have turned into a nationalistic pissing match. The focus of the discussion has been totally lost.

The US has it's problems, just as I'm sure Australia must. However, Australia has always stood by us in wars and in peace.

It is time to stand together again and get back on topic. How can we slow Global Warming?

P.S. I don't know a single American friend of mine who doesn't want to visit Australia. We all wish it just wasn't so expensive to get there.

Best Wishes

[olgreyghost]

rheola:

Your language, not you personally, has been offensive and the inferance, er...inference about the Third World was in YOUR reading of my post, not in my writing of it. But you have been personally attacked in a virulent manner by others for which I will not apologize (that's their job to do on their own time) so I can understand you're being testy.

If you understand liberty and holding it to the highest standard against government suppression and oppression of it, then you can understand why many Americans, who are not necessarily wasteful or heavy polluters because that takes a lot of money to do so, are suspect of science and other reasons to turn over more of our natural rights to the government to control. We have a big enough problem with the people here who give away their rights and those of others so that they can have the illusion of security (government can never secure anything short of throwing someone into solitary confinement and that has no certainty to it).

"Ubi Libertas habitat ibi nostra patria est"

[rheola-2009]

Alchemist81

Thank you for your comments, I did not bother to reply in particular to them myself, as I regarded them beneath contempt.
It is my belief that you have every right to not agree with what I say, one of the things that makes our country so great, is that we can do so within the bounds of decency without fear or favour.
It is a sad state of affairs when some persons have to stoop so low, that their only defense is abuse.
My ancestors arrived variously from the first in 1839, a free settler to encounter bay Sth Aust.through to 1861,of which I am justifiably proud, none of them a convict, though that may have not been to bad.

I also wish you all the best

[alchemi81]

Apologies for accidently double-posting.

[alchemi81]

"You lousy descendant of criminals! So who'd your parents kill to get sent to Australia?"

If you are trying to come across as intelligent, or even funny here, you're doing a very poor job. I'm not defending my fellow Australian Rheola's comments in any way, I don't particularly agree with them. I just had to comment on this as I find it incredibly offensive.

You are implying here that the country I call my home, that I love, is a nation full of murderers. To say that somebody's parents murdered to get to Australia is offensive to anybody with half a brain.

My family has lived in Australia since 1850 and no we were not criminals. My ancestors lived in the town of Tipperary, Ireland until a widely known historical event called the Irish Potato Famine (wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine),
drove them to migrate, along with about 2 million others.

If you are trying to suggest your country is something to aspire to you are doing a very bad job. I don't aspire to ignorance.

[alchemi81]

"You lousy descendant of criminals! So who'd your parents kill to get sent to Australia?"

If you are trying to come across as intelligent, or even funny here, you're doing a very poor job. I'm not defending my fellow Australian Rheola's comments in any way, I don't particularly agree with them. I just had to comment on this as I find it incredibly offensive.

You are implying here that the country I call my home, that I love, is a nation full of murderers. To say that somebody's parents murdered to get to Australia is offensive to anybody with half a brain.

My family has lived in Australia since 1850 and no we were not criminals. My ancestors lived in the town of Tipperary, Ireland until a widely known historical event called the Irish Potato Famine (wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine),
drove them to migrate, along with about 2 million others.

If you are trying to represent your country as being a bastion of democracy you are doing a very bad job.

[rheola-2009]

olgretyghost

Goodness me !!!!!!!!

I fully realize you are a republic, a Republic based on democratic ideals, [no reference intended to your so called Democratic party].
No I have never been to the U.S. but I have many relatives in the north of your country, principally in Michigan. Incidentally they are third generation Americans, They did not migrate from here, the reverse is almost true.
If you find me offensive then I am very sorry, but have a look at the language used in the posts of another person referring to myself, obviously from a very knowledgabe person.
I was not putting words into your mouth/fingers,about the third world country, you did not say such, but the inferance was there. We are a freedom loving people, as you so rightly say, and I feel I am also, even if a little offensive to some peoples idea's.

I also wish you all the best possible

[olgreyghost]

rheola:

We are not a democracy, we're a Republic but as a foreigner you aren't expected to know that. And I don't remember saying that Australia was a third world country. Putting words in my mouth (or in this case, fingers) is unethical. Most of your fellow countrymen that I have worked with in the past struck me to be as liberty-loving as myself and much less offensive than you. You seem to know so much about US. When was the last time you visited and how long where you here?

[rheola-2009]

olgreyghost

I agree strongly with your comment "live free or die" and though I may live in a land foreign to you, I also strongly believe that we have a more democratic society than do you., however I could well be proven wrong on this point, if somebody can show me otherwise
Your statement indicates that you have little understanding of our country or it's people.
We are not a third world country by any standards, except in that we like yourselves are amongst the worst polluters in this world.