U.S. Bends To Critics, OKs Climate Roadmap

Washington Drops Opposition To European, Developing Nation Concerns At U.N. Climate Talks

(AP)  In a dramatic finish to a U.N. climate conference, world leaders adopted a plan Saturday to negotiate a new global warming pact by 2009, after the United States backed down in a battle over wording supported by developing nations and Europe.

The U.S. stand had drawn loud boos and sharp floor rebukes - "If you are not willing to lead, then get out of the way!" one delegate demanded - before Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky reversed her position, allowing the adoption of the so-called "Bali Roadmap."

The upcoming two years of talks, which will fashion a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, could determine for years to come how well the world will cut emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The move came after a year of scientific reports warning that rising temperatures will cause widespread drought, floods, higher sea levels and worsening storms.

"This is the beginning, not the end," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who made an urgent plea for progress in the final hour of talks, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We will have to engage in more complex, long and difficult negotiations."

The document, adopted after contentious all-night talks, does not commit countries to specific actions against global warming. It was limited to setting an agenda and schedule for negotiators to find ways to reduce pollution and help poor countries adapt to environmental changes by speeding up the transfer of technology and financial assistance.

Adoption came after marathon negotiations that appeared on the brink of collapse several times.

European and U.S. envoys dueled into the final hours of the two-week conference over the European Union's proposal that the Bali mandate suggest an ambitious goal for cutting industrial nations' emissions - by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

The EU and others said the goals were needed to direct upcoming talks. But the guidelines were eliminated after the U.S., joined by Japan and others, argued that targets should come at the end of the two-year negotiations, not the beginning. An indirect reference was inserted as a footnote instead.

Just when it appeared agreement was within reach Saturday morning, developing nations argued that their need for technological help from rich nations and other issues needed greater recognition in the document.

In an apparent resolution, India and others suggested minor adjustments to the text, backed by the EU, that encouraged monitoring of technological transfer to make sure rich countries were meeting that need. But the United States objected, calling for further talks, and only relented when, in an uproar, delegates by turns criticized and pleaded with Dobriansky to reverse course.

"We would like to beg them," appealed Uganda's environment minister, Jesca Eriyo.

Dobriansky's subsequent acceptance of the changes triggered applause - one of the few times that a U.S. action had won public praise at a conference studded with accusations that Washington was blocking progress.

She told reporters after the adoption that the appeals convinced the U.S. delegation that developing nations did not intend to dilute their commitment to take steps to stop global warming.

"After hearing the comments ... we were assured by their words to act," Dobriansky said. "So with that, we felt it was important that we go forward."

At one point, China also angrily accused the U.N. of pressuring nations to sign off on the text, even as sideline negotiations continued - triggering an emotional spat that ended when tearful and exhausted U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer was escorted out of the hall.

Participants and environmentalists hailed the final agreement. Still, some critics complained the document lacked specific greenhouse gas cuts for industrialized nations, and did not include strong commitments for rich countries to provide poorer ones with green technology.

Critics of the U.S. cheered the reversal.

"We have learned a historical lesson: if you expose to the world the dealings of the United States, they will ultimately back down," said Hans Verolme, director of WWF's Global Climate Change Program.

For developing countries, the final document instructs negotiators to consider incentives and other means to encourage poorer nations to curb - voluntarily - growth in their emissions. The explosion of greenhouse emissions in China, India and other developing countries potentially could negate cutbacks in the developed world.

The roadmap is intended to lead to a more inclusive, effective successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which commits 37 industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gases by an average of 5 percent between 2008 and 2012.

The pact, however, has been rejected by the largest producer of such gases, the United States, seriously weakening a punch that scientists agree was already too little to have an impact on the environment. U.S. President George W. Bush has argued that the required gas cuts would hurt the economy, and he opposed the lack of cuts imposed on China and other emerging economies.

Critics - including former Vice President Al Gore, who spoke in Bali on Thursday - accused Washington of stonewalling progress at Bali. But many pointed out that with Bush's departure from office in early 2009, chances were high that the next American president would be much more supportive of ambitious cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Another clash at the conference was between rich and poor nations.

Developing nations have demanded that industrialized countries acknowledge their primary responsibility for solving the problem. Poorer countries also fear that they will be forced to sacrifice economic growth for the sake of cleaning up a mess caused by the industrialized world.

Richer nations, meanwhile, are concerned about skyrocketing rates of greenhouse gas emissions in the developing world.

Environmentalists accused the U.S. of trying to wreck future talks.

"The United States in particular is behaving like passengers in first class in a jumbo jet, thinking a catastrophe in economy class won't affect them," said Tony Juniper, a spokesman for a coalition of environmentalists the conference. "If we go down, we go down together, and the United States needs to realize that very quickly."

[formrusmcsgt]

For years, the rest of the world has sought to bring the Americans into the framework of international mandates. At this point, however, many seem resigned to waiting for a change in White House leadership after the 2008 U.S. election.

Gee, ya think this means that they''ve finally accepted that dubya will never pull his head out of the sand on the issue?

[mrmazerati]

I predict Bush will immediately start pushing hydrogen hard. Which is not a bad choice, in my opinion. It''s not an energy source in of itself (produces electricity for the engine), but it is the perfect carrier to replace gasoline. Hydrogen, combined with green technology at the power plant, could replace our outmoded fuels without destroying out current distribution system or forcing a complete paradigm shift in transportation. I think it''s a very good segue between fossil and all-electric. And we can then tell the Saudis and Russia and Chavez to go stuff their oil.

[samsel3]

The Bush administration has rejected reduction of fossile fuel burning citing severe economic impacts.The Cheney energy policy expands US interests in The Caspian Sea region where one third of the world''s oil remains untapped. Big Oil does not want alternative energy because they are profit motivated. Big Oil & Corporate America dictate US policy not the people. We are just pawns in their game.

[mrmazerati]

I believe a new progressive administration, climate data and international pressure will combine to counter the effects of Cheney and big oil. The oil influences will still be there, but if we vote intelligently, we can force the issue in the correct direction. Especially if the replacement technology is profitable. Which it is. Nothing drives change like a great idea combined with a great opportunity.

[clestes-2009]

Here is a list of accomplishments the Bush legacy will have.

1. Starting an illegal and immoral war which was completely uneccesary and killed a million civilians and displaced 4 million and 3900 US soldiers.

2. Lying to the American people about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson. He promised to fire anyone on his staff is responsible and now we all know that was a bald face lie.

3.Accomplishing ZERO domestically and presiding over an economy that is tanking now and has every chance of getting worse.

4. Threatening war with Iran when he knew they had no nuclear weapon labs.

5. Denying climate change for 5 years. Manipulating scientific reports to uphold his denial. Following Katrina, he finally admitted climate change was happening but denied that the use of fossil fuel had anything to do with it. Refusing to take the steps needed to really make a difference.

I really like his statement that by next summer there should be a meeting to establish a goal. I thought that was what Bali and the Kyoto treaty were about?? It is past time to establish a goal and action is needed NOW.

In fact, shrub is the worse danger to the US in history. He is far more dangerous than either Saddam or Ahmadinejad ever were.

[mcvet]

I believe a new progressive administration, climate data and international pressure will combine to counter the effects of Cheney and big oil. The oil influences will still be there, but if we vote intelligently, we can force the issue in the correct direction. Especially if the replacement technology is profitable. Which it is. Nothing drives change like a great idea combined with a great opportunity.


Posted by mrmazerati at 09:37 AM : Dec 14, 2007
+ report

Oil is no longer an option and you are right we CAN get there but it will take leaders who know how to say something other than "Can''t". If we can put a man on the moon in a decade there''s no reason we can''t defeat the problem with energy. IF we can get the American People to consentrate ON the problem and not their hatred for their neighbor. The problem with Fascist rule, which is EXACTLY what we''ve been through division and hatred for your neighbor is critical to their winning. It''s not going to be easy but it can be done.

[mcvet]

It''''s called keeping up appearances. Europe was mad and threatened to boycott US talks. This most likely infuriated the US, made them pull their final card. Hey if it wasn''''t for US, your countries would be much worse off. So, Europe then tries to pretend to be firm to its citizens, and the US pretends it''''s going to do something which it won''''t... especially under these people... In the meantime the Arctic is melting.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ttinsly at 08:41 AM : Dec 14, 2007
+ report abuse

Please stop being simple minded here... THIS is the best they can do at this time... will we move ahead? We have no choice, the only problem is how fast can we drag those we have ALWAYS had to drag into these things. Just look how long it took us to get where we are on Tobacco?? You folks ARE a bit of a problem when a solution is NECESSARY you know. Sieg Heil Bush!

[mcvet]

The Bush administration has rejected reduction of fossile fuel burning citing severe economic impacts.The Cheney energy policy expands US interests in The Caspian Sea region where one third of the world''''s oil remains untapped. Big Oil does not want alternative energy because they are profit motivated. Big Oil & Corporate America dictate US policy not the people. We are just pawns in their game.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by samsel3 at 09:27 AM : Dec 14, 2007
+ report abuse

Nothing we have ever faced as PEOPLE has ever been easy, this is no different. It has been the problem and strength of our democracy since day one though. LOL We have no choice, those in our Southeast should understand that by now. By the time next summer is over they are going to have NO Water... It''s not like the 30''s either, where a change in the way people farmed solved the problem.

[octavianfdlr]

On Dec 14, 2007 at 09:48 AM, clestes posted:
Here is a list of accomplishments the Bush legacy will have.

1. Starting an illegal and immoral war which was completely uneccesary and killed a million civilians and displaced 4 million and 3900 US soldiers....
-------------------
Let''s not forget that after Bush started this war, Clinton continued it for eight years, and the next Bush still has not ended it.

Now another Clinton is promising to end it.

(What is a legal war?)

[octavianfdlr]

"For years, the rest of the world has sought to bring the Americans into the framework of international mandates. At this point, however, many seem resigned to waiting for a change in White House leadership after the 2008 U.S. election." --From the above article
--------
Does "the world" include China, the largest industrial carbon dioxide producer? Has "the world" also sought to bring China into the framework of international mandates?

Remember, the technology of burning coal originated in China. China should be leading the world in cleaning up fossil fuel emissions.

[afmca]

The EU should know that you cannot make a deal with the Devil and Bush is most definitely the Devil. Good and righteousness needs to stand up against what Bush and his admisnistration stand for. Congress caved and the Constitution is in peril; if the world caves then the very existence of the planet is in question. Does nobody have the backbone to stand up to the evil in the White House?

[goboating1]

Global warming is real people! Please search Google video for Plasma Theory and watch the 1 hr. Thunderbolts movie. It is one of the most interesting, informative, and explanatory films on the subject I beleive will bring the US to action on this subject.

[hypnotoad72]

We''ll always need oil, but there''s no reason why we can''t use electric cars, light rail, biking if possible, walking when/if possible, living closer to work, and so on.

If it''s a real effort, everybody would do their part - a mix of tangible improvements combined with so-called "carbon credits".

As for the tangential garbage of Bush vs Saddam, recall the 1990s when Gore and Clinton said by and large the same things about him too... forgive me for not being a one-sided partisan blind-eye hack... (youtube has plenty to say by proxy...)

[clestes-2009]

octavianfdlr,

An illegal war is one started without congressional approval. We were not attacked and there was no emergency that warrented bypassing Congress.

Clinton had zero to do with attacking Iraq. don''t drag Clinton into this. It is always a sign that you have nothing better to back up your arguements than commenting on what Bill did or did not do.

See if you can defend shrub without attacking Bill.

I''m betting you can''t.

[j-whitman]

GoBoating1,,,, Nice screen name
--- Dont count on this President & GOP to do anything but give us lip service & more empty bumper sticker slogans like "Support The Troops" on Climate Compromise

[goboating1]

Thanks J_Wittman. I enjoy boating. Very relaxing floating and enjoying the day.

By the way, when do we get to vote on the results of this treaty?

[denn034]

It''s good to see that cooler heads can prevail on this. People say that aerosol can use caused the hole in the atmosphere but, the hole''s shrinking despite an increase in aerosol can use and that can only indicate a decline in global warming. Period! Does this mean we shouldn''t ensure that things don''t get this bad again? Of course not! I support hypnotoad72''s "We''''ll always need oil, but there''''s no reason why we can''''t use electric cars, light rail, biking if possible, walking when/if possible, living closer to work, and so on" statement as a way to ensure it doesn''t happen again.

[samsel3]

The Bush administration has rejected reduction of fossile fuel burning citing severe economic impacts.The Cheney energy policy expands US interests in The Caspian Sea region where one third of the world''s oil remains untapped. Big Oil does not want alternative energy because they are profit motivated. Big Oil & Corporate America dictate US policy not the people. We are just pawns in their game.

[samsel3]

OPEC sets the price of oil and has since the seventies. However, the administration is concerned over instability in Saudi Arabia and is seeking to take over control. These plans were formulated by members of the Council for National Policy and members of the PNAC both secretive private organisations representing some 200 of the wealthiest men in the United States. Global control of business without any worldly government interfering is there agenda. They are in control not the people.

[octavianfdlr]

On Dec 14, 2007 at 01:28 PM, clestes posted (in part):
"Clinton had zero to do with attacking Iraq. don''t drag Clinton into this. It is always a sign that you have nothing better to back up your arguements than commenting on what Bill did or did not do."
--------------
Clever, clestes. You are hoping your readers will be too young to remember the air strike President Clinton ordered on a so-called nuclear facility in Iraq. Perhaps none of your readers will remember the unremitting eight years of warfare in Iraq between the presidency of George Bush and the presidency of George Bush.

Please explain: if President Clinton did not order the air strike in Iraq that President Clinton ordered, then who did?

Are you sure that the Congress did not approve Desert Storm?

[rf35]

The military was indeed in Iraq and other SW Asian Hell-holes during Clinton''s reign. I had friends deployed to Saudi, Kuwait, the UAE, and Qatar just to name a few.
As for today''s war, I don''t feel deposing Saddam was the wrong thing to do. I do think the timing was wrong and that we have remained too long in the country. Saddam is gone, the power vacuum has expired. Let the Iraqis take care of Iraq. If that means a civil war, so be it. It''s not like you can convince a Muslim not to fight. The problem Bush and Co. have with that is that the oil would not flow freely if Iraq plunged into civil war. As long as the President is firmly attached to the teat of Big Oil, America''s troops will not be leaving the Mid East. I foresee a situation in the near future much like present-day S. Korea: a permanent force to create a "stabilizing presence" in the area.

[rf35]

Remember back in the day when a nuke sitting in a hole in Wyoming was the "stabilizing presence" in the world?

[samsel3]

RF35...As far as Iraq is concerned the administrations efforts were a big success for BIG OIL . They no longer have to deal with Saddam charging higher prices to US oil companies than other countries like China, Russia France & Germany for Iraqi oil, or stopping supplies many times to US interests. That thorn in there side is gone. The administration has no intentions of ever leaving Iraq because oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell Oil, Conoco,Chevron, Exxon Mobile and others would be at risk of loosing their leases, manpower and equipment.

[samsel3]

On September 14,2002 Rep. James McDermott at a Capitol Hill Briefing said that politics and oil, not fear that Iraq will use WMD are driving factors behind the presidents call for regime change. McDermott said there was an organized effort to squelch such discussions. "The political operatives in the white house have been very careful to spin it away from oil. Anytime anybody sees a connection they spin it the other way."

[idlepugilist]

"non-binding" is the only way Bush likes to operate, and he could show you hundreds of signing statements to validate it.

[azmka]

How can we expect the rest of the world to comply with greenhouse gas emissions control while we as one of the top offenders give the impression that we do not take it all that seriously?
If it means losing money, very few people will comply.

[seafang]

Well azmka, I don''t know just who "we" is that you say is one of the top offenders.
As for me, I live in the United States, and WE are the only large land area on earth that is a net sink for atmospheric CO2. Yes we do burn a lot of fossil fuels, after all, we make so much of the world''s goods and services, that we do need to use a lot of energy; and don''t forget all the food we raise. But as a result of our intensive farming, including tree farming, we absorb far moer CO2 from the atmosphere, than our industries emit.

So whoever your "we" is should be ashamed of themselves. If the USA can clean up, and compensate for "our" carbon footprint, I don''t see whay your "we" can''t do the same; get out and plant some trees, instead of wasting time here.

[seafang]

Well I don''t know what you have been smoking clestes, but I remember that the US Congress voted by a vote of 534 to 1 to go to war against international terrorism. Specifically they voted to "Do what is necessary and proper, to curb international terrorism." And the sole dissenter in that vote is intellectually handicapped, and didn''t understand, that to vote to not do "what is necessary" is a fairly good definition of insanity.
Then subsequent to that the Congress again voted by a wide margin, to declare war on the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then for a third time, but by a lesser margin, they voted to declare war on the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

Now just what is it that you are awaiting for the Cngress to do, to make these wars legal in your eyes; I take it you do have eyes?

[rheola-2009]

If it means losing money, very few people will comply.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by azmka at 06:15 PM : Dec 14, 2007

Of course you are correct, what else could you say of the most inward looking, the most selfish and the most materialistic nation on earth.

Thankfully not all Americans think as does this energy financed and controlled present government of America, and their minority followers.

A government that is so dead set on short term monetary gain, than it is for the future well being of not only it''s own people, but those of the entire world.

A government that considers itself, more knowledgable, with the help of it''s energy industry financed, so called scientists, than all of the much more reputable scientists advising ALL theit respective governments throughout the world.

Let us not show leadership, let us show we do not give a stuff about all others in this world.

[ubrew12]

Seafang said: "as a result of our intensive farming, including tree farming, we absorb far moer CO2 from the atmosphere, than our industries emit."
Proof? (didn''t think so)

[mediapreachr]

The sensible thing to do is to let Europe and of course China And India to set an example for the the rest of the world.
Nobody showing up?I thought so...More double speak from world politicians basically claiming the right to tax me an american.I doubt anyone in the US want to support more "environmentalists","scientists",or your regular bureaucrats.

[sharncedar]

some guy said:

"Of course you are correct, what else could you say of the most inward looking, the most selfish and the most materialistic nation on earth"

That is an exact description of China, which is oddly enough now the NUMBER ONE PRODUCER OF CO2 IN THE WHOLE WORLD. That''s right, its nto the US, it is now China. What do you liberals have to say about that? China is a "poor" nation so they don''t have to have any rules? Why exactly is that, what makes them so poor? They are the number 1 producer of Co2, any agreement that doesn''t include limits for them is joke, a big lying liberal joke, like all liberal ideas and negotiations its a worthless exercise in style over subatance.

[ubrew12]

SharnCedar said: "What do you liberals have to say about [Chinas CO2 production]? "
Just this. If Global Warming gets bad enough, and China remains recalcitrant, the U.S. may have to lead a war against China to force its obedience on this issue. Hopefully, the consequences of Global Warming will never get that brutal, but they COULD. And that''s the position you deniers may be placing your children, should Warming turn out worse than our expectations.

Satisfied?

[rohink-2009]

A government that considers itself, more knowledgable, with the help of it''''s energy industry financed, so called scientists, than all of the much more reputable scientists advising ALL theit respective governments throughout the world.

Let us not show leadership, let us show we do not give a stuff about all others in this world.


Posted by rheola

~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who finances the scientists that back Man made global warming? They have to be financed by some organization. What makes you think they are necessarily on the side of truth?

[rheola-2009]

Who finances the scientists that back Man made global warming? They have to be financed by some organization. What makes you think they are necessarily on the side of truth?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by rohink at 12:18 AM : Dec 15, 2007


Generally the respective governments, in the case of my country, the CSIRO [Australian Commonwealth scientific research organization] and various universities, amongst someother private research organizations.

World wide, U.N. financed scientific groups, also e.g NASA, and other such organizations, very much more reputable for example, than some of the experts, often quoted by those in denial of climate change, in fact some of them would well qualify as rent a scientist, a large proportion of which are financed by the energy industry.

[sparks224]

Europe, U.S. Reach Climate Deal Compromise

Who cares?
It''s too little, too late.

The Earth is having a Thelma and Louise moment, heading toward a cliff and hitting the accelerator.

[andor3]

"The Earth is having a Thelma and Louise moment, heading toward a cliff and hitting the accelerator."

Actually, the Earth is gonna be fine. It is humans headed over the cliff. If humans dont stop abusing the planet, its just gonna stop letting us live here. Kinda like evicting a bad tenant.

[andor3]

"Now just what is it that you are awaiting for the Cngress to do, to make these wars legal in your eyes"

The "wars" are illegal and unjustified, and the president and those who execute the plans are criminals. There is nothing Congress can do to reduce their crimes retroactively, but it should impeach, remove, and subject the criminals to public trial and punishment.

[pianoman42]

Nah Sparks224. Not the earth. **** sapiens. Or should that be **** cretinus. God got bored with species at the end of the Permian and tossed a bolide at the planet so He could start over. Ditto at the end of the cretaceous with the Chicxulub fireball. But He doesn''t need a rock this time because one of the species has learnt a couple of His tricks so He will sit back and chuckle. Made in the image of Him indeed. What arrogance.

[juwboy]

Which of the following two extreme climate situations causes more deaths?

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

The answer is (A) by a massive margin.

So, why aren''t we doing everything we possibly can to promote and accelerate global warming until the two numbers are comparable?

That''s when we''ll have the ideal, optimum climate for our planet.

[goboating1]

Global warming is real, but its caused by our sun.
This is a scientific problem not a political one. Why are people who challenge the status quo marginalized? Follow the money and it leads to a global tax.
By the way, when do we get to vote on this treaty? I thought so. We don''t.

[brianbwb-2009]

All arguments on this thread are so off the point as to be almost funny.

Whether or not you believe in global warming, no sane person can deny that we are polluting and thusly destroying critical components of our environment, and that the technology exists that makes such pollution unnecessary.

Failure to use our brains and learn to take care of the only spaceship we have is only common sense, and economic considerations are only important if you think that money is more important than life, which if is the case makes anyone of such persuasion ineligible to give any rational, meaningful, or even sane input to the discussion.

[formrusmcsgt]

The U.S. stand had drawn loud boos and sharp floor rebukes - "If you are not willing to lead, then get out of the way!" one delegate demanded.....

Herin lies the reason for the change in the U.S. position, I believe:

The administration realized that it had frustrated any real action on limits as far as it possibly could, which was its obvious intention from the outset.

Realizing that sanity would again begin to prevail within a year on this and many other issues, it finally decided to stop dragging its feet. It no longer served any purpose.

Change is coming and there''s absolutely nothing the administration can do further to thwart it.

[kevboom]

"why aren''t we doing everything we possibly can to promote and accelerate global warming until the two numbers are comparable"

Well for one, we would like our oceanfront cities to not be under water... Miami, New Orleans, New York, Boston, to name a few. Can you say, economic destruction? Is this a serious question? You must be kidding. Thanks for the laugh.

[notso9]

I love these posts. For one they get so far off base it''s comical.
First off this is an article about the Climate Conference, not a debate about terrorism and our involvement in the War.
Secondly I don''t think any one is debating the climate is changing, only what is the cause. Our history of the weather is only a small snapshot of the history of the planet. It has been more hot and more cold. In 1895 Galveston, Texas had 15" of snowfall. In my 45 year life the most I have seen is about 3" and I live 90 miles east of there. My point is, was there global warming caused by industrial emissions in 1895? The answer is NO. It is a natural cycle of the earth. In 10 or 20 years the scientists will be crying about global cooling and politicians will find a way to capitalize on this by saying "We did good!"
There are too many people out there who can''t think for themselves and jump on the extreme bandwagon every time.
Can we do better? Yes, but the WHOLE world has to do it''s part, not just the so called Rich countries. I''m not rich. How many out there are?

[newz4i]

"If you are not willing to lead, then get out of the way!"

Over the last seven years we''ve lost ground on all fronts of being a leader.

We''re a great nation. If we''re willing to gain back respect just among ourselves, we need to remove the conservative neoconistic right wing evangelicals that lead us in the wrong direct, backwards to the Dark Ages. We need to move forward with liberal open minds for our future.

[mcvet]

There are too many people out there who can''''t think for themselves and jump on the extreme bandwagon every time.
Can we do better? Yes, but the WHOLE world has to do it''''s part, not just the so called Rich countries. I''''m not rich. How many out there are?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by notso9 at 09:14 AM : Dec 15, 2007
+ report abuse

You mean like electing a man that the ENTIRE World conciders a Fascist for a Leader??? Would that qualify as extremist? We were ONCE a leader in the world, now we''re looked at as people who must be drug, kicking and screaming to the table. God what a pathetic loser this President has been... ABSOLUTELY the Worst in our history.

[lrhell]

hey guys--the climate changes that have occurred NATURALLY over the last hundred millenia have taken thousands of years to happen, not fifty years. In the latter part of the 20th century alone, we have had the highest record temperatures on average--consistently--every year. This is freakish, and frighteningly unnatural. It has nothing to do with an "extremist bandwagon".

[erasmus6]

"... an increase in aerosol can use..." posted by denn034

REALLY? YIKES!

[erasmus6]

"Critics of the U.S. cheered the reversal."

WHY? Surely they realize it isn''t for real. What did they expect the U.S. would do when confronted with criticism from the rest of the world? They are going to lie of course.

How many people live in the U.S.? And yet no one is doing anything to stop this idiot from doing further damage to their country. Is there any problem that is serious enough that the American people will stand up and say, NO MORE? All it would take is for the American people to STAND UP and DEMAND what they want and the government would have NO CHOICE but to do it.