Thursday February 16, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Activists blast U.S. at climate change talks

World Dec. 03, 2008 - 03:09AM JST ( 7 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

7 Comments

0

smithinjapanDec. 03, 2008 - 09:10AM JST

Well, no big surprise, though to be fair they should say, 'rich nations' instead of simply the US in the headline. The latter of course is the biggest polluter in the world by CO2 emission standards/capita, but hey.
0

SuperLibDec. 03, 2008 - 06:25PM JST

True, the focus should be on all rich nations, including Canada. Canada has increased their greenhouse gas output by over 25% since 1990 (the US has a 16% increase) instead of reducing it by 6% as promised. Their non-compliance penalty will be so high that Canada has simply decided to not pay anything at all.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The US should have been like everyone else. Sign Kyoto then blow it off. It would have been a much better public relations move as opposed to being honest about the impracticality of the situation. People don't care about that....they just want to see your name on the paper. Sign it and you care about the environment even if you have no intention of honoring it. Don't sign it and you're a nation that's looking to destroy the environment. That's what the debate was reduced to.
0

TooFarGoneDec. 03, 2008 - 06:35PM JST

"Canada has increased their greenhouse gas output by over 25% since 1990 (the US has a 16% increase) instead of reducing it by 6% as promised."

Shocking.

Can we go so far as to say they have made themselves legitimate targets for the eco-terror that is so popular with young "progressives" around the world?
0

smithinjapanDec. 04, 2008 - 12:01AM JST

SuperLib: "I've said it before and I'll say it again: The US should have been like everyone else. Sign Kyoto then blow it off. It would have been a much better public relations move as opposed to being honest about the impracticality of the situation."

Or perhaps it's just that a few nations around the world were stupid enough to even dream the US could be a leader, and decided that, even after signing, if the US and China weren't going to ratify the treaty and contribute to 50% or more of the world's CO2 levels, why they hell should they? If the US even bothered to care in the least about the environment and stop denying that global warming is human-made, they might actually be in a position to lead and have a positive effect.

There isn't a whole lot of point in the clean air in and outside of my house, in my yard, when my neighbour polluting the air of the whole neighbourhood... so, I let it slide a bit.
0

SargeDec. 04, 2008 - 12:06AM JST

When are the activists going to blast the main instigator of climate change, Mother Nature?
0

SuperLibDec. 04, 2008 - 08:30AM JST

There isn't a whole lot of point in the clean air in and outside of my house, in my yard, when my neighbour polluting the air of the whole neighbourhood...

Well said. After watching Canada increase their CO2 emissions by 25% compared with the US's increase of 16%, it's hard to imagine what gains Americans will really see when we share a border with Canada.

But I understand that you're Canadian so any discussion about Canada's failures are off the table when talking to you.