EU Threatens to Boycott US Climate Talks
With only one more day to go, the tone at the UN climate conference on Bali has taken a decidedly sour turn. The European Union has threatened to boycott US-led climate change talks unless the US agrees to concrete targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

In Bali, EU Floats 50% Greenhouse Gas Cut
The EU sets the bar high at the international climate change conference in Bali by calling for ambitious emissions targets to reach by 2050.
Australia's decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol isolates the United States as the only developed nation that has not signed the treaty.

Al Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the clima, and
reducing the CO2. Do you think he deserved it? I think he did.

What can USA do to be more forthcoming when it has to do with the
Climate? Some known persons who are very well aware of our clima
think EU can just throw USA out from this debate. There are no results
whatsoever, only protests from the Bush-regime.
The result can hopefully be, no more talks with USA as long as Bush sets his foot down, and only protest. They don't get anywhere.

I would like to hear the opinions from europeans too.

Heres the article:
http://www.spiegel.de/international...,523211,00.html

I agree... will it work? I doubt... Only (and if! I don't see U.S.A as an example of a democracy anymore - Maybe he's going to do the same that Putin did LOL) when that Bush goes away...

You'll have to wait until Bush is gone.

As an european I think it is a good start.

I doubt it will have any effect, though.

Oh and for all the people that are going to do some oldfashioned Bush-bashing here, I really don't like the fellow, but don't forget Clinton was actually the USA president that screwed up the Kyoto treaty.

Thats because the Kyoto treaty was worthless. It had a negative cost/benefit ratio, and even signatories of it have ignored it. After signing the Kyoto Treaty, China's Carbon Dioxide emissions went up 47+, and India's jumped by 55%. It was a novel idea, piss poorly implemented. The United States knew enough about the Treaty to not sign it officially, because they knew that it was problematic from the start. President Clinton was right not to sign it. Have the Senate do it symbolically, as a sign that we at least support the idea of reducing CO2 emissions, etc, but they way the Treaty was written, Clinton would have been stupid to actually sign it. Just do a google search on the problems with Kyoto some time...You can support an idea without signing it into law. I support seat belt usage, I lost a friend 3 days before graduating high school, because he was involved in a car accident, and wasn't wearing a seat belt. But if there was a proposal to make violators of a seat belt law serve a year in prison, I would vote no on it, despite believing that everyone should wear seat belts, because the punishment is ridiculous...So to the Kyoto Treaty may have had noble intentions, but, its a failure, and the US does not need it. If the US refusal to sign Kyoto means the EU boycotts other climate conferences, so what?

For starters, I love how almost all articles on this make it look as if it is the US only that is opposed to the wording in this.

Nations opposed also include;

Canada
Australia
Japan
Russia
China
India

A lot of people who got the prize can be questioned as to if they deserved it. Gore may have for his work to bring attention to the problem, but even he admitted he exaggerated the truth about global warming in his prize peace "Inconvenient Truth" in the interest of the importance of the raising awareness. A prize awarded on lies, is it still worthy?

Al Gore is not known for lies. Sorry, you're dead wrong. Liars, (Bush) don't get such
prizes.

Afaik not wearing a seatbelt while driving is a punishable violation of the law even in most US states. The 1 year prison sentence is a senseless exaggeration of course.

Back to the climate conference: Sure the Kyoto protocol has its problems, but it is generally agreed by scientists that severe worldwide reductions of greenhouse gases is a necessity to avoid unpredictable lasting weather changes. So it does make sense to agree on setting clear goals for this reduction. And to punish failure to meet this goals. According to all experience, simple non-binding statement of good will won't change anything. And if participating countries don't follow the agreements of the protocol then that is a problem with the enforcement of the protocol, not with the plan itself.
Of course if the US government can come up with a better plan to enforce some way to deal with the climate issue than I am sure the world will listen. More talks surely won't solve anything. Over that I prefer a questionable agreement which at least provides a way to compare our success to our own ambitions anytime.

Sadly your right that all these others countries are kicking up a fuss, but I do believe that the EU has every right to want a symbol of commitment to such a cause.

If the article is right, Australia has signed the Kyoto Protocol . India is not in the "red" zone, Russia will talk, so will China and Canada. They are not impossible to make deals with. I am not sure about Japan, but they are very aware they have a problem with the clima.

And yes, i think EU has the right to exclude USA as one of the developed nations from further talks. I guess it will not be like that when Bush finish
his period as president. There are several senators who already disagree
with Bush.

You don't know Al Gore then.

“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”(Al Gore, CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,” 3/9/99)

-in truth, the foundations for the internet, then known as ARPANET, were being created by the defense department, back in 1969.

“When I was a child, my family was attacked by an invisible force that was then considered harmless. My sister Nancy was older than me. There were only the two of us, and I loved her more than life itself. She started smoking when she was 13 years old. The connection between smoking and lung cancer had not yet been established. But years later, the cigarettes had taken their toll. It hurt very badly to watch her savaged by that terrible disease. Her husband Frank and all of us who loved her so much tried to get her to stop smoking. . . . Tomorrow morning, another 13-year-old girl will start smoking. I love her too. Three thousand young people in America will start smoking tomorrow. One thousand of them will die a death not unlike my sister’s. And that is why until I draw my last breath, I will poor pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking.” (Al Gore, The Democratic National Convention, 8/28/96)

- despite his sister's death, Gore continued to farm tobacco for four years after she died. Way to really show people how you were anti-smoking Al, by continuing to grow tobacco! That will show them!

“And know this, I will always, always defend a woman’s right to choose. Every time Congress has tried to play politics with that fundamental personal right -- imposing gag rules, and attaching anti-choice language to any bill they can think of -- we have stood up to them and stopped them.” (Al Gore, Remarks at Women for Gore Event, 6/1/99)

“It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. I hope that some day we will see the current outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply. . . . Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected . . . In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably the taking of a human life. . . .” (Letter from Rep. Al Gore to a Constituent, 7/18/84)

“During my 11 years in Congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding of abortions. In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably the taking of a human life.” (Sen. Albert Gore Jr. Letter to a Constituent, 5/26/87)

Its great that Al Gore has encouraged people to live more green to help the environment, its just a shame he refuses to do so himself. His home consumes 20 times the electricity of an average American home, despite the existence of wind powered energy in his area of Tennessee, Gore refuses to use it, because it costs two pennies more per kilowatt hour.

He preaches about the evils of carbon fuels, yet spends most of his time flying around on big fuel guzzling jets...way to reduce your carbon footprint, Al.

He won the Nobel Prize for a "documentary" that is filled with lies, exaggerations, and simple bending of facts to suit his purposes.

Al Gore would have you do as he says, not do what he does.

I wouldn't use Gore as a shining example of truth...certainly not when it comes to environmentalism.

Again, if the EU wants to boycott any environmental summit, so what? Why are they beholden to attend?

sorry davious, but i am not on that anti-Gore propaganda line. What i know is that he is a human beeing with resources to make a move to improve the clima, the reduce of CO2. I know already he got critics from the conservatives, not only in USA. But what media type, i can't always trust them you know. I am not really very interested in defending Gore either, he is not my idol, but it was a right move in my opinion to give him the Nobel Peace Prize for his work. Not what he has said earlier. Carter got the Nobel Peace Prize for some few years ago too, for his peace center. Not for what he might have said or done in the past when he was a president.

who needs propaganda when his own words prove his lies?

I wouldn't have any problems with him winning the Nobel Prize for An Inconvenient Truth, had it actually been legitimate. He won for something that distorted reality, he won for blatantly lying to people. That's not right. If we are going to celebrate someone doing something good for the environment, we should celebrate them being truthful about it. He won, because he lied. Let him win a Nobel because he told the truth, not because he deliberately mislead people. A British Court requires a warning label before the film can be shown, because it is a political propaganda tool...thats not an American Conservative attacking the film, thats a British Court. That same court also found 11 major innacuracies within the film. I am not going to honor someone who got recognized for achievement, when that achievement is false. Let a real scientist, who actually uses the truth to explain global warming win the Nobel. Not a politician who resorts to distorting the truth. Al Gore is not a scientist, he is an Activist. The scientists deserve the Nobel far more than he does. However, considering Yassir Arafat, a known terrorist, also owns a Nobel Peace Prize (1994), my opinion of the award is diminished to begin with, as its obviously becoming a political tool, and not a genuine reflection of people trying to achieve peace...I would also wonder how global warming helps maintain peace anyway? What does An Inconvenient Truth have to do with global peace initiatives?

Ok, when you start with the palestinians and Arafat, and that they are all terrorists, i won't go there. This debate shouldn't be allowed public, i've seen how much harm it does to forums. The debate around palestinians/israelis. People are either supporting Israel or Palestinians, nothing between. urk. The prize to Rabin (who was shot dead) Peres and Arafat was tactical since this was the first time a palestinian leader and an israeli leader showed willingness to shake hands and make a peace agreement. It was a gest to both of them. when this happend, it was big, new hopes and dreams for a peace.

I trust that the Nobel Peace Center has done enough research around Al Gore, they are not known for giving this prize to liars, they have to choose between several candidates, already suggested from the last nobel peace prize winner, or at least, one of them. There are only people who have won the prize before who can nominate candidates. I think you type very negative about Al Gore? You say he won for blatantly lying for people? Are you suggesting that the Nobel Center are giving the prize to people as a reward for lying to people? What the british court choose to do is their business, but that does not stop other countries to decide what to do. the Brits do not rule Europe or the Nobel Prizes.

No, Al Gore is not a scientist. He is a clever and smart politican, and we do need politicans who raise their voices against the danger our mother earth will meet in the future. (my english is limited). Even if he is not a scientist, the director Davis Guggenheim for the film "The incovient Truth" told they used scientists during the movie. It won oscar for best documentary. Is oscars usually given to liars?

Btw. It's not only Al Gore alone who got the prize, it's the UNs (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC), who was founded in i 1988 by WMO (World Meteorological Organization) and UNEP ( United Nations Environment Programme)
They give out reports about the climatic changes, reports based on science, also already known science.

This prize meant a lot to Green organisations, to everybody who fight for a better world. It's too simple to call Al Gore a liar since so many people support his work as
a politican.

I didn't say all Palestinians were terrorists...I said Arafat is a terrorist. There is a difference, and I only used to demonstrate that the Nobel Peace prize isn't always awarded to those that truly seek peace...it was part of an overarching argument that the Peace prize itself is becoming a joke, and not worth nearly as much as it used to be. At least the people that win the Nobel award for Mathematics actually are responsible for mathematical innovations...and I ask again...how does being an environmentalist qualify you for a PEACE prize? What did Gore do to help achieve world peace? Gore winning for An Inconvenient Truth is like a man without any children winning a mother of the year award. He might have done good things, but, whats the connection between global warming and peace, exactly? Isn't the Nobel Peace prize supposed to go to someone who makes extraordinary effort towards achieving world peace?

And, Al Gore's own words, the way he lives versus the way he tells other to live prove he is a liar. An Inconvenient Truth, the book and film that he won it for, is filled with inaccuracies and blatant falsehoods. I would classify that as lying...If you knowing state something to be the truth when its not the truth, isn't that the definition of lying?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ma.../scigore111.xml

Don't believe me? Here is a news article about it. Or, how about this?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/m...goreerrors.html

Al Gore lied in An Inconvenient Truth, and he did so repeatedly. That makes him a liar, and makes the fact that he won a Nobel for that lie laughable.

Yeah, blame the swedes for sending that Nobel Peace Prize over to Norway. They should take it back. I understand why they didn't want to keep it themself. It's a hell every time someone get that prize, cause there are always people who will disagree,
make noise and yell.

We are a very peaceful people, and everyone who works for the environment are regarded as candidates to peace. Work for environments are included in the peace prize. If you can't see the link between working for the rainforests and peace around the world, it's not my problem.

You hijacked this thread by the way, now everything is about Al Gore. This is not all about him, it's about EU who wanted to boicott USA in clima talks, that means Bush, not americans as a people.

but it looks like they will come to an agreement, so a boycott will probably not be necessary. Bye by the way, i do not debate in english with a conservative. Been there, done that. Not again. It ends up with a locked thread.

Please.



He admits to lying about the problem of Global warming. In fact he has been proven not only in court on his lies in the movie. But even the UN it's self have proven some of his "facts" as lies.

Yes they did, but the Kyoto Protocol is different then the one being pushed in these latest talks. Kyoto only pushes a 5.2% reduction compared to the 25% to 40% reduction being pushed in the latest talks. Australia isn't all that warm to the idea of those levels in drops.

http://news.theage.com.au/eu-critic...71213-1gr1.html

Wanna bet?
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007...y-Interview.php


Do a little research on Rigoberta Menchú.

They have also given the prize to some of histories worst people. Yasser Arafat for example. Hitler him self was even considered at one time to receive the prize.

Good. The US, and its supporters, need to know that they must act strongly on this issue. Clear targets must be set, and made law, or else irreparable damage will be done.


WOOO!!! I was so glad when that happened.

Kyoto is economically bad, but environmentally good. And seeing as the economy depends on the environment, I say that's acceptable.


I say he did, as he brought this important issue into the forefront of culture (but I'm glad the the IPCC got part of the prize too). I noticed some of the info in his talks was a bit outdated or extreme. I doubt Gore actually lied in his movie, but certainly didn't present the most balanced of views in some situations.


I found one major inaccuracy in your comment.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200..._same_thing.php

No court found, nor did any judge say, that there were errors in The Inconvenient Truth.

Papua Ny-Guinea made USA turn 180 degrees around, and they are still in. That was very good news.

Yeah, aren't human beeings limited Amish-nick? They get a prize and deceit people.
Some have even suggested Bush for a peace prize, which he do not deserve of course. Btw. there are a few historical facts twisted regarding Hitler. Of course he was not even regarded as a candidate to the peace prize, he was Europe's horror.

Regarding Rigoberta Menchu: Committee, said her prize "was not based exclusively or primarily on the autobiography".[11]. According to the Nobel Committee, "Stoll approves of her Nobel prize and has no question about the picture of army atrocities which she presents. He says that her purpose in telling her story the way she did 'enabled her to focus international condemnation on an institution that deserved it, the Guatemalan army'.

Well, you can read about the Nobel Comitte here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize

This just blew my mind...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/f...?pagewanted=all

Typical... although, it's sad... you see, 5 of those 6 nations are superpowers, principally Russia and the U.S.

We can't expect nothing when it's the money that moves the world... and I believe hard times will come, and only then, people will realize that it was possible to avoid such thing...

Climate change is the single most important issue facing the western world today, (as well as peak oil). However any attempt to save the planet is stopped by the americans. I agree that while the most hated man in the world is US president, nothing can be done, but when Bush is gone, maybe America will begin to be pro-active.

I am a New Zealander and not anti-American, I know not all Americans like Bush, and don't care about the enviroment. (Heck my uncle even co-owns a californian recycling company). It is the people who drive SUVs and eat McDonalds three times a day that create America's bad image.

Perhaps the next president will DO SOMETHING TO HELP OUR PLANET or else we are all doomed.

Well, most of the times it's stopped by the American government...

But it isn't just their fault:

My good ol'friend Vladimir, Mr Hu Jintao and stuff... both didn't agree with the Bali protocol...

My opinion? World superpowers need to think more in the future, than in the economics/power.

The Kyoto Protocol is nothing. Seriously, read the danged thing. No one seems to have actually done so.

Here is what the Kyoto Protocol offers. It gives out allowances to countries that have no need for them. Why? So others can pay to buy them off them. This means I am a big polluter and Doc Doofus is not. I've got 30,000 different industries making products the world uses and Doc Doofus ships pineapples. So I hit my limit allowed by the protocol and I send Doc Doofus $200 million to buy off his unused allowance so I can actually pay to up my allowance and increase my levels of pollution.

No offense to Doc, I like the guy and he is a really good counter to some of my arguments. Some of them. :D

But Kyoto and that whole Al Gore paying for the footprints thing is bunk and basically comes out to be a way of providing welfare for other nations and allowing increased levels by other countries or in the case of the footprint thing, it is just a really moronic and self-serving way of making one feel better about themselves since they pay a little extra out for the increased use they have.

That footprint thing is bogus. You do not offset the damage you contribute to with expanded use of energy by simply tossing money towards saving a whale or some other random environmental issue.

These are not true environmentalist people. And I am saddened that they have and can convince many that they are whilst they actually do nothing but stroke their own egos.

Indeed there is no way the sorry state of the world envrioment can be blamed on the Americans alone. But generally it is blamed on the Americans, so I am saying they need to change their image