US Proposal At G8 Would Bind "Only Countries That Contribute Most" To Warming - AFP

[hatrack]

Whatever the fuck that means.

The United States will call at the upcoming G8 summit for a new accord on climate change that binds only the countries that contribute most to the phenomenon, the German press said on Wednesday.

Washington wants the new pact on the environment to be concluded by 2009, the daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported, citing a US text to be tabled at the June 6-8 summit. "We are committed to finding an agreement on a framework for a new accord by the end of 2008," it quoted the document as saying.

The US proposal risks worsening a row with Germany, the current G8 president, which is seeking a strong resolution on fighting climate change at the summit and wants to bring as many nations as possible to the table.

Greenpeace spokesman Joerg Feddern criticised the US proposal as an attempt to undermine the United Nations' Kyoto process with its mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. "This is fatal for climate protection," Feddern told AFP.

EDIT

http://www.terradaily.com/2007/070530114425.g5udwq6r.html

[no_hypocrisy]

1. If Merkel is going to put speed limits on the Autobahn, which is politically

unpopular for her, there's no way she'll give * a free pass for discretionary adherence to the new treaty.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Which would be a complete reversal of the Bush position on Kyoto

which is strange. I suspect, therefore, it means emissions per country rather than emissions per capita - which would mean it wants China to have to start capping its emissions.

Here's a proposal to put to Bush, then: if he wants to count emissions per country, we'll take the world CO2 emissions, divide it by the number of UN members, and see what each country gets, shall we?

22,829,463,200 tonnes
192 members
=118.9 million tonnes/country
Current US emissions: 5,762 million tonnes
So, counting by country, the US would have to decrease it emissions to 2% of their current level, if we kept the total emissions the same as now.

If, however, it was done per capita, it would have to go from 19.47 tonnes/capita to 4.2 tonnes/capita (figures from Nationmaster; I suspect there may be some statistical errors, but they're in the right ballpark) - ie about 22% of the current US level.

Clearly, the 'per country' accounting is ridiculous. But if it's not 'per country' they mean, then the US is now calling for only the countries with large per capita emissions to be capped - of which the US is 5th (beaten only by the oil-rich Gulf countries like Bahrain). So I can't see what the US negotiators can possibly be aiming at.

[razzleberry]

3. the story does not look legit

it would appear to be have been written by a five year old.

or someone not good speak English

[Eugene]

4. IOW: We want a deal in which we go along with China and India.

They might as well have said "when pigs fly." They do
not expect conditions for such a deal to happen.

This "counter-proposal" is a stunt in which BushCo seems
to propose something while it distracts from any real
action.

[hatrack]

5. Yeah, pretty much what I thought - the illusion of action & innovation

Meanwhile, same old same old. Typical ChimpCo.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. It means China

China will out-do us in greenhouse gas emissions soon, and India will be right behind. This new proposal will allow us to keep dictating terms in a world that is going to need a whole lot of cooperative action.

You know -- the usual Republican hardball-in-the-nitroglycerin-factory trickery.

--p!