What's the point then?

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on December 11, 2005 - 9:27am.
on People of the Word | The Environment

U.S. Won't Join in Binding Climate Talks
Administration Agrees to Separate Dialogue
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 11, 2005; Page A01

MONTREAL, Dec. 10 -- Despite the Bush administration's adamant resistance, nearly every industrialized nation agreed early Saturday to engage in talks aimed at producing a new set of binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions that would take effect beginning in 2012.

In a separate accord, a broader coalition of nearly 200 nations -- including the United States -- agreed to a much more modest "open and nonbinding" dialogue that would not lead to any "new commitments" to reduce carbon dioxide emissions associated with climate change.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Calvin Jones (not verified) on December 11, 2005 - 3:41pm.

The point is that "new commitments" would be mandatory emmissions targets at some level, these are widely regarded as essential, however, th US isnt prepared to talk about them so...the next best option is to atleast have discussions, a forum for debate about various measures. This isnt the sort of thing that would happen in US departments but it will now at an international meeting and progress could be made on policies and measures i.e support for technologies. Trade agreements may open up, after all the US could make a lot of money by exporting renewables, there are plenty of reasons to have a dialogue rather than no dialogue, even thought the potential gains are o where near as great as under mandatory targets.

 

http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com 

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on December 11, 2005 - 4:47pm.

So the USofA 's position is "We're not going to seriously address our own emissions, but are perfectly willing to sell you stuff so you can address yours."