This story is archived
EU slams U.S., Australia on climate change »
Posted by: STONERS 2 years, 8 months agoThe European Union accused the United States and Australia on Monday of hampering international efforts to tackle climate change.
Read Full Story at news.aol.com »
Submitted By:
STONERS
Welcome to my profile...I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 40
-
STONERS
April 2, 2007, 9:45 p.m."We expect ... the United States to cooperate closer and not to continue having a negative attitude in international negotiations," Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told delegates at a United Nations-sponsored meeting to review a report on the regional effects of rising global temperatures.
"It is absolutely necessary that they move because otherwise other countries, especially the developing countries, do not have any reason to move," he said.
-
nostalgia
April 3, 2007, 8:22 a.m.The EU is pointing fingers??
A new analysis of UN data reveals that US efforts to reduce greenhouse gases actually beat EU policies. Despite constant criticism from environmental activists at home & in Europe claiming the US is doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, new evidence suggests America's efforts are more effective than Europe's
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/2007022...
"Join protest against rain forest destruction for European fuel by German rain forest advocacy group Wednesday, Feb 28, 2007 At the EU summit on March 8 & 9, 27 heads of government will decide about the forced use of palm oil & other plantation products from the tropics for producing energy in Europe. Oil palm & soya bean growing are turning into a catastrophe for the rain forest. The German group Rettet den Regenwald have compiled information on that about Indonesia, Malaysia and Colombia. German TV has just broadcast programs about the issue"
-
Fujii
April 3, 2007, 8:59 p.m.China is far the greatest polluted country in the planet as a consequence of its industrial development unrefrained by any law on ambiental protection.
-
amazed
April 3, 2007, 2:12 p.m.The reason the US Congress would not ratify the Kyoto treaty is that it is a suicide pact with little discernble benefit. To exclude India and China from the regulations that we would have to abide by would just increase the rate of manufacturing and other industry flight from the US to India.
Interestingly enough, most of the people (at least the ones that I know) that are clamoring the loudest to enact Kyoto and other environmental regulations on US industry are the exact same people who are whining the loudest about the flight of our manufacturing base, as well as other industries.
-
UBCONFUSE
April 3, 2007, 2:27 p.m.Knothead15 is right. However, the USA could be so lucky if it had followed the lead of the French and converted all electrical generation to Nuclear power plants. Instead we had to endure endless lawsuits from environmentalists hell bent on stopping the evil Nuclear word. In the end, the Greenies stopped Nuclear power development and ended up prolonging the use of coal. Great Job for the environment guys! The same idiots oppose logging in our National Forest, now we get to watch as major forest environments burn to ashes each summer. Great job guys! Have you seen Yellowstone?, but just wait 50 more years if you are so lucky.
Now, it is man made green house gas warming the planet. In fact, it is an all natural and unstoppable cycle between hot and cold. But the idiots want the USA to buy green credits. How about the Third world? The third world still thinks it is OK to take a dump in the same water you get your food from. OK still to have raw sewerage in open ditches where people live.
-
vidman04
April 3, 2007, 2:38 p.m."U.S., Australia slams the EU for being weak, whiny fairies for lacking a backbone to do anything about anything!" Film at eleven!
-
tryingtofindmyway
April 3, 2007, 2:59 p.m.I noticed this story came out of Brussels. Want to know what's going on there? They just passed a new tax on people who barbeque in their back yards because it increases global warming. BARBEQUING!!!! And ya know what else??? They are going to enforce it by flying helicoptors over neighborhoods to see find people barbequing and then check to see if they have paid the new tax. Global warming is nothing more than the government's attempt to guilt clueless liberal ninnies into giving them more money. How much emission is going to be created by the helicopters enforcing the new tax??? Europeans are so stupid sometimes. And if we follow suit then we are doubly stupid.
-
tiredofwhiners
April 3, 2007, 4:47 p.m.Most of the EU countries have notoriously poor judgement going back to WWI and before. The US has led in many environmental and safety standards. I commend the French for going to nuclear power. It wasn't an environmental thing though. I suspect it was to become more independent of foreign oil. Comment by tryingtofindmyway was about the ridiculous law in Belgium that restricts BBQs because of the greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) by same. That law was passed in one French speaking province. Probably the cost of enforcing it with helicopters and the choppers' CO2 emissions far exceeds any benefit. Sounds like a California law to me. We all emit CO2 when we breathe. Maybe tax us all for breathing. When I see the climate change caused by man's burning of fossil fuels as being proven and becoming a fact I'll support the Kyoto accord. Meanwhile, to be safe, its OK to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At this time I believe climate change is caused mostly by the sun's natural variations.
-
THOMNH62
April 3, 2007, 6:07 p.m.exterminating the human race will only reduce green house gasses by 4%, it's the cow farts that we have to deal with.
-
innocent-bystander
April 3, 2007, 6:49 p.m.The EU wants to use more than moral authority to punish China and India. The US is letting the EU dictate to the ecosinners. The US, China and India will drop their SUVs for hybrids just because of the expense of gasoline. These nations will naturally change to biodeisel and ethanol which are less harmful. These nations are the leading producers of vegetable based fuel crops such as corn and soybeans. The US will cut back on plastic for paper by using better forest management. The EU has been relegated to the noisy backseat driver. Are we there yet?
-
SlapALib
April 3, 2007, 8:15 p.m.How many times do I have to say it.
China will huff and puff and blow any marginal attempts by the West to curtail emissions. And that doesn't even include India.
And the UN, thus the EU, is well aware of that fact.
-
OldRusty
April 3, 2007, 8:48 p.m.The United states controls the worlds food supply,. Now these 3rd worlds can keep on making rocks, and digging sand, but we will have to tell them where to go, pretty soon, the loud mouths will get hungry.
-
-
Morginie
April 3, 2007, 9:55 p.m.There is only ONE argument which revolves around this topic.
Should the government of the United States place more importance on preserving and protecting the environment in which they live in, or place more importance of economic competition.
Some may say that competing economically would support US self-interest more, but you must remember that protecting the environment would also do this, although in a different way. In this global community we still have competing tribes, which makes cooperation for the better of the human race VERY difficult.
-
-
innocent-bystander
April 3, 2007, 10:48 p.m.Twangster, A few facts for you to consider: OPEC is dominated by the Arab gulf nations who are creating their own group currency like the Euro. Arabs are looking into possibly replacing the US dollar. Arabs can float the new currency alone, peg to a bag of currencies or stay pegged to the buck. The Arab quandry is the US dollar is continuously dropping and increasing Arab buying power. A change could cost Arabs billions. Why do you call Australians toadies then turn and attempt to shame Americans into being toadies to Europe?
-
CovalentBond
April 3, 2007, 10:57 p.m.((President George W. Bush pulled Washington out of Kyoto in 2001.))
It's interesting how Bush always gets blamed for this Kyoto garbage.
On July 25, 1997 the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".
Bush wasn't even President yet.
-
tiredofwhiners
April 4, 2007, 4:03 a.m.Europe is a dying continent with respect to their ethnic population. Most countries such as Germany, Russia, the UK, France have lower than 0 ethnic population growth rates. Many of these countries have a higher and higher percent population that is foreign born or second generation Arabs, Africans, and others. I wonder how much of the EU's opinions will be formed by these immigrants in the future? Very few of the European countries in the past have been very supportive of the US. I don't see that as improving in the future. The EU could be a No. 1 power but seems to lack the will and capability. Their past is rife with conflict, tragedy, wars, lack of foresight. Of course there are exceptions, such as England in WWII (oops, I forgot Chamberlin). Regarding the article we are discussing, the EU has no more of a clue as to the primary cause of climate change as anyone else. I would like to know what it would be like if there was no burning of fossil fuels at all. Maybe a new ice age?
-
tiredofwhiners
April 4, 2007, 4:53 a.m.I am not a climatologist. Here's a theory of mine to ponder: If and when the Arctic Ocean's ice sheet melts entirely in the summer (that has been predicted), the sparse precipitation of the far north could increase significantly. The open waters of the Arctic Ocean would provide moisture laden air which would fall in storms over N. Canada/Alaska/Greenland and N. Asia. That precipitation would fall as snow in the fall and early winter until the Arctic ocean froze over again. And rising sea levels would also allow for more exchange of warmer Pacific waters through the Bering Straits into the Arctic Ocean. I think that could cause permanent ice sheets to form in northern latitudes and thus a new ice age some time later. Until the Arctic Ocean went back to staying mostly frozen over in the summer the ice age would continue. Just a theory by a layman mind you.
-
tiredofwhiners
April 4, 2007, 5:08 a.m.The great Albert Einstein himself predicted this after running extensive calculations using data of the time: The Earth's axis would shift 90 degrees as a result of the buildup of the South polar ice cap according to the rate of buildup at the time (1950's). The buildup would reach a critical point sometime as early as the 21st century, then the earth would wobble on its axis and reach a critical point such as to cause the shift. This would be sudden and would be a catastrophe unmatched in human history. I believe there was evidence it had happened before in Earth's history. I wonder what would have happened or will happen if there were no greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere by man? Does anyone out there know of this theory by Einstein? Or is my memory flawed?
-
droid3913
April 9, 2007, 2:10 p.m.Hey EU. Up yours! Remember who bailed your asses out of 2 world wars? Why are you yelling at China you peice of garbage? US business spends billions of dollars a year on pollution controls. George Washington was right. We need to stay away from Europe. Up yours you socialist EU. Up yours!
The first 37 comments are shown. Show all 40 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
