'Blair tried to ditch green policy'

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green...391656,00.html

Tony Blair's international credibility on climate change was seriously damaged last night as it emerged that the government tried secretly to ditch key global warming targets.
Leaked documents seen by The Observer reveal that the UK sought to remove targets that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions during high-level meetings to formulate Europe's climate policy.

I knew it was too good to be true

[Millay]

Thought this was going to be another thread on the reputation system, ahh so pleased its not

That is sad news, but atleast they tried and didnt succeed....

[Paul K]

What's new? Green policies can affect commerce and industry financially, commerce and industry help fund the campaigns of political parties, green policies therefor are not always the highest issues on party agendas.
Look at America where big industrials and manufacturers shovel money into party coffers, everytime they are asked to cut pollution they just laugh at other countries and take the decision to look after their own interests, it's the same with a few other major countries out there

[Ramrod]

Gawd, labour are as bent as the tories were

Originally Posted by Paul

What's new? Green policies can affect commerce and industry financially, commerce and industry help fund the campaigns of political parties, green policies therefor are not always the highest issues on party agendas.
Look at America where big industrials and manufacturers shovel money into party coffers, everytime they are asked to cut pollution they just laugh at other countries and take the decision to look after their own interests, it's the same with a few other major countries out there

Actually there are green plans afoot in the US.It's just that they are not government led ones and are business led instead.I watched a news documentary over the weekend about it and would like to know more.Some of the ideas were very radical and in my opinion much more likely to work because they were in Big Business's interest to work before having a solution foisted on them that might not be as realistic.

Mind what do I know about it.

[orangebird]

Sorry, but this doesn't suprise or worry me - until America buys into this (via the Government, not just private Business initiatives), the rest of the world would be ****ing in the wind anyway......

[AndrewJ]

NON of the worlds big players will do this, not until nature and this worlds shows them who is boss. Sadly America thinks its MR Big Boy, and behaves that way. Perhaps a major quake, or some other natural disaster which affects them not some remote 3rd world country, and makes them suffer, wonder then if they will do anything other the problem of polution.

No, they will leave it far too long, then the climate will show what will happen and then it will be too late. If the temperature goes up by 3-6C, the UK will turn into Africa and then we probably won't be able to even live in Africa due to temperatures. That's not just it, forests will start to catch fire emitting Co2 into the atmosphere in great ammounts, then the frozen Methane at the bottom of the oceans will start to come up, and Methane is the worse gas that can go into the atmosphere. Who knows what will happen at that stage.

I reckon when the ice caps have melted, the northan atlantic current will shut down triggering the ice age, then will should know what to do then.

[AndrewJ]

By which time I will have my 12guage.

[punky]

This isn't about some piddly cost/profit margin issue. What it would take for some countries to meet these targets would send them into a really deep recession, long before mother nature could cause any trouble.

Russia thought along the same lines, until very recently. They want a PR exercise out of it, so they agreed. I doubt they would meet. It is alright for us to meet the guildelines, but the US actually has some industry left to do with, and the Kyoto agreement would kill that. What it needs to be instead of a rigid percentage, it should be a chosen based on the country, so all cuts in waste products are at least feasible.

[AndrewJ]

SO what your saying while its profitable its fine? or have I read into that wrong if so I apologise.

[Paul K]

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

SO what your saying while its profitable its fine? or have I read into that wrong if so I apologise.

I think what he was saying is that a lot of the countries that have signed the agreement can afford to because:
A. They can financially afford to do it (because)
B. They have very little heavy industry left to pollute with
Some countries that are being asked to sign the agreement simply cannot afford to carry it out, if your country relies heavily on the industries causing the problem you are doing nothing but shooting yourself in the foot if you clamp down on them in any serious manner.
Lot's of smaller industry sectors are now pushing for cleaner production and see it as a great PR advantage if they can say their products are enviromentally friendly. This in itself is a good thing but only covers a small percentage of the global industries and really it should not be down to individual companies making the running on this. Small companies, industries and manufacturers should be applauded for tackling this issue on an individual basis but hopefully some of the ideas they put into practice may force some of the bigger players to take note and act.

[AndrewJ]

Surely the USA and UK could help these countries use more modern cleaner methods for there industry.

it would be a good PR for both countries as well as a peaceful gesture of good will to other foreign countries to help them use modern stuff, and become one with the rest of the world.

but again it means USA and UK to stop buying £1m Cruise Missiles... and £300m stadiums for a Olympic game it dont even know if its gonna host... etc.

Why am I not surprised that Tony 'The Liar' Blair tried to ditch much needed policies to cut down on CO2 emissions.

IMHO, we have already passed the point of no return with polution and global warming. We have way too many people competing for too little land. We cut down virgin forest and turn it into grazing land for cattle, or give it over to the production of food. By doing so we tear the lungs out of the planet. The developed world pumps out millioms of tons of greenhouse gasses every year, but the developing nations do so as well. As the global economy expands, so does the demand for luxuries in the third word, causing increased consumption of fosil fuels, and thus more polution. We as a race, have steared a course into a future of man made calamity, and no matter what we try to do now, will prolly not avert the raising of glaobal temperatures and its associated side effects.

December showed us how badly we are prepared for a ''natural disaster'', with 150,000+ dead, and millions displaced. What will happen if the scientists have got their sums right. According to the first program on the ''War on Terra'' season, showen on Channel 4 two weekends ago, a rise of three - six feet would displace 150,000,000 people in India alone. If that is a accurate description for one country, imagine how many people world wide will be looking for new homes, and the chaos that would cause. How much farmland will disapeer underwater, how may cities will be lost. All to our greed, and need for a disposable, fast food society.

[Paul K]

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

Surely the USA and UK could help these countries use more modern cleaner methods for there industry.

it would be a good PR for both countries as well as a peaceful gesture of good will to other foreign countries to help them use modern stuff, and become one with the rest of the world.

but again it means USA and UK to stop buying £1m Cruise Missiles... and £300m stadiums for a Olympic game it dont even know if its gonna host... etc.

Good PR is nothing when compared to the ammount of money the US makes from some of it's dirtier industries They would be severely financially challeged if they were to impose the treaty on american manufacturers. As for the UK, we can't afford to help our pensionners let alone clean up other countries pollution issues, knowing the government though they would try to fix the ozone before giving the elderly extra money towards heating in the winter