Good luck getting China on board of that train.
More pissing into the wind: All sides said they had yet to work out language with developing countries -- a bloc that includes China, the world's second biggest emitter after the United States -- which have no binding obligations to cut greenhouse-gas pollution under Kyoto.
Fernando Tudela, a senior Mexican official, said the Bali talks looked set to postpone some thorny issues until 2009, when the post-2012 pact is scheduled to be sealed in Copenhagen.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/
2007...nclimatewarming
http://www.climatenetwork.org/ba...-bustle-in-
bali
They aren't even disguising it here.
Redistribution of wealth on a global scale.
Man you guys are more obsessed with global warming than Gore is...
No Doug, it's just a hobby. I'm obsessed with poon and guns.
The kicker is enforcement. Someone has to make sure that Croatia isn't fudging on it's carbon confession. Who's going to audit China? What happens when a nation like Venezuela says "Screw this. We ain't paying"?
I would agree that this is a fair question.
And you would support international enforcement, Jeff?
It's not an easy problem, and I don't know that it's my job to solve it - I'm only here to argue for good science-based decision making.
That said, I've always thought that the best plan was to focus more on technology than regulation - if we invest in the technology, then the goal, I think, would be to share that with developing nations so they can skip over the 100-year oil affair stage.
if we invest in the technology
And there is the key, Jeff. You say it's not your job. Think long and hard on what this really means. Who is "we" and what, exactly, do we mean by "invest"?
Isn't that the position the US is taking?
If it was truly about climate change and the need to cut carbon output, it seems to me the green crowd would be embracing nuke power.
My God, there's no time! Seven years, maybe ten before the shitstorm hits! Run for your lives! That's what some are trying to feed us anyways.
Yet they protest safe, clean, green glowing technology.
Sorry jeff but I think we have a real good reason for skepticism here.
by "not my job", I meant not that I wasn't willing to be a part of the solution, but simply that I don't necessarily have to have a plan of action to point out the reality of the situation. You conflate issues constantly.
"We" = the citizens of the U.S., as acting together via the government
"Invest" = spend money to develop technology.
The nuclear power thing comes up all the time, and I always make it very clear that I am strongly in favor of nuclear power as a stopgap. Sadly, "green" types have a weird emotional aversion to it and this is a mistake.
You missed it, Jeff. How many times are you going to watch the guy do Three Card Monte before you trip to it?
jeff, do you play poker?
Um... I kinda know how. Why?
JeffK, I am glad you are not if favor of regulation. Unfortunately, the politicians concentrate on that side of the equation much Much more than the technology side of it. That's why we are seeing no new nuke power here.
We (the US) have only increased our carbon output 6.6% since Kyoto. Europe has increased somewhere in the low teens and China is in the 20% range. The reason we are doing so well is the technology that comes with the capitalistic system that we have.
I think that We (US citizens through our gov't.) should be concentrating on allowing the rest of the world (with our help) to get to the standard of living that we enjoy. THAT is how we are going to reduce their carbon outputs. Fresh water and good food will go a long way in the third world to relieving the pressures that they are under just to stay alive, and allow them to concentrate on implementing the new technologies that we develop.
Let the genius's that are around the US develop the technology. The driving force for developing these new technologies will be PROFIT, not a government grant... The gov't can work on getting the rest of the world progressing at a faster rate (some of the third world up to an early 20th century level would be a good start).
You Physics guys can work on some of the new technologies too... Where is the fusion? I want to be able to drop some potato peels in the Mr. Fusion on the back of my DeLorean and run on that for a while. (Where is Emmit Brown when we need him) 
Just look at how well the UN has controlled Nukes to see that regulating Carbon output is clearly impossible.
Sanders and Jeff are correct. I read an article from a few disgruntled Enviroweenies that said that the traditional enviro-wackjob groups will never be able to sell the soultuions correctly as they always focus on regulation and punishment. If we looked at pollution as a sort of space race where the US stood to gain billions from new technologies, more people would support the cause. I agree with their premise, but I don't think thier solution would work.
Say Vinod Khosla does come up with a way to make ethanol from wood chips that is clearly cost effective, do you think that the UN would allow him to patent it and require royalties? NO, they would demand that the technology be shared for free for "the good of the world". This would end any more venture capital financing of ground breaking energy technology.
And Jeff K is correct, we don't need 10 posts a week on MMGW. I think we should just comment on any new developements.
Commenting by HaloScan
