US threatens to derail climate talks by refusing to include Kyoto targets

Source: guardian.co.uk

The US threatened to derail a deal on global climate change today in a public showdown with China by expressing deep opposition to the existing Kyoto protocol. The US team also urged other rich countries to join it in setting up a new legal agreement which would, unlike Kyoto, force all countries to reduce emissions.

In a further development, the EU sided strongly with the US in seeking a new agreement, but said that it hoped the best elements of Kyoto could be kept. China and many developing countries immediately hit back stating that the protocol, the world's only legally binding commitment to get countries to reduce emissions, was "not negotiable".

With only a few days of formal UN negotiations remaining before the crunch Copenhagen meeting in December, and the world's two largest emitters refusing to give ground, a third way may now have to be found to secure a climate change agreement. Last night it emerged that lawyers for the EU are in talks with the US delegation urgently seeking a way out of the impasse that now threatens a strong climate deal.

In a day of high international rhetoric, chief US negotiator Jonathan Pershing said the US had moved significantly in the last year. "There has been a startling change in the US position. There is now engagement. We have had a 10-fold increase finance from the US. We have put $80bn into a green economic stimulus package. One year ago there was no commitment to a global agreement."


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/07/kyoto-copenhagen-un-climate-change

Glad we are sticking to our guns.

In fact, what do those scientists know?

Pointy-headed climatologists and their precious "peer review" and "weather satellites".

Fucking polar bears and wild salmon runs. What have they done for MY checking account lately?

Let's build 1000 new nuke plants to power the US. That's something, right?

More to the point, 1,000 nuclear reactors? Apparently, your planet has an infinity of capital, an infinity of uranium and an infinity of time to build said 1,000 power plants.

However, at a very conservative estimate of $7,000 per kilowatt of capacity (per Moody's 2008) that would put a run-of-the-mill 1,600 megawatt plant like Calvert Cliffs at approximately $11.2 billion.

http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/13/nuclear-power%E2%80%99s-new-debate-cost/

So, if we're assuming 1,000 new nukes, that's at least a cool $10 trillion, or about 75% of nominal US GDP. Of course, I'm sure this cost would be spread out over a decade, so let's say 7.5% of GDP every year for ten years.

I'm sure our friends the Chinese will happily lend us that much so that we can compete with them for what remains of the world's U-238 feedstocks.

We have to do something and this is something!

In the mean time, I suppose we can all settle down and watch the biggest real-life version of The Fisherman's Dilemma ever staged.

Who knows, at some point I'll wager it'll hold the interest even of non-economists.

we may as well just look for personal ways in the US to improve our lives. More parks, public transportation, etc.

yes, this country's government has no conscience... like robots, all for money

another Obama "nudge" (that he would do something about the environment) ggoes doooown down down

Saint Al has his carbon trading board all set up and ready to go. That should count for something!