Is the G-8 emissions agreement a significant step towards reduced emissions?
World leaders on Tuesday endorsed halving world emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 but stopped short of tough, nearer-term targets. The G-8 leaders are calling this a significant step forward in the battle to stem the potentially dangerous rise in world temperature. However, many critics disagree, saying that the leaders need to set aggressive near term goals to begin moving down the path of reduced emissions. What do you think?
Yes, this is significant
Side Score: 20
|
 |
No, it's insufficient
Side Score: 29
|
|
|
|
|
Its a significant step because the United States is a member of the G-8. Finally, the US has acknowledge that carbon emissions must be curbed. In case you are unfamiliar, here is some history (clipped from the article): "Ten years ago, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change passed the Kyoto Protocol with the goal of limiting greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The United States was the only one among 175 parties -- including the European Union -- to reject it." Is this emissions agreement enough? Of course not. But every long journey begins with a single step. Side: Recognizes the problem at least
4
points
I'm not really sure how sufficient an "acknowledgement" from the United States can be if pollution concerns aren't implemented. And the tu quoque rhetoric of Bush suggests that he isn't going to do much (he can't really because he'll be out soon) unless China and India get their act together. But they aren't impacted by the G8 insofar as their obligation to uphold some kind of standard. And I'm not really sure that any near-future President can do much considering the economic impact decreasing emissions will have. So an important question is when will high polluting nations step from acknowledgment to implementation and even more importantly when will they be able to make a meaningful shift. Side: No, it's insufficient
I agree, at least the US is now willing to consider entering in to an agreement. The Kyoto Protocol debacle was an embarrassment to the US and it's nice to see that we're taking some steps towards lowering greenhouse gas emissions (or at least agreeing their might be a problem). Side: Recognizes the problem at least
What good is it to agree that "their [sic]' might be a problem." When major global policy takes form on possibilities, I have yet to see a positive outcome. When Hitler threatened in WW2 and the world finally woke up to the fact, major changes took affect. However, when Saddam was an "imminent" threat, few countries agreed to join forces....... The Kyoto Protocol was supposed to revolutionize the way emissions were treated, initially by (if memory is right, I'm not googling to see if I'm right either) they started at reduction of 40% by 2020, and by the final agreement the USA agreed to 4% or something to that affect. So what's going to change now. The agreement has very little to do with whether or not countries reduce emissions. However, global recessions on the hands of oil tycoons, and alternative methods of energy (via last resort) will take form, and greatly reduce emissions. This is a lot more likely than the former. Side: No, it's insufficient
5
points
I believe that it can be if all G8 members participating, Russia, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, the United States and Britain can work together with the WWF and other VIP environmentalist groups on how to proceed and in what timeframe. In four years, when the Kyoto Protocol ends, we must be in a position of agreement on this issue. While it is what I would consider a first step, I also consider the year 2050 as the marker for reducing carbon emissions by 50% to be much too far in the future for full and absolute compliance to occur. I believe the world would be better served if there were interim deadlines set for each phase of developement. This would create more reliable checkpoints for each country to assess their progress and use more up to date information and technology in order to reliably speed advancement. At this juncture we have nothing to lose lest we begin too late to reverse what we have perpetrated on the athmosphere. It's too late for good intentions but it may not be too late for the actions we must take in order to stay what is tantamount to global genocide by our own hand. Side: Recognizes the problem at least
|
The agreement is insufficient for a few key reasons. First, they neglected to set a reference date by which the emissions will be halved. Saying that you will cut emissions in half from an unknown starting point makes no sense. Second, they did not set any near term goals that will show significant steps towards the goal that is 42 years away. That is effectively "putting off" the problem for future generations to handle. Finally, China and India, the two fastest growing economies and major contributors of the world's pollution aren't even in the G8 so they are not held to this accord. Side: Another stall tactic
My thoughts exactly. The entire G-8 is a complete joke because China and India are not a part of it. It's about as powerful as the Queen of England. This is why the U.S. never signed Kyoto, because why the hell would we suffer the economic consequences if China doesn't have to do jack? Side: No, it's insufficient
No, because the major problem with pollution is that the developed nations are the only ones doing anything about pollution and emissions. The vast najority of the pollution and emissions come from the third world countries w/ China probably the worst offender, followed closely by India. Side: Recognizes the problem at least
3
points
what about developed countries like U.S. that have citizens in major cities like Detroit, L.A., Dallas, and such that are developing Asama from the waste output from the factories and plants? I do not think we can blame underdeveloped countries for waste especially because major countries are the ones with factories in some countries like Honduras, Pakistan, and Indonesia. I do agree with you though on one point, that China and India need major improvement in their ethical treatment of the world. Side: emissions
the U.S. is the most olluting per capita while China is the most polluting. Then again, the U.S. lost so much of its manufacturing base which went where? You guessed it, China. With that said, China has over 1.8 trillion that they could use to clean up their ways. Now, if only their sleazeball, opportunistic politicians would stop accepting bribes to look the other way.... Side: emissions
First off, I could easily make the argument that the developing countries (USA, JAPAN, CHINA, GERMANY, CANADA to name a few) would be the only ones attempting to fight emission problems, due to the fact that they are the only ones CREATED THE PROBLEMS. The reason I call them developing, is they are changing more in a day, than most of AFRICA does in a year. I would call most countries, developed. They have been the same for 50 years, and have little improvements on the horizon. FYI, China being third world, is about as good as saying Germany had little power in 1935. GDP by country, USA, Canada, CHINA, Japan, Germany.....so yea, i guess if CHINA is third world, then so is Japan, Germany, and every country that follows. Side: Yes, this is significant
0
points
0
points
|
