Posted by Jeff Id on August 1, 2010
You know, the AP might have to sue me for this, but it’s their own fault for writing this leftist drivel. The article, as written is below in black with appropriate translation in red.
By ARTHUR MAX (AP) – 13 hours ago
AMSTERDAM — The failure of a climate bill in the U.S. Senate is likely to weigh heavily on international negotiations that begin Monday on a new agreement to control global warming.
Blame the US for not complying with global leftist opinion.
The decision to strike the bill from the Senate’s immediate agenda has deepened the distrust among poor countries about the intentions of United States and other industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions that power their wealthy economies but risk causing the Earth to dangerously overheat, say climate activists.
Poor communist and muslim countries don’t trust capitalist countries to turn over their cash voluntarily. Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt disagree with the reticence.
A split between rich and poor nations has characterized the talks since they began 2 1/2 years ago, but it widened after the disappointment of the Copenhagen climate summit last December that fell short of any binding agreement and produced only a brief document of political intentions.
The as defined payers and receivers (losers/winners)have discovered they are on opposite sides of how much should be paid.
The withdrawal of the bill to cap U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prominent gas blamed for global warming, “plays into the same old fault lines,” said Kelly Dent, of Oxfam International. It has let down developing countries that had looked to President Barack Obama’s administration to seize the leadership in climate negotiations, she said Sunday from Bonn, Germany.
Limitation of the US economy to increase the ability of non-capitalist non-free peoples to compete has not gone forward as rapidly as hoped.
Delegations from most of the 194 participating nations begin a five-day negotiating session in Bonn on Monday that is one of the last meetings before another decisive conference convenes at the end of the year in Cancun, Mexico. One more weeklong round of talks is scheduled for October in China.
The two keys to any agreement are commitments by rich countries to cut emissions and their pledges to fund poor countries’ actions to adapt to climate changes affecting agriculture and the frequency of extreme weather events like floods and drought.
Communists, socialists, dictators and Muslims demand that capitalists enable fair competition with less productive government systems by limiting industry and sending profits directly to the equally wonderful yet inexplicably poor governments.
So far, Washington has not backed away from its promise at Copenhagen to reduce emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels over the next 10 years. But even that pledge, made more doubtful now by legislative inertia, has been roundly criticized as inadequate.
We cannot detect the difference in output of CO2 but we hope that the capitalists will suicide soon.
Christiana Figueres, presiding over the talks for the first time since becoming executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change a month ago, says the industrial countries must lift their emissions reduction pledges if they hope to limit global warming to manageable levels this century.
More limitation of successful countries is the answer to all our woes.
Pledges given so far amount to reductions of 12 to 19 percent below 1990 levels, she told reporters last week. U.N. scientists have said the rich countries must slash emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020. Because carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, scientists say it is crucial to act quickly to reach a peak in global emissions.
Leftist scientists funded by government agree that we need to surrender to government control as soon as possible.
The U.N. negotiations aim to reach a deal to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which called on a list of industrial countries to cut emissions by a total 5 percent by 2012 as measured against 1990.
The United States rejected Kyoto, partly because it made no demands on rapidly developing countries like China, which now produces more much heat-trapping gases than any other country.
How do you translate that nonsense.
Developing countries now say they are willing to take steps to control emissions, but that they must be given space to build their economies. Although China is the largest carbon polluter and India is rapidly catching up, both countries lag far behind the industrial countries in emissions per person and still have huge populations mired in poverty.
China and India should be allowed to pollute equally because their governments are equal or better and per-capita they have less pollution.
Shifting to a lower gear, Figueres says it would be a mistake to seek an overarching package deal in Cancun, which she said would “ignore the need to continue innovating” to combat global warming.
Let’s not be too rigid, let’s just get the money.
Instead, delegates should focus on a few essentials they can build on later. One is a practical plan for raising and distributing $30 billion over the next three years to poor countries, as pledged at Copenhagen, she said.
Just a measly 30 billion should keep people quiet and then our toe will be in the door.
After a meeting last week in Rio de Janeiro, the environment ministers of Brazil, China, India and South Africa — an increasingly important negotiating bloc known as the BASIC countries — said “fast-start finance will be the key for an effective result” in Cancun.
If we get the toe in the door, we can work on the big stuff later.
Financing must be new, rather than repackaged development aid, and should be given as grants, the four countries said in a joint statement.
Don’t give us the same money twice, we need new money and not as loans which need to be repaid, we need grants.
Can you see how easy it is to read the news these days? You just need to use your bullshit filter — for every single sentence. It’s no wonder they can’t sell this crap, but the governments of the world are quite happy with the status quo. Enough so that they want to fund the dying papers.
What is wrong with people who believe in this garbage reporting.