This is hardly what you'd call an unbiassed report. In fact it is
totally biassed. But nevertheless and for whatever reason it would
seem that the gadarene rush to eco-madness may be held up by the
USA. They don't mention the reasons that any more than 15
Democrats are opposed. It's to be hoped that the remaining
opposition is more intelligent!
All the warmists quoted here talk as if it is a done deal and they'll
be hopping mad if they don't get their way. Meanwhile we might be
spared from wasting resources when we're broke, in the hope that
weather patterns may finally convince these idiots that they're
following a false god.
xxxxxxxxxxxx cs
=============
THE GUARDIAN 26.3.09
Barack Obama may delay signing up to Copenhagen climate change deal
. Patrick Wintour
Barack Obama may be forced to delay signing up to a new international
agreement on climate change in Copenhagen at the end of the year
because of the scale of opposition in the US Congress, it emerged today.
Senior figures in the Obama administration have been warning Labour
counterparts that the president may need at least another six months
to win domestic support for any proposal.
Such a delay could derail the securing of a tough global agreement in
time for countries and markets to adopt it before the Kyoto treaty
runs out in 2012.
American officials would prefer to have the approval of Congress for
any international agreement and fear that if the US signed up without
it there would be a serious domestic backlash.
Stephen Byers, co-chairman of the International Climate Change
Taskforce, said: "The Copenhagen climate change talks in December
will come at a difficult moment. The timing couldn't really be worse
for the Obama administration. It is vital that this is recognised by
the international community. If need be, we should be prepared to
give them more time - not to let them off the hook and escape their
responsibilities, but ensure they are politically able to sign up to
effective international action which reflects the scale of the
challenge we face."
Byers, a former cabinet minister who has close contacts with senior
Democrats in the Obama team, added: "The practical reality is that a
delay into 2010 will still leave time for a new international
structure to be put in place for 2012 to follow from Kyoto. Such a
delay would be a price worth paying to bring the United States into
the global effort to tackle climate change."
The White House's new chief science adviser, John Holden, was a
member of the climate change taskforce and Todd Stern, one of its
advisers, is working with Hillary Clinton at the State Department and
will lead negotiations for the US in Copenhagen.
Stern has warned it will be a tall order to get congressional
approval before Copenhagen.
Obama has committed the US to reducing its emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020, but scientists and European governments insist deeper cuts
are needed. Obama has suggested that the US could compensate with
swifter reductions in the years beyond 2020. His recent budget
proposal calls for reducing US emissions roughly 80% by 2050 over
2005 levels.
The British government view, including that of the energy secretary,
Ed Miliband, is that the Obama administration can and will strike a
deal at Copenhagen, but officials in Washington fear America may be
running out of time. They have even been looking at whether an
agreement would be seen as an international treaty requiring a two-
thirds majority in Congress, or whether it could be forced through as
a presidential executive order.
But the opposition within America is potentially substantial, and
might be hardened if Obama looks like he is presenting Congress with
a fait accompli.
There are thought to be as many as 15 Democratic senators who
represent "rust-belt" states dependent on coal mining, steel
production and heavy manufacturing, all big emitters of carbon.
There have also been suggestions that the cost of any climate change
legislation may be higher than the $646bn (£444bn) suggested by the
Obama administration.
On Tuesday, Obama recommited himself and America to the principle of
a "cap and trade" scheme, but said he would try to introduce a
regional scheme that would ensure energy prices did not rise
uniformly across America.
Stern would prefer to see the US go to Copenhagen with congressional
approval, telling a recent symposium: "The optimum would be [climate]
legislation that is signed, sealed and delivered. It has been a long
time now that countries have been looking for the United States to
lead and take action. I think nothing would give a more powerful
signal to other countries in the world than to see a significant,
major, mandatory American plan."
Posts
