Blair faces G8 climate 'train wreck'

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair is trapped in a dilemma of his own creation over saving the planet from global warming, analysts say.

Blair has put climate change at the heart of his year-long presidency of the Group of Eight industrial nations, but his efforts to get radical action agreed at next month's G8 summit in Scotland are being repeatedly torpedoed by the United States.

Environmental campaigners say this leaves Blair with a stark choice -- either drop U.S. President George W. Bush and get a strong agreement with the other G8 members or stay with him, get a weak deal and be blamed for missing a crucial opportunity.

"There is a train wreck coming," said Jennifer Morgan, climate change expert at the WWF.

"The twin targets of trying to get something done on climate change and getting George Bush to sign up to it just don't go together," she told Reuters.

"If Blair praises Bush on climate change on any account and Bush hasn't moved at all, it will signal to the world that the Bush agenda on climate change is OK."

It would be a painful choice for Blair who has made stopping climate change a personal project but who has also identified himself closely with Bush and the transatlantic alliance.

A leaked draft dated June 14 of the final communique due from the summit to be held at the Gleneagles hotel near Edinburgh from July 6-8 reveals the extent of efforts to keep the Americans on board.

There are no targets nor timetables for action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and all references in an earlier draft to dollar funds for research have been removed.

An introductory paragraph has moved the statement "our world is warming" into square brackets, meaning that even the phenomenon of climate change is under question and that the wording may not appear in the final text.

It has given the same treatment to a statement from the world's top scientists that climate change is already under way and demands urgent action.

Even a suggestion that the developed world has a duty of leadership in combating global warming is given the square brackets brush-off.

"Blair and his advisers always knew exactly what the U.S. position was. But the impression is that they really believed they could force a change," said Friends of the Earth climate expert Catherine Pearce.

"Now they are starting to see that they have failed, but they don't seem to have a Plan B," she added.

On Wednesday in parliament Blair was unrepentant.

"What is necessary is to ensure that we get a process in which the United States are involved," he said.

WWF's Morgan said there was still a chance to get a strong deal to cut carbon dioxide emissions but that if it didn't materialize then Blair and the rest of the G8 should go ahead without the U.S. -- the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluter.

"If you can't get something with Bush in it, then you shouldn't reduce it to the lowest common denominator. You should move forward in other ways," she said.

"There is a very heated debate going on right now about leaving Bush out in the cold."

The leaked communique presents ample proof.

It has an entire section committing those countries that have signed the Kyoto Protocol on cutting CO2 emissions to strengthening that deal, despite the fact it has been rejected by Washington.

But as further evidence of Blair's dilemma, it too is in square brackets.


I sincerely hope Blair does dump Bush and chooses to help the world instead.

This kind of message might help Bush to think outside his own term of presidency and think about the future and the world as a whole. Bush is just trying to delay the inevitable that the US must curb it's emmissions, and leave it for the next President to deal with.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 16, 2005
Do a little more research. First off we put out less emmissions than most of the other industrialized countries! Second we already have done more to clean up our mess than anyone else.


Then sign the damn Kyoto agreement.

Bush just doesn't want to deal with this can of worms; wasn't meaning it had to do wth elections.
He lacks the vision and the intelligence to deal with the issue, and he knows it
on Jun 16, 2005

#16 by sushiK
Thursday, June 16, 2005





Do a little more research. First off we put out less emmissions than most of the other industrialized countries! Second we already have done more to clean up our mess than anyone else.


Then sign the damn Kyoto agreement.

Bush just doesn't want to deal with this can of worms; wasn't meaning it had to do wth elections.
He lacks the vision and the intelligence to deal with the issue, and he knows it


I'd be more inclined to think your the one lacking vison. Go reread the "protocols". You want to talk about a can of worms? That's a big one.
on Jun 16, 2005

Is this a joke, why would a nation doing more than countries signed up to Kyoto refuse to sign up to Kyoto? Logic seems to be sparse in America at the moment.

Why dont you read the kyoto protocols, and then we can discuss it intelligently.  Until the, you dont have a point and are clueless.

on Jun 16, 2005

So do nothing?
No it is called being a leader and stepping up and doing what is best for the world.

Where did anyone say do nothing?  How about we are doing more than the rest of the elitist in europe already!

You really have never read the Kyoto have you?

on Jun 16, 2005
"discuss it intelligently. "

Seems to be impossible to have an intelligent political discussion here without being labelled a extremist, or getting into a slanging match with 'America rules the world' jingoistic morons.

"clueless."

Dear, oh dear. I won't go into my background but you are grossly mistaken.

"elitist in europe already!"

More like you swallow the propaganda your ultra-nationalist media spoon feeds you. My original point is that America cannot claim to be doing more for the environment when it refuses to sign a treaty to reduce emissions not because it has a second direction but your President openly admits he will do nothing to supposedly "hurt American business".

A country where 4pc of the world's population uses 25pc of the world's energy is not a sign of a country trying to halt climate change, it is an indicator of a massively wasteful culture, a culture which is unfortunately common place throughout the whole West now.


on Jun 16, 2005

"discuss it intelligently. "

Seems to be impossible to have an intelligent political discussion here without being labeled a extremist, or getting into a slanging match with 'America rules the world' jingoistic morons.

"clueless."

Dear, oh dear. I won't go into my background but you are grossly mistaken.

I did none of those.  But it is apparent you have not read the Kyoto protocols, and therefore are ill equipped to discuss them.  Once you have, then come back.  Until then, don't waste our time or your bandwidth with irrelevant garbage

on Jun 16, 2005
I haven't seen any useful facts come out of you in this Dr Guy.

Before you tell someone to go away in a blog that is not your own I'll kindly ask you to put some facts down yourself.
on Jun 16, 2005
Hmmmmm, "save the world"... How many people voted in free elections for the first time thanks to those against Bush and Blair???

I give up! You tell me.
on Jun 16, 2005
I have read the Kyoto Protocols and I have unlimited bandwidth.

I am well aware that developing economies are exempt, but the idea that being environmentally friendly is bad for business is absurd. I lecture on this subject and using greener fuels is cheaper and is better for our globe.

It is also absurd to think that this will give America's rivals an edge. After all, virtually all of Europe has signed along with RUSSIA now too. Do you think we are not competing with these countries too? The economic argument is an excuse, given by a government propped up by big business and a slavishly subservient media.

Unfortunately there is just not the political will in America to make any real efforts to improve our planet, or at least slow doing it's pollution.
on Jun 16, 2005

I haven't seen any useful facts come out of you in this Dr Guy.

Before you tell someone to go away in a blog that is not your own I'll kindly ask you to put some facts down yourself.

I asked him and you to read the stupid Kyoto.  If you chose not to (note the ask), then I cannot make you.  But dont argue FACTS when nothing you have here or he has stated contains any.

Useful Facts?  Hint.  Check out the reductions demanded of the USA vs China.  Hint, check out the reductions demanded of Western Europe.

When you are learned enough to argue the facts, please by all means post again.  Until such time, bububye.

on Jun 16, 2005
I think that Blair should move ahead without Bush's signing. It's not like allies have to agree with each other on every little thing. If Europeans believe this agreement to be a good thing, they should most definately move ahead with it.

One of the biggest flaws in Kyoto is that it leaves out developing countries. Why are they left out? Too damaging to their developing economies. Exactly the same reason Bush (and the Senate) declines to sign on behalf of the US.

While the story tries to lay a lot of blame on Bush, the truth is the US Senate has already voted to not ratify the treaty.

Bush had ordered his cabinet to investigate viable alternatives for the US to accomplish similar goals without damaging the economy in the process. He is seeking alternatives that offer incentives instead of punishments and wouldn't force the US to rely heavily on increased use of natural gas as it is not as plentiful in the US nor is the infrastructure in place for it's increased production and use.

Europe should move ahead with it. If by doing so they can demonstrate that is it both effective and economically feasible, it would go a long way toward convincing others. If it proves otherwise, maybe the US will have developed a better idea by then.
on Jun 16, 2005
When you are learned enough to argue the facts, please by all means post again. Until such time, bububye.


Yur funny Mr Guy

You spout "State Facts!!" but yet have supplied none your self in this arg yet.
2 Pages1 2