It's All Over: Kyoto Protocol Loses Four Big Nations

DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.
——————————————————————————-
Joolya in Oz. The jig is up babe – quit while you are ahead. Join your mates in Nth America and the far east – As Maggie once said ‘Ditch the Euro(s)’
John Key in NZ. You are good at playing with weasel words. Get Sir Peter Gluckman your Chief Science Advisor to revise a few from this statement to get you off the hook now. http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/issues/climate_change/ Plenty of ‘wriggle room’ here.
Douglas

We must have the leadership of China because China’s big and strong and he’s our hero.
We have never accomplished anything without the leadership of China.
Here’s a thought: replace the sales tax with a revenue-neutral carbon tax, like the VAT, only covering the carbon emissions of bunker coal rather than the value-added.
China will come around fast. Or else jobs will come back. Win-win.

Nuke says: May 29, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“But the rub, ah the rub, comes in actual implementation. Perhaps you feel the best solution to inequality is to bring down those whom you feel have more, while I know the best answer to poverty is the creation, and NOT the redistribution, of wealth.”
I would love everyone’s standard of living to be brought up to USA. Do you think the world can sustain this level?
If not then how do you propose to level out the inequality.

walt man says: May 29, 2011 at 11:40 am
Fom the link in DirkH May 29, 2011 at 10:22 am
[“However, the move towards sustainable energy systems can only succeed if, concurrently, the huge potentials for efficiency increase are fully tapped, and changing our wasteful lifestyles is no longer a taboo subject, particularly in the industrialised and industrialising countries.—-Several countries are currently planning to increase their use of nuclear energy. The WBGU urgently advises against this,, the phase-out of nuclear energy must not be compensated by renewed or intensified brown or black coal based energy generation.”
Does this sound so bad.It is very easy to take the low cost option and become wealthy. Living off the backs of others is simple but not the “right” thing to do. Where is the consideration for our grand children’s future. You are surely not leaving it to them to sort out our power mess and possibly our GW mess. Very sad]
————————————————————————-
walt man. How muddled can you get? You have outline a sure path back to cave dwelling for the future by even contemplating that the programme outlined above does not ‘sound so bad‘ – then you have the temerity to invoke the tired old ‘grand children’s future’ meme conflated with the GW mess myth that is causing the power ‘mess’ we are now in precipitated bt the AGW bs. That programme is the certain path to ruin for the grand children – if there are any by then.
Douglas

The spittle from the Red-Green is not crocodile tears.
Them Red-Greens are shocked, shocked.
>>> “University of British Columbia political scientist George Hoberg blogged today:
The 2011 Canadian election is very bad news for the climate movement.”
It’s W’s fault.
More, please.
…-
“Canada Turns Away From Climate Policy”
“But this is an environmental blog—what does the Canadian election mean for environmental and climate policy? As it turns out, nothing very good. I’ll explain why in a second, but first of all, there’s something you need to know about Canada. Americans like to picture Canada as a progressive, friendly, extremely green and Kyoto Protocol-signing sort of country—and in many ways it is. But the truth is, Canada is also a petrostate. The country has 175.2 billion barrels of oil in reserves, third-most in the world, and it produces 2.6 million barrels of crude oil a day. When we think of foreign oil in the U.S., most of us imagine a Saudi sheik or a Venezuelan despot, but the single biggest supplier of foreign oil to the U.S. is our friendly neighbor to the north. And thanks to the growth of oil sands (or tar sands, depending on how polluting you consider them), petroleum and fossil fuel energy in general has only become more important to the Canadian economy, moving the country’s power center to the West, where politicians like Harper hail from.
So Harper’s clear victory means you can expect more industry-friendly policies from the now ruling Conservative Party, which is a little bit like Republicans-lite. That also means that Canada will continue its antagonism on the global climate stage, where it has long since abandoned any possibility of meeting its Kyoto carbon reduction targets, not that it was going to happen anyway. (Harper, back in a 2002 letter, referred to the Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme.”) Like his ideological counterpart George W. Bush, Harper doesn’t seem to have much interest in dealing with climate change or energy, aside from the oil and gas that has helped Canada thrive recently. His position was in stark opposition to the opposition NDP, which offered more support for clean energy and—importantly—was ready to offer a carbon cap-and-trade program. But the Conservatives argued—in very familiar language—that carbon pricing would be increase energy prices and be a drag on the economy. Last night—in a possible example of what Roger Pielke Jr.’s “iron law of climate policy”—the Conservatives won, meaning that for now, carbon pricing in Canada is even less likely than it will be in the U.S.
It wasn’t all bad—the fact that the Green Party now has a member in parliament puts Canada ahead of the U.S., while the NDP has proven to be a stronger green party on its own than the Liberals ever were. Harper’s Conservatives may have a majority in Parliament, but they won less than 40% of the vote by number, meaning that public opinion on climate and the environment may be significantly more divided than the results suggest. And like in America, climate change and energy policy doesn’t appear to have been a major issue for most voters. But there’s no getting around the fact, as University of British Columbia political scientist George Hoberg blogged today:
The 2011 Canadian election is very bad news for the climate movement.”
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/05/03/canada-turns-away-from-climate-policy/

Minor quibble – the headline doesn’t appear to be correct in the referenced report
The report says
DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.
Note the colon after France

walt man says:
May 29, 2011 at 11:40 am
Some of the comments on this blog simple consider wealth. Where is the consideration for our grand children’s future. You are surely not leaving it to them to sort out our power mess and possibly our GW mess. Very sad
I would note the internal migration pattern in the US is southward…indicating a pronounced preference for a warmer climate.
As far as the mess with the windmills and solar panels, I expect they will all be broken or worn out in 20-30 years. Just as the windmills and solar panels that were installed when Jimmy Carter was president stopped working.

“The US, the second-largest carbon emitter”, no, that would be the EU

“They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world’s No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts”
Not the real reason they should be opting out. It supports, or at least does not combat the contention that carbon emission cuts are necessary.

Seems like even some government are ignoring the CAGW loving MSM.
John