Showing posts with label G8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G8. Show all posts
7/08/2009
The G8 and Climate Change
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-g8-and-climate-change-towards-copenhagen
6/15/2007
Bush's European Disaster
Bush's European disaster
The president's trip was a pageant of disdain, delusion and provocation masquerading as a respite from his troubles at home.
By Sidney Blumenthal
Jun. 14, 2007 | I returned from Europe a week before President Bush departed for the G8 summit in Germany. In Rome and Paris I met with Cabinet ministers who uniformly said the chief issue in transatlantic relations is somehow making it through the last 18 months of the Bush administration without further major disaster. None of the nonpartisan think tanks in Washington can organize seminars on this overriding reality, but within the European councils of state the trepidation about the last days of Bush is the No. 1 issue in foreign affairs.
One of the ministers with whom I met, who had supported the invasion of Iraq and had been an admirer of outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair's, ruefully cited Blair's remark about Iraq at his joint press conference with Bush on May 17 at the White House: "This is a fight we cannot afford to lose." "Cannot? Cannot lose?" mocked the minister. "Should not have lost."
High officials of European governments describe U.S. influence as squandered and swiftly eroding (one minister went down a list of Bush administration officials, rating them according to their stupidity), the country's moral authority nil. Lethal power vacuums are emerging from Lebanon to Pakistan, and Europeans are incapable on their own of quelling the fires that burn far closer to them than to the United States through their growing Muslim populations and proximity to the Middle East. They have no illusions that they will be treated seriously as real allies or that there will be a sudden about-face by the Bush administration. Their faint hope -- and it is only a hope -- is that they have already seen the worst and that it is not yet to come. Even worse than Bush, from their perspective, would be another Republican president who continued Bush policies and also appointed neoconservatives. That would toll, if not the end of days, then the decline and fall of the Western alliance except in name only, and an even more rapid acceleration of chaos in the world order.
Bush's procession through Europe was a pageant of contempt, disdain, delusion, provocation and vanity masquerading as a welcome respite from his troubles at home. In Albania he landed at last in a place where he was hailed as a conquering hero. His demolition derby of U.S. influence was presented as a series of bold moves, but it confirmed the fears of the other world leaders at the G8 summit (and elsewhere) that the rest of Bush's presidency will be an erratic series of crashes. His performance ranged from King Nod, issuing proclamations oblivious to and even proud of their negative effect, to King Zog (the last king of Albania). No president has had a more disastrous European trip since President Reagan placed a wreath on the graves of SS soldiers in the Bitburg cemetery. Yet Reagan's mistake was unintentional and symbolic, a temporary and superficial setback, doing no real damage to U.S. foreign relations, while Bush's blunders not only reinforced counterproductive policies but also created a new one with Russia that has the potential of profoundly undermining U.S. national security interests for years to come.
Bush's foreign policy has descended into a fugue state. Dissociated and unaware, the president and his administration are still capable of expressing themselves as if it all makes complete sense, only contributing to their bewilderment. A fugue state should not be confused with cognitive dissonance, the tension produced when irreconcilable ideas are held at the same time and their incompatibility is overcome by denial. In a fugue state, a trauma creates a kind of amnesia in which the sufferer is incapable of connecting to his past. The impairment of judgment comes in great part from a denial of distress. Bush's fugue state involves the reiteration of a failed formula as though nothing has happened. So he proudly reasserts the essence of his Bush doctrine: Our acts are independent of other countries' interests. And he adds new corollaries: Other nations must forgive our unacknowledged mistakes even if we threaten their national security. To this, Bush overlays cognitive dissonance: Our policy is working; it just needs more time. Thus the incoherent becomes coherent.
Bush's amusing gaffes should not divert attention from the gravity of his underlying decline. Though his verbal hilariousness has been present since the beginning, his miscues, misstatements and mistakes now highlight a foreign policy in utter disarray.
Upon meeting Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican last weekend, Bush presented him with a gift of a wooden cane carved with English words. When the pope asked the president what they were, Bush told His Holiness, "The Ten Commandments, sir." To sir? With love?
In Rome, on June 9, a reporter asked Bush about setting a deadline for Kosovo independence. "What? Say that again?" "Deadline for the Kosovo independence?" "A decline?" "Deadline, deadline." "Deadline. Beg your pardon. My English isn't very good." Bush then declared, "In terms of the deadline, there needs to be one. This needs to come -- this needs to happen." The next day, asked when he would set a deadline, he replied, "I don't think I called for a deadline." Reminded of his previous statement, Bush said: "I did? What exactly did I say? I said, 'Deadline'? OK, yes, then I meant what I said."
Before offering that tongue twister, Bush quite deliberately upset German Chancellor Angela Merkel's proposal for climate change at the G8. She put before the summit a program for carbon limits and an emissions trading system supported by, among others, Tony Blair, as his final gesture to burnish his reputation before he leaves office on June 27. Bush countered with a proposal for voluntary limits that would have to be approved by China, India and other major industrial countries that would not agree. In short, Bush's program was no program at all, except as a gambit to push aside Merkel's. With that, Bush demolished the possibility of any positive plan emerging from the summit. He also deprived Blair of a last achievement. Were it not for his relationship with Bush and support for his Iraq policy, Blair would not be leaving Downing Street. He has sacrificed his career to Bush's fiasco. His advice on the reconstruction of Iraq ignored, his advocacy grew more passionate. From whom much has been asked, nothing has been given.
While Bush was undermining traditional allies, Russian President Vladimir Putin was making child's play of him. Bush's proposal to put tracking stations for a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic gave Putin his opening. In response, he offered a radar site in Azerbaijan to be jointly operated by the United States and Russia. Bush had deployed the wrong tactic on behalf of the wrong strategy. Bush's missile shield has not been proved to work, has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and has an uncertain purpose. Is the plan meant to reassure eastern European nations of the former Warsaw Pact, Donald Rumsfeld's "new Europe," against Russia, or is it a short-term ploy to rally support in the one region in the world that still likes Bush because of deep residual pro-Americanism? If Bush intended to persuade Putin to temper his authoritarianism, he only succeeded in antagonizing the Russian leader. As Bush's "freedom" agenda has collapsed, he has reverted to a Plan B for a new ersatz Cold War. His ham-handed move allowed the adroit Putin to change the subject and corner him. Meanwhile, the engagement of Russia in areas of mutual interest -- containing Iran -- languishes.
In Iraq, Bush's policy is now to arm all sides in the sectarian civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. He claims to be devoted to nation building, which he previously dismissed, while he presides over a mass exodus of 2 million Iraqis, upholds law and order while holding tens of thousands of prisoners without due process, and conducts a "surge" of troops to secure the capital city of Baghdad whose main effect has been to facilitate its ethnic cleansing. The Iraqi government, for its part, has not met any of the benchmarks in reforming its laws demanded by the United States as the sine qua non of continuing support.
And where in the world is Condoleezza Rice? While Bush was in Europe, the secretary of state was at home. Instead of attending the summit, she delivered a speech at the Economic Club of New York, announcing that the new doctrine of the administration henceforth should be called "American realism." Until that moment, we were supposed to refer to it as "transformational diplomacy." Rice, the former realist turned neoconservative fellow traveler, seemed to have come full circle. But what was it exactly that she was doing with her rhetorical adjustment?
Rice's frenetic but feckless diplomacy in the Middle East has been fruitless. She is unwilling or unable to break beyond the bounds that Bush establishes, forbidding relations with Syria, for example, and thus guaranteeing her failure.
As she shuttles endlessly and meaninglessly, neoconservatives within the White House undermine her foredoomed initiatives. Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security advisor for policy, in briefing a meeting of Jewish Republicans, said that Rice's "talks are sometimes not more than 'process for the sake of process,'" the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on May 14. According to Haaretz, "Those attending the meeting of Jewish Republicans understood Abrams' comments as an assurance that the peace initiative promoted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice doesn't have the full backing of President George W. Bush." As she engages in an academic exercise to rebrand empty rhetoric with new empty rhetoric, the neocons continue to create a parallel foreign policy.
Rice contradicts herself but forgets that she has. Bush continues to prattle about "freedom" but cannot remember his benchmarks. Only Dick Cheney remains consistent. The new mission statement is the old mission statement. The new scenarios are the old delusions. Time marches on.
-- By Sidney Blumenthal
The president's trip was a pageant of disdain, delusion and provocation masquerading as a respite from his troubles at home.
By Sidney Blumenthal
Jun. 14, 2007 | I returned from Europe a week before President Bush departed for the G8 summit in Germany. In Rome and Paris I met with Cabinet ministers who uniformly said the chief issue in transatlantic relations is somehow making it through the last 18 months of the Bush administration without further major disaster. None of the nonpartisan think tanks in Washington can organize seminars on this overriding reality, but within the European councils of state the trepidation about the last days of Bush is the No. 1 issue in foreign affairs.
One of the ministers with whom I met, who had supported the invasion of Iraq and had been an admirer of outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair's, ruefully cited Blair's remark about Iraq at his joint press conference with Bush on May 17 at the White House: "This is a fight we cannot afford to lose." "Cannot? Cannot lose?" mocked the minister. "Should not have lost."
High officials of European governments describe U.S. influence as squandered and swiftly eroding (one minister went down a list of Bush administration officials, rating them according to their stupidity), the country's moral authority nil. Lethal power vacuums are emerging from Lebanon to Pakistan, and Europeans are incapable on their own of quelling the fires that burn far closer to them than to the United States through their growing Muslim populations and proximity to the Middle East. They have no illusions that they will be treated seriously as real allies or that there will be a sudden about-face by the Bush administration. Their faint hope -- and it is only a hope -- is that they have already seen the worst and that it is not yet to come. Even worse than Bush, from their perspective, would be another Republican president who continued Bush policies and also appointed neoconservatives. That would toll, if not the end of days, then the decline and fall of the Western alliance except in name only, and an even more rapid acceleration of chaos in the world order.
Bush's procession through Europe was a pageant of contempt, disdain, delusion, provocation and vanity masquerading as a welcome respite from his troubles at home. In Albania he landed at last in a place where he was hailed as a conquering hero. His demolition derby of U.S. influence was presented as a series of bold moves, but it confirmed the fears of the other world leaders at the G8 summit (and elsewhere) that the rest of Bush's presidency will be an erratic series of crashes. His performance ranged from King Nod, issuing proclamations oblivious to and even proud of their negative effect, to King Zog (the last king of Albania). No president has had a more disastrous European trip since President Reagan placed a wreath on the graves of SS soldiers in the Bitburg cemetery. Yet Reagan's mistake was unintentional and symbolic, a temporary and superficial setback, doing no real damage to U.S. foreign relations, while Bush's blunders not only reinforced counterproductive policies but also created a new one with Russia that has the potential of profoundly undermining U.S. national security interests for years to come.
Bush's foreign policy has descended into a fugue state. Dissociated and unaware, the president and his administration are still capable of expressing themselves as if it all makes complete sense, only contributing to their bewilderment. A fugue state should not be confused with cognitive dissonance, the tension produced when irreconcilable ideas are held at the same time and their incompatibility is overcome by denial. In a fugue state, a trauma creates a kind of amnesia in which the sufferer is incapable of connecting to his past. The impairment of judgment comes in great part from a denial of distress. Bush's fugue state involves the reiteration of a failed formula as though nothing has happened. So he proudly reasserts the essence of his Bush doctrine: Our acts are independent of other countries' interests. And he adds new corollaries: Other nations must forgive our unacknowledged mistakes even if we threaten their national security. To this, Bush overlays cognitive dissonance: Our policy is working; it just needs more time. Thus the incoherent becomes coherent.
Bush's amusing gaffes should not divert attention from the gravity of his underlying decline. Though his verbal hilariousness has been present since the beginning, his miscues, misstatements and mistakes now highlight a foreign policy in utter disarray.
Upon meeting Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican last weekend, Bush presented him with a gift of a wooden cane carved with English words. When the pope asked the president what they were, Bush told His Holiness, "The Ten Commandments, sir." To sir? With love?
In Rome, on June 9, a reporter asked Bush about setting a deadline for Kosovo independence. "What? Say that again?" "Deadline for the Kosovo independence?" "A decline?" "Deadline, deadline." "Deadline. Beg your pardon. My English isn't very good." Bush then declared, "In terms of the deadline, there needs to be one. This needs to come -- this needs to happen." The next day, asked when he would set a deadline, he replied, "I don't think I called for a deadline." Reminded of his previous statement, Bush said: "I did? What exactly did I say? I said, 'Deadline'? OK, yes, then I meant what I said."
Before offering that tongue twister, Bush quite deliberately upset German Chancellor Angela Merkel's proposal for climate change at the G8. She put before the summit a program for carbon limits and an emissions trading system supported by, among others, Tony Blair, as his final gesture to burnish his reputation before he leaves office on June 27. Bush countered with a proposal for voluntary limits that would have to be approved by China, India and other major industrial countries that would not agree. In short, Bush's program was no program at all, except as a gambit to push aside Merkel's. With that, Bush demolished the possibility of any positive plan emerging from the summit. He also deprived Blair of a last achievement. Were it not for his relationship with Bush and support for his Iraq policy, Blair would not be leaving Downing Street. He has sacrificed his career to Bush's fiasco. His advice on the reconstruction of Iraq ignored, his advocacy grew more passionate. From whom much has been asked, nothing has been given.
While Bush was undermining traditional allies, Russian President Vladimir Putin was making child's play of him. Bush's proposal to put tracking stations for a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic gave Putin his opening. In response, he offered a radar site in Azerbaijan to be jointly operated by the United States and Russia. Bush had deployed the wrong tactic on behalf of the wrong strategy. Bush's missile shield has not been proved to work, has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and has an uncertain purpose. Is the plan meant to reassure eastern European nations of the former Warsaw Pact, Donald Rumsfeld's "new Europe," against Russia, or is it a short-term ploy to rally support in the one region in the world that still likes Bush because of deep residual pro-Americanism? If Bush intended to persuade Putin to temper his authoritarianism, he only succeeded in antagonizing the Russian leader. As Bush's "freedom" agenda has collapsed, he has reverted to a Plan B for a new ersatz Cold War. His ham-handed move allowed the adroit Putin to change the subject and corner him. Meanwhile, the engagement of Russia in areas of mutual interest -- containing Iran -- languishes.
In Iraq, Bush's policy is now to arm all sides in the sectarian civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. He claims to be devoted to nation building, which he previously dismissed, while he presides over a mass exodus of 2 million Iraqis, upholds law and order while holding tens of thousands of prisoners without due process, and conducts a "surge" of troops to secure the capital city of Baghdad whose main effect has been to facilitate its ethnic cleansing. The Iraqi government, for its part, has not met any of the benchmarks in reforming its laws demanded by the United States as the sine qua non of continuing support.
And where in the world is Condoleezza Rice? While Bush was in Europe, the secretary of state was at home. Instead of attending the summit, she delivered a speech at the Economic Club of New York, announcing that the new doctrine of the administration henceforth should be called "American realism." Until that moment, we were supposed to refer to it as "transformational diplomacy." Rice, the former realist turned neoconservative fellow traveler, seemed to have come full circle. But what was it exactly that she was doing with her rhetorical adjustment?
Rice's frenetic but feckless diplomacy in the Middle East has been fruitless. She is unwilling or unable to break beyond the bounds that Bush establishes, forbidding relations with Syria, for example, and thus guaranteeing her failure.
As she shuttles endlessly and meaninglessly, neoconservatives within the White House undermine her foredoomed initiatives. Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security advisor for policy, in briefing a meeting of Jewish Republicans, said that Rice's "talks are sometimes not more than 'process for the sake of process,'" the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on May 14. According to Haaretz, "Those attending the meeting of Jewish Republicans understood Abrams' comments as an assurance that the peace initiative promoted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice doesn't have the full backing of President George W. Bush." As she engages in an academic exercise to rebrand empty rhetoric with new empty rhetoric, the neocons continue to create a parallel foreign policy.
Rice contradicts herself but forgets that she has. Bush continues to prattle about "freedom" but cannot remember his benchmarks. Only Dick Cheney remains consistent. The new mission statement is the old mission statement. The new scenarios are the old delusions. Time marches on.
-- By Sidney Blumenthal
6/07/2007
democracynow.org Headlines
- Cheney's Ex-Aide, Libby, Sentenced to 30 Months In Prison
- Iraqi Lawmakers Move to Block Extension of U.S. Occupation
- U.S. Air War in Iraq Intensifies
- GOP Candidates Refuse to Rule Out Nuking Iran
- Unions Criticize Hillary Clinton For Ties to Unionbuster
- German Police Arrest 57 At G8 Protest
- Scientists in Greenland Warn About Melting Glaciers
- Leahy Calls For Restoration of Habeas Corpus at Guantanamo
- Klansman on Trial For 1964 Killing of Two Black Teenagers
Listen/Watch/Readhttp://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/06/1415221
- Iraqi Lawmakers Move to Block Extension of U.S. Occupation
- U.S. Air War in Iraq Intensifies
- GOP Candidates Refuse to Rule Out Nuking Iran
- Unions Criticize Hillary Clinton For Ties to Unionbuster
- German Police Arrest 57 At G8 Protest
- Scientists in Greenland Warn About Melting Glaciers
- Leahy Calls For Restoration of Habeas Corpus at Guantanamo
- Klansman on Trial For 1964 Killing of Two Black Teenagers
Listen/Watch/Readhttp://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/06/1415221
6/06/2007
US-Russia, G8
US-Russia row looms over G8 talks
Leaders from major industrial powers are in Germany for a G8 summit overshadowed by US-Russian tensions.
Full story:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/europe/6725173.stm
Leaders from major industrial powers are in Germany for a G8 summit overshadowed by US-Russian tensions.
Full story:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/europe/6725173.stm
6/05/2007
16,000 Police for G8
Germany Deploys 16,000 Police Officers For G8
The German government is launching one of its largest security operations ever ahead of the start of the G8 meeting on Wednesday. Germany is deploying 16,000 police officers and 1,100 soldiers to the small resort town of Heiligendamm, the site of the three day summit. Germany has also put up a seven mile wall topped with barbed wire to surround the resort.
Global warming is expected to be a key issue at the G8 summit. President Bush's new proposal for a climate change strategy that rejects setting mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions has been widely criticized.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper: "We believe that we should have targets. We agree on what those long term targets should be, I think our long term targets are really close. And we also agree that we should be part of United Nations process, United Nations can have several different tracks, but ultimately, we have to have everybody, all major emitters, committed to being included and being part of an eventual regime that has targets."Greenpeace has urged the G8 nations to act swiftly against climate change.
Joerg Feddern, Greenpeace: "The first thing is that the G8 countries give a world wide sign that they said, yes, binding target 2020 is 30 per cent CO2 emissions less than (compared) to 1990, this is the first thing. The second thing is that Mrs. Merkel said, here in Germany, we wanted a clear, positive sign for the whole world: 40 per cent CO2 reduction until 2020. If this is the result of this G8 summit, then it is successful. If not, it will fail."
The German government is launching one of its largest security operations ever ahead of the start of the G8 meeting on Wednesday. Germany is deploying 16,000 police officers and 1,100 soldiers to the small resort town of Heiligendamm, the site of the three day summit. Germany has also put up a seven mile wall topped with barbed wire to surround the resort.
Global warming is expected to be a key issue at the G8 summit. President Bush's new proposal for a climate change strategy that rejects setting mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions has been widely criticized.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper: "We believe that we should have targets. We agree on what those long term targets should be, I think our long term targets are really close. And we also agree that we should be part of United Nations process, United Nations can have several different tracks, but ultimately, we have to have everybody, all major emitters, committed to being included and being part of an eventual regime that has targets."Greenpeace has urged the G8 nations to act swiftly against climate change.
Joerg Feddern, Greenpeace: "The first thing is that the G8 countries give a world wide sign that they said, yes, binding target 2020 is 30 per cent CO2 emissions less than (compared) to 1990, this is the first thing. The second thing is that Mrs. Merkel said, here in Germany, we wanted a clear, positive sign for the whole world: 40 per cent CO2 reduction until 2020. If this is the result of this G8 summit, then it is successful. If not, it will fail."
6/03/2007
Call Your Legislators
[Tell them to push this Administration hard, or the next election will find them out of office]
http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200705/266b4ddb-42e7-44ae-a188-10f9cb89eed3.htm
http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200705/266b4ddb-42e7-44ae-a188-10f9cb89eed3.htm
6/02/2007
Anti-globalization Protest Before G8
Germany protest due ahead of G8
Up to 100,000 anti-globalisation protestors will march in Rostock, ahead of next week's G8 summit.
Full story:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/europe/6714429.stm
Up to 100,000 anti-globalisation protestors will march in Rostock, ahead of next week's G8 summit.
Full story:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/europe/6714429.stm
5/26/2007
Farmers Feed the World
http://viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php
International peasants' movement vs. G8
International peasants' movement vs. G8
5/25/2007
Followers Must Now Lead
Blair: US may back carbon deal
Germany has made climate a priority for the G8 presidency
The US may be willing to back an agreement at next month's G8 summit on cutting carbon dioxide emissions, Tony Blair has said on BBC TV.
Up to now, the Bush administration has championed voluntary agreements as an alternative to imposing binding caps.
Germany has made climate change a priority for its G8 presidency.
The prime minister said awareness of the issue among Americans was growing and it was possible the US will sign up to "at least the beginnings" of action.
Last September, California became the first US state to set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Speaking on the BBC's Newsnight programme, Mr Blair was asked how he was going to persuade President George W Bush to agree to national impose limits on CO2.
"You've got several of the states now doing it," Mr Blair said.
"I can't think that there're going to be many people running for presidential office next time round in the US who aren't going to have climate change in their programme."
He added: "I think it is possible that we will see action - and at least the beginnings of that action at the G8 - I hope so. That's what I'm arguing for."
Mr Blair's comments on Newsnight came after the G8 countries, together with China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, have been holding talks on emissions.
"For the first time, at least the Americans are in this G8 plus 5 process," Mr Blair said.
But only last week a UN-hosted meeting ended with the US indicating it was unlikely to take part in negotiations at the end of this year on a global agreement to cut emissions.
And according to documents seen by the BBC, the US is trying to block sections of a draft agreement on climate change prepared for the G8 summit.
Washington is said to object to the targets to keep the global temperature rise below 2C this century and halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Germany has made climate a priority for the G8 presidency
The US may be willing to back an agreement at next month's G8 summit on cutting carbon dioxide emissions, Tony Blair has said on BBC TV.
Up to now, the Bush administration has championed voluntary agreements as an alternative to imposing binding caps.
Germany has made climate change a priority for its G8 presidency.
The prime minister said awareness of the issue among Americans was growing and it was possible the US will sign up to "at least the beginnings" of action.
Last September, California became the first US state to set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Speaking on the BBC's Newsnight programme, Mr Blair was asked how he was going to persuade President George W Bush to agree to national impose limits on CO2.
"You've got several of the states now doing it," Mr Blair said.
"I can't think that there're going to be many people running for presidential office next time round in the US who aren't going to have climate change in their programme."
He added: "I think it is possible that we will see action - and at least the beginnings of that action at the G8 - I hope so. That's what I'm arguing for."
Mr Blair's comments on Newsnight came after the G8 countries, together with China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, have been holding talks on emissions.
"For the first time, at least the Americans are in this G8 plus 5 process," Mr Blair said.
But only last week a UN-hosted meeting ended with the US indicating it was unlikely to take part in negotiations at the end of this year on a global agreement to cut emissions.
And according to documents seen by the BBC, the US is trying to block sections of a draft agreement on climate change prepared for the G8 summit.
Washington is said to object to the targets to keep the global temperature rise below 2C this century and halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
5/14/2007
It's the Climate
US seeks G8 climate text changes
The US tries to block sections of a draft agreement on climate change prepared for next month's G8 summit.
Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/science/nature/6651295.stm
Charity warns of migration crisis
The effects of climate change could cause massive waves of migration, says the charity Christian Aid.
Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/in_depth/6652573.stm
Birds 'starve' at S Korea wetland
Thousands of migrating birds face hardship because of a South Korean land project, conservationists say.
Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/6649233.stm
The US tries to block sections of a draft agreement on climate change prepared for next month's G8 summit.
Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/science/nature/6651295.stm
Charity warns of migration crisis
The effects of climate change could cause massive waves of migration, says the charity Christian Aid.
Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/in_depth/6652573.stm
Birds 'starve' at S Korea wetland
Thousands of migrating birds face hardship because of a South Korean land project, conservationists say.
Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/6649233.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)