The US back-down on the UN climate deal. What does it mean it terms of their commitment to reducing emissions

It basically means that the Bush Administration wanted to make it appear as though they care about the issue while also successfully putting off any real progress until the next president comes into office.

They agreed to set a goal for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, but not until the end of 2009. How convenient.

The U.S.'s prior stance was the correct one. I imagine that this deal was signed onto in order to bring this climate conference to a close. As long as there are not U.N. mandated caps, and thus fines, I will be fine with it.

I don't have the links, but I have read numerous statements by I.P.C.C. authors that have let the cat out of the bag. The Kyoto treaty (s) intentions have NOTHING to do with saving the environment. It IS a global re-distribution of wealth scheme.

In Bali, countries that do not have a history of economic growth lobbied for strict caps, and penalties (fines) for countries that excede those caps. Countries that have signed on to Kyoto 1 that have shown economic growth since they signed on have had penalties levied against them already. Japan is one of these countries. They exceded the caps mandated by Kyoto 1 through economic growth alone.

I do not trust the U.N. to be the world police on economic issues such as Kyoto. The vast majority of U.N. member states have no idea how to maintain a strong economy, and are jealous of the U.S.'s economic strength. In the E.U. only Spain and the U.K. have a clue about proper economics.

The U.S lead, and leads the world in environmental protection. There really should not be any dispute on this. European nations were 20 years BEHIND the U.S. in enacting automotive emission controls. The U.S. has a better environmental record than any other country in the world. We have done more to clean up the environment than all other countries combined. We also have an undisputible record of helping others clean up their messes as well.

Several good posts here already---- might I ask you to travel to countries like Russia, and other parts of central and eastern Europe, and see what "environmental" activities they have accomplished in the last ------- oh say 60 years! (I worked inside Russia for over 2 years traveling to many of it's cities as far south as the Black Sea)------- and in almost all of the central and eastern major European cities from the Ukraine to Poland, Romania, and Hungary for almost 6 years.

Generally they are behind the West with environmental management by several decades!----- in many places they did ZERO for the environment during the last 60 years!

The US has a long history of enacting literally hundreds of laws benefiting the environment. As has been said before WHY do we have to clean up THE ENTIRE WORLD!

Wake up ! This is a scam to extract tax money from us and distribute it around to other parts of the world. Watch the Carbon Credit fiasco develop over the next few years---- and remember the Oil for Food program---- another FINE, UN "humanitarian" effort.

Where do people get the idea that the USA doesn't care for the environment?

For well over 30+ years laws have been passed and emission standards implemented. -

The cities (while growing in size from 2 to 4+ times their populations in 30+ years) are considerably cleaner then they were.

Laws passed years ago are still requiring even tighter emission standards.

Must the USA attempt to SAVE the Entire World - Even those that HATE US ! ? ! ?

please read my blog on global warming. it was a school essay i turned into an blog.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog....