Gore furious at G8 for non-binding greenhouse agreement

G8 leaders have reached an agreement on benchmarks for curbing greenhouse gases.  The traditional media seems to convey that this was a landmark deal.  But Al Gore, one of the most respected voices on this issue, is upset and says the agreement will do nothing.  That might in fact be true.  The G8 deal does not force countries to take those steps.  It encourages them set benchmarks for reducing greenhouse gases -- but only on a voluntary basis:

"The eight most powerful nations gathered and were unableto do anything except to say 'We had good conversations and weagreed that we will have more conversations, and we will evenhave conversations about the possibility of doing something inthe future on a voluntary basis perhaps."'

The Bush Administration opposed making the greenhouse gas reductions mandatory.  Even China is ripping the deal because it does little to force developing nations to meet pollution standards.

Also, the agreement did even specify numbers or deadlines.  Originally, the G8 members wanted to decrease emissions by 50% by the year 2050.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel even favored something more drastic than that.  But because Bush would not budge, the G8 leaders left only with a non-binding agreement that says they "will consider seriously" those greenhouse reductions.

Translation: nothing was accomplished.

Comments

[George]

No deadlines or numbers? Sounds like Bush's kind of deal.

[Dave]

China is crying alligator tears. Their cleanest cities make Los Angeles look like paradise. An agreement is an agreement, the US will try to live up to it. Other countries may or may not, I wouldn't count on the Chinese, and they are the ones who got special dispensation from Kyoto. If you don't think our government is doing enough, there's a congressional and Presidential election in 2008, along with 1/3rd of the Senate. The last 100 odd years of damage won't meaningfully change in 2 years, anyway. Support candidates that are pro nuclear power, or who want us to give up cars, or whatever, and I will likewise select candidates prioritized based on what issues I think are most important.

Al Gore's education is in political science, religion, and law, and thus is for all practical purposes not an expert. He's arguing his side to the best of his ability, and that's fine, but if you're going for expert, find a scientist with a relevant educational background for whom the data is actually somewhat meaningful.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

"Al Gore's education is in political science, religion, and law, and thus is for all practical purposes not an expert."

I graduated in political science a few months back. Political science is the practical study of policy. When you make policy, you first consult the experts. In this case, 95% of the scientists are saying one thing, so as a student of policy, Al Gore feels compelled to use his expertise in that area to get the ball rolling and promote what the scientists are suggesting. What Al Gore is doing, at least in my view, is highly meaningful and his opinion is also relevant.

Also, most college students, such as myself and Al Gore, took science classes in college. At least when I was getting my political science degree, I had to take environmental science. In the case of Gore, he was taught by a science teacher back in the 60s who was one of the first to warn about global warming.

Not only is Al Gore speaking on behalf of the experts, but he was taught by an expert as well. So again, I do consider him an expert.

[George]

Dave,
First, people like you don't listen to scientists so Al Gore speaks for them. Don't suggest that there are not scientists backing Al Gore. That's false.

Second, "If the solution has never been to look at yourself, how is it that you expect to find it anywhere else?" -Immortal Technique

[Dave]

Not true, I prefer to listen to scientists. Also, I accept that the world is getting hotter, and that two or three times in it's early history it nearly froze solid. I only live about 17 feet above sea level, and have sharks teeth from deep wells from farms around here, and can do the math. Thank you. Humans definitely change the environment, and in many cases for the worse. I worry more about poisoning the limited water supplies than I do about 2-4 degrees per century, but what do I know, because if I can't drink, it won't matter if I have to swim. What I was getting at is two things:
the agreement may be non-binding, but it's an agreement we can accept. Kyoto was something congress rejected soundly. Partly because China and India- where roughly half the world's population is, wouldn't have to follow Kyoto. China takes two or three times as much energy to perform as much work as the west, and we need to do something about that.

Gore is partisan, he's generally disliked by Republicans, who are already distrustful of environmental science. And he endorses hokey things like carbon credits while flying around the world in private jets. Why would you make the face of a movement someone that half the country will automatically distrust? If Bush faced the nation and told you that DDT usage could save the lives of tens of thousands in Africa, would you be compelled to his view? No! Because he's George Bush. Malaria is killing people now- as for global warming. It's happening. But we need more data, or we are GOING to make bad decisions. The Law of Unintended Consequences anyone?