Climate Change Expo - the west should feel ashamed

How sad is it that in a meeting of all nations to try and combat climate change, the poorest and the least capable of helping with the issue are the ones willing to talk reasonably, whereas the richest are the ones ruining things.

I'm not America-bashing, before you hit reply, but i am bashing America's attitude in relation to this one specific issue. It wouldn't be TOO big a stretch to say that they ruined the whole thing.

As things wrapped up today, Latin American representatives have stormed out, along with other countries who stormed out yesterday. Negotiators from the West (including America and the UK) have tried - for no good reason - to lower and barter their way into an agreement which isn't too difficult to uphold, missing the whole point of the convention.

X is a problem. You need to do Y to solve it. "Um... ok... well how about we just do A, instead of Y?' No. It doesn't work like that. Not doing enough is the same as not doing anything at all.

And the worst thing? Just as the thing was going to be signed the other day, a truly historic global achievement, America refuses, citing that the word 'shall' in the text must be changed to 'should'.

It's a sad day for the world if you ask me.

Well, the difference between "shall" and "should" can be insurmountable in the right context.

Well, the difference between "shall" and "should" can be insurmountable in the right context.

Theokhoth

Touching story bro.

Pirate700

I'm pretty sure the phrase you're looking for is "Fascinating anecdote, comrade" :P

Touching story bro.

Pirate700

worthless contribution bro.

I agree with you TC, 'tis a sad day indeed.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Touching story bro.

chessmaster1989

I'm pretty sure the phrase you're looking for is "Fascinating anecdote, comrade" :P

The joke that is the Climate Change Expo marked a sad day in world history? I think not.

Well, the difference between "shall" and "should" can be insurmountable in the right context.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Touching story bro.

pis3rch

worthless contribution bro.

I agree with you TC, 'tis a sad day indeed.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Well, the difference between "shall" and "should" can be insurmountable in the right context.

Doctor-McNinja

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Touching story bro.

Pirate700

I'm pretty sure the phrase you're looking for is "Fascinating anecdote, comrade" :P

Indeed. Now, down with the capitalist pigs?

[spoiler] :P [/spoiler]

As much as I hate to be cynical I do feel that the majority of the 3rd world countries could not care less about global warming and are more interested in the dollar sums coming their way.

Actually I love being cynical so scratch that.

It's not worthless. You aren't supposed to post blog posts in the forums.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Well, the difference between "shall" and "should" can be insurmountable in the right context.

Doctor-McNinja

Well, for one thing, it depends on where the word "shall" is located and what impact it has on the US, and why they want it to be "should" instead.

Assuming it's as you present it, then yeah, dick move, America. Otherwise, it could very well be a valid issue. The wording of legal treatises is insanely important.

52% Of america do not believe in man made global warming. We don't need to be taking action at all. 80% of americans believe in God. So it would be more effective to focus on that. Oh yeah and 26% of americans aren't sure. So that leaves 12% as believers. So cut the crap.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Well, the difference between "shall" and "should" can be insurmountable in the right context.

Doctor-McNinja

You were there?

Pirate700

52% Of america do not believe in man made global warming.

dunl12496

And 40% believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy, and 60% believe evolution is fake. What's your point?

As much as I hate to be cynical I do feel that the majority of the 3rd world countries could not care less about global warming and are more interested in the dollar sums coming their way.

Actually I love being cynical so scratch that.

htekemerald

[QUOTE="pis3rch"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Touching story bro.

Pirate700

worthless contribution bro.

I agree with you TC, 'tis a sad day indeed.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

You were there?

Doctor-McNinja

It's a sad day for the world if you ask me.

Doctor-McNinja

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

You were there?

Pirate700

Because you have to be at a UN conference to comment on it. :|

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"] I was not there. I have read the newspaper today, and i have read the reports coming from all over the place from the attendees there, as well as David Milliband's commentary on the whole summit so far. Theokhoth

Because you have to be at a UN conference to comment on it. :|

Well, for one thing, it depends on where the word "shall" is located and what impact it has on the US, and why they want it to be "should" instead.

Assuming it's as you present it, then yeah, dick move, America. Otherwise, it could very well be a valid issue. The wording of legal treatises is insanely important.

Theokhoth

Basically, the treaty proposed things that each country needs to do to cut its emissions by 2020. If they fail to cut their emissions, that's ok, they are not obliged to hit a target because that's not always possible.

All they are obliged to do is take a number of actions to TRY. Those actions were outlines, and it said that each country 'shall' do the following things. America felt that it should not be obliged to do anything, and that it should be changed to the word 'should' meaning it's saying they SHOULD do it, but they dont have to.

It's basically petty posturing. "Nobody tells me what to do!"

Not doing enough is the same as not doing anything at all.

Doctor-McNinja

not true.

You didn't comment on it. You posed an essay long rant.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

You didn't comment on it. You posed an essay long rant.

Doctor-McNinja

52% Of america do not believe in man made global warming. We don't need to be taking action at all. 80% of americans believe in God. So it would be more effective to focus on that. Oh yeah and 26% of americans aren't sure. So that leaves 12% as believers. So cut the crap.

dunl12496

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Well, the difference between "shall" and "should" can be insurmountable in the right context.

Saturos3091

A. It's the consesnus of the scientific community at large, the ones who disagree with the claims of man-made global warming are an extreme minority.

B. And the people most qualified to comment on scientific matters, in fact, aren't scientists at all, they're everyday people who have no formal experience in conductin scientific research, don't keep up to date on scientific journals, don't work in the field, and whose only knowledge on the subject comes from that minority and other people who are PAID to push the egenda of global warming being false, correct? Yeah, no.

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"]

Not doing enough is the same as not doing anything at all.

natedrummer95

not true.

I've already graduated from college but thanks. ;)

Pirate700

Or should i say ;) ( :roll: )

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"] It's a waste of time and resources when all of this is based on a few predictions based on unproven evidence by scientists who are paid exorbitant amounts of money to do what they do.Doctor-McNinja

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"]

Not doing enough is the same as not doing anything at all.

natedrummer95

not true.

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"]

It's a sad day for the world if you ask me.

aransom

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Well, for one thing, it depends on where the word "shall" is located and what impact it has on the US, and why they want it to be "should" instead.

Assuming it's as you present it, then yeah, dick move, America. Otherwise, it could very well be a valid issue. The wording of legal treatises is insanely important.

Doctor-McNinja

Basically, the treaty proposed things that each country needs to do to cut its emissions by 2020. If they fail to cut their emissions, that's ok, they are not obliged to hit a target because that's not always possible.

All they are obliged to do is take a number of actions to TRY. Those actions were outlines, and it said that each country 'shall' do the following things. America felt that it should not be obliged to do anything, and that it should be changed to the word 'should' meaning it's saying they SHOULD do it, but they dont have to.

It's basically petty posturing. "Nobody tells me what to do!"

Yeah, not to mention that the U.S. is accountable for something like 25% of global emissions of greenhouse gases despite being a substantially smaller proportion of the global population. While poorer nations struggle to deal with the effects of global warming we sit around and postulate.

So you're going on a tirade on something you personally don't know about or experienced?

Pirate700

52% Of america do not believe in man made global warming. We don't need to be taking action at all. 80% of americans believe in God. So it would be more effective to focus on that. Oh yeah and 26% of americans aren't sure. So that leaves 12% as believers. So cut the crap.

dunl12496

A. It's the consesnus of the scientific community at large, the ones who disagree with the claims of man-made global warming are an extreme minority.

B. And the people most qualified to comment on scientific matters, in fact, aren't scientists at all, they're everyday people who have no formal experience in conductin scientific research, don't keep up to date on scientific journals, don't work in the field, and whose only knowledge on the subject comes from that minority and other people who are PAID to push the egenda of global warming being false, correct? Yeah, no.

theone86

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Well, for one thing, it depends on where the word "shall" is located and what impact it has on the US, and why they want it to be "should" instead.

Assuming it's as you present it, then yeah, dick move, America. Otherwise, it could very well be a valid issue. The wording of legal treatises is insanely important.

theone86

Basically, the treaty proposed things that each country needs to do to cut its emissions by 2020. If they fail to cut their emissions, that's ok, they are not obliged to hit a target because that's not always possible.

All they are obliged to do is take a number of actions to TRY. Those actions were outlines, and it said that each country 'shall' do the following things. America felt that it should not be obliged to do anything, and that it should be changed to the word 'should' meaning it's saying they SHOULD do it, but they dont have to.

It's basically petty posturing. "Nobody tells me what to do!"

Yeah, not to mention that the U.S. is accountable for something like 25% of global emissions of greenhouse gases despite being a substantially smaller proportion of the global population. While poorer nations struggle to deal with the effects of global warming we sit around and postulate.

Nothing's going to change... as long as capitalism has its way with things.

There have been literally thousands of predictions and theories that I've heard that have refuted those thousands of theories supporting the concept. There's numerous examples all over the world of ice shelves melting, the media claiming it was due to global warming, and having the shelves refreeze a few years later. Case in point would be numerous mines in Greenland which were constructed due to the collapse of an ice shelf (due to "global warming") and several years later it refroze blocking the mining companies' access (recently they've melted again; is it global warming this time around?). It's such a debatable topic that whether or not you feel it's proven, we should all come to a unified decision on the subject before we undergo costly legal action.

The last question is completely fine. I think that it's perfectly acceptable (see my other post) to worry about pollution and create a cleaner more efficient world. Global warming just doesn't strike me as something that we should be worrying about when clearly it's such a debatable topic with plenty of evidence (observational and experimental) for both sides.

Saturos3091

It didn't just happen on its own. It's no mere coincidence that ice started melting as the world became more industrialized than ever, with the rise of the plane and the car.

[QUOTE="aransom"]

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"]

It's a sad day for the world if you ask me.

Doctor-McNinja

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"][QUOTE="aransom"]Since the rest of the world is just trying to take the United States down a peg, I don't give a rip how sad they are.

aransom

Whatever agreement that these guys come up with will hurt the US economy.

aransom

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Yeah, not to mention that the U.S. is accountable for something like 25% of global emissions of greenhouse gases despite being a substantially smaller proportion of the global population. While poorer nations struggle to deal with the effects of global warming we sit around and postulate.

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="aransom"]

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"] Oh please do go on to explain how that is the case. :? EMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="aransom"]Whatever agreement that these guys come up with will hurt the US economy.

aransom