Skip to main content

Climate Change Conference destined to make no changes

This must be one of the more significant oxymorons of the year.   A Climate Change Conference which will likely see nothing being done to address the subject of the conference - especially as the US is blocking any positive action.

"US refusal to negotiate legally-binding carbon emissions cuts risks derailing a UN summit convened to tackle climate change, environmental groups have warned in a letter to Hillary Clinton."

The Telegraph [in the UK] reports:

"The letter, signed by 16 different organisations and sent to the US Secretary of State, said that while President Barack Obama pledged in November 2008 to "engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global co-operation on climate change," he had failed to deliver on that pledge.

Instead, the letter claimed, America is fast becoming seen as a "major obstacle" to progress.
Signatories included Greenpeace USA, the Natural Resources Defence Council, Oxfam America, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the World Wildlife Fund.


Shortly after it was made public, the European Union delegation at the summit criticised the US for "overlooking the facts" on the risk of climate change and suggested it was not doing enough at home to live up to its promises to cut carbon emissions. The EU bloc wants the current talks to agree on a timetable for all major polluters to a legally binding agreement to cut their emissions by 2015.


At the opening of the UN climate change summit in Durban on Monday, the US said it would not consider committing to the EU's proposals until major developing countries such as China and India do. China, the world's biggest emitter, is also against the 2015 deadline."


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...