The Bali meeting approved a “roadmap” for two years of talks to adopt a new treaty to succeed Kyoto beyond 2012, widening it to the United States and developing nations such as China and India. Under the deal, a successor pact will be agreed at a meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009.
The deal after two weeks of talks came when the United States dramatically dropped opposition to a proposal by the main developing-nation bloc, the G77, for rich nations to do more to help the developing world fight rising greenhouse emissions.
My feeling is that this comes as a result of one of two things:
1. Europe threatening to pull out of talks with the US on climate change
2. Somebody bound & gagged Bush in his office and told him to shut the fuck up
Cindrella Ferret
Or, he was watching a football game and eating pretzels.
Media Glutton
Yesterday on the BBC the anchors were saying that this deal actually was significantly weakened — with no actual numbers of emission reductions targets — so they were saying the U.S. got their way in the end, not the world community. Sounds about right, but it’s nice the U.S. signed on to SOME g-d environmental treaty. I wonder if the Repub candidates will agree that global warming is “unequivocal”?
Free At Last
Mike – TYPO in your title.
alphie
Maybe payment to the Dems in exchange for the $190,000,000,000 worth of war pork for this fiscal year?
Michael D.
Free At Last: Thanks!
Mike The Actuary
Or:
3. It dawned on U.S. representatives in Bali that anything that happens there is moot, because the U.S. (as it is currently run) will probably ignore it anyway.
Svensker
Hey, and John Bolton’s already denounced it! Gotta love that guy.
Thom
Scott Paul at The Washington Note y’day:
Richard Bottoms
Amazing to watch such disdain for someone whom I gather you were at one time pleased was elected to that same office.
Twice.
Kit Smith
Yeah, I can see why they agreed to it. With the provisions that would have made any difference stripped from the treaty where they would mean something and put in the footnotes to the preamble of the treaty as “suggestions,” it’s a treaty that doesn’t state that we’re going to change anything. This keeps future climate change conferences off the table for a good 3-6 years, during which the Republicans can potentially put up a fight in the Senate and block actually ratifying the treaty that might mean anything. Politics as usual.
JoyceH
Or 3) – neither Bush nor Cheney give a rat’s patooty about what’s going to happen in late 2009, because it will be someone else’s problem.
Zifnab
He voted straight ticket Dem (even Robert Byrd for Christ’s sake) this time last year, so you can drop it already.
I was going to go with a similar iteration – 4) the global community has agreed to start verbally agreeing with each other in public since nothing in this conference is exactly set in stone to begin with and it gives all the delegates a chance to go home and say they did something productive.
J sub D
I, for one, am overjoyed that the Anthropomorphic Global Warming disaster has been successfully averted. Can we get back to World Cup soccor now?
blogenfreude
@Mike the Actuary
Exactly. Nothing will change. There will be a signing statement, or something similar.
MNPundit
What I don’t get is why they don’t just say “fuck you” to us, sign their agreements without us, and then embargo the living shit out of us when they are all running on sustainable energy?
HyperIon
earth to Zif: JC is not the post’s author
Jake
Or
4) The Pretzledent has been itching for an excuse to play I Declare War again and Indonesia is “It.”
Or (Since Larry Craig went out there).
5) Someone threatened to start releasing video.
TenguPhule
Or as Condi Rice calls it, Foreplay.
Zifnab
Gah, whatever. Then he’s Canadian and he never voted for Bush once. Either way Bottoms is way off the mark.
BIRDZILLA
More ways the demacrats can lay more taxes on us they will find a way and throught the terribly corupt UN and of course the most sinister man in america AL GORE and his world wide carbon tax which americans will pay 90% of it WHEN SEEN CAN WE IMPEACH EVERY DAMN ONE OF THESE CROOKS AND GET OURSELVES OUT OF THE GOOD FOR NOTHING UN AND ITS BAND OF CRINIMALS?
Jon H
“neither Bush nor Cheney give a rat’s patooty about what’s going to happen in late 2009, because it will be someone else’s problem.”
I figure someone woke up to the fact that, in this case, the usual mindless obstructionism was counterproductive (as far as Bush is concerned, anyway – they don’t give a crap about anything being counterproductive against national or global interest) when they could agree to a long series of talks that pushes anything substantive well into the next administration, so nothing actually changes on Bush’s watch but Bush gets a news cycle win (which are so rare for him) and might actually distract attention from the CIA’s obstruction of justice.
Richard Bottoms
And where exactly did I say he voted for him?
Sheethead.
Pb
I actually saw a secret memo from deep within the Moonbat network about what really happened:
I’m just letting you know so it can go unnoticed here for years until someone writes about what really happened, and then people find this as proof. Sort of like a blog post obscurity time capsule device.
LongHairedWeirdo
Here’s something to consider.
Bush, ca. 2010: “But I did act on global warming! See? In 2008 – when *I* was in office – I had a plan created to combat global warming! I can’t help it if my successor screwed it up.”
1) He gets to stay friends with all his buddies in the fossil fuel business,
2) he gets to claim he took decider-level leaderlike action, and
3) be doesn’t have to accomplish anything.