U.S. Offer of Long-Term Aid Pushes Climate Talks Forward

[Turborama]

Source: NYT

With time running out on the stalled Copenhagen climate negotiations, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave new hope that an agreement might still be reached when she announced Thursday that the United States would help raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor nations combat climate change.

The talks are scheduled to end Friday, when President Obama and more than 100 other heads of state are due to arrive.

Mrs. Clinton’s announcement signaled the first time the Obama administration had made a commitment to a medium-term financing effort, even though she did not specify the American contribution to this fund. She also cautioned that the United States’ participation was contingent on reaching a firm agreement this week, one that would require a commitment from China about greater transparency in its emissions reporting.

“A hundred billion can have tangible effects,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We actually think $100 billion is appropriate, usable and will be effective.”

The $100 billion figure is in line with estimates by Britain and the European Union of the needed contributions, although the amount is at the low end of the range that European countries have suggested.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/earth/18climate.html?hp

[WriteDown]

1. Go Team America: World Police!

What's another 100B? Wonder what amount China and India have promised.

[Turborama]

5. America isn't giving anyone $100Billion

Read the article.

Regarding your Bush era China/India meme: We should be asking how much countries like http://www.desmogblog.com/the-worst-co2-polluters-in-the-world">Qatar and the UAE would be offering, if it was going to be done fairly.

[rfranklin]

2. Would those be rubbr checks they're going to write?

Wheee! More funny money!

[reformist]

3. This is insanity.

This is insanity.

It's bad enough we have to borrow record amounts just to keep our state governments afloat: Now they want to borrow $100B a year just to give it away to other countries???

[EFerrari]

4. Spin. US showed up waving a wallet for anyone that would back

our catastrophic position.

[TomCADem]

6. U.S. Offer of Long-Term Aid Pushes Climate Talks Forward

Source: NY Times

COPENHAGEN — President Obama arrives here on Friday morning bent on applying a combination of muscle and personal charm to secure a climate change agreement involving nearly 200 countries.

He injects himself into a multilayered negotiation that has been far more chaotic and contentious than anticipated — frozen by longstanding divisions between rich and poor nations and a legacy of mistrust of the United States, which has long refused to accept any binding limits on its greenhouse gas emissions.

The world is looking to Mr. Obama to wrest some credible success from this process. And on Thursday, with almost 120 heads of state and government in attendance, there were some signs that a meaningful political deal might be at hand, including a slight shift in China’s position and a pledge by the United States to help the poorest nations cope financially with global warming.

But top negotiators here said that the talks could also prove a humiliating failure, because China and the United States, the world’s two largest emitters, remain deeply divided over a number of difficult problems.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/earth/18climate.html?hp

---

The political savy move would have been to stay in the U.S., and say his first priority is to create jobs, since so many "liberals" on this board are now questioning climate change.

[lib2DaBone]

7. If the Bankster/Gangsters can start trading Carbon Credits....

..just think of the wonderful economy and opportunities we can create...?

Enron wasn't THAT bad.. was it?





:crazy:

[TomCADem]

9. Odd, That The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Is Being Progressive In Opposing It!

So, why exactly is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposing a bill that is such a boon to big business. On top of that, you have the petroleum industry dead set against it. Yet, we are supposed to believe that big business is actually conspiring to pass cap and trade?

Maybe the U.S. Chamber of Commerce did not get the memo?

http://www.uschambermagazine.com/article/us-chamber-official-warns-that-cap-and-trade-bill-will-destroy-jobs

U.S. Chamber Official Warns That Cap And Trade Bill Will Destroy Jobs

The climate change bill currently being pushed through Congress will cause a significant amount of pain for American businesses and will kill jobs while making little to no difference on global carbon dioxide concentrations, according to a U.S. Chamber official.

"The slim margin of victory on this bill in the House should have been a signal to its drafters that they should go back to the drawing board," said Bill Kovacs, Chamber senior vice president of Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs, during a joint hearing of the House and Senate Western Caucuses on July 30. "However, here we sit today, with the Senate wanting to move full speed ahead on a bill that will not, if passed, reduce concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere but will certainly make energy scarce and more expensive and balloon the EPA's bureaucracy. In fact, the only jobs it will create will be those for trial lawyers and bureaucrats."

The 1,428-page climate change bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), was approved in the House last month and is now awaiting a vote in the Senate. Kovacs warned lawmakers that ACES, if passed, will promote regulatory chaos, increase gas prices, foster lawsuits, and leave the United States and its businesses at a significant economic disadvantage on the international stage. A better option would be to negotiate a global accord that commits all major emitting nations to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions before proceeding on domestic mandates and restraints, he said.

[unabelladonna]

8. we're questioning what climate change legislation

could do for the US..nothing. it would become a cash cow for the loathesome wallstreeters and make energy costs skyrocket. we can't afford to have that happen.

[TomCADem]

10. That Sounds Like An American Petroleum Institute Talking Point

I just find it odd that so many "progressives" so easily support and recite talking points embraced by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Petrochemical and Refiners’ Association., and the American Petroleum Institute. Is the right wing the new left? Are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Petrochemical and Refiners’ Association., and the American Petroleum Institute the new grass roots?

It brings a new meaning to astro-turf.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/51b38510-e360-11de-8d36-00144feab49a.html

Big business goes on to the offensive
Big business began attacking the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to start regulating greenhouse emissions even before it was announced on Monday, saying it would damage the US economy and force jobs abroad.

“The implications of today’s action by EPA are far-reaching,” said Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners’ Association.

“Individual American consumers and businesses alike will be dramatically affected by this decision that, frankly, is based on selective science, a weak legal and policy foundation, and a failure to account for numerous uncertainties and assumptions in the models it relies on,” he said.

Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, the national trade lobby, warned that it “poses a threat to every American family and business”. “The Clean Air Act was meant to control traditional air pollution, not greenhouse gases that come from every vehicle, home, factory and farm in America,” he said.