View Full Version : Blair drops support of Kyoto Protocol

20th Sep 2005, 09:56
EnviroSpin (http://greenspin.********.com/)

Send Clowns
20th Sep 2005, 10:11
That man doesn't half waffle. Why use a word when 17 will adequately, that is I think, with the ideal sufficiency and clearness, exemplify the same idea or meaning.

20th Sep 2005, 10:14
Because heīs a politician..... :hmm:

Send Clowns
20th Sep 2005, 13:47
No, this is beyond normal politician speak. It is completely incoherent crap. There is no sentence structure, there are repeats or clauses and hanging clauses, clauses he seems to fit in at the spur of the moment, not really sure where the sentence is going. Hence the sentence goes nowhere and he starts on a new one. How did this man ever work as a lawyer? How does anyone listen to that garbage and then think they want to vote for him? It is so unpleasant to listen to or read, and difficult to work out what he is actually saying.

Curious Pax
20th Sep 2005, 14:02
How did this man ever work as a lawyer? They get paid by time/words written don't they? QED!!

To be fair the fact that it is transcribed speech rather than a written article doesn't really help, but in essence I agree with you. (I'll need to lie down for a few minutes now, that took a lot of effort!)

I assume that because you target the grammar then you actually agree with the thrust of what he is saying, but can't bring yourself to say so? The most amazing thing is that he doesn't mention the US when acknowledging that Kyoto is going nowhere! The reality is that much as China and India etc were important, it was doomed as soon as the Americans didn't sign up to it (rightly or wrongly).

Send Clowns
20th Sep 2005, 14:19
It must have been even worse to listen to than to read, you can't go back and connect the thoughts!

As far as I can tell I agree with him, and I am happy to say so, although I am still not entirely sure what he is saying. Therein lies the problem. He gets a lot less flack for his decisions from those that disagree if he announces them in a way that is difficult to interpret. Most people will read or listen with their own prejudices, so tend more to agree with him than if he expressed himself clearly and succinctly.

20th Sep 2005, 14:37
Precised and amended to remove what blather I can. I hope I havenīt changed the sense of it.

MR. BLAIR: Three points I would like to make here.

The first is concern over energy security and supplies.

The second thing is the politics of how we deal with it. The truth is no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem. What countries are prepared to do is to try to work together cooperatively to deal with this problem in a way that allows us to develop the science and technology in a beneficial way. Now, I don't think all of the answers lie in developing the science and technology, but I do think there is no way we are going to tackle this problem unless we develop the science and technology capable of doing it.

The third point, which is how do you create the forces that drive people then to develop the science and technology? How do you create the markets and the research and the development of this technology so that we can shorten the timeline so that we're not waiting 25 or 30 years to develop fuel cell technology, nuclear fusion, so that you can bring the costs of wind power and solar power down?

That is the issue that the international community needs to address. Some people have signed Kyoto, some people haven't signed Kyoto. That is a disagreement and it's not going to be resolved. But how do we move forward and ensure that post-Kyoto we do get agreement? I think that can only be done by the major players coming together and finding a way for pooling their resources, their information, their science and technology in order to find the ways of allowing us to grow sustainably.

The meeting that will take place on the 1st of November, which is effectively the G-8, India, China, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico, is going to allow us, I hope, not to negotiate international treaties, but to allow us to start beginning the dialogue as to how we are going to shorten these timelines for developing the science and technology and how we are going to ensure that countries like China and India, as they grow, have some process that allows us to share the technology and transfer it so that we can all benefit collectively for the work that needs to be done.

I don't think people are going, at least in the short term, going to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto.

The issue is, how do we put incentives in the system so that the private sector, as well as the public sector, says, this is the direction policy is going to go, so let's start getting behind this.

20th Sep 2005, 14:45
It's all very straight-forward to me. And I don't understand why some people here can't comprehend.

The basic unwritten message from Blair or any other mainstream European political party in 2005 is this: Fcuk the environment, go get fcuking!

Unless Europeans get their reproductive rate over 2.0 PDQ, there won't ever be enough money to even contemplate saving the New Forest, let alone the whole planet.

The reproductive rate is the fundamental basis for all of Europe's economic, social and environmental policies.

20th Sep 2005, 15:00
mr Airship Sir one has four kids and qualify as Famille Nombreuse :) :) - done my bit ;)

As a point of interest, I have just finished reading Michael Crichton's (he of Jurassic Park, TimeLine etc) "State of fear" which actually sets a very good case against the generally accepted pehonmenom of "Global Warming". It has lots of factual scientific references too....

Not that I support or decry definitively the case myself. Just thought you lot might be interested in reading it. :hmm:

20th Sep 2005, 15:12
"The first is concern over energy security and supplies."

Which would be considerably less without George and Tony's Grand Adventure.

Send Clowns
20th Sep 2005, 15:18

Who said they can't comprehend it? Have they deleted their posts?

How is a speech that says "And the meeting that will take place on the 1st of November, which is effectively the G-8 of the India, China, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico. That is going to allow us, I hope, not to negotiate international treaties, but to allow us to start beginning the necessary dialogue as to how we are going to shorten these timelines for developing the science and technology and how we are going to ensure that countries like China and India, as they grow - and they will grow." straight-forward?

I implied I thought I understood what he intended to say, although was not entirely certain. You think you understand what he said as well. However what he said was not clear, so do we understand the same thing from the words? If you are being honest in your opinion then we don't, as I disagree with your interpretation, which confirms my point that his talk was not .

20th Sep 2005, 15:28
Send Clowns - Did Tony Blair dictate that response for you? :confused:

Send Clowns
20th Sep 2005, 15:49
Mmmm, it does look a little unclear :}

However at least I did finish each sentence and clause, and I cannot really see how to express it more elegantly. Talking about the nature of meaning is always difficult!

20th Sep 2005, 19:02
If Blair is saying the UK shall ignore the Kyoto Protocols.....where is the bleating from the Chattering Class who are so up in arms about the American government and George Bush doing the same thing?

Bit quiet here folks....what's going on....still dipping the digestives in the Tea?:uhoh:

Darth Nigel
20th Sep 2005, 19:24
No, mate, I for one am still chuckling over this one
As far as I can tell I agree with him, and I am happy to say so, although I am still not entirely sure what he is saying. (No offence intended, Send Clowns)

One is reminded of Monty's famous quote, "As God said, and I think rightly, ..."

20th Sep 2005, 19:48
I think the point here is that Kyoto was, largely, a waste of time, in that it only delayed the onset of global warming, at best, a couple of years. The claim was that, flawed as it was, it was a precurser to more rigorous treaties. This is an admission that the presumption is dead.

Send Clowns
20th Sep 2005, 23:03
I know Nigel, it's the best I can do with the material :}

21st Sep 2005, 07:47
Ah the Spam bashers are having indigestion now...one of the most industrialized nations in the world...contributing way too much towards global warming...and Hello....just like the Spams....we too are not going to play that game!

Come on now....laid on the lash to the people that are so intent upon material goods that they will ignore the damage to the enviroment in their quest for all things material.

Where is the Amen chorus....Hello! Hello! Anyone out there?:uhoh:

West Coast
21st Sep 2005, 15:59
To play out ORAC's post to the conclusion...
Kyoto is/was a feel good agreement. It did little for the environment with the possible exception that it laid precedent for future accords. It was a Kodak moment with little substance. I wish I had book marked the comments from one of the framers in which he said that Kyoto did little except bring light to the problem. In practical terms all it did was reallocate resources. Imagine an attempt to stop global warming that allows many countries to INCREASE pollution. Makes perfect sense to me.

21st Sep 2005, 17:20
Well I never supported it and I always understood why the US could never sign up for it, as I said many times here. Any US President agreeing to it would sign his own death warrant politically as it would forecably contract the US economy. Ridiculous.

21st Sep 2005, 17:54
Wait a minute! A Labor government can't just walk away from the Brave New Green World. Common sense has nothing to do with it. Get back in line, you fickle-minded, sensitive, Euro-partners!