BLAIR BACKS AWAY FROM THE KYOTO TREATY

The following report shows that, in return for GWB saying that global warming is a problem, Blair has endorsed the American approach to it -- research only. No-one for many years has done as much as Blair has to draw the USA and the UK closer together. As it was in ancient times, an intervening stretch of water has become more a highroad than a barrier

"Disputes over climate change will not be resolved by renegotiating the Kyoto treaty, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He said the only way to move ahead was to try to achieve a new international consensus that included the US along with China, India and other large emerging economies. He added that it would be right for China and India to be at future G8 summits, although he acknowledged that restructuring talks to accommodate other nations was difficult. 'What I hope at this summit is that we can set a different direction of travel that gives us the possibility -- when Kyoto expires in 2012 -- (to) get an international consensus that will include America and include also China India and the big emerging countries,' Blair said.

'If you can't get agreement between these countries, you will never tackle this issue. It's too easy for people just to point the finger at America. China and India will be major consumers of energy.' 'We're not going to get America to come to the summit and say: 'We're now going to sign up to the Kyoto treaty.' There's no way that was ever going to happen. Nor is the G8 the place to go and negotiate a new treaty.'

Blair said campaigners had taken the easy option of 'pointing the finger at America', because the US did not sign up to the Kyoto accord. 'Let's be quite clear about this. America spends more on research and development on climate change than anybody else. It's not as if they don't recognise that these are issues,' he said. 'The key thing is is to try to set in place a process that allows us to get an agreement in future, because if we don't...then we are in big trouble in future years.'

Blair warned that a move to cleaner fuels would not come at the expense of economic growth. 'No-one is going to damage their economy in trying to tackle this problem of the environment. There are also huge business opportunities in clean technology. There are ways that we can tackle this problem fully consistent with growing our economies.' "

Source





BRITISH SCIENTISTS THE MOST FANATICAL

What happened to British moderation? I suspect that they see it as a now-rare opportunity to strut the world stage

The press release by the Royal Society is just another example of the long string of manipulative and obfuscatory practices that have defined the climate debate and in which pro-Kyoto British scientists have played such a prominent role.

The most notorious example is perhaps the behavior of the British delegation at a climate conference in Moscow in July 2003. According to Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a Canadian environmental consultant and research scientist, the UK delegation, led by Sir David King, chief scientific advisor to the British government, "behaved in a most obstructionist and unprofessional fashion throughout the event. The U.K. Delegation vehemently opposed allowing any of the experts who disagreed with the Kyoto science to even present our work."

More particularly he complained: "In an attempt to deny dissenting scientists the time to speak, the UK delegation did not arrive until 11 a.m. on July 7, although the seminar was supposed to start at 9.30 a.m. Dr. King then insisted on delivering a long presentation that forced dissenting speakers to significantly shorten their talks. Even though we met until 7 p.m., the schedule for the first day had to be completed the following morning and, even then, Dr. King tried to bump us by speaking next morning for almost 40 minutes.

The UK group refused to answer many of the questions of [Kremlin economic adviser Andrei] Illarionov and others. Professor Paul Reiter of Institute Pasteur in Paris questioned Dr. King's assertion that global warming has reduced the snow/ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro. Prof. Reiter, whose studies reveal that there has been no temperature change at the base of the mountain in the last decade, pointed out that ice cap changes could easily have been due to reasons other than global warming. Dr. King did not answer and instead suddenly walked away on the pretext that he had to meet a government official." And so he goes on.

One can only wonder whether there are any checks and balances to temper the excessive zeal of some scientists, especially those who are acting in some official capacity, to impose their views concerning climate change onto science and politics. All those who value impartiality and open-mindedness of science and its institutions will undoubtedly be utterly embarrassed by these practices. It is not only damaging for the reputation of the individual scientists involved, but also the institutions which they claim to represent. Moreover it may blot the reputation of science at large


More here





TEFLON NOW UNDER FIRE

But the criticisms don't stick -- of course

Last week, an Environmental Protection Agency scientific advisory panel expressed concern about the safety of a chemical, PFOA, used to make Teflon, the nonstick coating on everything from frying pans to clothing to pizza boxes. The panel relied solely upon the fact high doses of PFOA cause cancer in mice and rats. Under the EPA definition of "cancer-causing agent," this is enough to classify the chemical as a "likely human carcinogen" -- though (a) there is not a shred of evidence either Teflon or PFOA poses a human cancer risk and (b) a full spectrum of naturally occurring chemicals also cause cancer in lab animals, just as PFOA does.

Radical environmental groups immediately seized upon the opportunity to move in for the kill. On Wednesday, Richard Wiles of the Environmental Working Group opined on NBC's "Nightly News" that "it has now been determined to be a likely human carcinogen. That ranks up there with DDT, PCBs, dioxin as a very serous hazard. It needs to be banned."(Apparently, Mr. Wiles is unaware the regulated, approved use of the three much-maligned chemicals he cited never made anyone sick.)

A ban on Teflon? Now that would be the ultimate environmentalist victory. Teflon, probably more than any industrial product, is the poster child of modern technology, one that has made our lives easier and more enjoyable. Ever since DuPont's Dr. Roy J. Plunkett accidentally discovered Teflon in his lab in 1938, it has proven miraculously useful, first in machine and military applications in the 1940s -- and dramatically changed cooking and cleanup in the 1960s when first used as a nonstick surface for pots and pans.

Teflon's stellar success story makes it a very ripe target for those who spew chemical-phobia in their crusade to eliminate the tools modern industrial chemistry has given us -- pesticides, pharmaceuticals, food additives, and more.

We can all hope the trumped-up charges against Teflon do not pan out so we consumers continue having access to the safe and useful products that contain it. But don't count on it. Those in the environmental camp, who still tenaciously argue a rodent is a little man, will insist on purging all such "carcinogens" no matter the cost or loss of benefits. Unless scientists emerge from their classrooms and laboratories and express their outrage that junk science like this is used to set public policy, the EPA will continue to "protect" us from cancer risks that do not exist -- and pass the extraordinarily high costs on to us.

Source





JARED DIAMOND GETS IT BACKWARDS

"In his new book Collapse, Jared Diamond begins with a chapter on my home state of Montana. Although painting a romantic picture of "Big Sky Country," he decries environmental tragedies including toxic mining waste, forest fires, soil exhaustion, water shortages, and invasive species. Diamond blames these environmental perils on miners, loggers, and farmers who "behaved as they did because the government required almost nothing of them" and because they were business people maximizing profits.

Reading his gloom and doom chapter, one wonders why Ted Turner, Charles Schwab, and friends are buying land in Montana. The reason is that Montana's environment is not as trashed as alarmist Diamond would have us believe. Here are the facts about Montana. You can drink from almost any stream without concern for toxic wastes, though you might worry about giardia from burgeoning elk herds. You can view millions of acres of spectacular forests-many on private lands. Farms remain productive, and lands mined at the turn of the century are being reclaimed. In short, Montana's environment is getting better not worse.

The same holds generally in the developed world. From 1970 to 2000, for example, concentrations of carbon monoxide fell by 75 percent in the United States and by 95 percent in the United Kingdom. From 1975 to 2000, nitrogen oxides declined by 35 percent in the United States and by 40 percent in the United Kingdom. (Also on aBE: "People, Progress, & Our Planet".)

Furthermore, we in the United States are actually sequestering as much carbon through improved agricultural techniques, healthy forests, and sealed landfills as we are adding to the atmosphere's greenhouse gasses Why is this so? First, as incomes rise, people demand and can afford a healthier environment. Study after study confirms that "wealthier is healthier". (Read how this hypothesis has been offered in economics, aBE Core Concept: "Environmental Kuznets Curve".)

Second, societies with a strong rule of law, private property rights, and market systems have better environments that those that do not. As more countries have adopted these institutions following the fall of the Iron Curtain, incomes and environmental quality have improved.

Diamond has it backward when he blames environmental problems on a lack of government regulation and too much private enterprise. On Montana's frontier, cattlemen formed voluntary associations to prevent overgazing of the range. Farmers developed water rights to efficiently allocate water. In addition, mining companies compensated landowners if the companies' pollution spilled across their boundaries".

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************