Nature's editors have written an excellent summary of the state of climate politics in anticipation of the Bali negotiations on a post-Kyoto regime. Despite recapping all the daunting challenges, including the technological hurdles facing those interested in carbon capture and sequestration, the editorial manages to strike an optimistic tone ;;;;; except for the penultimate observation:
The outlook for the US delegation is less promising. Its negotiators will include ideologues who will stop at nothing to derail the humble progress the rest of the world has managed to make through the Kyoto accord. The only thing that can save them from themselves is President Bush's possible desire to end his reign on a slightly more positive note than the salutary one on which he began it, with his March 2001 decision that the United States would withdraw from the Kyoto agreement.
But even then, there's this nod to 2008:
The next American president is, thankfully, likely to take a more constructive approach to global warming after 2009. The Bali meeting is the global community's chance to prepare for the opening that this should provide.
- Log in to post comments
Mr. H
I don't "believe" anything about "climate change" but I am compelled to accept the consilience of recognised climatologists. The denialists seem to be emotionally involved with with extraordinary energy matched by the ID/ evolution deniers. Any of our efforts to reduce dependence on fossil resources in the direction of an efficient lifestyle is simply good housekeeping. The fossil resources are limited by definition while the sustainable is tied to the lifetime of Sol in his present condition.
What makes a denialist?