US considers climate change plan that would mandate emission cuts.

Probably not quite what AGW and Climate change advocates would er um, advocate since from that point of view time is of the essence especially for those in the AGW camp. What is being proposed, is a halfway house or in other words, everyone HAS to do something, (emission wise) but by how much is being left to the individual countries. It is kind of clever in a way, since it evokes a sort of guilt complex which provokes the must-do-as-the-rest-of-them, theme, and it seems China and the US are working in some common interest. On the other hand that will not satisfy the time is of the essence brigade, AKA the hard core who still insist in the AGW scenario flat out.

'The United States is considering a proposal to combat climate change that would require countries to offer plans for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions on a certain schedule but would leave it to individual nations to determine how deep their cuts would be, said Todd Stern, the nation's chief climate negotiator.'

Read more: www.smh.com.au...< br />
The video from Yale is long, but comment is to be welcomed in any specifics contained in the video.

a reply to: smurfy

The time for debate on climate change (AKA inaction) is over.

To the reactionary, regressive right wing that sees this as a plot by socialist progressives,

You will face an increasingly hostile climate.

And yes, the pun is intended.

Speaking at Yale University on Tuesday, Stern gave the clearest indication so far of what the US position will be regarding a road map toward an international agreement on greenhouse gas reductions.
His comments suggested that the US would back the plan, first put forth by New Zealand, when international negotiators meet in Lima, Peru, in December to try to establish parameters for an eventual agreement. Negotiators are aiming to sign that deal next year in Paris.
"If we were to conclude a new climate agreement in Paris along the lines of what I just outlined, would we have accomplished much? I think the answer is unequivocally yes," Stern said. "We would have for the first time established a stable, durable, rules-based agreement with legal force that is more ambitious than ever before, even if not yet ambitious enough - an agreement that is applicable to all in a genuine and not just a formalistic manner." www.smh.com.au...

So if it's up to each country to deal with it on their own without mandating what the changes are to be ,then why sign any agreement .I suspect that before the ink is dry there will be amendments and over time we would be at the mercies of the UN . It's probably somewhere in the small print or some obscure section that they could do something not intended in the original agreement . I dont trust them one bit .

Yes, lets all focus on a problem that doesnt exist. Climate change or climate destabilization as I call it is a geomagnetic cycle that earth goes through on a regular basis. Man can never stop it, therefore the governments can justify taxing us to death to prevent a "problem" that we cant even tweek.

Its sad.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: smurfy

The time for debate on climate change (AKA inaction) is over.

To the reactionary, regressive right wing that sees this as a plot by socialist progressives,

You will face an increasingly hostile climate.

And yes, the pun is intended.

That's kind of what I am getting at..the guilt complex being something real, but regardless of whether, 1 (AGW) is ipso facto, or 2, that (Climate change) is in itself, and at this time definitively observable. That either grandiose title is connected or not is seemingly totally ignored, the emphasis on action no matter what, remains firmly in AGW.

a reply to: smurfy

"That's kind of what I am getting at..the guilt complex being something real, but regardless of whether, 1 (AGW) is ipso facto, or 2, that (Climate change) is in itself, and at this time definitively observable. That either grandiose title is connected or not is seemingly totally ignored, the emphasis on action no matter what, remains firmly in AGW."

The U.S. Military has just declared that global climate change is an immediate threat that will be considered in U.S. military strategic planning.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: smurfy

"That's kind of what I am getting at..the guilt complex being something real, but regardless of whether, 1 (AGW) is ipso facto, or 2, that (Climate change) is in itself, and at this time definitively observable. That either grandiose title is connected or not is seemingly totally ignored, the emphasis on action no matter what, remains firmly in AGW."

The U.S. Military has just declared that global climate change is an immediate threat that will be considered in U.S. military strategic planning.

That's kind of cheeky, it's the military who wanted to own the weather, and they probably did monkey around with it anyway.

a reply to: smurfy

"That's kind of cheeky, it's the military who wanted to own the weather, and they probably did monkey around with it anyway."

If that's the case, then let's hope that they now play the roll of a good monkey.

a reply to: smurfy

"edit on 17-10-2014 by smurfy because: double."

I'll see your double and raise you one.