G8 Summit

[Vong]

Protestors are already being roughed up on the streets of Heiligendamm, and the G8 members are pouring in.

On the priority list and the countries backing the talks:
- Environmental issue (Canada, US, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK)
- Poverty and disease in Africa (France, Germany, UK)
- US buildup of arms in Eastern Europe (Russia)

Interesting things to note:
- Canada (besides the US) is the only country among the G8 leaders pushing for alternatives to Kyoto. Thanks very much asshole (aka Stephen Harper)...
- US: for years, Bush has denounced the scientific evidence in favor of global warming. He now comes to the summit with words of support for making changes to the countries environment policy.
- Russia is concerned over the missles placed in Eastern Europe, but the US denies the weapons are pointed at anyone in particular.
- This is British PM Blair's final G8 summit, attending 11 summits in total.

[EVILxxx]

Don't feel too bad for the protesters as they are conducting themselves in ironically violent fashion.
Again Kyoto isn't practical. A global bureaucracy enforcing emissions standards? Sounds like gaggle-fuck to me. It's the first such amendment of it's kind, a second more focused agreement could be worked out.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Don't feel to bad for the protesters as they are conducting themselves in ironically violent fashion.

Yeah, something like 150 police officers injured I heard.

[Scorpio24]

Bush will never allow any sort of a deal on enviormental and global warming issues. Burn that oil baby.

Putin is a lunatic and has threatend to re-point missiles at European cities.

Any aid effort in Africa is being disabled by massive corruption and lack of free trade.


So all in all yet another worthless summit that will resolve FUCK ALL.

But at least the protesters are having a good time.

The world's in great hands.

[Vong]

Putin might be bat-shit crazy, but he is reacting like any other leader would if missiles were being built next door to his country. I predict another zero-sum arms race in Europe.

As for Africa, keep in mind most (if not all) of the corruption was caused by Western powers. Free trade has already hit most parts of Africa ala the World Bank and IMF. But laissez-faire policies are far from what the countries of Africa need. Subsidies and tariffs, nationalized industries and a welfare state are among the things they do need.

The G8 summit might be worthless, but at least it's a chance for all the top leaders of the world to get together and discuss major issues in one big room. Despite the fact that little gets done, that can easily change the minute a progressive leader enters that room and calls for action.

The world is in the hands of money-pinching bureaucrats....we need Bono!! :rolleyes:

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Vong
The G8 summit might be worthless, but at least it's a chance for all the top leaders of the world to get together and discuss major issues in one big room. Despite the fact that little gets done, that can easily change the minute a progressive leader enters that room and calls for action.

I agree.

And I think the fact that issues are even discussed is a great thing. Before any action is ever taken, discussions are always done first. A lack of discussion would mean that nothing will ever happen. Big wheels like these don't turn fast, it's a process which tends to take years - often decades - before anything noticeable has happened in practice.

The fact that existence of problems is even adressed is a major step ahead.

[Lynn7]

I think this G8 thing is silly. If them meeting is so important let them do it over teleconfrencing and stop these protestors from destroying so much property.

[boombche_stum]

Originally posted by Vong
Protestors are already being roughed up on the streets of Heiligendamm, and the G8 members are pouring in.

On the priority list and the countries backing the talks:
- Environmental issue (Canada, US, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK)
- Poverty and disease in Africa (France, Germany, UK)
- US buildup of arms in Eastern Europe (Russia)

Interesting things to note:
- Canada (besides the US) is the only country among the G8 leaders pushing for alternatives to Kyoto. Thanks very much asshole (aka Stephen Harper)...
- US: for years, Bush has denounced the scientific evidence in favor of global warming. He now comes to the summit with words of support for making changes to the countries environment policy.
- Russia is concerned over the missles placed in Eastern Europe, but the US denies the weapons are pointed at anyone in particular.
- This is British PM Blair's final G8 summit, attending 11 summits in total.

Here's what I don't get... ever FUCKING year, poverty and disease in Africa are part of this summit. We have given BILLIONS of dollars to Africa, what has it done? I would like to know. Personally, it doesn't look like it's doing shit. Maybe tossing money at them and trying to teach safe sex practices isn't effective enough (for AIDS). What do you guys think?

[unspoken]

Originally posted by Vong
- Canada (besides the US) is the only country among the G8 leaders pushing for alternatives to Kyoto. Thanks very much asshole (aka Stephen Harper)...


That's pretty funny, I think a fair and balanced approach would pluralize the word asshole and add Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Stephane Dion and every other Liberal environment minister since Kyoto was signed to the list of "assholes." Or was it just a convenient omittance?

What the government is doing now is the only option we've got because of a decade of Liberal inaction. We would be resorted to near third-world status in the welfare of the economy if they went all out to do it in a year.

And Kyoto still won't work even if it was implemented, because all of the cuts made to GHG emissions by those who signed on to it will just be made up by those who didn't, like USA, China, and India, who are all increasing yearly.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by boombche_stum
Here's what I don't get... ever FUCKING year, poverty and disease in Africa are part of this summit. We have given BILLIONS of dollars to Africa, what has it done? I would like to know. Personally, it doesn't look like it's doing shit. Maybe tossing money at them and trying to teach safe sex practices isn't effective enough (for AIDS). What do you guys think?



Its true, you can't just throw money at a problem without a plan. There are a number of reasons why AIDS is spreading in Africa, ignorance, lack of education, religion and good ol' fashion government corruption are just part of the top 5. I haven't heard anyone come up with a plan that even addresses those issues.

The people who give the money to Africa need to be on top of that money like white on rice to make sure it actually gets to where its supposed to go. But Africa has been a mess for.... God, since forever. The country is just too big, too poor and too corrupt to be handled in a typical beaurocratic fashion.

When Che went there even he said the country was centuries away from any sort of independent progress.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think this G8 thing is silly. If them meeting is so important let them do it over teleconfrencing and stop these protestors from destroying so much property.


Its all about the photo op.

[Vong]

Originally posted by boombche_stum
Here's what I don't get... ever FUCKING year, poverty and disease in Africa are part of this summit. We have given BILLIONS of dollars to Africa, what has it done? I would like to know. Personally, it doesn't look like it's doing shit. Maybe tossing money at them and trying to teach safe sex practices isn't effective enough (for AIDS). What do you guys think?

Consider where the money is coming from, rather than where it is going to. In regards to foreign countries, money given barely scratches the surface on Africa's problems. Most of it is directed to emergency services and health (especially with the AIDS crisis). Most countries also expect to receive it back in the future, but that will never happen. One of the biggest campaigns since 1997 was the total removal of foreign debt to all developing countries. Many developed countries have ripped up their receipts and forgiven the debts, but others are still in place.

In regards to organizations like the IMF and World Bank, money is given with a large interest. Most developing countries are using what money they receive from their economy to take care of the interest. Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) and neo-liberal policies have literally destroyed these weak countries, as the foreign institutions are focusing on short term solutions rather than long term. It's the "give-only-to-receive" attitude of both countries and foreign organizations that is limiting the progress of developing countries. Corruption among African leaders is a factor, but not as serious today as it was 10 years ago.

Originally posted by unspoken
That's pretty funny, I think a fair and balanced approach would pluralize the word asshole and add Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Stephane Dion and every other Liberal environment minister since Kyoto was signed to the list of "assholes." Or was it just a convenient omittance?

What the government is doing now is the only option we've got because of a decade of Liberal inaction. We would be resorted to near third-world status in the welfare of the economy if they went all out to do it in a year.

And Kyoto still won't work even if it was implemented, because all of the cuts made to GHG emissions by those who signed on to it will just be made up by those who didn't, like USA, China, and India, who are all increasing yearly.

Considering that the environment has never been a key issue in Canadian politics since the 1970s, you can't really blame them for their inaction since it wasn't on the "Important Things to Do List".

And if you think that the Conservatives will come up with a plan that will benefit our environment, you are mistaken. Considering their first plan with Ambrose was a complete joke and failure, and Baird is "Tory-Tool", they aren't up for any praise.

Even if the US, China and India does not sign on to any environment plan, at least we and all the other co-signers will be reducing our emissions and take a lesser strain on the environment. And not acting because other countries won't do it is not good policy-making.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
And if you think that the Conservatives will come up with a plan that will benefit our environment, you are mistaken.


Why is that? The last Tory government was the best "green" government this country ever had, and they had even less time to implement their plans than the do-nothing Liberals did.

Until the current Tory government sits on their ass for 12 years, you don't have a leg to stand on as far as criticism goes, especially concerning a subject in which it takes decades before there are noticeable changes. The Tories at least have one thing right: we can't rush it. People who honestly believe Canada can reach Kyoto targets in time are ludicrous. The targets can be reached, but not in the time frame, as it would be implementing a long-term plan in a short period. Best thing to do now is plan for a farther target and work to accomplish it without drastic policies that would violently damage the economy.

Your avatar is incredibly fitting though.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Vong
- Canada (besides the US) is the only country among the G8 leaders pushing for alternatives to Kyoto. Thanks very much asshole (aka Stephen Harper)...


I hate saying this, but as an American I would do anything to have Stephen Harper or any British Tory in the White House right about now. I mean, I don't claim to know much about Canadian politics, but from what I understand the Tories aren't skeptical to global warming and actually apply *gasp* rational thinking in the decision-making process .

Here's how the U.S. operates: if it doesn't match our poltiical/religious beliefs, it doesn't exist.

In other words, be grateful for Harper, because you don't have the train-wreck of a president that we have.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
I hate saying this, but as an American I would do anything to have Stephen Harper or any British Tory in the White House right about now. I mean, I don't claim to know much about Canadian politics, but from what I understand the Tories aren't skeptical to global warming and actually apply *gasp* rational thinking in the decision-making process .


That's very true, and despite what Vong may say, Canada still has a very secular state.

But I will admit that most Tories are fairly hesitant when it comes to the subject of global warming, but nonetheless are creating legislation to deal with the issue.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think this G8 thing is silly. If them meeting is so important let them do it over teleconfrencing and stop these protestors from destroying so much property.


You don't think them meeting is important?

[Vong]

Originally posted by outsyder
Why is that? The last Tory government was the best "green" government this country ever had, and they had even less time to implement their plans than the do-nothing Liberals did.

The last Tory government was under Mulroney, and you will never convince me that he ever gave a rats ass about the environment. He was too busy fucking up our country with neo-libreal policies and NAFTA.

And as I said before, in the 12 years the Liberals were in power, the environment was not their priority. It wasn't until after "global warming" became a hot topic (pun intended) little over a year ago that the environment became an issue. And like any minority party wanting to stay in power, Harper and his Tory's are trying their best to create something that will tackle this issue, soon to be in all the parties election platform (hopefully next year). But so far they have come up flat, as every single environment critic, organization and representatives have bashed their attempts claiming their targets are falling short.

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
I hate saying this, but as an American I would do anything to have Stephen Harper or any British Tory in the White House right about now. I mean, I don't claim to know much about Canadian politics, but from what I understand the Tories aren't skeptical to global warming and actually apply *gasp* rational thinking in the decision-making process .

First of all, the Tories have always been skeptical of global warming. Even up to the elimination of Kyoto when he came into power, Harper has denied the science that leads to global warming. He's only recently began to see it because (a) he's in power, (b) a majority of Canadians are concerned about the environment, and (c) he wants to tap into that concern by dancing over it making it look like he wants to help. The poor excuses of Ambrose and Baird as Environment Ministers are reasons enough to doubt the Conservatives in anything they do in regards to tackling global warming.

Originally posted by outsyder
That's very true, and despite what Vong may say, Canada still has a very secular state.

In practice Canada may look secular, but on paper we are far from it. In fact, comparing the constiutions, laws and charters, the US is far more secular than Canada. You can blame the rise of faith-based politics on the religious revivalism that has taken place within the States in the past 100 years.

[Vong]

Originally posted by outsyder
Your avatar is incredibly fitting though.

David Suzuki for PM! :D

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
The last Tory government was under Mulroney, and you will never convince me that he ever gave a rats ass about the environment. He was too busy fucking up our country with neo-libreal policies and NAFTA.


So I guess the ratification of several environmental conventions, not to mention the opening of several new national parks, along with restrictions on cod fishing and his international initiative against acid rain isn't enough for you, huh?

And the Liberals, enjoying many years of budget surplus and over a decade in power, had more than enough opportunity to implement their plans and failed to do so. The excuse that global warming was not popular at the time is a poor one. Kyoto was created because it was an issue that people were more concerned about, and it certainly was a public topic before Harper took office in 2006.

And the Tory environmental plans were criticized because they fell short of Kyoto targets, which was something they were always intended to due, because the deadline is much too soon to implement serious change without significantly damaging the Canadian economy.

[Vong]

Since you're throwing shit at the Liberals, I might as well throw shit at the Conservatives.

Lets see...
Environment programs were cut under Blais-Grenier, Environment Minister under Mulroney, and was subsequently demoted due to environment group backlash.

Also, see "Tunagate"....

And you think the Liberals did nothing huh?
Besides Kyoto, Liberals also implemented the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Species at Risk Act. As well as the Clean Fund and the Project Green.

In the 1970s, when the Minisiter of the Environment was introduced by the Trudeau government, the department lobbied the US for improving its standards on its pollution. The USA Clean Air Act ammendment was large in part to this. They also significantly reduced the emissions of phosphorous gas in industries that cause acid rain.

If it wasn't for the Liberals (with NDP and environment groups supporting), there wouldn't be an Environment Minister.

[outsyder]

Sorry. They still have nothing on Mulroney.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060420/mulroney_green_cp_060419/20060420?hub=TopStories

[Vong]

People may call him the greenest PM, but he is far away from winning high praise. Mulroney is just stumbling into this "honor", which should be seen more as a disgrace to every other PM to follow or come before Mulroney since he barely did anything revolutionary to the environment cause.

By the way, if Mulroney is the greenest PM, Harper will go down as the most environmentally destructive leader in Canadian history.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
You don't think them meeting is important?

Global issues, the environment and the economy all take a back seat to the war in Iraq and the Republican agenda.

:p

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
You don't think them meeting is important?

I think it is for show. It probably started out sincerely though.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think it is for show. It probably started out sincerely though.


You don't think it is important for global leaders to meet and talk about world events? You think that teleconferencing has more integrity than face-to-face meetings? Haven't you ever seen Dr. Strangelove?