Blair falls into line with Bush view on global warming

[Briar]

Blair falls into line with Bush view on global warming
By Geoffrey Lean and Christopher Silvester

Tony Blair has admitted that he is changing his views on combating global warming to mirror those of President Bush - and oppose negotiating international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol.

His admission, which has outraged environmentalists on both sides of
the Atlantic, flies in the face of his promises made in the past two
years and undermines the agreement he masterminded at this summer's
Gleneagles Summit. And it endangers talks that opened in Ottawa this weekend on a new treaty to combat climate change.

The U-turn will inevitably bring accusations that he has, once again, sold out to Mr Bush, just at the time that the US President is coming under unprecedented pressure to change his policy in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Last week the UK Government's chief scientific advisor, Sir David King, said that global warming might have increased their severity.

...

Sharing a platform with the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, in New York this month, Mr Blair confessed: "Probably I'm changing my thinking about this", adding that he hoped the world's nations would "not negotiate international treaties".

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/article314991.ece

[slor]

1. What a asswipe!

He is a bigger loser than I thought. On the other hand, we can help fight global warming ourselves, in a BIG way, by calling our reps and voicing our support for H.R. 3037! Link below:
<http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/bills/?bill=7766161>

[D-Notice]

2. 'Twas only

a matter of time...

Guess he remembers who's got the photos... ;-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Just to annoy everyone more, here's the closing bit of what he said

And the real issue I think – because to be honest, I don’t think people are going, at least in the short term, going to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto. The real issue is how do we put these 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. So that is what – I think it’s a key issue.

http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/pdf/transcripts/plenary/cgi_09_15_05_plenary_1.pdf

Yes, he really is parrotting Bush on this - climate change is now an opportunity for handing out subsidies to your favourites in the private sector.

[fedsron2us]

4. What you think does not matter a toss Tony

since your government was never serious about the emissions targets in the first place. You do not have a coherent policy on climate and energy just as you do not have one on Iraq or any other important matter. The bad news for you and all the other idiots in government is that global warming is going to roll right over you and your private sector friends, just like the rest of us.

[T_i_B]

5. Why Kyoto will never succeed, by Blair

Might as well post the Torygraph article for good measure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/25/nkyoto25.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/25/ixportal.html

Tony Blair has admitted that the fight to prevent global warming by ordering countries to cut greenhouse gases will never be won. The Prime Minister said "no country is going to cut its growth or consumption" despite environmental fears.

Mr Blair's comments, which he said were "brutally honest", mark a big environmental U-turn and will dismay Labour activists.

They were made earlier this month in New York, at a conference on facing up to "global challenges" organised by Bill Clinton, the former United States president.

Mr Blair, who has been seen up to now as a strong supporter of the Kyoto Treaty, effectively tore the document up and admitted that rows over its implementation will "never be resolved."

[fedsron2us]

7. As Britain looks certain to miss the Kyoto targets

this change of tack is very convenient. The only tiny problem for politicians in the UK is that their voters live on one of the parts of the planet that is most at risk from global warming. Sooner or later this problem is going to come home with a vengeance. Of course by then Blair will be safely secured in some high paying corporate sinecure so I assume he will be able to afford to move someplace where the conditions are more clement. With these defeatist attitudes the Prime Minister is looking more and more an irrelevant has-been. Why does n't he just resign now.

[mr blur]

6. Is Blair the only person over here

who fails to see that Bush is a dickhead? What's next on the agenda - that we have "Under God" added to the £1 coin? I'm stunned at what a dumb fucker Bliar has become.

The question now is surely, Will he be pushed out before they can have him locked up for his own safety?

[D-Notice]

8. You're asking whether

Labour MPs (and the party in general) have the balls to stand up to him...

I think we all know the answer to that one... :-(

[primavera]

9. Why? What's wrong with Labour MPs?

I'm afraid I'm woefully ignorant on the current state of politics in the UK. Not to point fingers (God knows the US is totally fucked-up politically these days), but many of us suffering under Bush's Fourth Reich keep hoping that Europeans aren't quite as stupid as Americans evidently are, so it's bewildering to witness a Labour PM (and an articulate, educated one who speaks in complete sentences, no less) play lapdog to a neanderthal like Bush. Even more mystifying is why Parliament lets Blair get away with it. Stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't our illegal invasion of Iraq pretty much universally condemned throughout the UK? Hasn't the US been widely and appropriately ridiculed for abandoning Kyoto? So why does Blair believe that his political fortunes and the wellbeing of his nation lie in allowing Smirky McChimp to lead him around by the nose? And why isn't Parliament stomping his guts out for it? Just how much power does the PM wield? Does the PM really have the kind of dictatorial powers our president has that allows him to blow off congress and disregard the will of his constituents with impunity? I don't get it, could someone please explain this to me?

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Many of the Labour MPs are sheep

and you have to be a pretty pathetic sheep to be herded around by a lapdog.

The invasion wasn't universally condemned; probably a small majority of people were against it at the time, and the number who think it was wrong has gradually increased since then. But Blair is articulate, as you say, and many people didn't realise then how much he was lying.

In particular, Labour MPs depend on him for the advancement of their career. The government has a lot (about 100? Anyone?) of positions to give to MPs in various departments at various levels. Disobey the PM on a serious matter, and they could lose the position (in many cases meaning a pay cut, as well as loss of influence, power, and standing in the party). Blair has assembled the largest pack of non-elected 'advisors' around him any PM ever has, and they are ruthless and unforgiving (Alistair Campbell is the outstanding example, but he's not the only one - it was he who used outing David Kelly to, as he put it, 'fuck' the BBC). Cross them, and you may never get any government post again - unless there's a complete change of people.

So, most Labour MPs voted for invasion:
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=117
247 for for the invasion; 139 against it; 28 abstained. Since the vast majority of the Conservatives also voted for invasion, he had the effective backing of the House of Commons.

Constitutionally, the PM wields enormous power - he can take the country to war without consulting Parliament (the vote on Iraq was actually unnecessary, and was a concession to the high feeling against it), and do most other things the US President can do (he is often doing them in the Queen's name, but the monarch hasn't got involved in major political affairs since George III - I think she'd only intervene if he did something like invade Belgium).

Why does Blair walk around with his nose embedded in the Chimp's arse? A very good question. Rory Bremner, a comedian and impressionist, suggested last night it was to make sure his autobiography sold well in the US when he retires. Like all good jokes, there could be some truth in it - Blair does seem drawn to the rich and famous (and it has been suggested he'll go to work for the Carlyle group when he stops being PM). I think he's drawn to power - and when he can't get hold of it himself, as in the case of a huge business, like Rupert Murdoch, or the American presidency, he just fawns over it instead. He thinks by doing what the powerful say, he can influence them. He's wrong.