Comments:Climate Negotiations soon to conclude in Bali; UN "concerned by the pace of things"

Moving ahead
Is there any reason why the world cannot move ahead without the US, Canada, and Japan and leave an option for them to join in whenever they chose to do so? I know that that defeats the whole concept of working together but I seem to remember older ideas (UN, league of Nations, Human rights treaties) like this begin started by a few lead countries then having others opt in when they chose to do so. Would it not be ironic to have the previously "leading" countries written down in the history books as followers in the movement against global warming? --Jorago 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats actually pretty much what Al Gore said in his speech adressing the delegates here yesterday. I don't understand the process well enough to say if this is viable or not, but Yvo de Boer today in the Press briefing was making a pretty contrary statement (saying that all documents that are decided on by the Plenary have to be passed unanimously, with no objections). And I think there has been a certain amount of movement that has already been taken, regardless of what the US (and others) are currently doing. Think the EU pledge to cut to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 no matter what, or Chinese energy effieciency standards for cars.
 * Regards Sean Heron 07:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have heard bits of the Al Gore's speech. I just wish that every country could get on board with these serious matters. I am always disappointed when I hear that Canada is refusing to act against climate change before the year 2050, if only I had been able to vote in the last election (not that it would have made much of a difference). As grim as the news is, thanks for the reports and replies! --Jorago 08:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)