Comments:EU may see no reason to go to next major emitters meeting

Why i ask?
it seems strange to me that the EU is refusing to go if nothing is done now. this pushing back of deadlines is annoying me. from my point of view, if we do try to cut down emissions, and then we are wrong, oh well, we live. if we do nothing, and global warming is real, then we are in trouble. i want politions and major corperations to acually DO something rather than just talk about doing something in a few years. -222.155.84.230 12:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the move was trying to put some pressure on the US, because if the EU doesnt come the whole major emitters meeting would be a bit of a joke. And yes, I think there is no time to be lost, so pushing out decisions is certainly no help.


 * I agree with you that its better to act even if it turns out it wouldnt have been necessary, than to suffer the possible consequences of inaction. I do think a lot of major corporations are starting to say that something needs to be done policy wise, with some apparently taking action within the company as well.
 * Regards, and thanks for your comments Sean Heron 17:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I also believe that the EU is doing this as a boycott again the US. It seems to me that their position is that if the US is not going to have goals which will be able to address climate change in time, there is no point supporting them. The way I see it is if someone was going to make a conference on flood control for a plan to stop floods twenty years from now, and a flood is expected in the next ten, then the conference has no purpose. Good on the EU to step up to the plate and take a stand against the inaction of the other developed countries! I am ashamed of the Canadian government for not taking action for my country (We used to be leaders in peace and the environment)! --Jorago 20:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

USA strategy ?
140.122.97.3 12:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are the USA wanting to destroy Africa ?
 * and how the "very christian" Bush's government can him explain a choice which is and will kill millions ?
 * and how christians communities can support a such governement ?
 * I can't answer for the Bush administration of course, but I have heard people from American NGOs saying that a number of conservative politicians with evangelical backgrounds, or Evangelists themselves are saying that action must be taken to preserve nature (regardless of the precise science). So I think there might be a number of Christians that do not support the current governments stance (not that I wish to speak for them, this is just my guess).
 * Regards Sean Heron 17:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Money
its the only thing America understands (and hell given their huge debt the don't understand it too well) If the EU is serious about global warming its time for trade sanctions with the US! its time as a coalition of nations that we grow some balls and tell N.America where to go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.106.25 (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * will it be good for the economy? NOm ofc not!
 * will it be better than death? most definitely!
 * I have been wondering as well why the EU don't put more pressure on the US, but I think the matter is just not as simple as that. I think there is still hope (especially with regard to the upcoming US presidential election) that the US will come on board with stringent GHG emission targets, and in that case it would be work together, rather than against them I think. Regards Sean Heron 17:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with USA
If polluters like China & Mexico are not included in the talks, why add another burden to our already weak economy by adding more rules. We pollute so mch less than they do, why not wait for them to catch up?206.24.48.1 21:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)