German Minister for the Environment Sigmar Gabriel on America’s New Climate Change Posture

-


Of all the evaluations of President Obama’s first one hundred days, I found this analysis by Stratfor CEO George Friedman to be the most compelling.
Friedman argues convincingly that the Obama administration has succeeded in changing the optics and atmospherics surrounding American foreign policy – but that the only substantial strategic shift has been in its engagement of Turkey.
But I think that Friedman misses one key point.
As German Federal Minister for the Environment Sigmar Gabriel makes clear in the clip above, the Obama administration, unlike the Bush administration before it, is committed to developing and implementing a serious post-Kyoto carbon emissions regime.
Environmentalists have been starving for American leadership on climate change – and those engaged in the weeds of this issue are already noticing a much more cooperative posture from the Obama team.
— Ben Katcher

Comments

4 comments on “German Minister for the Environment Sigmar Gabriel on America’s New Climate Change Posture

  1. NotBuyingIt says:

    I respectfully disagree with Sigmar Gabriel. The science doesn’t
    support the agenda you are promoting.

    Reply

  2. confusedponderer says:

    ‘American Leadership’ isn’t so much the point. That’s a very self flattering interpretation of something much more banal.
    It is about US participation, not leadership. Without US participation international initiatives on climate change will fail. Period.
    That has not so much to do with lack of US leadership but with matters or mere feasibility. In a globalised world everybody competes with everybody, including the US. Cutting carbon emissions costs money. There is no sense in implementing unilateral (say European) cuts on carbon when the biggest emitter abstains and by the way gets itself a competitive advantage of not having to pay for reduced emissions, while the others do.
    In light of that it is very unpersuasive for about everybody else, especially the developing nations, to impose on themselves burdens the US shirk.

    Reply

  3. David says:

    Climate collapse is the correct term as the earth’s ecosystems relate to current life forms, including humankind. And if we fail to mitigate dramatically what is unfolding at a faster pace than previously predicted, everything else will become a moot point.
    Nature and the universe will continue on according to the pretty clearly understood essential laws of nature, with or without us. Pity we aren’t more committed to staying along for the ride, or at least leaving that option for our grandchildren.
    The delayers and deniers desperately need to get a clue regarding the reality-based world. At least Obama, unlike his predecessor, values and has a grasp of facts, logic, and empirical reality.

    Reply

  4. don nash says:

    “Global warming or global climate change” would seem to be not
    the issue. Our world is faced with climate collapse. On a global
    scale. Surely IF our planet’s climate collapses, arguments about
    ‘warming’ or ‘change’ would be irrelevant. If the “computer model”
    propaganda won’t fit, we will have to acquit for parts heretofore
    unknown.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *