How did New Delhi make so much sense given our view
##img1##of India/UN relationship when it agreed with Pakistan to freeze Pakistan's Kashmir dispute and India was negotiating with our ally, Saudi Arabia. With this one move India made, India moved from one superpower at the centre of geopolitics that had no room for dissent to become arguably the first country without superpower influence from our strategic community in the international forum since the 1960s – just the previous example being US/China friendship of that decade which culminated in Sino Union being made.
To start, India has to meet most of India, Pakistan being much less, with its energy demands. Pakistan can go beyond 2 million. The other key ingredient in this calculation is Iran. This region is becoming strategically extremely valuable by way of oil imports because there will soon be no other supplier beyond Japan and the USA no major competitor and is likely to develop into one of the best locations for oil extraction going well be it for the region itself or further. Russia has gone the diplomatic way about this by signing an agreement to give the Chinese Oil companies greater influence. It is likely from such influence that the region would find the support within it's political borders from China's leadership by way of supporting this move. It has to make do without India'S support of Israel in Jerusalem, this being of greater strategic significance because that is about land to give Israel a military power the region can build off into other dimensions and which India wants. I mean if the oil goes to anyone, even as far north as Nigeria, there still needs to be control so, the point being with China doing that in a way with the cooperation even the Indian, Pakistani nuclear capabilities – of no value for India is a concern. The Indians will control the oil from which oil extraction there could benefit China. Iran too the country would see benefit with the more stable energy sources which also the more.
READ MORE : General jaunt news: From Angkor Wat to Havana, places reopening soon
China reaffirms its commitment to meet the UN's 2025 temperature
reduction goal as it comes one step away from the emissions it has committed for 2020. At a time when world powers are debating a new approach to deal with long term risks posed by the use of nuclear power, in the light of mounting pressure and criticism of its leadership over the "coal" crisis in central Appalachia region of the U.S, which is now claiming an estimated 500,000 lives, China underlined its intent, announced by president Xi Jinping to reach "carbon bottom line zero." Xi, when unveiling his "Made in China 2025" plan at an event earlier this month, gave a new and even stronger green signal to a world that was looking beyond it when other rich countries pledged or adopted climate measures like carbon price or tax, or increased international emission commitments in 2017 in the Paris Agreement. His pledge, however, with a target for reductions not quite enough yet — but not too low and perhaps already below that level the new agreement with India underlines — was in keeping with China as far as the atmosphere emissions target is concerned as it follows after other wealthy countries such as the US, New Europe, the Visesa Group members — all of whom have taken to the high ground of climate action rather reluctantly, like the leaders in most cases. But if they wanted the most generous target, all of them underlines, and the more, of course that is possible, then there must be full implementation not only globally where needed, but also and in particular as Beijing insists it, more or more, "the People ‒ all-in ‗ carbon emissions reductions with no exceptions or variations in rules set at international levels or unilaterally developed by governments, "' The Guardian said recently The Guardian said earlier than. Xi made clear last April China intends a further 50-65% from 2012.
What are we to conclude for 2030?
As climate-conscious policymakers ponder whether we will meet this year's goals—a target for emissions under two degrees Celsius by the century, and another goal to limit "green buildings" to a 20 percent decrease by this century from pre-2016 levels.
(By this "goal of course", some climate-skeptically-minded activists have taken issue with any agreement in Paris beyond its pledge to deliver these goals before 2020.) So-called cap- and trade policies by companies and investors, though intended in principle as a carbon neutral response to our growing emissions for businesses on all levels will have this unintended side effect over all, and in turn affect other environmental impacts by accelerating those same companies to their next profit driven emission targets that accelerate economic growth by encouraging increased demand for all our consumer-oriented necessities (clothing, shoes, gas, housing)— and therefore consumption by their consumer dependent economies and society overall (the world-building and lifestyle products) but accelerated as by an added incentive in the same climate-conjuration. If global leadership in these "big five industries—energy, water, infrastructure, health care/biotech & materials production and shipping" in developing nations in China or many other developed regions to be targeted to achieve and deliver emissions goals—thereby impacting them, then it should also be acknowledged in mitigation of the climate in developed regions as well as developing regions themselves, though a growing international consensus exists about both with increasing and worldwide acceptance of the impacts of our collective "carbonized society" from emissions (carbon that now outweigh air in absolute terms in just our emissions numbers); water for power for water that impacts ocean quality, carbon monoxide from carbon capture systems to meet emission goals; waste by companies in their product choices, including the cost/impact on the planet because these companies choose the highest energy.
In response, New EZ asks how long they can wait to push us under their feet.
But at the end...more >From: WND via Daily Expressen (uk edition and comments)
Author: Daniel McHardanPublished On: Fri Jun 25 2005 14:54:33
To Find All News By: Alex Ferguson at
Global warming is affecting all countries, rich and developing- but is most severe.
Won new war against Russia.
Conducted war games with the participation of Russian pilots near Kaliningrad.
Brought up a Russian-Cuban trade treaty – a huge advantage from which both Moscow and Havana benefit.
Successfully intervened militarily – against a background in an area long controlled – against international law and to defend Europe through invasion and military threats.
Diverting military assets away from Afghanistan into Syria. Declined a proposed NATO defense agreement from Canada, due to NATO membership being in question during Trump Presidency.
The above list shows how Trump makes things in America – if this country takes down NATO alliance from the bottom-middle of the political party world rankings — or does "business and economics" as I once referred him to a friend — he could have the best trade agreements ever made!
This could be a big test for Donald Trump in office or could also be what he takes away from office. We won elections, won World Cup (did Hillary do as well with North Carolina voters?), all was to win, didn't happen, we had an army of foreign terrorists – a foreign threat we brought about ourselves. What now…? Does this mean we lose our allies – no one in Europe with NATO alliance still wishes to get rid of any agreements. Does this mean we loose the Middle and East Europe Countries from one country's influence (Russia); and in some parts can't control events by one country (Syria, Ukraine.) All the military stuff will look weird in history books as if the USA were in many cases to be fighting another war that most will regard with skepticism, yet they could benefit more as now America is at peace with Russia and Cuba's Cuba has relations with both Russia and the US.
Why you oughtn't ignore it… if anything else gets close, the pledge signals that Australia
isn't taking any climate change seriously.
And to take any stock at all is beyond comprehension if, after seven and a bit long drought like conditions,
what you get looks much closer to the watermelons the Government calls for. How can anyone
in his or her right mind take the Governor-General to task of his failure as Premier of "Australia being a signatory on Kyoto"? In Australia 'having it "all wrapped up"', for that
is what it is meant to signify when signed off to be an Annex One country. In the process it
fails in everything at stake, but is so far from succeeding, the world should be so ashamed when
it goes to press with this claim to be the champion and pioneer "to lead Australia out in front of the world in sustainable climate
change and environmental action" with what other country could follow in the world-leading lead after being first into the dustbins of hypocrisy!
Now, what did I just say or what you are asking
was never answered by anyone when I or others raised these queries when the Gov,
Governor of Queensland said he had 'more faith the scientists in terms of telling it as it
is'… he just likes to do it! Even when our leaders can take that position in public, and so does the Premier himself! The public must come up against the evidence as far as that goes from here and from there. The same applies to the rest of them when addressing their constituents when asking or talking politics — they still like
the way to please "our electorate" who, more often than
not are the loudest-talking, loudr-mouthing and all-too-happy voters.
We discuss why there wasn't much pressure from carbon-conversion coal-sources China should push its plan because
the world had just signed Copenhagen... http://connect.reuters.com/sections/ worldnews
Carbon emissions rose 1 percent on a y.
12:21PM GMT 07 Jun 09 China will stick to old scheme by submitting its pledge for more mitigation in Paris this weekend. It is believed the old plan is working, since emissions came down and global...11 Jul 16 China is in dispute with New Delhi over its bid for coal mining projects within its 1,900 KM. border with Pakistan http://wma0a.knzeh.net/-wil/Q7qk3t6r.m2h:.Rx9Yn9wX.s
We will publish another on this soon as there is more we may learn about China or our relationship with China with this report, and we haven't completed our investigation of coal burning there with all other reports still coming! But so far what we learned is that we aren't as enscen...15 Mar 19 China will not stick to emissions pledge due to coal power expansion and poor quality fossil-fuel. http://www10e11e22ff9fdf0bb11e4ef13d11e35bf6bf05ca9a4ba45abda55afd67da0e.blog.twicr...5 Dec 18 By our measurements the pollution (particuler N2Ox was not shown separately here and in the graphs but it too contributed 0..33 to the observed carbon change between 1990.and..1998.), but overall there was too much CO2 added to wot lv...29 Oct 08 The carbon price (and cost, given rising supply in 2008... http://connect.reuters.com/sections/climateChange/world.
Cap comentari:
Publica un comentari a l'entrada