Mikhail Gorbachev accuses the west and does not have a critical word about Putin´s blatant aggression in Ukraine:
The 83-year-old former leader has accused the west – particularly the US – of “triumphalism” after the collapse of the communist bloc.
Gorbachev called for new trust to be built through dialogue with Moscow and suggested the west should lift sanctions imposed against senior Russian officials over its actions in eastern Ukraine.
Before arriving in Berlin, he gave pointed backing to Russian president Vladimir Putin, saying the Ukraine crisis offered an “excuse” for the US to victimise Russia: “I am absolutely convinced that Putin protects Russia’s interests better than anyone else.”
In an interview with the Interfax news agency, Gorbachev admitted that Putin was not above criticism, but he said he did not want others to pick on the Russian leader.
As they say in Finland, "A Russkie is always a Russkie, even when fried with butter".
Gorbachev apparently wants to secure himself a first class ticket in Putin´s thugocracy when it is time to leave ...
Saturday, 8 November 2014
Wednesday, 5 November 2014
The Republican victory brings an added bonus: Next year´s climate change jamboree in Paris will most likely be a repeat of Copenhagen
The Republican landslide in the US elections means that sanity prevails also in the "climate change" debate. Oklahoma senator James Inhofe will again become the chair of the Senate´s environment committee. The IPCC and the international climate alarmist community can forget about getting a "meaningful" new climate change agreement in Paris 2015.
This is how one warmist blog summarized the elections already before results were in:
Oklahoma senator James Inhofe would become chair of the Senate's environment and public works committee. The committee has the ability to hold up, change, or scrap any climate change legislation. It also holds regular hearings on matters related to climate policy.
Inhofe describes climate change as a "hoax" and is strongly opposed to Obama's clean power plan. He became known for aggressively questioning the validity of climate science in his previous tenure as the committee's chair between 2003 and 2007.
If the Republican's win, climate skeptic committee chairs such as Inhofe, Ted Cruz, and Ron Johnson could also move to cut funding to those charged with implementing Obama's climate plan, such as the Environmental Protection Agency.
Combined, the committee chairs would make the Senate altogether less climate-friendly.
That could spook other governments in the run-up to next year's international climate negotiations. If they don't think the US's more proactive approach to curbing emissions is going to last, they are less likely to agree to taking action themselves.
Global issues
The US's efforts to curb emissions and the world's prospects of taking action are largely synonymous.
Those unsure of the Senate's international influence need only to think back to 1997, when a Republican Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. That decision meant the world's only binding agreement to cut emissions was hamstrung from the start. Many say it never recovered.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change yesterday spelled out the dangers of failing to tackle climate change in the clearest terms yet. How the US votes tomorrow will have a significant impact on the type of action the world agrees to next year.
That's why environmental campaigners have spent millions promoting climate-friendly candidates. And it's why it shouldn't just be US citizens watching closely when the polls close.
This is how one warmist blog summarized the elections already before results were in:
Oklahoma senator James Inhofe would become chair of the Senate's environment and public works committee. The committee has the ability to hold up, change, or scrap any climate change legislation. It also holds regular hearings on matters related to climate policy.
Inhofe describes climate change as a "hoax" and is strongly opposed to Obama's clean power plan. He became known for aggressively questioning the validity of climate science in his previous tenure as the committee's chair between 2003 and 2007.
If the Republican's win, climate skeptic committee chairs such as Inhofe, Ted Cruz, and Ron Johnson could also move to cut funding to those charged with implementing Obama's climate plan, such as the Environmental Protection Agency.
Combined, the committee chairs would make the Senate altogether less climate-friendly.
That could spook other governments in the run-up to next year's international climate negotiations. If they don't think the US's more proactive approach to curbing emissions is going to last, they are less likely to agree to taking action themselves.
Global issues
The US's efforts to curb emissions and the world's prospects of taking action are largely synonymous.
Those unsure of the Senate's international influence need only to think back to 1997, when a Republican Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. That decision meant the world's only binding agreement to cut emissions was hamstrung from the start. Many say it never recovered.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change yesterday spelled out the dangers of failing to tackle climate change in the clearest terms yet. How the US votes tomorrow will have a significant impact on the type of action the world agrees to next year.
That's why environmental campaigners have spent millions promoting climate-friendly candidates. And it's why it shouldn't just be US citizens watching closely when the polls close.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)