A deal to make a deal?
A climate change deal has been done. Tony Blair has hailed it as "a major, major step forward". Green campaigners will be rather less enthusiastic.
The case for this deal is:
• It's the first time that the Americans have agreed to participate in a post-Kyoto process.
• They've agreed to go via the UN and not to bypass it.
• President Bush has signed up to the need to make substantial cuts in emissions.
• The Kyoto deal was never ratified by the US Congress. If anyone can deliver a post-Kyoto deal it's George Bush.
The case against it is:
• The US has still held out against setting a specific goal for cuts in greenhouse gases. Only they and Russia did so.
• This is, in the end, only an agreement to try to seek an agreement.
• President Bush has made clear that he won't make cuts if the Chinese and the Indians don't do it. They may refuse.
You decide.
I'm 
Comments
I don't really care what the wording of the deal is. I'll be convinced if Bush actually DOES something to cut emissions, but not otherwise.
I was first taught about the greenhouse effect in school at the age of 11. 20 years later it is widely acknowledged to be of human origin yet the leaders of the world have still not been able to agree to do anything about it. How anyone could look on yesterday's "agreement" as anything other than yet another pitiful failure. They don't care because for some reason the health of the economy is viewed as more important than the health of the environment,a step of logic that even a 6 year old could understand doesn't make sense, and because they won't have to deal with the consequences of their inaction.
Well I suppose an agreement to try and seek an agreement is better than no agreement to seek an agreement. Agreed?
Action please. We have heard enough spin and speeches. I have lost faith in these so called world leaders. They don't really care for the poor. They all put their business interests first.