On This Week, Will suggested developing nations "not interested" in climate change
SUMMARY: On This Week, George F. Will suggested that developing countries are "not interested" in climate change. In fact, during the recent United Nations General Assembly, numerous leaders from so-called developing nations said that their countries are particularly vulnerable to the impact of climate change and requested international cooperation to help mitigate its impact.
During a discussion of former Vice President Al Gore's recent Nobel Peace Prize award for his work on global warming, on the October 14 edition of ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Washington Post columnist George F. Will asserted that "the underdeveloped nations are not interested in this drama of the rich." In fact, during the recent United Nations General Assembly, numerous leaders from developing nations said that their countries are particularly vulnerable to the impact of climate change and requested international cooperation to help mitigate its impact. Will also cited a recent ABC News poll to assert that only 1 percent of the American people "considered global warming their top problem" -- despite other recent polls indicating that Americans find global warming to be an "important" and "serious" problem.
While opening his weekly "Roundtable" segment, host George Stephanopoulos stated: "George, when I heard this on Friday morning I said, this is designed to drive you, George Will, crazy. You don't like the Nobel Peace committee. You don't like Al Gore. You don't think global warming is a crisis." Will responded, "Right on all three counts." In discussing the policy implications of Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, Will stated that "the policy question is going to be ... how much are the developed nations -- because the underdeveloped nations are not interested in this drama of the rich -- how much are the developed nations willing to pay in cash, foregone productivity, inconvenience, circumscribed freedom in order to have no measurable effect on global warming?"
But contrary to Will's assertion that "the underdeveloped nations are not interested in the drama of the rich," the U.N. News Centre reported on October 3 that during the 2007 U.N. General Assembly, "Senior officials from a number of developing countries today called for greater international cooperation to help the world's poor and vulnerable States respond to climate change -- the central focus of this year's annual high-level debate of the General Assembly." It went on to state: "Seyoum Mesfin, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia, said Africa is 'exceptionally' vulnerable to the effects of climate change. 'So many of us live on the margins that the smallest difference in climate can mean the difference between sufficiency and famine, survival and death,' he said."
In addition, during the informal thematic debate on "climate change as a global challenge" convened by the president of the U.N. General Assembly on August 1, H.E. Mukhdoom Faisal Saleh Hayat, Pakistan's minister for environment, delivered a statement on behalf of the Group of 77 (made up of developing nations) and China, in which he asserted: "As we are all aware, Climate Change poses serious risks and challenges particularly to developing countries and therefore demands urgent global action and response. We are concerned about the fact that adverse effects of climate change and the associated phenomena including sea level rise and the increase in frequency and intensity of hurricanes, cyclones, floods and other weather patterns as well as deglaciation, drought and desertification threaten the sustainable development, livelihoods and the very existence of many developing countries and in particular countries in Africa, the LDCs [least-developed countries], the LLDCs [land-locked developing copuntries] and disaster prone developing countries. The Group of 77 and China, therefore, view these discussions as an integral part of the wider sustainable development debate." Moreover, in 2004, the IPS News reported that the delegate from Tanzania at the 10th Conference of Parties of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), "summed up the stance of the world's 48 least developed countries" in stating: "For our countries, climate change is more catastrophic than terrorism." IPS News further noted that the "[Tanzania] delegation's sentiments were echoed throughout the opening session of the conference."
Will also asserted, "The American people, sensible that they are, told ABC's recent poll that 1 percent of them considered global warming their top problem." But although a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted September 4-9 indicated that less than 1 percent of respondents consider global warming the "single most important issue in [their] choice for president" in 2008. However, several recent polls have found that Americans believe that global warming is indeed a significant problem and think the federal government should do more to address the issue. For example, a CBS News poll conducted January 18-21 found that 70 percent of respondents think that global warming is "causing a serious impact now," and a Washington Post-ABC News-Stanford University poll conducted April 5-10 found that 52 percent of respondents said that global warming was either "extremely" or "very" important" to them "personally," compared to a 17 percent who said it was "not important" (30 percent responded "somewhat important"). The Washington Post-ABC News-Stanford University also found that 70 percent of respondents think the "federal government should do more than it's doing now to try to deal with global warming," while a CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted January 19-21 found that 75 percent of respondents think that "the government should put new restrictions on emissions from cars and industrial facilities" to address global warming. Moreover, a November 2006 Zogby International post-election survey found that half of Americans who voted in the midterm elections said concern about global warming made a difference in who they voted for, while 58 percent of voters agreed that elected officials "should make combating global warming a high priority."
From the October 14 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: This week we're going to talk about it here on the roundtable with George Will, Sam Donaldson, and Cokie Roberts. But I do want to begin, though, and I have to do this for George with the Al Gore Nobel Peace Prize because, George, when I heard this on Friday morning I said, this is designed to drive you, George Will, crazy. You don't like the Nobel Peace committee. You don't like Al Gore. You don't think global warming is a crisis.
WILL: Right on all three counts. The New York Times, in one of those headlines that I'm sure it really believes is without editorial content, said, "Gore Vindicated." I suppose in that sense Yassir Arafat, world's foremost terrorist, was vindicated by getting the Nobel Peace Prize. It actually was two prizes. They say he's sharing the prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Climate change.
WILL: --on Climate Change, but they're doing two different things. The panel does the science. He does the hyperbole that gets people to pay attention to the science. And there are all kinds of scientists who are quite candid about this. The panel says over the next century we might anticipate a one-foot increase in the sea levels, approximately what we've had since 1860 without a planetary crisis. Mr. Gore says 20 feet, hence the scene in his movie where Ground Zero is inundated.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah.
WILL: Because he assumes all of the ice in Greenland melts, which scientists say could happen in a thousand years or more.
SAM DONALDSON (ABC News national correspondent): Whoa, whoa. There are now studies which suggest that within 30 years the polar ice cap may melt.
WILL: It's not the polar. We're talking about Greenland. Go ahead.
DONALDSON: Well it's not near enough for government work. Did Al Gore deserve the prize? I think he's pointed out something and he's been the leading exponent publicly of something that's very important. Now if you and Senator [James] Inhofe [R-OK] want to continue to stick your heads in the sand, I'm going to make it out. I'm old enough that I probably will get out of here before the earth collapse, but I have grandchildren, George.
WILL: How does the earth collapse?
DONALDSON: Well, the earth collapses --
COKIE ROBERTS (ABC News chief congressional analyst): Well there've always -- the truth is there have always been propagandists who make something popular. Go back to the revolution, you know, oh, you had Tom Payne and you had the Continental Congress, so you do have the two and they both work for a debate. But good for Al Gore. He worked hard on this. He got this prize. The question now is what does it mean politically?
STEPHANOPOULOS: The immediate question.
ROBERTS: That's right.
DONALDSON: Nothing.
ROBERTS: And so - that's what I think. I think that there have been all kinds of people who want him to get into this race, but the truth is the Democrats are happy with their candidates. There's no vacuum. Maybe he could run for the Republican nomination because they are looking for a candidate.
WILL: The American people, sensible that they are, told ABC's recent poll that 1 percent of them considered global warming their top problem. The policy question that we now come to, now that he's had his Oscar and the Nobel Prize --
STEPHANOPOULOS: And an Emmy too.
ROBERTS: Emmy.
WILL: The policy question is going to be --
ROBERTS: And he won the popular vote.
WILL: How much are the developed nations -- because the underdeveloped nations are not interested in this drama of the rich -- how much are the developed nations willing to pay in cash, forgone productivity, inconvenience, circumscribed freedom in order to have no measurable effect on global warming?
DONALDSON: Not long ago, the vast majority of the American people endorsed the strike against Iraq too. To tell me now that people haven't gotten onto this problem, as they should, is not to say the problem doesn't exist.
ROBERTS: Well, and --
DONALDSON: You cannot prove this by saying, people out there don't know yet, and they don't care.
WILL: We were talking politics.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And politically, even though there's not much debate inside each party right now on this issue, this is likely to be a big issue in the general election.

















This is one bit of nonsense I hear over and over, "It won't matter what we do because China and India are'nt doing anything" Since when did we look to China and India for global leadership? Try this on for size, the US aggressively leads the way with investment in alternative fuels, carbon taxes, light weight vehicles, solar collection etc. In other words really truly commits to addressing polution and climate change in a "land a man on the moon " type of effort, and then lets see how the rest of the world percieves us. Let's be the world leaders we can be.
how much are the developed nations willing to pay in cash, forgone productivity, inconvenience...
Inconvenience? What, like not being able to cruise to the TV studio in your Cadillac SUV?
May rising waters flood your seaside mansion, Mr. Will.
You missed it completely..how many people in foreign nations are driving Cadillac SUV's?
Ugh i misread your quote, ignore my last post.
I think MMfA is focusing on the wrong quote here. The IMPORTANT and FALSE quote is the one "developing nations not interested in the drama of the rich." Wrong Will, Bangladesh is quite sure that they don't want to lose even more coastline and citizens to flooding.
Will's quote about the developing nations not coming along as far as restricting their own emissions is true...and the Kyoto Protocols allow them to not be held to the same standard. China/India and other developing countries will never truly do what they should in terms of the environment until the see themselves level with the US and Europe in terms of economic prowess.
China/India and other developing countries will never truly do what they should in terms of the environment until the see themselves level with the US and Europe in terms of economic prowess.
I feel that is far to broad a statement. If you have been to China or heard any reports from China you know that their pollution problems have become so extreme (can't see the sun during daytime in the cities due to smog) and other problems that they are starting to move on the environment.
I don't know India but believe they would never expect to equal USA in economic prowess. Don't anybody kid yourself. It is the USA that is blocking progress in this area. We can't expect others to join the effort if the biggest producer of CO2 refuses to do anything.
From today's Alt-energy blogspot
The United States House of Representatives has passed an Energy Bill requiring utility companies to produce 15 per cent of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar power by 2020.
http://alt-e.blogspot.com/
Heck, they should have passed legislation to make it 100%. :-)
I wonder if Kennedy and Cronkite and Pelosi will now allow windmills out in Nantucket Sound and beyond the Gate? Nahh... that's for everyone else.
I don't recall Pelosi being against it, are you just projecting or know that to be true?
But I would be in favor of forcing the rich areas to have it in their back yards much the same way they made sure all the coal and oil plants ended up in the poor neighborhoods.
I would be in favor of placing them where they'll be most efficient and effective.
Wind farms are going up in the Midwest and plains states. Hundreds of them in a single installation many miles across. It's really something to see.
I wonder if Kennedy and Cronkite and Pelosi will now allow windmills out in Nantucket Sound and beyond the Gate? Nahh... that's for everyone else. - anotheramerican / Wednesday October 17, 2007 01:35:40
I wonder if wealthy conservatives are eager to live next to nuclear plants, strip-mined mountains and oil refineries.
Chris,
I assume your rather caustic comeback is just a little ti*-for-tat.
Did you know that Kennedy and Cronkite blocked efforts to put windmills out in Nantucket because it would affect their view.
I only gratuitously tossed in Pelosi as she represents San Francisco Liberals and they could possibly put windmills off that coast too. I really don't know how Pelosi would feel to have windmills.
The other flaw in your rejoinder is that the example I used with wind energy is clean and green. Your examples are the opposite. Either that or you are suggesting that Democrats themselves have no issue with living next to nuclear power plants and strip mines. But that would be silly wouldn't it. :-)
I only gratuitously tossed in Pelosi as she represents San Francisco Liberals and they could possibly put windmills off that coast too. I really don't know how Pelosi would feel to have windmills.
And there you have it, folks. Another baseless accusation by our fickle friends on the reich.
Oh, AA, in case you didn't notice, many Dems weren't given a choice to live next to those coal, oil and nuke plants. They were purposely put in those areas.
"I assume your rather caustic comeback is just a little ti*-for-tat."
It was. Your original post struck me as caustic as well, but it was not my intention to insult you.
"Did you know that Kennedy and Cronkite blocked efforts to put windmills out in Nantucket because it would affect their view."
Cronkite rather manfully admitted what he considered to be an over reaction when he first became aware of the project. While I'm not sure of his full thinking on this, he largely retracted his rejection of the project over four years ago. Kennedy's reaction was arguably less laudable. The "affecting their view" was one of the reasons Kennedy offered for his opposition and I think one can reasonably attribute the less-than-attractive NIMBY syndrome as part of his reasoning.
Even so, I think one can fairly debate whether the middle of Nantucket Sound is the best and only place one can put a wind farm without being a hypocrite. Even wind farms have environmental impact which should be open to local review. That said, the polling I've seen indicates that over 80% of liberal Massachusetts (and including a majority in Cape Cod) supports the project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wind
"The other flaw in your rejoinder is that the example I used with wind energy is clean and green. Your examples are the opposite."
Exactly my point. In general, those on the left have traditionally supported the cleaner alternative energy forms (solar, wind, etc.) while many conservatives have historically decried these as pipe dreams and rallied around nukes and big oil. Of course, as per NIMBY, those who support more oil refineries rarely want them on their own doorstep. This is why the Environmental Justice movement is on to something.
Your post seemed to be aimed at pointing out the hypocrisy of some wealthy individuals on the left for supporting alternative energy sources while not wanting them in their living space. Fair enough. My rejoinder was to point out what I see as the even bigger hypocrisy of those who push environmentally damaging technologies but who want them located elsewhere.
Where does George Will come up with this stuff?
Will is worse in some ways than Ann Coulter, because he has the guise of an intellectual; so people think he really knows what he's talking about.
"Will is worse in some ways than Ann Coulter, because he has the guise of an intellectual; so people think he really knows what he's talking about."
Mary, could Will be Ann Coulter "perfected"?
OOh, the humanity!!!
Now Mary - I just read one of your responses to one of my threads from yesterday - you don't always follow along well either you know!
I regret (or not) something I may or may not have said which makes things perfectly clear. Is that clear?! :J)
We have a number of wind farms out in the spacific NW. Representative Jay Inslee seens to have many ideas on furthering Green energy. We're about to start on a tidal energy project in Puget Sound.
I'd like to see more efforts towards Geothermal projects. The volcanic chain down the west coast, Hawii, and the Yellowstone Hot Spot seem to be good places to start. Oceanic thermal plants would also bring up nutriant rich water from the depths to the surface.
Nuclear power is one of those hot button topics. No hard evidence to give, but I've heard of reactors using subcritical masses, that produce only the waste isotopes that have some use, or decay quickly to a nominally safe isotope. Did you know all four isotopes of gold are radioactive? I'd be willing to store any you feel threatened by;-). Actually the stable isotope is at the edge of the diffinition of radioactive and the other three decay very quickly.
Don't think the nuclear option is truely neccessary. It is a compact source of energy which might be better used elsewhere, say in space.
How about letting George Will work on the clean up at Hanford (he probably thinks our Pacific NW is a 3rd world country); he could do a sort of a "dirty jobs" type reporting/commentary...