http://www.kybrakennels.ca/?play=bestes-online-casinos-Seiten bestes online casinos Seiten
http://rotellakennels.com/?game=Braveheart-Automatenspiele Braveheart Automatenspiele
http://www.collincountyadultclinic.org/?play=united-kingdom-blackjack-online united kingdom blackjack online
I have expressed my displeasure to him that we are all now paying for the actions of a previous National government which signed Kyoto and that one mistake could be forgivable but not two.
John Key is keen for NZ to sign up to a second commitment period but his understanding of the implications of this are on a par with those of Keisha Castle Hughes and Lucy Lawless so Tim Groser should be able to talk him out of that if he chooses, although Groser did say this in Durban which is a little worrying.
New Zealand is calling for a “Kyoto plus” deal in which the U.S., China, India and other big greenhouse-gas emitters give stronger assurances that they will live up to their voluntary pledges to curb emissions by 2020, Groser, said in an interview in Durban.
Countries that are considering whether to stay in Kyoto need such guarantees to politically justify a decision to remain in the pact, Groser said.
Well China, India and other big emitters have given that assurance and the Europeans have committed to another Kyoto. So what will Tim do? I told him I could think of no patriotic NZer who would want NZ to sign up to binding commitments with financial penalties attached in return for others just giving assurances on voluntary pledges with no financial penalties for not meeting them. I will let you know when I get a response.
I personally think that politicians should not be allowed to commit NZ to international agreements without consulting us. That is what I asked for. I also asked that any future agreements do not include livestock emissions on the basis that they are harmless. Tim Groser has as much as acknowledged to me that the current approach to livestock emissions is not appropriate. He actually said that “NZ advocates for an appropriate approach to agricultural emissions in the next agreement” I take that to mean that the current approach is not appropriate, otherwise why would NZ be advocating for it? Is there any other way to take his statement? If there isn’t then such an admission is promising. More than we ever got from Nick Smith.
I hope you all have a lovely Easter