This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/jun/10/observer-letters-us-paris-climate-agreement
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Letters: the US has form on ratifying climate change agreements | |
| (about 1 month later) | |
| Unfortunately, the US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement (Comment) is not the first time it has done this with global climate change agreements. Just as it did not ratify the Kyoto protocol in 2001, where the emphasis was on the developed world mitigating against their contribution to increasing CO2 concentration. | Unfortunately, the US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement (Comment) is not the first time it has done this with global climate change agreements. Just as it did not ratify the Kyoto protocol in 2001, where the emphasis was on the developed world mitigating against their contribution to increasing CO2 concentration. |
| Fortunately, not all of US thinks like the Donald Trump presidency, with up to 10 states, such as California, agreeing to continue with their efforts to reduce their carbon footprint substantial over the next few decades. | Fortunately, not all of US thinks like the Donald Trump presidency, with up to 10 states, such as California, agreeing to continue with their efforts to reduce their carbon footprint substantial over the next few decades. |
| What clearly needs to happen is that if the US does not want to be a signatory to climate change agreements then we should look at how these states can individually join the Conference of the Parties (COP), the governing body of the agreement. The secretariat of the UNFCCC in Bonn will have to find ways to facilitate this as it’s the best way of bringing on board those American states that want to make their contribution to the global challenge of climate change while sidestepping the federal state. | What clearly needs to happen is that if the US does not want to be a signatory to climate change agreements then we should look at how these states can individually join the Conference of the Parties (COP), the governing body of the agreement. The secretariat of the UNFCCC in Bonn will have to find ways to facilitate this as it’s the best way of bringing on board those American states that want to make their contribution to the global challenge of climate change while sidestepping the federal state. |
| This may also help in future instances where a national state disagrees with its regions on how far progress needs to and can be made in reduction of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.Murad QureshiLondon NW1 | This may also help in future instances where a national state disagrees with its regions on how far progress needs to and can be made in reduction of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.Murad QureshiLondon NW1 |
| Wider benefits of automation | Wider benefits of automation |
| Tom Kibasi’s assertion that “policy is set in the... interests of the City of London, not the country as a whole”, correctly identifies a huge problem (“Britain’s economy is broken. We desperately need new ideas”, Comment). In 2012, of nearly £2,300bn created by commercial banks, nearly 90% went into property or financial speculation and only just over 10% into businesses that benefit the real economy; such low investment reduced productivity, wages and growth for the majority. And while further automation ought to be a shared benefit in shorter hours without income loss, as Kibasi identifies, it is only likely to be applied to low-wage jobs whose participants are unlikely to benefit. | Tom Kibasi’s assertion that “policy is set in the... interests of the City of London, not the country as a whole”, correctly identifies a huge problem (“Britain’s economy is broken. We desperately need new ideas”, Comment). In 2012, of nearly £2,300bn created by commercial banks, nearly 90% went into property or financial speculation and only just over 10% into businesses that benefit the real economy; such low investment reduced productivity, wages and growth for the majority. And while further automation ought to be a shared benefit in shorter hours without income loss, as Kibasi identifies, it is only likely to be applied to low-wage jobs whose participants are unlikely to benefit. |
| Yet it is over 20 years since Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess. So it should clearly be possible to automate higher paid and allegedly more complex jobs, such as investment banking, company board membership, hedge fund speculation, accountancy or the law, in the interests of the wider population. If that were done, a pound to a penny, ways would be found to ensure that the benefits were shared at least among those illustrious groups and hopefully wider!David MurrayWallingtonSurrey | Yet it is over 20 years since Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess. So it should clearly be possible to automate higher paid and allegedly more complex jobs, such as investment banking, company board membership, hedge fund speculation, accountancy or the law, in the interests of the wider population. If that were done, a pound to a penny, ways would be found to ensure that the benefits were shared at least among those illustrious groups and hopefully wider!David MurrayWallingtonSurrey |
| Blame the mothers | Blame the mothers |
| I was amused to read Rachel Cooke’s article demanding more feminism in the kitchen (Comment). I was born in 1943 when feminism was not concept familiar to my working-class mother. However, she was determined my younger brother and I would not grow up to be, as she put it, “helpless” like my dad. (He had talents, but domesticity was not one of them!) From an early age, we were taught to do simple cookery, to use a sewing machine, to darn socks, to sew badges on our cub and scout uniforms and so on. She would build this into our play. When I was working, I did what I could in the kitchen and around the house. Since retirement, my wife and I agreed that I would do most of the cooking, while she preferred to do most of the housework. This has worked well for some 14 years. My brother also does most of the cooking in his marriage. | I was amused to read Rachel Cooke’s article demanding more feminism in the kitchen (Comment). I was born in 1943 when feminism was not concept familiar to my working-class mother. However, she was determined my younger brother and I would not grow up to be, as she put it, “helpless” like my dad. (He had talents, but domesticity was not one of them!) From an early age, we were taught to do simple cookery, to use a sewing machine, to darn socks, to sew badges on our cub and scout uniforms and so on. She would build this into our play. When I was working, I did what I could in the kitchen and around the house. Since retirement, my wife and I agreed that I would do most of the cooking, while she preferred to do most of the housework. This has worked well for some 14 years. My brother also does most of the cooking in his marriage. |
| I would therefore suggest to Rachel the fault for men’s shortcomings in the kitchen today may lie with their mothers, some of whom were probably feminists but preferred to allow their sons from a young age to get away with doing nothing around the house. By the time they are teenagers and young adults, is it not too late?Bill HodsonWolverhampton | I would therefore suggest to Rachel the fault for men’s shortcomings in the kitchen today may lie with their mothers, some of whom were probably feminists but preferred to allow their sons from a young age to get away with doing nothing around the house. By the time they are teenagers and young adults, is it not too late?Bill HodsonWolverhampton |
| Iranian threat is all too real | Iranian threat is all too real |
| Your editorial (Comment)portrays Iran as a burgeoning democracy that serves as an “international bogeyman” for an America that is under Israel’s sinister control. These are views typically espoused by conspiracy theorists or worse. The truth is that Iran is a radical theocracy that disdains human rights and exports violence. Tehran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, its actions raising alarm bells across the region, from Jerusalem to Riyadh and across the Gulf. Israel and its neighbours have no need for imaginary bogeymen; the threats the Iranian regime pose to their security are regrettably very tangible.Yiftah CurielSpokesperson, Embassy of IsraelLondon | Your editorial (Comment)portrays Iran as a burgeoning democracy that serves as an “international bogeyman” for an America that is under Israel’s sinister control. These are views typically espoused by conspiracy theorists or worse. The truth is that Iran is a radical theocracy that disdains human rights and exports violence. Tehran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, its actions raising alarm bells across the region, from Jerusalem to Riyadh and across the Gulf. Israel and its neighbours have no need for imaginary bogeymen; the threats the Iranian regime pose to their security are regrettably very tangible.Yiftah CurielSpokesperson, Embassy of IsraelLondon |
| It’s all in the lie of the land | It’s all in the lie of the land |
| You report on possible falls in house prices (“Yes, house prices are falling: but they probably won’t fall quickly”, Business). They would have risen less and could even now fall more if the government took action on land. Successive governments have been happy to restrict the availability of land for building, but having distorted the market on the supply side, none has been courageous enough to do the obvious thing and restrict the price of the land. As a result, some lucky people have had windfalls without any effort on their part and prices have been higher than they should be. Crocodile tears over the plight of the younger generations is not enough.Geoffrey BaileyTaunton | You report on possible falls in house prices (“Yes, house prices are falling: but they probably won’t fall quickly”, Business). They would have risen less and could even now fall more if the government took action on land. Successive governments have been happy to restrict the availability of land for building, but having distorted the market on the supply side, none has been courageous enough to do the obvious thing and restrict the price of the land. As a result, some lucky people have had windfalls without any effort on their part and prices have been higher than they should be. Crocodile tears over the plight of the younger generations is not enough.Geoffrey BaileyTaunton |
| UK news | UK news |
| The Observer | The Observer |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |