Sad to say that this will only be a another talk-shop. Cameron & Co can't even be bothered to go.

Everybody would have to play their part

you seem to be playing the part of a Tory quite well Nick. Do stop.

Living within our means would have meant something sensible like not more than two children per woman...or man...

20 years ago we got hot air and this year looks like more of the same. Though of course that all Nick can do is bemoan the state of the world in newspapers is telling of his real role in the coalition as tea boy.

we should encourage a greed free system for the progress of all humanity . our future should not depend on few greedy people .

The opening paragraph is surely Swiftian satire at its best given the intervening twenty years? Or is Nick really that deluded?

I love when clegg shows his mug on this site. The comments are so much fun. I've got my deck chair and my popcorn out for this evening entertainment.

Boooo! Clegg Booooo!

Whoa there Nick baby, have you checked behind you to see all those Tories enthusiastically following you? No, sadly you know how anti anything sensible they are and yet you still act the degrading cheerleader. One day a team of psychologists will produce a major study on the malleability of the human psyche based on your moral contortions.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Nick.. if I were a touch cynical ..which I'm not.. I would think one of your interns has written this article to which you have attached your name.

I have to say I refuse to join in with all the name calling and insults you have to suffer on here.

You are better than this..you are a decent man.. who is sadly misunderstood.. and whom history will judge in a favourable light.

But with all the cutbacks.. No jobs... No NHS.. No future..

Can you lend me a fiver?

governments agreed that we must start living within our means.

That sounds a bit like austerity to me. Not sure that kind of talk is popular around here.

Indeed, we need hard headlines. A population limit for each country to start with. Everything else won't work without a population limit. It's not just greenhouse gases or some isolated factor. Dare to look at the whole picture.

On each of these fronts, ambition will be key. We must revive the spirit of our predecessors to get the world on to a more sustainable path. Twenty years on from the Earth summit, we need to get back on track.

Liberal Democrats Election pledge for 2015. Starting early, aren't you Nick?

You are going? ! Why not Dave? Doesn't he care about The World?

Second, Rio must set out a plan for the future.

Shouldn't this be first? Because without A World there would be no economy to sort out.

Let's make sure: there is no deal to turn. Special sum it, tell the truth.

US, UK, Germany and then some didn't even bother to go. bye bye rainforest.

Well, of course to do all these things Nick, the first thing you're going to have to do is fuck-off your neoliberal ideology, as it is wholly incompatible with ANY degree of resource conservation or enlightened stewardship of the planet

Do your bit for the environment Cleggy, don't bother flying back, stay in Brazil.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

benefit of the doubt Cleggy.
But ask yourself this;If you were in opposition, what would you really, and I mean really, be saying about this Government's green credentials?
I think you'd be acting unimpressed.

Living within our means would have meant something sensible like not more than two children per woman...or man...

You already knew this, didn't you:

Clegg was born in 1967 in Chalfont St Giles in Buckinghamshire. He is the third of four children of Nicholas P. Clegg CBE, the chairman of United Trust Bank,[3] and a former trustee [...]

The opening paragraph is surely Swiftian satire at its best given the intervening twenty years? Or is Nick really that deluded?

Can't say I've read it, but I'm betting on the second of those...

This thread will be closing in a few moments. It will reopen again in the morning. Thanks for all your comments so far.

Aw, come on! Leave it open all night. We'll be good!

What an imaginative choice of author for an article appealing for governments to stick to their commitments. Perhaps Brian Blessed next for an article on moderate language.

Get lost.

still all in all a very nice jolly on exes -and first class air travel on the taxpayer

The state of the planet is a shared responsibility

But not it's ownership and control apparently.

I say let those who feel they have special entitlements to it pay the full cost of maintaining it.

Sounds well motivated, Nick, I'm sure:

Three ideas:
- Count natural capital
- Set out plans "with clear ambitions and hard deadlines"
- "Bring business in"

That innocent last point is a contradiction. You can't tell them "it's in your interests to use resources responsibly" - they know better, it's not. The prime focus of business is there to make a profit. Obviously. Everything else is either philanthropy, or luxury (like Xanadu).

That includes some niche applications where conservation is profitable ("bio-vegetables picked by honest farmers", or "buy a teak table, we save a tree").

But in the main, it says "use up the resources before the competition can. Burn that oil while there's any left - and buy renewable energy patents for afterwards when it's run out"

So the only answers are regulation, and public opinion.

Final point: If you really want to help the environmental movement, might it be an idea to pull out of the coalition ?

Or at least, steer clear of the issue?

The Clegg brand is a liability these days, I'm sorry to say: Read the comments, and compare and contrast with the flat-lining Lib Dem polls.

It's not popular with anyone who understands what it means.

Clegg's goals for the summit do seem to be sound but I think getting any form of concrete agreement will be almost impossible given the current global economic situation because lets face it the Americans and the Chinese have never really been that interested in environmental conservation and sustainable development.

Malthusian claptrap

So, what about the environment then? The general drift of this article seems to be that we must be getting our Western Union money transfers into place in order to stop brazilians cutting down and flooding rain forests and such like. Not sure how that is going to help. Protecting the environment starts with everybody stopping littering for example. But one doesn't really need to fly off to Rio to state this. So it will be a none starter like anything else that actually involves people doing something other than talking.

We have a moral duty to help prevent this suffering, and we all share responsibility
............................................................................................................................................................................

Libdems could have stopped a bit of suffering at home.

Clegg pontificating on "moral duty", another day, another cleggism.

With a bunch of psychopaths ruling the roost in big business, asking nicely, appealing to their better nature or asking them to think of the children that will grow up in an impoverished, polluted, overcrowded world, is a complete waste of time.

We need something more radical than tinkering at the edges, which is all Rio 1992 ever led to. But when Cameron can't even be arsed to attend this one, well so much for his lies about 'greenest government ever'. Unless by 'green', he meant incompetent & out of its depth.

Too many people still lack food: tonight, one billion will go hungry.

Actually, there are too many people! That's another inconvenient truth to go along with the inconvenient truth about climate change. The neo Christian discourse of helping everyone is just another part of the problem. You want to feed all these people? Why? So you feel better about yourself?! I don't get it.

By trying to feed people you're inevitably boosting world population. And over population is the problem right now. It's why lots of people are living in poverty and pollution etc. Brave and honourable politics has to recognize this rather than buying into Bob Geldof type short termism, i.e. 'we need the money now!' That helps no-one, other than to temporarily put food on someone's plate. The politics of sense will have to be hard arsed.

Climate change is one of those issues - along with opposition to military adventures, the renewal of Trident and excessive boardroom pay - where Liberals can offer a distinct voice. it is a voice of course that occupies the high moral ground and can seem irksome and sanctimonious to those grappling with the compromises of being in power.

It's a useful voice nonetheless but one that is never likely to be more than minority one especially in times of economic gloom. A fair chunk of the Conservative party are climate change sceptics and anxious to see Trident renewed simply because Trident is manly, tough and no-nonsense thus suiting their self-image. The Labour party is often compromised because they must always be seen to be defending jobs - hence the delight with which representatives of Unite greeted the news that Rolls Royce had been given the contract to commence work on some of the engineering projects for Trident. I've seen in the past union reps arguing strongly for preserving jobs in factories that sell weaponry to dodgy dictators worldwide.

The type of rhetoric employed here by Clegg defines his party well. It's a bit windy and well-meaning but a trifle pious. He's not wrong and there is a place for this type of stance in politics but that time clearly is not now because no-one is listening

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

... far-flung conflicts drive extremism on our streets.

Only because we invite Somalis and Pakistanis here. Immigration is a big part of the problem there! I don't condone all our stupid wars overseas, by the way. The irony is that the people, like Blair, who started those wars are also the same people that support the free flow of Afghans etc into the UK. More of the Christian 'bomb them and feed them' BS.

Rio's reprise must set hard deadlines for development

Why is everything in the English press about Rio bloody Ferdinand.

Look at the job Mr. Clegg's wife landed shortly after the coalition was formed!

On 8 June 2010 the Board of Directors of Acciona, S.A., the Spanish renewable energy infrastructure projects and water management conglomerate, announced its intention to table the appointment of Miriam González Durántez as a non-executive Director at its forthcoming AGM to be held on 10 June 2010

So the Guardian thought fit to have the Deputy Prime Minister of a government that is going backwards on green issues preach the Rio message. Does the paper fear Clegg lacks sufficent opportunities to twist the truth?

One thing the rich elite can be certian about is that when it rains on one it rains on all. The climate does not care how much money you have and it really doesn't matter if you live in a 20 bedroom mansion or a 2 bed terrace as neither will float. Time to wake up and face the consequences of climate change before it really is too late ...

Actually, there are too many people!

Brave and honourable politics has to recognize this ..... The politics of sense will have to be hard arsed.

So how exactly are you proposing to reduce the number of people? Sounds suspiciously like a mealy mouthed way of advocating mass killing/genocide to me.

Not really. The elite have a very big umbrella to protect them from the rain. It's called money.

Wow, this paper's so hitched to the crumbling Lib-Dem wagon that I can't even be mean about Clegg without it being deleted. The Guardian still hasn't admitted they got it wrong, have they? I suppose I could take that evidence that they were in on the ruse too, but as a life-long reader I find that quite painful to contemplate.

I'll probably get modded for saying the same thing again, but I'll keep saying it. Clegg is a proven liar and has effectively admitted it by saying he didn't believe in the Keynesian platform on which he stood for election. Therefore he pitched for left-wing votes while planning to deliver them to the most extreme, swivel-eyed bunch of rabid ideologues that Britain has ever had the misfortune to be governed by. I just don't understand why the media didn't give this astonishing admission the attention it deserved. It's probably the single biggest case of electoral fraud in British history, and the man who perpetrated it is our deputy PM instead of being punished.

So, that means I refuse to take at value anything the man says. Even if he said something evidently true like "I think kittens are cute", I'd start wondering what the hell is wrong with kittens and whether they're safe to be around.

Nick Clegg should never be forgiven for his betrayal.

" Twenty years ago the world's leaders did something tremendous. Meeting at the historic Earth summit in Rio, governments agreed that we must start living within our means. They saw that hoovering up or wrecking precious natural resources to get rich quick today would only leave us poorer tomorrow. Development would have to become more sustainable. Everybody would have to play their part"

Watching the posturing "worthies", power brokers and politicians jetting to Rio to mouth platitudes and exhale hot air, the mother earth wept uncontrollably.

Tomorrow morning I arrive in Brazil for Rio's 20-year reprise. I don't expect this week's meeting will be as show-stopping as that in 1992, but it matters just as much.

Yes of course "it matters just as much" to the new generation of posturing "worthies", power brokers and politicians jetting to Rio to mouth platitudes and exhale hot air. For these "leaders of the "people", it is a good chance to network and fill the contact address books for making a fortune post active politics

Clegg's delusion has nothing on you lot, you know.

The Guardian prints an article by the deputy prime minister about a major summit and you reckon that means they're "backing" the Lib Dems? Give. It. Up. What Clegg says is newsworthy whether you like it or agree with it or not. And no, getting modded under a Clegg article doesn't mean IT@S AN EVIL NEOLIBERAL CONSPIRACY ZOMG, it probably means you broke the comment policy. Believe it or not, what randomers say on the internet isn't that important. To anyone. I find that a toughie myself, but alas tis true.

Also if Miliband showed the slightest sign of growing a spine I think the Graun would swing enthusiastically behind him in a jiffy, inasmuch as any newspaper has to "back" anyone at this point.

Calm down, people-

Democracy dictates that the party with the most votes should have the most power. Britain voted for the Tories. This is not Clegg's fault. I'm sure he voted Liberal Democrat.

It would be undemocratic for Clegg to insist on the coalition being run solely on Lib Dem policies (and the Tories would never agree to it). It would be expensive for him to have refused the coalition agreement and caused another general election (which probably would have produced the same result).

If anybody has any real ideas about how Clegg should have handled the situation, maybe you should have offered him these great insights at the time?

But at the moment, Nick Clegg is simply trying to get sensible, left wing policies through government (gay marriage, free nursery for 2yr olds, flexible maternity leave, pupil premium), as well as at this summit. This is surely the best he can do under the circumstances, as the leader of a minority party.

Please stop being angry at him because of this. Many here seem angry Clegg was allowed to do the summit and not Cameron. Many seem angry Clegg is deputy PM. It's interesting how closely the Guardian comments resemble those under Daily Mail articles.

It seems many on here want a Tory government.

I dunno - a follow through was always some nasty occurance whilst you are vomiting - maybe Cleggo doesn't understand 'street'. I think this was written by an unpaid intern too, which Clegg has penned his name to. Is there any way of knowing this?

The assumption made above is that large families are the main cause of poverty. This has been contested, since poor people have valid reasons to have large families in rural societies, where labour is needed for agriculture and to care for elders. Of course contraception should be easily available, as should medicines - and food when it saves lives.