Copenhagen- What was Gained

[EagleSmack]

From all the news reports it seems that Copenhagen has not been quite a success.

The Basic Nations (China, India, South Africa, and Brazil) have called it a success as they are flush with the realization that they are a force to be reckoned with. I completely agree with that statement. They did not cave into the EU or US pressure of lowering greenhouse emissions. They maintain that they will continue to grow their economies as they see fit.

The EU President called Copenhagen a disaster.

The conference ended without any legally binding agreement and the so called under developed nations that demanded billions in aid have left empty handed.

Thoughts?

 

[Mowich]

If I beleived that most people read beyond the headlines, I might have hope that the majority of us learned something from the summit, but I don't. Most people will now be of the opinion that we can't trust scientists or scientific data which is truly sad as science provides us with technologies and break-throughs that can and do better our lives.

I am not a believer in global warming. I do believe the climate is adjusting itself - to what end? - we will have to wait and see. We have as much chance of altering the coming changes as we do of populating the moon next year.

I do beleive that we can and must begin to clean up industries such as massive animal feed-lots which pollute our waterways. I do believe we need to address the problem of Canada's Tar Sands and US mountain-top stripping for coal.

We have no control over the rate at which glaciers and ice-sheets are disappearing but by recogninzing the fact, we might begin to address the need to do something before this resource runs out.

People, individuals like you and me, EagleSmack, we have power and if we use it wisely, not by protesting at summits, but by working in our communities to make people aware of the need to address these issues, in time politicians will listen.

But then, that's just my opinion. :smile:

 

[MHz]

Didn't those 'leaked e-mails' have some impact on how the developing Nations 'voted'? I'm also a little confused as to the 'aid thing'. From the brief clips I have watched I thought the developing Nation had to chip in quite a lot of money as compensation for their carbon emissions. I would have to double check but it seemed to almost be a higher ratio than the developed countries had to pay. One last comment, if those 'aid' packages were coming as loans or such then those same sorts of loans from the World Bank never ever really produced what they were originally stated they would accomplish. It seemed to end in high inflation for the least of the citizens and international corporation ended up with control of most of the natural resources and the most productive agricultural lands. Loans/aid from any specific country put the receiver subject to undue influence from the Nation who made the loan, opposed to a no strings attached grant.
Third world Nations rely on technology that comes from the developed Nations. How can they be expected to reduce carbon emmissions when the only equipment available are carbon emitters? Nobody is offering them systems that have no carbon footprint. It doesn't seem to be a level playing field. Global warming is totally suspect now, in a global cooling situation would nations/people be fined for not burning an allotted amount CO2 producing products. ie vehicles must be left idling for at least 1/2 an hour before/after every use.

 

[lone wolf]

Brazil gets its carbon credits, bonus bucks and mineral rights to vast nickel reserves in Canada.

Mineral rights and timber limits should NEVER leave the country. Are you listening Harper/Clements?

 

[MHz]

If I beleived that most people read beyond the headlines, I might have hope that the majority of us learned something from the summit, but I don't. Most people will now be of the opinion that we can't trust scientists or scientific data which is truly sad as science provides us with technologies and break-throughs that can and do better our lives.

At the same time that is not always true. If science gave us all the carbon producing machines that we have today something went wrong if there is a need to 'fix-things' today. This seems to be nothing more than fix things they did because they (apparently) didn't take everything into consideration.

Gas is never going to be phased out, the crude that is refined contains 'x' amount of gasoline. That number is pretty much the same as the number of vehicles times the mileage they get. Say 30mpg is what it works out to, also say current technology could be applied to increase that number to 60mpg. What do you do with the gas that is saved, it doesn't have an indefinite shelf-life after it is in the form of a final product. In 10 years there would be no place to store it. Refineries would need to stay running if all the other products that come from crude are to be continue being made.

 

[EagleSmack]

Didn't those 'leaked e-mails' have some impact on how the developing Nations 'voted'? I'm also a little confused as to the 'aid thing'. From the brief clips I have watched I thought the developing Nation had to chip in quite a lot of money as compensation for their carbon emissions. I would have to double check but it seemed to almost be a higher ratio than the developed countries had to pay.

From what I read the only thing developing nations agreed to do is take money from developed nations with no monitoring of how they use the money nor agreeing to cut emissions. The Basic Nations (China, India, et all) refused to do anything to slow their economies. They are actually developed countries that enjoy the "developing nation" label given to them.

One last comment, if those 'aid' packages were coming as loans or such then those same sorts of loans from the World Bank never ever really produced what they were originally stated they would accomplish. It seemed to end in high inflation for the least of the citizens and international corporation ended up with control of most of the natural resources and the most productive agricultural lands. Loans/aid from any specific country put the receiver subject to undue influence from the Nation who made the loan, opposed to a no strings attached grant.
Third world Nations rely on technology that comes from the developed Nations. How can they be expected to reduce carbon emmissions when the only equipment available are carbon emitters? Nobody is offering them systems that have no carbon footprint. It doesn't seem to be a level playing field. Global warming is totally suspect now, in a global cooling situation would nations/people be fined for not burning an allotted amount CO2 producing products. ie vehicles must be left idling for at least 1/2 an hour before/after every use.

I did not hear anything about loans. From what I read the money they would recieve is aid from developed nations and money from developed nations who went over their emissions in the form of penalties. That is why developing nations wanted legally binding deep emission cuts... the deeper the cut, the more money they get.

 

[EagleSmack]

Brazil gets its carbon credits, bonus bucks and mineral rights to vast nickel reserves in Canada.

Mineral rights and timber limits should NEVER leave the country. Are you listening Harper/Clements?

I agree 100%.

 

[Mowich]

I agree 100%.

Ditto!

 

[MHz]

I admit I haven't read the fine print so I may have some things wrong.
Basic points, developed nations outputs are not going to change, or at the most change very little. At present they (names would really help) produce most of the CO2, individually and as a group even though their (population) is smaller compared to the population in the 'developing nations' (China and India not included).
Why wouldn't developed Nation use that money to reduce their own emissions, other that the money being offered would have little or no effect on cutting their own emissions.

Cutting emissions costs money, since all Nations are in debt they would need a bank loan to spend anything to decrease emissions. Just what products could they currently buy. The US used coal, a lot of coal, they aren't going to stop, not are they even going to try and find way$ to make them less polluting.
Why can't the 3rd world countries refuse the money and demand the polluting countries spent that money at home to bring they output within the guidelines.
Odd that the countries that can pay fines are the biggest polluters.
I'll see if I can find something on loans.

 

[petros]

Brazil gets its carbon credits, bonus bucks and mineral rights to vast nickel reserves in Canada.

Mineral rights and timber limits should NEVER leave the country. Are you listening Harper/Clements?

Welcome to the New World Order where individual sovereignty and the rights and duties afforded the person are long gone.

The meek shall inherit the earth but will NEVER in heirit the mineral or water rights.

Act now or lose it forver.

 

[MHz]

How would this example work?
European bank loans €134M to reduce CO2 emissions in China | Cleantech Group
The European Investment Bank (EIB) said it is loaning €134 million ($202.3 million) to four projects in China that are expected to help reduce 830,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, once the projects are completed.

Banks loan money they do not gift it away, where does the $200M originate from, is it just an electronic number put in some ledger? In what way is that loan repaid. The possibility I first come up with is the 'fines' are lesser.

The cost seems to ultimately fall on the taxpayer or the consumer depending on who is named on the fines.

 

[MHz]

The meek shall inherit the earth

That was changed some time back, it now reads 'the earth shall inherit the meek'.

 

[EagleSmack]

The cost seems to ultimately fall on the taxpayer or the consumer depending on who is named on the fines.

Of course it does. Do you think big corporations will just throw up their arms or shrug when they have to pay a carbon tax? They will pass the bill along to the consumer.

 

[petros]

That was changed some time back, it now reads 'the earth shall inherit the meek'.

Yup, but who decides who is meek?

 

[petros]

Here is how our fascist system works.... In my industry we are setting up what is called e3 Plus :

e3 Plus: A Framework for Responsible Exploration
The Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) is launching e3 Plus – A Framework for Responsible Exploration in order to help exploration companies continuously improve their social, environmental and health and safety performance and to comprehensively integrate these three aspects in to all their exploration programs.

What this program does is nails the taxpayer not the exploration company for lawsuits that my arise from a Canadian co. operating at home or in a foreign country and making it's usual mess of the environment.

 

[MHz]

Of course it does. Do you think big corporations will just throw up their arms or shrug when they have to pay a carbon tax? They will pass the bill along to the consumer.

With no real cut in CO2 emissions because even though some areas can be reduced that is offset just by the fact that there are more people alive each and every year. They will use things made from oil and that will make emissions go even higher. Corps just pass their costs off to the end-user, huge fines would only make the products more expensive. I agree with all that, why do I feel that the shareholders will see their investments pay greater returns to offset the extra cost that the products raise? That is an even greater rip-off.

How does this affect the search for cleaner energy systems? The experiments with wind show that mega systems can be built but the maintenance costs consume far more energy ($$$) than they save. Small systems that are maintained by the end-user could reduce that cost enough to make it attractive to 'individuals'.

 

[MHz]

So all this is about is introducing a system that already has and end-run built in. This is just the latest version of a game that goes back to when taxes were first levied on the individual, if not further.

 

[petros]

So all this is about is introducing a system that already has and end-run built in. This is just the latest version of a game that goes back to when taxes were first levied on the individual, if not further.

Think of it as "levelling" using the Marxist definition.

 

[MHz]

Expand that to a global scale and you just defined who the meek are,

 

[darkbeaver]

The abject failure of Copenhagen is a blessing to everyone on the planet. It means the rich and powerful have set to eating each other. My they enjoy their overindulgence, to death.