The Climate Summit in Copenhagen Must Be Cancelled!

[EagleSmack]

Me either. But we already give an awful lot to underdeveloped countries now. I can't see giving them more speeding up their development much. China isn't poor, it should bloody well know better than to allow its rate of pollution.

That is what Copenhagen is all about. You can hear the representatives of the underdeveloped countries on NPR saying they want money. They are even bickering on who should get the biggest cut.

And CHINA! The thought of even giving them developed nation status is cowardly. Climate Change folks are clearly afraid of China. The worlds biggest economy, burning up the most carbon of all nations, a manned space program, a country in complete ownership of the United States.. yet the Climate Change Community give them an under developed status. :roll:

 

[Ron in Regina]

Here's a list for those that didn't get a program to try'n keep up with the show:

Who’s at the Climate Talks, and What Do They Seek? - Graphic - NYTimes.com

 

[lone wolf]

It sounds like stalemate before that first latté is even served

 

[AnnaG]

That is what Copenhagen is all about. You can hear the representatives of the underdeveloped countries on NPR saying they want money. They are even bickering on who should get the biggest cut.

And CHINA! The thought of even giving them developed nation status is cowardly. Climate Change folks are clearly afraid of China. The worlds biggest economy, burning up the most carbon of all nations, a manned space program, a country in complete ownership of the United States.. yet the Climate Change Community give them an under developed status. :roll:

lol Yeah, odd, isn't it?

 

[Tonington]

yet the Climate Change Community give them an under developed status. :roll:

No, that's the world political community who give them that status, not the climate change community.
:roll:

 

[AnnaG]

It's still odd.

 

[EagleSmack]

No, that's the world political community who give them that status, not the climate change community.
:roll:

Ok...it really doesnt matter because the politicians have taken it over and it seems the scientist have no say. There is not really much dispute from them either. They want the sacking to begin with or without China.

 

[Tonington]

Ok...it really doesnt matter because the politicians have taken it over and it seems the scientist have no say. There is not really much dispute from them either. They want the sacking to begin with or without China.

The scientists inform the policy makers. What the policy makers do or do not do is out of the hands of the scientists.

 

[Mowich]

I do have a wonderful little noggin... so thank you.

I just don't see how forcing developed nations to give billions (maybe trillions) of dollars to underdeveloped nations is going to change the climate.

Quite frankly, neither do I, Eagle. :smile:

 

[Socrates the Greek]

That is what Copenhagen is all about. You can hear the representatives of the underdeveloped countries on NPR saying they want money. They are even bickering on who should get the biggest cut.

And CHINA! The thought of even giving them developed nation status is cowardly. Climate Change folks are clearly afraid of China. The worlds biggest economy, burning up the most carbon of all nations, a manned space program, a country in complete ownership of the United States.. yet the Climate Change Community give them an under developed status. :roll:

Maybe China was judged on their badly outdated building code in small cities, buildings that collapse real quick, or poorly designed exits in building exit strategies as we saw in the last incident students falling like dominos on a school stair way.

China should realize that the Earth comes first and money comes second. :x:x

 

[Mowich]

It sounds like stalemate before that first latté is even served

No surprise there, lone wolf. :lol:

 

[EagleSmack]

I still don't see scientist making a big deal at all about giving China. They went nuts about the US objecting to Kyoto.

 

[Ron in Regina]

This is my read on this, at this point, as a Laymen & nothing else...

Group of 77 (42% of emissions, 19% of G.D.P., 76% of people) will
walk away if they're requested to reduce emissions at all, but will push
hard for deep cuts by the Annex 1 countries who'll still be expected to
pay everyone for that privelledge.

Annex 1 countries (51% of emissions, 75% of G.D.P., 19% of people)
will request that all reduce or nothing will change so why bother...so do
you want gobs of $$$ or do you want reduced emissions? Pick one
or a balance between the two...

OPEC (6% of emissions, 2% of G.D.P., 5% of people) who have been
price fixing the globe for oil for decades (extortion is such a bad word)
will want compensation if oil consuption drops due to Annex 1 countries
reducing their emissions...

China (21% of emissions, 6% of G.D.P., 20% of people) who has no
debt and $2,000,000,000,000.00USD in reserve, and holds the mortgage
paper on much of the globe, is on it's on tangent & program of lip service
as long as it also gets its own way...much like the Other large developing
nations.

European Union (15% of emissions 25% of G.D.P. 8% of people) is so
far into the Carbon Trading scheme that they can't get out and need new
blood (like a pyramid) so that thier house of cards doesn't fall down, as
they're about done cannibalizing each other without crumbling and need
others to inject revenue into the pyramid....

.....and so on and so forth....I keep thinking of the "Golden Goose" Fable
but that's just me. If this happens and the Annex 1 countries do everything
requested, will it change emission levels globally at all, if nobody (or few)
else have any solid targets they'll have to stick to without penalty? I'm not
even going to touch the whole AGW subject, and just stick to the emmisions
being reduced concept. Whether or not this'll help change temperatures or
not isn't relevent to the question of, "will it lower/change emission levels
globally at all?"

 

[JLM]

Local conditions are included. But weather is not climate. For some reason some people cannot get their wonderful little noggins around that idea.

Yep, it's a tough concept. I suppose a good analogy would be Monday is to weather as week is to climate.

 

[Mowich]

OPEC (6% of emissions, 2% of G.D.P., 5% of people) who have been
price fixing the globe for oil for decades (extortion is such a bad word)
will want compensation if oil consuption drops due to Annex 1 countries
reducing their emissions...

If the shoe fits?..... :smile:

 

[Tonington]

.....and so on and so forth....I keep thinking of the "Golden Goose" Fable
but that's just me. If this happens and the Annex 1 countries do everything
requested, will it change emission levels globally at all, if nobody (or few)
else have any solid targets they'll have to stick to without penalty? I'm not
even going to touch the whole AGW subject, and just stick to the emmisions
being reduced concept. Whether or not this'll help change temperatures or
not isn't relevent to the question of, "will it lower/change emission levels
globally at all?"

The thinking goes Ron, that the Annex I countries can most afford to make changes first of all. The keen observer will note that the Annex I countries contributions will not meet the global requirement. Cuts will have to come in the developing countries as well.

But the technologies initially will be expensive. A developing country that still doesn't have even an antiquated electrical distribution system, for instance, can't really be expected to go from the equivalent of rubbing two sticks together to a plasma torch.

As Annex I countries roll out the new technology, the manufacturing gets better, the processes are optimized, and the cost comes down as the economies of scale kick in.

Yesterday the big news was that Mexico, UK, Norway, and Australia promoted a plan that would setup a find to help finance mitigation, and adaptation projects in equal amounts, for the most in need countries.

So presumably, the long term plans are to address the most pressing needs and those who can afford it most, with the countries in the middle coming along slowly as well, and ramping up in later years.

 

[JLM]

I think everyone is making far too much of this climate summit. If we look back at it a month from now, we'll probably see what it amounted to what a vacation (and drunk) away from home on taxpayer's hook, where things were discussed, notes were taken, a lot of intentions were generated and that will be about the end of it. In 35 years of public service, of all the things I did that were a waste of time, meetings topped the list.

 

[Mowich]

I think everyone is making far too much of this climate summit. If we look back at it a month from now, we'll probably see what it amounted to what a vacation (and drunk) away from home on taxpayer's hook, where things were discussed, notes were taken, a lot of intentions were generated and that will be about the end of it. In 35 years of public service, of all the things I did that were a waste of time, meetings topped the list.

Yep, another Kyoto all over again. Why can't the politicos hold a conference on what they can do to clean up their own backyards and let the climate do what it is gonna do anyway. But wait, meetings are a waste of time you said, well then the clean-up will be left to us, as always. :smile:

 

[Tonington]

I think everyone is making far too much of this climate summit. If we look back at it a month from now, we'll probably see what it amounted to what a vacation (and drunk) away from home on taxpayer's hook, where things were discussed, notes were taken, a lot of intentions were generated and that will be about the end of it. In 35 years of public service, of all the things I did that were a waste of time, meetings topped the list.

Some people took their commitments seriously. The EU makes it's goals without any off-sets. Including off-sets it's a larger reduction.

 

[Mowich]

Some people took their commitments seriously. The EU makes it's goals without any off-sets. Including off-sets it's a larger reduction.

Good article, Ton, and nice to see that some countries will be breathing cleaner air. I must say though that I found the last sentence in the article more than a little gratuitous.