The Copenhagen 2009 (Climate Change) Summit thread

[Netto Azure]

As corollary to the main Climate Change thread.

Copenhagen summit poised to open

Copenhagen could be a turning point in climate change, negotiators say​

At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world

Jointly written editorial in 56 newspapers in 45 countries

The main areas for discussion include:

• Targets to curb greenhouse gas emissions, in particular by developed countries
• Financial support for mitigation of and adaptation to climate change by developing countries
• A carbon trading scheme aimed at ending the destruction of the world's forests by 2030

Delegates from 192 countries are gathering in the Danish capital Copenhagen for the opening of the long-awaited UN summit on climate change.
The conference has been described by some scientists as the most important the world has ever seen.
Security is tight as organisers expect 15,000 delegates and 100 world leaders to attend over the next two weeks.
On the eve of the summit, the UN's chief climate negotiator Yvo de Boer said the talks were in excellent shape.
He told the BBC that many countries were now making pledges over curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
"Never in 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different countries made so many pledges. It's unprecedented," he said.
Mr de Boer said offers of finance for clean technology for poor countries were also coming through and talks were progressing on a long-term vision of massive carbon cuts by 2050.
South Africa became the latest country to make an offer on cutting emissions - its first quantifiable target.
On the eve of the summit it offered to cut by one-third the growth of its carbon emissions over the next decade - subject to getting more funding and technological help from wealthier countries.
Meanwhile, a new poll commissioned by the BBC suggests that public concern over climate change is growing across the world.
In the survey, by Globescan, 64% of people questioned said that they considered global warming a very serious problem - up 20% from a 1989 poll.
To stress the importance of the summit, 56 newspapers in 45 countries will publish the same editorial on Monday, warning that climate change will "ravage our planet" unless action is agreed, the London-based Guardian reported.
The editorial - to be published in 20 languages - has been thrashed out by editors ahead of the Copenhagen talks, the newspaper said.
"At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world," the editorial says.
Environmental activists plan protests in Copenhagen and around the world on 12 December to encourage delegates to reach the strongest possible deal.
Tens of thousands marched in London and other UK and European cities on Saturday.

Ok, we could have finished this debate in 1997 and the Healthcare debate in 1993. But as with students procrastinating on their Homework we wait until the last minute to do something. @3@

Even if there is no legally binding treaty passed in Copenhagen, the fact that many countries have made pledges and BOTH INDIA AND CHINA actually shows support for this means that many accept the IPCC's verdict on climate change. And people might not realize this but China has invested a lot in green/renewable technologies for the past few years.

Sudan's Lumumba Di-Aping, a lead negotiator for the G77/China bloc at the talks, said: "A deal can be done; the science is clear, the economics are clear, the legal issues are clear.

"The question is that some leaders believe their narrow national economic interests take primacy over the existence and well-being of the entire world."

 

[The Golden Tyranitar]

Having read and re-read your post to make sure I fully understood,I now state my views:
It is a nice thought that the governments of the world seem to actually be doing something.On the other hand,even though I am no scientist,I still believe things are happening too slowly to make enough difference to the failing planet.Any insights,anyone?

Tens of thousands marched in London

And I probably know them all ;D

 

[Netto Azure]

Having read and re-read your post to make sure I fully understood,I now state my views:
It is a nice thought that the governments of the world seem to actually be doing something.On the other hand,even though I am no scientist,I still believe things are happening too slowly to make enough difference to the failing planet.Any insights,anyone?


And I probably know them all ;D

Yup, it might not be enough, but it's a good start. Heck we might be saved by future technologies for all I know. :O

The arguments made by climate change sceptics

LOL.

 

[Raves]

Yeah, like this meeting of delegates will actually help the mythological climate change problem. Unlikely.

In truth, if you take a look at patterns of the solar calendar, you'll notice that we recently emerged from a small ice age, and so it's bound to get warmer for a couple of thousand years before stabilising and becoming bloody cold once more. All these fools are doing is trying to stop carbon emissions that have little actual effect other than slightly increasing this 'ozone hole' above Antarctica.

 

[H-con]

All these fools are doing is trying to stop carbon emissions that have little actual effect other than slightly increasing this 'ozone hole' above Antarctica.

How does reducing CO2, a green-house gas increase the size of the hole in the ozone layer above the arctics? That's haloalkanes and chlorfluorcarbons that do that...

Even if there is no legally binding treaty passed in Copenhagen, the fact that many countries have made pledges and BOTH INDIA AND CHINA actually shows support for this means that many accept the IPCC's verdict on climate change. And people might not realize this but China has invested a lot in green/renewable technologies for the past few years.

But I think China and India have actually invested more in fossil fuel. There's been built lots of coal-powered plants lately. You've got the three Gorges Dam as an example of hydroelectric power, but still... This agreement will be a political one to arrange more detailed negotiations.

And that's the last thing we need. We don't need compromises, we need leaders that act without actually saying "We're not acting till you do!". Still, 17 % was it not? That's a start, but I think that's a target that's not going to be reached, to be honest.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

I don't see any reason to relinquish our sovereignty over an issue with science that's clearly not settled.

 

[Netto Azure]

Yeah, like this meeting of delegates will actually help the mythological climate change problem. Unlikely.

In truth, if you take a look at patterns of the solar calendar, you'll notice that we recently emerged from a small ice age, and so it's bound to get warmer for a couple of thousand years before stabilising and becoming bloody cold once more. All these fools are doing is trying to stop carbon emissions that have little actual effect other than slightly increasing this 'ozone hole' above Antarctica.

3. THE EARTH HAS BEEN WARMER IN THE RECENT PAST

Sceptic
The beginning of the last Millennium saw a "Medieval Warm Period" when temperatures, certainly in Europe, were higher than they are now. Grapes grew in northern England. Ice-bound mountain passes opened in the Alps. The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today.

Counter
There have been many periods in Earth history that were warmer than today - for example, the last interglacial (125,000 years ago) or the Pliocene (three million years ago). Those variations were caused by solar forcing, the Earth's orbital wobbles or continental configurations; but none of those factors is significant today compared with greenhouse warming. Evidence for a Medieval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe. As the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it: "The idea of a global or hemispheric Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect." Additionally, although the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than in the following few decades, it is now warmer still. One recent analysis showed it is warmer now than at any time in the last 2,000 years.

LOL. Did ya read the link? XD

How does reducing CO2, a green-house gas increase the size of the hole in the ozone layer above the arctics? That's haloalkanes and chlorfluorcarbons that do that...

But I think China and India have actually invested more in fossil fuel. There's been built lots of coal-powered plants lately. You've got the three Gorges Dam as an example of hydroelectric power, but still... This agreement will be a political one to arrange more detailed negotiations.

And that's the last thing we need. We don't need compromises, we need leaders that act without actually saying "We're not acting till you do!". Still, 17 % was it not? That's a start, but I think that's a target that's not going to be reached, to be honest.

I think what they're saying is that as we repair the ozone layer in Antarctica the greenhouse effect is magnified as the sunlight was allowed to simply be reflected back to space when there was a hole in it.

Yes they have, but seriously compared to the world-wide average of 100% dependence on fossil fuels in 1985 compared to 85% in today's terms, any investment is pretty applaudable.

When we have powerful Man-Made Climate Change skeptics and economic interests fighting to keep things the same, how can you not expect compromises?

I don't see any reason to relinquish our sovereignty over an issue with science that's clearly not settled.

Like the Tobacco industry yes?

 

[Eredar Warlock]

What does tobacco have to do with this other than people smoke it?

I'll repeat: I don't want our country losing sovereignty over this. Europe would dearly love to see America's wealth redistributed to the rest of the world because that would lower the standard of living here.

You cannot - i repeat, CANNOT - bring the world's standard of living up to match ours. It's simply not possible without dramatically forcing the standard of living down here.

EDIT: Apparently, they're also a bunch of scrooges over there in Copenhagen.

 

[The Big Al]

It's not so much that we'd have to lower the standard of living as the cost of living. The average American's standard of living has been in a downward spiral for the past decade anyway so I don't see your problem.

America is grossly inefficient, particularly when it comes to transit. We're using road vehicles and airplanes to transport people and cargo across the country when trains are far efficient. Unfortunately, the American railway is grossly inefficient as it's slow, goes nowhere, and goes nowhere in a round about way. We've even been pulling up track for the past thirty or so years. In 21st century America I should be able to get on a train in any major metropolitan area and go to any other major metropolitan area in a relatively straight line at a fairly fast pace. Japan and Europe has done this. Why can't we?

 

[H-con]

I'll repeat: I don't want our country losing sovereignty over this. Europe would dearly love to see America's wealth redistributed to the rest of the world because that would lower the standard of living here.

Heck, the standard of living over here is at least as high if not higher in may countries. Stop thinking Europe's leaders are so anti-American and we only want the worst to happen to America. You're grossly generalizing if you ask me. Besides the EU has already put some money on the table. But then again, my country is not a member of the EU, just EFTA.

You cannot - i repeat, CANNOT - bring the world's standard of living up to match ours. It's simply not possible without dramatically forcing the standard of living down here.

While it might unfortunably be true (but that depends on how you define standard of living though, but still), isn't that like saying: "I've got mine, now screw you!"? These countries are poor due to several reasons, but it's us that's the main one. So we have some responsibility here, and we can't just run away from it.

And besides, we could increase the standard of living for many people without cutting our own. Wasting less food, for instance, could potentially help stop world hunger while the average consumer would eat just as much, just didn't throw away 25 % of their food without eating it...

 

[Eredar Warlock]

It's not so much that we'd have to lower the standard of living as the cost of living. The average American's standard of living has been in a downward spiral for the past decade anyway so I don't see your problem.

America is grossly inefficient, particularly when it comes to transit. We're using road vehicles and airplanes to transport people and cargo across the country when trains are far efficient. Unfortunately, the American railway is grossly inefficient as it's slow, goes nowhere, and goes nowhere in a round about way. We've even been pulling up track for the past thirty or so years. In 21st century America I should be able to get on a train in any major metropolitan area and go to any other major metropolitan area in a relatively straight line at a fairly fast pace. Japan and Europe has done this. Why can't we?

I agree about the rail system, but I don't really have any use for the rail system in any event. I don't have much reason to travel to any metropolitan areas.

 

[Raine Caulwell]

Spoiler

Global warming isn't real. The head of NASA's climate research (second link) and the BBC agree with me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403073.html

 

[H-con]

Spoiler

Global warming isn't real. The head of NASA's climate research (second link) and the BBC agree with me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403073.html

The first statement. Global temperatures have risen by 0.76 degrees since before the industrializing of our world started. Your point?

And the BBC agrees with you? If so, the link Netto Azure posted proves otherwise... And that one former member of NASA disagrees with global warming, how's that going to prove ... anything, I might ask? Anyways, the other thread is better for general discussion of the subject, this thread should be more about the summit in Copenhagen if you ask me. We've got three threads now, all touching different issues.

 

[Raine Caulwell]

My point is, is that the global climate changes on a regular basis; and that the guy who was the head of the climate department knows the guy who Al Gore worked with, saying that he was incorrect in his findings and that he was a moron when he worked for him (the NASA guy used to work over him). Things progress and change, and they're forming policy in a reactionary form in an attempt to change the balance of power. It's one thing to try to become more efficient. It's another thing to lie about what you're doing in order to change around the economic wealth and to gain more power for yourself.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...am-epa-decision-declare-public-health-danger/

In the face of GOP opposition, the EPA on Monday declared greenhouse gases a danger to public health in a move that could pave the way for future regulation.

The administration also waved off concerns about the controversy surrounding leaked e-mails at a British climate research center, with the U.S. envoy to the international climate change conference in Copenhagen dismissing the flap as a "small blip."

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a written statement that the finding, which declares carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases a threat to public health, marks the start of a U.S. campaign to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.

"These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States Government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform," she said.

The meticulously timed announcement comes on the opening day of the Denmark conference, and could boost the administration's argument that the United States is taking action to combat global warming -- though Congress has yet to pass climate legislation.

But Republicans since last week had called on Jackson to withdraw the finding pending an investigation into whether the science behind the decision has been compromised. They raised their concerns following the leak of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit which appeared to show scientists discussing the manipulation of climate data.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told FoxNews.com the EPA is rushing to a decision that may not be based on sound science.

"It's certainly reckless considering the underlying science now has been very much called into question," Issa said Monday. "The inconvenient truth is not Al Gore's movie. The inconvenient truth is that people who had an agenda destroyed the facts to get an outcome."

Issa said he's not a global warming skeptic, but thinks the underlying research needs to be more closely examined to make sure billions of dollars are not wasted in the course of complying with new regulations.

While administration officials have said they would prefer Congress take action on regulating greenhouse gas emissions, Republicans fear the EPA is prepared to act unilaterally to do so, buoyed by its latest finding. And they question the timing of the announcement.

"They are finalizing the finding just in time for President Obama to travel to Copenhagen. The EPA claims its process is dictated by science, however, it's conveniently timed to push its politics," Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a written statement.

The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue.

Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the regulatory process of the Clean Air Act. Any such regulations are likely to spawn lawsuits and lengthy legal fights.

Jonathan Pershing, U.S. deputy special envoy for climate change, said in Copenhagen that the United States is not expecting any legally binding treaty in Denmark this month, but will pursue a "political arrangement" that could lead to one in the future.

He dismissed the controversy over the leaked e-mails.

"I think it will have virtually no effect at all," he said. "The science is incredibly robust. And as we look forward, I worry much, much more about not acting urgently than what will ultimately be a small blip on the history of this process."

Asked about the remark, Issa said: "Richard Nixon said that about what Deep Throat had outed about the break-in."

Yeah, this announcement isn't political at all.

Looks to me like more power being claimed by the Executive Branch. I question the constitutionality of making policy on this.

 

[Every Breaking Wave]

^Everything is a conspiracy to you, isn't it? Who's behind it this time? The socialists? The communists? The vegetarians?

Climate change protestors scale Parliament

Authorities pulled down a massive climate change banner from the roof of the West Block of Parliament today after 14 Greenpeace protesters hung it out in the early morning.

But a half dozen activists dangled off the roof on ropes as police and firemen pondered how to retrieve them safely. Police quickly arrested five other protesters who scaled an entrance to the Centre Block.

Protesters rappelled from a wrought iron fence which rings the roof of the West Block and unfurled a banner saying "Harper-Ignatieff: Climate Inaction Costs Lives," in English and French.

Police, ambulance and fire trucks swarmed below in the fresh sprinkling of snow while a helicopter and at least one airplane hovered circled overhead.

An aerial ladder was raised to the steeply pitched roof and police and firemen swarmed up.

At the nearby Senate entrance to the Centre Block, police quickly hoisted a ladder and took down the banners. They then used a fire truck-mounted cherry picker to coax the protesters down.

"We thought it was time to bring the message home," said Christy Ferguson, spokesperson for Greenpeace Canada.

The activists have been targeting the oil sands operations in Alberta, but now they want to highlight the government negotiations in Copenhagen this week. There, world leaders are meeting to hash out a new global pact to prevent climate change.

The Ottawa protest targets both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff for their inaction on climate change, said Greenpeace activist Jessica Wilson.

"Climate inaction costs lives," she said, echoing the message.

A recent Greenpeace report concluded that climate change kills 300,000 people every year, and leads to economic losses worth $125-billion (U.S.).

 

[The Golden Tyranitar]

Who in the hell said "No" on the poll?

^ I thinks I agree with the points made in this news quote.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

^Everything is a conspiracy to you, isn't it? Who's behind it this time? The socialists? The communists? The vegetarians?

It is a matter of questionable constitutionality. The executive branch has been overreaching for the last several administrations. Obama's administration is the latest. Are you going to deny that Bush did too much from time to time?

EPA should not be making policy. That's the job of the legislators.

 

[Every Breaking Wave]

It is a matter of questionable constitutionality. The executive branch has been overreaching for the last several administrations. Obama's administration is the latest. Are you going to deny that Bush did too much from time to time?

Yes, because in my opinion he did too little on just about all aspects of environmental protection.

 

[Big Lutz]

^Everything is a conspiracy to you, isn't it? Who's behind it this time? The socialists? The communists? The vegetarians?

Except he is right, this announcement has been in the making since Obama took office. It really is a ultimatium aimed directly at Congress for not trying to destroy our economy fast enough by not passing Cap and Trade yet: "Unless you destroy the economy with legislation, I'll do even more damage by regulation"