The UN General Assembly and G-20 Summit

[Netto Azure]

Yeah, it still saddens me when I see that people either don't know about the United Nations or simply undercut it as an ineffective institution. One has to realize though that it derives it's powers from the consent of the member states, rather than a top-down approach of the US type. =/

Anyways, in a prelude to the Coppenhagen Summit on December various world leaders are giving remarks at the opening of the UN General Assembly.

U.N. Climate Conference Opens With Call for Unity

Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations secretary-general, opened a conference on climate change on Tuesday.

UNITED NATIONS —Some 100 heads of state gathered at the United Nations on Tuesday for an unprecedented daylong conference on combating climate change, which President Obama and other leaders acknowledged was a difficult issue to agree on, but crucial for the future health of the planet.

Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations secretary-general, opened a conference on climate change on Tuesday.

The world “cannot allow the old divisions that have characterized the climate debate for so many years to block our progress,” Mr. Obama told the leaders gathered at the General Assembly hall, acknowledging that forging any kind of consensus will come slowly.

“It is a journey that will require each of us to persevere through setback, and fight for every inch of progress, even when it comes in fits and starts,” he said. He said the world has been too slow to recognize the gathering danger from rising temperatures. “It is true of my own country as well; we recognize that.”

Negotiators trying to hammer out a deal to cut global emissions by December in Copenhagen have largely stalled, and the United Nations organizers are hoping that gathering the leaders will give the talks new political momentum.

China followed by the United States are the largest emitters, accounting for about 40 percent split evenly between them. The speech by the Chinese president Hu Jintao, is also widely anticipated to hear the level of commitment he will make, considering his government has rejected mandatory caps.
The United States has said that its willingness to accept mandatory emissions requirements in hinged to domestic law and a new law, stalled by the health care debate, is awaiting Senate action.

Mr. Obama said he was committed to the United States making its largest-ever investment in renewable energy, new standards for reducing pollution from vehicles and making clean energy profitable, among other initiatives. He said developing nations must also provide financial and technical assistance to help the rest adapt to the impact of climate change and pursue low-carbon development.

“We understand the gravity of the climate threat,” Mr. Obama said, but noted that the push for change comes in the midst of a global recession. “And so all of us will face doubts and difficulties in our own capitals as we try to reach a lasting solution to the climate challenge.”
Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations secretary general, appealed to the leaders to set aside their national interests and think about the future of the globe.
“Instead of demanding concessions from others, let us ask how we can contribute to the greater good,” he said, describing the talks as moving at “glacial” speed. “The world’s glaciers are now melting faster than human progress to protect them—and us.”

Mr. Ban warned that if there is one lesson from the financial crisis, it is that everyone on the planet will suffer the consequences of some crises that link other issues In his private meetings with each head of state, he has also urged them to think beyond their borders, aides said.
The conference today, which is not a negotiating session but designed to push toward a strategy, is focused on four outstanding hurdles.

Industrialized nations, while agreeing on cutting emissions in the long term — by 2050 — have failed to agree on a crucial midterm target for carbon emissions cuts by 2020. They have pledged to roughly go halfway toward meeting the ambitious target set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a 25 percent to 40 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020 — which environmental advocates say is not enough.

Developing powerhouses like China and India have agreed on the need to trim emissions, but reject mandatory limits, and demand financial and technical support in exchange.
Efforts to reach any kind of consensus around the issue of aid for the poorest countries to adapt to the impact of climate change are faltering. Finally, there is no agreement on what institutions would verify that targets are being met and supervise the financial and emissions targets.

The organizers at the United Nations said they have never been involved in such a high-level summit meeting where the outcome was not predetermined. The main hurdle is coming up with a plan over the next decade that will keep the temperature rise to about 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above pre-industrial levels. China followed by the United States are the largest emitters, accounting for about 40 percent split evenly between them.

Even countries like India, which largely blames the developed world for the problem, but has announced a package of cuts, admits that looking ahead to 2050 is not good enough.
“It is the height of dishonesty to have a target for 2050 because none of us will be around to be held accountable,” Jairam Ramesh, told a news conference late Monday.

Some blocs of nations have their own targets. The small island states of the Pacific and the Caribbean want to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees because they fear being inundated by the sea rise that climate change could bring. Those states, along with Africa, are demanding billions of dollars in aid to assuage the damage they are already suffering.
The French environment minister, Jean- Louis Borloo, told reporters that developed countries would probably support direct support for projects that counter the affects of global warming, but he rejected the idea of “damages.”

“They have to show what it will pay for,” he said.
The United States ultimately rejected the last global agreement negotiated at 1997 in Kyoto, Japan because its pollution caps did not apply to China and other developing countries. Its own new carbon reduction law is stuck in Congress behind health care. Negotiators conceded that the world will probably have to give the Americans more time, but hope to hear from Mr. Obama at least what his goals across a variety of environmental issues like cars.

Various ministers and other officials said that if major powers like China, Brazil, Indonesia all make conciliatory noises Tuesday at the United Nations, that would likely help Mr. Obama overcome domestic opposition.

 

[Nicoleta01]

I'm against the notion that GW is man-made (I blame the Sun and natural climate variations), but if everyone isn't on board in a decision, it's just going to fail massively. :/

 

[Nanoka-kun]

climate change :S those typhoons in Japan, and Hong Kong during the summer? I think it's caused by Global Warming . Too much heat in the equator built up from the heat trapped by smog and stuff in the ozone layer. Heat in the equator causes typhoons to form thus weather goes out of wack >.<

 

[H-con]

I'm against the notion that GW is man-made (I blame the Sun and natural climate variations)

Even if global warming isn't man-made (which I firmly believe it is), it doesn't hurt saving some energy, wont it? We'll run out of oil soon, so finding alternate sources doesn't hurt, and we need to use less coal, gas and oil.

 

[Netto Azure]

China vows climate change action

China will increase efforts to improve energy efficiency and curb the rise in CO2 emissions, President Hu Jintao has told a UN climate summit in New York.
Mr Hu gave no details about the measures, which should mean emissions grow less quickly than the economy.
The US, the world's other major emitter, said China's proposals were helpful but figures were needed.
About 100 leaders are attending the talks, ahead of the Copenhagen summit which is due to approve a new treaty.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said failure to agree a treaty in December would be "morally inexcusable".
Negotiators for the Copenhagen summit are trying to agree on a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol to limit carbon emissions.


In other speeches at the summit:

• US President Obama acknowledged that the US had been slow to act, but promised a "new era" of promoting clean energy and reducing carbon pollution
• The new Japanese Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, pledged to reduce emissions by 25% by 2020 compared to the 1990 level, calling it the Hatoyama Initiative
• French President Nicolas Sarkozy called on leaders to meet again in mid-November ahead of the crucial Copenhagen conference

Wow, China finally acknowledges the need to curb emissions? But yes, we need specifics. =/

Anyways, I agree Energy Independence is the best way to combat Climate Change...
​

 

[H-con]

Wow, China finally acknowledges the need to curb emissions? But yes, we need specifics. =/

Indeed. Saying something won't nearly be good enough. We must have action. I've heard that he was going to plant a frickin big forest, though I don't know the certainty of this rumour though. Certainly is a good thing. Still, I'm lacking serious intervention from the US.

But knowing some people, economic growth will still dominate the agenda. That is unacceptable really.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

My blood is boiling an the notion that the Bolivian president spouted that Capitalism is essentially the cause of all our woes.

The idea that humans are making the world warmer is utterly ridiculous to me. This planet is a very big place, and is quite capable of heating and cooling itself on its own. And very quickly, I might add.

 

[The Big Al]

To deny global warming is to deny the chemical properties of carbon dioxide. Carbon Dioxide does not absorb or reflect short wave radiation, but it does absorb and emit long-wave radiation. It's a proven scientific fact. Carbon Dioxide levels are rising because of human activity. Therefore, humans are contributing a factor that would make the planet warmer on its own.

To say capitalism is the cause of our problems is a gross simplification. It would be more accurate to say the Reagan flavor of capitalism is a cause to all our problems. We cut taxes for the rich who squirreled it away in offshore accounts, shrinking the wealth in America. We let companies get into a race to the bottom and laid off their American workers for foreign ones, reducing personal spending power of Americans and our ability to bring foreign money into this country while increasing the money going out, shrinking the wealth in America. We got into two wars that are a giant drain for money and resources, shrinking the wealth in America. We began spending money that didn't exist because we ran out of real money until that disappeared.

Capitalism is good. However, the supply-side capitalism America has is very, very bad.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

To deny global warming is to deny the chemical properties of carbon dioxide. Carbon Dioxide does not absorb or reflect short wave radiation, but it does absorb and emit long-wave radiation. It's a proven scientific fact. Carbon Dioxide levels are rising because of human activity. Therefore, humans are contributing a factor that would make the planet warmer on its own.

Pinatubo. St. Helens. Redoubt. Unzen. Nevado Del Ruiz. Surtsey. Eldfell. Any of those names mean anything to you?

Let's also remember that plants gobble up CO2 like a fat kid does cake.

My grandmother also scoffs at the global warming rhetoric, remembering that about twenty years ago people were terrified of the coming ice age being spouted by the progressives.

To say capitalism is the cause of our problems is a gross simplification. It would be more accurate to say the Reagan flavor of capitalism is a cause to all our problems. We cut taxes for the rich who squirreled it away in offshore accounts, shrinking the wealth in America. We let companies get into a race to the bottom and laid off their American workers for foreign ones, reducing personal spending power of Americans and our ability to bring foreign money into this country while increasing the money going out, shrinking the wealth in America. We got into two wars that are a giant drain for money and resources, shrinking the wealth in America. We began spending money that didn't exist because we ran out of real money until that disappeared.

Capitalism is good. However, the supply-side capitalism America has is very, very bad.

Let me guess. The only way to save the world is to go socialist because Ronald Reagan and Bush were indwelt by Satan. Do I have it right?

 

[The Big Al]

Pinatubo. St. Helens. Redoubt. Unzen. Nevado Del Ruiz. Surtsey. Eldfell. Any of those names mean anything to you?

hdear: Occasional volcanic eruptions have short-lived influence on the climate. Human activity is continuous and growing. Your argument fails.

Let's also remember that plants gobble up CO2 like a fat kid does cake.

Too bad we're destroying them in masse at the same time.

My grandmother also scoffs at the global warming rhetoric, remembering that about twenty years ago people were terrified of the coming ice age being spouted by the progressives.

I'm getting pretty sick of what your grandmother has to say.

Let me guess. The only way to save the world is to go socialist because Ronald Reagan and Bush were indwelt by Satan. Do I have it right?

Actually, I was thinking we need to switch over to demand-side capitalism. That would require more government regulation to insure consumer protections and restricting free trade to encourage companies to hire Americans over foreign labor. Nothing conservatives want to hear.

 

[Nicoleta01]

Even if global warming isn't man-made (which I firmly believe it is), it doesn't hurt saving some energy, wont it? We'll run out of oil soon, so finding alternate sources doesn't hurt, and we need to use less coal, gas and oil.

Depends on who the end-person is that faces the brunt of the costs. The developing world blames the Developed world, while those in the developed world want companies to bear the cost which trickles down to the consumer.

And currently, alternative sources such as wind and solar aren't that effective. I don't mind research going towards it, but if the costs are extremely high, it's best not to adopt en-masse until it's as effective as oil/coal.

You can also make oil from coal, so we're not running out of oil just yet. ;D

 

[Eredar Warlock]

hdear: Occasional volcanic eruptions have short-lived influence on the climate. Human activity is continuous and growing. Your argument fails.

So, start sterilizing people like John Holdren suggested? Do you buy into the idea of "The tragedy of the commons?"

Too bad we're destroying them in masse at the same time.

Point conceded, but easily fixed without upheaval.

I'm getting pretty sick of what your grandmother has to say.

To quote Laguna, Too baaaaaaad! I've lived with my grandmother for 15 years. She helped to shape me into what I am, and she knows how to do it better than any public school system.

Actually, I was thinking we need to switch over to demand-side capitalism. That would require more government regulation to insure consumer protections and restricting free trade to encourage companies to hire Americans over foreign labor. Nothing conservatives want to hear.

Restricting free trade is not a premise on which this country is founded. Oh, and by the way, as for jobs going overseas? Guess who are responsible? That's right - THE UNIONS.

 

[The Big Al]

So, start sterilizing people like John Holdren suggested? Do you buy into the idea of "The tragedy of the commons?"

I'm a firm believer in the commons and the tragedy of the commons.

To quote Laguna, Too baaaaaaad! I've lived with my grandmother for 15 years. She helped to shape me into what I am, and she knows how to do it better than any public school system.

She's done a bang up job. A proud product of the Michigan Public School System has spoken.

Restricting free trade is not a premise on which this country is founded. Oh, and by the way, as for jobs going overseas? Guess who are responsible? That's right - THE UNIONS.

Bullshit. We funded this country on tariffs for decades and held them until Reagan. Restricting trade is how countries preserve their local economies and free trade is a recent, American blunder. As for the unions, you clean the grease encrusted catwalk over the meat vats.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

I'm a firm believer in the commons and the tragedy of the commons.

Then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.

She's done a bang up job. A proud product of the Michigan Public School System has spoken.

I'm from Nevada. I've been to public school, but my grandmother raised me. Public schools cannot raise children.

Bullshit. We funded this country on tariffs for decades and held them until Reagan. Restricting trade is how countries preserve their local economies and free trade is a recent, American blunder. As for the unions, you clean the grease encrusted catwalk over the meat vats.

You keep using examples like this. Yes, some unions have their role and worker safety is important. But big unions like SEIU and UAW do not reflect what a union is truly about. These unions care nothing for members. They care about money that they steal from the companies.

 

[H-con]

And currently, alternative sources such as wind and solar aren't that effective. I don't mind research going towards it, but if the costs are extremely high, it's best not to adopt en-masse until it's as effective as oil/coal.

So you propose that researching new sources of energy should be slowed down as long as we have oil and gas? If resources were diverted to this now, it could make new technology cheaper, and thus more would want to invest in it.

You can also make oil from coal, so we're not running out of oil just yet. ;D

That process would most likely be very energy-dependent. Some people try to fool themselves saying there's enough oil in this world. They are mistaken. Even if you produced oil from coal, it would end sooner or later when we run out of coal. There is no "infinite" resources in this world that we can control.

Let me guess. The only way to save the world is to go socialist because Ronald Reagan and Bush were indwelt by Satan. Do I have it right?

No, the only way to save the planet is for us to stop acting selfish. But some people in power doesn't really want to stop raping our earth.

Point conceded, but easily fixed without upheaval.

You can't simply grow a rain forest over night. When vast areas of woods are chooped down, they contribute heavily to the amount of CO2 released. This CO2 would normally not be released this soon, as the plant would live far longer, and naturally decay while new ones grow. By cutting down the forest and destroying the ground so a new one can't grow there, this option is lost. But then again, destroying forests for profit is surely good for you I guess.

And you fool yourselves if you don't see the fact that human CO2-emissions are affecting the planet. It's a fact that CO2 is what makes this planet habitable. Other gases affect it too, like methane (from cows and swamps and the like). Many researchers (but not all) agrees that global warming is man-made. I'm sure you can find others that think otherwise, but I believe they know better than us.

 

[The Big Al]

Then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.

I'm out of ignorance. Will you take a check?

You keep using examples like this. Yes, some unions have their role and worker safety is important. But big unions like SEIU and UAW do not reflect what a union is truly about. These unions care nothing for members. They care about money that they steal from the companies.

That's why the UAW bends over backwards for the Detroit Three in contract negotiations to help them maintain affordability. Then the heads of those companies would make bad decision after bad decision. When the next contract negotiation comes up, they need more concessions.

I've lived in the middle of this for almost a quarter century. I've watched factories not just close but actually be leveled. I've watched nice neighborhoods turn into ghettos and cities turn into slums. Don't preach the evils of unions when I've watched the unions do everything they can to help their companies only to get bitch slapped every time.

 

[BulbaRaith]

Even if global warming isn't man-made (which I firmly believe it is), it doesn't hurt saving some energy, wont it? We'll run out of oil soon, so finding alternate sources doesn't hurt, and we need to use less coal, gas and oil.

At current rates of consumption there's about 100-200 years of oil left, 1000-2000 years worth of coal, limitation of resources is not an excuse for cutting use currently. The argument for the decrease in consumption is purely down to whether you believe climate change is caused by man. [source Prof. Dan Nocera presentation in Edinburgh, June 2008]

During the day trees do consume CO2, but at night they produce low levels of CO2, and their ability to consume CO2 is limited, they can not consume all the CO2 produced by man, seeding algae populations in oceans may help, but results are far from conclusive.

Arcane Mind - About 20 years ago there was worry about a coming ice age because the suns activity was waning, meaning the Earth should get cooler, meaning an increase in polar ice cap sizes. The fact that despite the decrease in the suns activity the planet has continued to heat up is part of the strong evidence for the effect man-made CO2 has on the climate. Scientific theories adapt as better models and more information become available, that is the point of science.

 

[H-con]

At current rates of consumption there's about 100-200 years of oil left, 1000-2000 years worth of coal, limitation of resources is not an excuse for cutting use currently. The argument for the decrease in consumption is purely down to whether you believe climate change is caused by man. [source Prof. Dan Nocera presentation in Edinburgh, June 2008]

Do you actually think wasting energy is good or did I misunderstand you? Because at the present time, we're far from good enough at preserving energy.
Considering that mans consumption of oil is exponential, I highly doubt there's 100-200 years of oil left with our current use, let alone future use with even more humans with the need for even more energy. Besides, when you see the way some waste energy, it would cut emissions by just generally saving more energy.

During the day trees do consume CO2, but at night they produce low levels of CO2, and their ability to consume CO2 is limited, they can not consume all the CO2 produced by man, seeding algae populations in oceans may help, but results are far from conclusive.

I know, but they do store CO2 in their cells, don't they. Besides, forests are needed to stop the top-soil from eroding, so forests can stop the problem that fertile soil just rains away. It can also preserve biodiversity. But trees aren't a complete solution, I'll admit.

And about the ice-age, I doubt that'll happen, but I've heard someone claims global warming will shift the Gulf Stream, thus potentially causing an ice-age. I don't really know.

 

[BulbaRaith]

Do you actually think wasting energy is good or did I misunderstand you? Because at the present time, we're far from good enough at preserving energy.
Considering that mans consumption of oil is exponential, I highly doubt there's 100-200 years of oil left with our current use, let alone future use with even more humans with the need for even more energy. Besides, when you see the way some waste energy, it would cut emissions by just generally saving more energy.

You argued that if you didn't believe in man-made global warming, there was need to act due to a limitation of resources. I'm just quoting someone who is an expert on solar energy devices who said that line of argument is false, if it was a valid line of argument he would use it as it boosts the funding he'd recieve. I think the brakes are off on man's consumption of energy the only question that remains is what the source of that energy is, personally I'd like a switch to nuclear/renewable asap, but I believe in man-made global warming

I know, but they do store CO2 in their cells, don't they. Besides, forests are needed to stop the top-soil from eroding, so forests can stop the problem that fertile soil just rains away. It can also preserve biodiversity. But trees aren't a complete solution, I'll admit.

Increase in global temperatures has a drying effect on the planet, this leads to forested areas generally being drier and more prone to forest fires, increasing natural (not man-made) CO2. The planting and maintaining of new forests should be encouraged, especially in places that have been heavily deforested by man in the past, but it will never mop up all the man-made CO2. Carbon sequestration is probably a better method but it's very much in it's infancy.

 

[Netto Azure]

LOL, don't turn this into a Climate Change thread. XP
​

Obama urges world to stand united

US President Barack Obama used his first UN address to urge world unity

"We must build new coalitions that bridge old divides... All nations have rights and responsibilities - that's the bargain that makes this work"
US President Barack Obama - UN General Assembly

US President Barack Obama has said the world must face stark challenges, and the US cannot tackle them alone.

In his first speech to the UN General Assembly, he said global problems included nuclear proliferation, war, climate change and economic crisis.
But the world shared a "common future", Mr Obama said, with all nations bearing responsibility to resolve its problems.
He was followed by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who criticised the major powers on the Security Council.
Mr Gaddafi's speech, which continued for more than an hour, was his first address to the UN General Assembly during his 40 years in power.
Relatives of victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing protested outside the UN headquarters as Col Gaddafi was due to arrive. The Libyan convicted of the bombing was released from a Scottish prison last month.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously said he does not believe the Holocaust happened, is due to speak later on Wednesday.
Israel has called for a boycott of his appearance and the Germans have said they will walk out if he repeats the claim.

'Act together'

In his maiden speech to the forum of leaders from more than 120 nations, Mr Obama acknowledged the expectations that accompanied his presidency - expectations, he said, which were "not about me".
He said that when he took office, "many around the world had come to view America with scepticism and mistrust".
He said some of this was based on "misperceptions" but it was also due to "opposition to specific policies".
But Mr Obama said "no world order which elevates one nation above others" could succeed in tackling the world's problems.
"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone," he said.
"We must build new coalitions that bridge old divides... All nations have rights and responsibilities - that's the bargain that makes this work."
The president devoted a significant proportion of his speech to the challenges of finding a peaceful settlement in the Middle East - and called for the relaunch of "negotiations without preconditions".
The BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Jonathan Marcus, says Mr Obama used his first speech to the General Assembly to signal that the United States was back as a team player on the international stage.
His speech received warm but not effusive applause, a sign perhaps that in the face of real world problems the expectations surrounding the president are gradually being adjusted to reality, our correspondent says.

Dang this reminds me of a State of the Union adress. XD
​