Copenhagen: Is this the most important summit?

“Never in 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different countries made so many pledges,” – words of UN climate negotiator Yvo de Boer. 192 countries are attending, and some scientists say it’s the most important summit to take place.

Amid the politicians, are the scientists and professionals who say the science is the flawed. Others think climate change is simply a scare tactic to stop developing nations from advancing. And of course, there are those who say this could be the world’s last chance to provide a cleaner and greener future.

Today WHYS will discuss just how important the Copenhagen climate change summit is to individual nations with a panel of guests from around the world. They’ll be on BBC World at 1530GMT.

They’ll be talking about their hopes of the summit, whether their nations will be able to deliver and how the talks will impact on them. And you can send us your thoughts on what you think Copenhagen can achieve. Here’s a short brief on the guests:

Prabir Purkayasta is an energy analyst in Delhi. He thinks the pressure to combat climate change is a huge burden on India’s development.

Isaac Mwaura is a development consultant in Nairobi. He thinks Copenhagen won’t do much to stop the greed of African leaders and the greed of China and this is detrimental to the continent.

Meg Boyle is a youth activist from the US who is currently in Copenhagen.  She believes that the US and all countries. must conclude a fair, binding, and ambitious deal in Copenhagen with goals based in science rather than in politics.

Daniel Mittler is a long time environmentalist and blogger . He fears the Copenhagen summit risks turning into a talking shop, a fanfare of new targets especially on the part of China and the US who will spin this summit as a success when there’s a bigger chance it will be a failure.

And Anna Chen is a blogger who is not impressed with the finger pointing towards China and writes ‘After centuries of predations by western powers which have pillaged the globe including Africa, China’s the Big Bad?’

112 Responses to “Copenhagen: Is this the most important summit?”

  1. 1 Nigel
    December 7, 2009 at 11:46

    Capitalism and the things required to turn back the losses wrought by Climate Change are oposing values and since the Copenhagen conference will be populated by mainly capitalist governments with their own political futures at stake it is unlikely that anything that comes out of the meeting will have any real effect on what is happening to our world. Climate change is going to have to become a huge political issue capable of dislodging governments or keepng political parties out of power before anything will be done.

    • 2 yalda mehr
      December 7, 2009 at 16:35

      nicely said, thank you

    • 3 Enea
      December 7, 2009 at 17:18

      Don’t shoot only against capitalistical politics of the countries!!!
      Now also developing countries want give a tribute to stop pollution .
      Education , and going on discussions about saving our world is a revolution in progress….
      I’m optimistic , i think that new Green ways to find energy and substitute our age of Oil ….,with less pollution and people lives better each others.

      No change has an easy path….as religions teach us!

    • 4 Admiral Akbar
      December 7, 2009 at 20:17

      Nigel, is that why Communist China is the highest emitter of CO2 in the world? Or is China not communist enough for you?

    • 5 Harry Webb
      December 7, 2009 at 20:54

      “Never in 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different countries made so many pledges,”

      Highlights the real problem. During previous inter-glacial melts, there weren’t any borders or vested nationalist interests. Migrating away from a problem to a new beginning – anyone remember Noah and Moses? – was not a problem. Remove the freedom of movement, represented by international borders and, the problem is a lot smaller than it looks now!

  2. 6 Tatha
    December 7, 2009 at 13:23

    Over the past years we have noticed that the climate has become hotter. The glaciers have started melting in the Himalayas and so have the Ice cover of the Poles.
    Climate change is not something that will come in the future but it already is here.
    What we need to do is action, Immediate actions.
    What we ought to be looking at is make green technology affordable and available to all. Set up a target date for replacing all polluting units across the world with green ones, set a specific date for the same and make money available for all.

  3. December 7, 2009 at 13:29

    Whatever is required to halt or turn back the damage we have done to our planet – you can bet it won’t be done. It’s too difficult and there are too many dollars at stake for anyone to consider doing anything. Better to put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and keep shouting ‘Where’s the evidence?!’ I can’t believe there are people who will still deny MMGW! Do they think you can release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, whilst simultaneously cutting down all the trees and nothing will happen? Probably the same people who think you can keep tipping sewage into rivers and seas and nothing will happen.

    Yes there is natural climate change, but that does not alter the fact that MMGW is speeding things up and creating problems all of its own. But nobody will listen until the water is lapping at our feet, or the planet starts to die and by then it will be too late.

  4. 8 Robert
    December 7, 2009 at 13:31

    The leaked emails from the CRU at East Anglia show vividly the body of research used to write the IPCC report should be scrutinized closely before any agreement is signed which would impact economies world wide. One might be able to make a case for anthropogenic global warming, but it can’t be made with the report. The fact that an agreement with such wide reaching economic impacts may be forged
    based on flawed scientific data should be of grave concern to those on both sides of the issue.The desire of all involved should be to get the RIGHT agreement, not AN agreement. For this reason, Cop 15 2009 IS the most important summit.

    • 9 Gary Paudler
      December 7, 2009 at 17:23

      If you totally eliminate the findings of the researchers whose emails have been questioned, there remains very nearly 100% consensus among serious climate scientists that climate change caused by human activity is real. There is no credible, provable debate.

  5. 11 guykaks
    December 7, 2009 at 13:37

    I think this is one of the crucial events of the year 2009.Except for the empty rhetorics and cheap politics from the capitalist governments.what happens to Africa which is worstly affected?I belief this forum will help answer a few question about the world has it his and what the future holds.

  6. December 7, 2009 at 14:19

    The science behind climate change “formerly global warming because now the world temp is cooling” is completely up in the air as to the cause. The fact that the world has been warming since the last little ice age and that most of the warming happened before the industrial revolution should cause skepticism.

    Climate change is simply a political issue and a reason for people to argue and try to cause panic. When people are scared it is easier to control them, just look at the passing of the patriot act (The biggest removal of freedom and liberty) in the US after 9/11.

    • 13 Robert
      December 8, 2009 at 01:23

      I once heard it said that the current global warming treaties and legislation are another way for fabulously wealthy people to make money out of thin air, literally in this case. Much like the central banking system.

  7. 14 Ibrahim in UK
    December 7, 2009 at 14:59

    There was more interest in the draw for the world cup. There was more a sense of injustice and an urgency to get something done about the Henry hand-ball.
    More pressure on the government to act on Bankers bonuses.
    Why isn’t the doom of climate change an urgent mainstream issue?

  8. 15 Elina in Finland
    December 7, 2009 at 15:04

    I hate to sound pessimistic, but from what I’ve understood it’s highly unlikely that there will be a new treaty done and signed by all the participants — but if there is no legally binding treaty (and of course, to be legally binding it should be ratified by national parliaments, too…) then there will be no effective global framework for tackling the climate change either. It’s a scary scenario; I’m afraid our Planet just can’t wait any longer for all the democratic decision-making processes to take place and all peoples and nations to agree on acceptable and eligible measures. I wish good luck for the Summit, but I’m not holding my breath for the results.

  9. 16 ZetsiaBP
    December 7, 2009 at 15:07

    The fact that some scientists say that the UN is exagerating is no surprise to me. Eventhough my homeland has become hotter. We’ve hardly had any rain this year and the sun shines all yearround. And yet people and authotities on my island keep on cutting down anything indiscriminately for the sake of cash.
    But I’m exagerating…right? So lets keep cutting down trees, killing wildlife, using and misusing fuel, polluting the oceans.
    There’s no denying the temperature and sealevels are rising, but how many of us are willing to change for the sake of our planet. While worldleaders are pointing the fingers at each other, it is up to the little people to give the right example.

  10. December 7, 2009 at 15:38

    There is no question that man is a significant contirbutor to climate change. Man’s impact began approximately 10,000 years ago with the domestication of agriculture. However, what is and should be disputed are these 20, 50 year or langer forecasts about the destruction of the earth. There is no scientific concensus on the long-term effect of climate change on the earth. These models that are taken as gospel rely on the same modeling techniques that can not even accurately predict next week’s weather.

    The earth is not static and has a “self-correcting” design that introduces enormous complexities to long-term forecasts or even short-term forecasts (ask earthquake modelers that question).

  11. 18 Frances Klatzel
    December 7, 2009 at 15:39

    I really have to ask ‘is Copenhagen looking at the real issues? will accords signed there make a real difference’?
    I’ve lived and worked in Nepal and the Himalaya for many years. What many of us see happening here is more drought and more rainfall in a few dramatic downpours in a year. The main effect of this is that there is less food production.

    One Nepali friend, who is a scientist, said that only about 35% of Nepal’s rice crop could be planted this year due to the delayed monsoon. What is really important is to act NOW to help subsistence farmers to change to crops that depend less on water – to ensure that they will have enough food for their families.

    It is also essential that everyone in the western world take a look today at how they can reduce their over consumption of resources. In Canada, US, UK, and Europe, do we really need to heat our homes and offices so that we do not even need to wear a light sweater???? Do those living in tropical climates really need to aircondition buildings such that one needs to wear a sweater???

    We can do small acts TODAY without waiting for our governments to sign an accord. We citizens need to lead the way.

  12. 19 Anyanwu Modestus
    December 7, 2009 at 15:42

    It is very clear that African leaders have seen this as an opportunity to enrich themselves by focusing on the so called compasation to those that are mostly vulnorable to dangers of climate change.

    • December 7, 2009 at 17:14

      I totally agree and I don’t blame them if the wealthier nations are stupid enough to fall for it

    • 21 Robert
      December 8, 2009 at 01:38

      I’ve heard this weekend that $10.8 billion will be a preliminary prime to get the pipeline flowing between the industrialized world and developing countries. It’s my understanding this is on the agenda at Copenhagen. If true, this marks the beginning of that loud, sucking sound coming from your wallet. Having read the draft of the Copenhagen Treaty, I can say it’s purpose is 10% climate change mitigation and 90% transfer of wealth to the third world. Not to mention the 800 pages of amendments to be considered at the conference.

  13. 22 Vijay Pillai
    December 7, 2009 at 15:44

    Having seen sec general of IGCC’s interview , whom i met at another world conference in 2003 ,i am satisfied the e-mail saga would not affect general perception of man made global warming and need to take action to reduce co2 emmission now.Good luck to the summit.

  14. 23 Mike Danger
    December 7, 2009 at 15:45

    The current agenda of crisis-based issues has transcended politics, science and economics. The newly mobilized world has managed quite successfully to insist that these crises be addressed immediately and action is irreversibly being taken – if not in the best way, at least in some way. Whether that action satisfies economic, political or scientific vested-interests is absolutely of concern, however further investigations will have to follow, not pre-empt these critical first initiatives. To apply too strident a forensic scalpel as to how and why we’re at this point will continue to interfere with our ability to simply be here – and move forward away from here … as absolutely quickly as humanly possible.

  15. 24 Colin L Beadon
    December 7, 2009 at 16:00

    Wonderful wonderful Copenhagen. Do you remember that old tune ?
    Most of us must be seriously hoping Copenhagen will cement the push against GW, and we seem to be attempting to tackle all but the main ‘set back’.
    The main set back is world population growth. The world energy demand goes up with every new human birth. We can probably leave out tribal people alone, whose carbon footprints are negligible. Will anybody at Copenhagen squeek one word about population control? No they won’t!
    If human population control is ignored, as it will be, then, the prognosis for a long lasting sustainable reduction in carbon usage, remains dismal.
    Colin Leslie Breadon. Barbados. W.I.

  16. 25 gary
    December 7, 2009 at 16:18

    The Copenhagen conference will (hopefully) be one of the last several, interesting events that have decorated 2009. It will also be little more than a series of photo-ops and sound bytes controlled by the major economic powers to allay the fears of people who have sea water lapping at their toes. The important summit will occur sometime after the permafrost begins to outgas methane. Sorry for the gloom, but most folks in every country (well certainly in mine, the US) are still stuck in the “sovereignty” tar pit and are unlikely to extricate themselves any time soon.

  17. 26 Alya Hazell
    December 7, 2009 at 16:21

    I desperately want to be optimistic about Copenhagen but the UN has shown on numerous occasions that glitzy meetings and copious chat leads to little more than reinforcement of good intentions. Attention must be paid to what happens after the summit: we need action and quantifiable results. I assume the summit will produce some pretty good background for policy but unless these agreements are turned into binding legislation, I can’t see change happening at any useful speed.

  18. 27 chris obergh
    December 7, 2009 at 16:23

    The prblme is a NON PROBLEM .. why ? Because the solution has been around for some time now , infact more than 30 years . In 1977 Amory Lovins published his book ‘Soft Energy Paths , Toward A Durable Peace’ whcich is dead right in retrospect . This man knows how to solve this issue. Lets listen to him .He is very much alive and kicking . Use his knowledge. ASAP!

    • 28 Gary Foenander
      December 8, 2009 at 21:36


      You inspired me to say that Buckminster Fuller an American devised a plan back in 1965 to connect the world up to a global electricity grid which is possible via the land mass across the north pole. The grid is fed from renewable power generation stations and depending on day or night, the energy is transferred to where it is needed.

      3rd world countries will benefit if the grid is run through their lands because we all know the quality of western lifestyle is all about the use of energy. ie schools hospitals refridgeration etc.

      Countries connected to the grid will recognise very quickly that dependence on the global grid for energy means the country must work with the world and not be rebellious otherwise energy embargo’s will apply. Better to do it this way rather than go to war.

      Anyway there are many benefits and this is a very feasible resolution towards climate change, which wasn’t an issue back in 1965.

      A brilliant man is Buckminister Fuller!

  19. 29 Loretta Land
    December 7, 2009 at 16:32

    There is an urgent need to focus on green technology and green jobs. The global consumption of energy, water, food, metal and minerals, is projected to double by 2050. The earth’s ancient legacy of resources cannot fund this need.
    If these urgent matters are addressed, climate change will automatically addressed as well. I hope this conference will prove to be a ‘Sustainability’ conference.

  20. December 7, 2009 at 16:36

    The 2009 COP 15 climate change conference in Copenhagen is a carpathia moment for the planet. Worldwide endemic consensual action is needed.

    Failure to coalesce, for the mitigation of radical global adverse climatic change, in the short term, will force the planet to make that decision for us, whatever action we take then, will ultimately benefit the planet.

    Long live the planet.

  21. 31 phil
    December 7, 2009 at 16:37

    should we not be looking at the fact that there has been no sun spots for the last 12 years and the last time this happened there was a mini ice age global warming is not true

  22. December 7, 2009 at 16:41

    Mountains are eroded by water and the elements, not by explosives and man.

    This is the philosophy on which I base some my recent judgements.
    It’s not always easy to see the slow path to success but once spotted, can be followed, and slowly but surely the path will yield rewards.

    Judge not on your pre-conceptions, but your mis-conceptions, for learning the difficult path is a hard process but a worthy one in the end.

    When there’s light there’s darkness and that’s the concept of ying and yang, and of our planet.

  23. December 7, 2009 at 16:42

    The Copenhagen Summit will have little chance to bring about changes in favour of climate change as all countries are aspiring for the best living standards. It’s very complex to find a balance between economic growth and the protection of the climate from the diverse human activities and actions, that are apparently the causes of what the climate will be like.

  24. 34 patti in cape coral
    December 7, 2009 at 16:42

    WHYS – I really have nothing significant to add, I just want to make my presence known so you know I am interested and reading the comments. However, my feelings most resemble Elina in Finland, kind of hoping against hope.

  25. 35 Christopher Styles
    December 7, 2009 at 16:43

    The only reason theses thousands of lackeys and free-loaders are burning hot air in Copenhagen because the political will to address the real crisis simply does not exist. There are no votes in prescribing population control so the population will continue to rise inexorably until a fairly obvious catestrophic failure of the ecosystem will kill pretty much everytbody.

  26. 36 steve evans
    December 7, 2009 at 16:44

    to cut down on power consumption why not do something simple in the uk by shutting all shops on Sundays we do not need them open as we have 24hr shopping in the week.

    Think of the saving….

    United kingdom make a stand be a leader.

  27. 37 Dai Jones
    December 7, 2009 at 16:44

    Climate change due to burning fossil fuels – well two wars have burnt how much fossil fuel and how big is the carbon footprint of rolling Tanks and aircraft in afghanistan and Iraq. Stop the wars first and then ask the general population to tow the line on their carbon footprint. Its stupid the Governments of teh World are just stupid and there is nothing we can trust them on. So anyone that believes the Governments of the World is sadly mislead. Don’t trust the Governmenst that rob us every day and will rob us again with thsi so called mankind climate change. Reduce Population if that is the case as only a reduced population in the World will solve Mankind’s problems.

  28. 38 crayston webster
    December 7, 2009 at 16:45

    If David Attenborough is correct and the population of this planet has increased three fold in forty years, the whole issue should revolve around substeanability of the species. Kelvin Mackenzie (late editor of the Sun) who is involved in African charity work stated last week that the population of Ethiopia has increased from 24 million to 40 million since the commencement of aid to this country. Any other of the earths species only grow when it can substain its self.The carbon footprint of all these additional billions on this planet cannot be substained. at its current growth rate.

  29. 39 brian h
    December 7, 2009 at 16:45

    I hope copenhagen achieves nothing. Until the full deceit perpetrated by the likes of Richard Jones and his cronies on the IPCC is exposed it is madness to commit trillions of dollars, euros, yen and pounds on climate change.

  30. 40 Kidanu
    December 7, 2009 at 16:47

    For the negotiation to be effective the right negotiators need to be present. Look at how Africa is represented. We r represented by a tyrant from Ethiopia(Meles Zenawi) who want to abandon negotiation unless Afrifan dictators are Given Billions which they will obviously deposit it in thier accounts in Swiss banks rather than negotiating for what is beneficial to the continent like increased access to trade, education etc from the developing world. Therefore I don’t expect outcome out it.

  31. 41 kirstie
    December 7, 2009 at 16:49

    those of us that are aware of our consumption can change, those that need to helped, MUST be helped, those that are greedy will learn soon. We CAN change consciouseness. 90% of the World are good people…it’s the 10% that can be overcome. WE WILL DO THIS!!!TIME FOR A REVOLUTION OF THE MIND? Lets DO IT!!

  32. 42 McTriple
    December 7, 2009 at 16:49

    I will not take action until BOTH sides of the argument are allowed to be heard FULLY. I will not buy a single “green” lightbulb until the whole of London city centre stops being lit up like a christmas tree every night. Big business and governments should be made to pay and not individuals. Taking money from individuals will NOT help it will only make governments richer just like speed cameras dont help save lives, they merely collect government funds.

  33. 43 Jay
    December 7, 2009 at 16:52

    this is One World, it is a living organism, and has to be treated as such. Divisions caused by political and economic rifts can’t solve this issue. We need to take an overall viewpoint on this issue

  34. December 7, 2009 at 16:57

    I think that the premises for global cooperation aren’t there. The world at large is no longer deceived by the rhetoric of the western politicians. The United States and its closes allies are seen as hypocrites saying and doing are to wide appart

  35. 45 Christopher Styles
    December 7, 2009 at 16:59

    I’ve just heard one of your “experts” say that “population is not our problem”. How much in denial is that?
    Perhaps there’s no money in it. . .

  36. 46 Nathan Coombs
    December 7, 2009 at 17:00

    This summit will mark one of the biggest attacks on the working classes and aspirations of the developing world ever. If it succeeds it will be a disaster for all those on low incomes – our mobility will be reduced, regressive taxes will hit us the hardest, our disposable income will be massively reduced.

    Economically, it signals a move towards a rent seeking economy that is as bad , if not worse, than capitalism. An economy where a small elite trades and taxes the by products of production without actually producing anything.

    In the developing world the slow down in growth will result in the unnecessary deaths of millions due to impeded development rates and reductions in the tangential rate of the improvement in mortality rates.

  37. 47 Donnamarie in Switzerland
    December 7, 2009 at 17:00

    When I climb an Alp I have to go higher and higher up to the find the edelweiss. When I get to the top and look across the valley of the Hinterrhein, I can see that the Rhein Glacier is smaller and dirtier than it was when I moved to Switzerland in 1983.

    If they DON’T do anything in Copenhage, we’re going to cook this weary old planet, and ourselves along with it.

  38. 48 Frank Alexander
    December 7, 2009 at 17:01

    One question that I cannot get an answer to no matter how I word it….is…..

    The climate is in a constant state of change….. You want to alter the way the climate changes….fair enough….


    You want to slow down the warming…….


    You want us to finance a journey down a road that has no destination…… How will we know when we’ve gone far enough… or even too far!!!

    We’re a bunch of sheep being led by a blind shepherd at the moment.

    I don’t want to be a sheep…. I’m out.

    • 49 Actual Reading
      December 7, 2009 at 18:19

      @Frank : Excellent point. There is no recalibration target and no data to support what the climate numbers should actually be, particularly in the future. There is a philosophy that would suggest we have no business attempting to control the natural forces that we think we are impacting. We are merely dinosaurs afraid of our own inevitable extinction.

    • 50 gary
      December 7, 2009 at 19:17

      The target is a destination. I think you wish us to travel down a road with without a destination merely to continue current financial advantage.

  39. 51 Dan
    December 7, 2009 at 17:02

    Why is this so difficult for people to understand that this is nothing more than a tax grab by politicians and governments.
    It is settled that there is NO science behind it but a quest for money.
    Al Gore turned his wallet green with your greenbacks.
    What is it that Government has ever done that was efficatious? NOTHING!!!
    To reduce emissions takes incentives given to industry not new taxes for Governments and politicians to plunder.
    Think I am a fool. Tell me the names of any politician that retired from Congress less than a multi millionaire and did it on a $169,000/yr salary.
    Look at the pollution generated in Copenhagen this week. They do not belive in Climate Change, Global Warming or whatever euphamism they think you will swallow like showing a cute cuddly polar bear being the flavor of the day.
    This is a fraud plain & simple.

  40. 52 Rolf Shenton
    December 7, 2009 at 17:03

    Common sense is all that is needed to realise that 6.5 bill people can´t live at the high resource consumption of the top billion. We have to adjust values and lifestyles if we want to survive. My African brothers live culturally- rich lives within low carbon use. The solution must be as much social as scientific. Rolf Shenton, Zambia/ Sweden

    • 53 Robert
      December 8, 2009 at 14:23

      I’ve never been to any part of Africa, but my church has sent hundreds of missionaries to help your African brothers attain the basic necessities of life.
      They have seen a small part of the millions of orphans generated by the rich, low carbon culture of Africa. I recently spoke at length with a woman from Camaroon I met in a grocery store and a fellow teacher who recently returned from a mission there. Both made the remark that the vast majority of those poor people, given the chance, would prefer to live in a high carbon footprint, healthy, clean part of the world. If nation building is to be done, it should be in Africa where the Robert Mugabes of the world find the proper environment to fester and infect their world with greed and oppression. A poliitcal system where people are free to pursue their own interests ALWAYS results in MORE WEALTH and a CLEANER, HEALTHIER environment. Restriction of personal freedom and the ability to build the life you want for yourself and your family always results in poverty, squalor, and a degraded environment. The transfer of wealth to the developing world under the current political environment will result in a privileged class of wealthy politicians and their lackeys who will further oppress the people and degrade the environment. IT ALWAYS WORKS THAT WAY!!!!!!! Witness the former Soviet Union. If the goal is to emulate the rich culture of Africa, NO THANKS!!!!

  41. 54 john
    December 7, 2009 at 17:05

    Climate change, global warming call it what you will. The planet has been getting hotter since time began. Britain was severed from europe by glacial melting about 10,000 years ago. This whole feasco has been created by the media and politicians. Global warming has nothing to do with mankind it is the result of climate differences on the sun. What man is responsable for is poluting the air, if this was the argument normal people would accept this and endevour to do somthing about it. People do not trust politicians or the hot air that comes from most of the media

  42. 55 Gary Watson
    December 7, 2009 at 17:09

    This is ridiculous. The Co2 in the earths atmosphere is 0.038% and man made Co2 is 0.117% of that. We have no effect on whether the planet is warming up or cooling down. That would be the sun that causes that. It’s a natural cycle that has been happening for billions of years.

    This is a commercial process disguised as a planet saving venture so that governments can tax the people and restrict third world growth. Think about it, the bankers get hundreds of billions of dollars from the governments to sort a financial problem they created, money that just vanished i might add. The same western governments offer £10 billion dollars to help sort global warming. Thats how much they care, that’s how serious they are to do anything, not at all!

    Sure the planets climate is changing, it’s what it does. We should be spending money on better fuel and energy to improve the quality of life for everyone on the planet not wasting it on stupid carbon taxes and other such made up fear mongering nonsense! Don’t believe the hype!

  43. 56 Rakesh
    December 7, 2009 at 17:12

    The biggest roadbloack to climate agreement is the US attitude. If the US takes the right stand others will fall in line. The American public is clearly skeptic about climate change. President Obama talks about climate change to other countries a lot but very little to his own public. While Americans do not want to reduce emission , but they see green technology as a potential saviour of its economy ! So US need to make a choice between saving the planet and protecting the excessive lifestyle of its populace .

  44. 57 Terry McAnish
    December 7, 2009 at 17:13

    The Copenhagen Summit is just a PR stunt as nothing will change. We all saw the Live Aid initiative and people are still starving in Africa.
    Carbon Trading is just an excuse for the developed nations to palm their responsibilities onto developing nations.
    It will take a global catastrophe to change this pathetic human animal to change its behaviour.

  45. 58 Richard
    December 7, 2009 at 17:17

    When I was a student we had global cooling, this was only 35 years ago but we were told that the earth would have to get used to droughts and extreme weather conditions. The temperature now is less that one tenth of a degree different from what it was in 1880 (it’s true, look it up!). Global cooling in spite of all the hype turned out to be wrong. Why should I now believe they have it right this time. I hear talk of climate change costing money to stop, now I think I am hearing the real reason for all this attention. Instead of spending money trying to mitigate climate change, why not simply stop cutting down the worlds forests and poluting the seas. Reducing oil and fossil fuels to reduce dependency on foreign supplies makes much more sense than trying to blame carbon dioxide.

  46. December 7, 2009 at 17:20

    It is more about water than coal and oil. India wants to continue economic growth driven by fossil fuels when in some places it has a maximum ten years of water left for its agriculture. Economic growth will mean more water used and a food crisis coming earlier. The same is true for China which signals its intention to drive economic growth amid water shortage warnings.

    If these countries wanted to use more fossil fuels to create sustainable water harvesting and food production, I would understand, but to copy our stupidity in wanting to get into cars to go eat fast food or catch a movie – or just to copy the west’s water-wasting “luxury” infrastructure – is a recipe for disaster.

  47. 60 steve/oregon
    December 7, 2009 at 17:21

    I agree Colin population is the biggest threat to the planet CO2 is simply a byproduct of human exsistance. It would be great to see nations set population control limits and possibly even reduction targets (China, Africa, and America)

  48. 61 Rico
    December 7, 2009 at 17:23

    The skeptics never have to prove nothing, not even their own statements. They just try to discredit the effort and data gathered by those who believe that human intervention is causing major issue.
    People don’t stop supporting skeptics, even they are proved to be involved in criminal manipulation of information. People don’t want to accept the proof because that would mean WE would need to change our wasteful ways.
    Corporations have created a dependency on society. Oil dependency ranges from simple household items made of plastic, clothes, and of course, cars, fuel even even the roads.
    There is a serious misconception that if we abdicated of these “modern comforts” we’ll go back to the dark ages.
    Kyoto was a failure in all senses, it looks like Copenhagen is bound to be Kyoto revisited.

  49. 62 Guido
    December 7, 2009 at 17:29

    Additional to the question, how to limit climate change, also the question to handle climate change is international. Is it, for example, possible for those in the worst hit regions to move to other states where climate improves for agriculture?

  50. 63 Dion
    December 7, 2009 at 17:35

    I don’t know what to expect from Copenhagen, but optimism seems awfully preemptive. I believe that some fundamental lifestyle changes in the western world are required. Rampant overconsumption needs to be prevented, not only to prevent climate change, but to conserve natural resources which are becoming scarce everywhere. This means prioritizing. Not only should we look towards greener technologies, which produce cleaner energy, and conserve less energy, we should accept that currently, our lifestyles don’t require this excessive expenditure of natural resources.

    Some technologies miss the point, such as hybrid cars. The fact is; we don’t need to drive around in our own seperate pods, or money poured into products that essentially cause harm to both human health and the enviroment, simultaneously. At this Copnhagen summit, I believe the lead should be taken by the rich and powerful nations, because they are essentially in situations less dire, greater bearing, and with more scope to do the deed at hand. Those who can make the required sacrifices must do so. Others will follow.

  51. 64 archibald
    December 7, 2009 at 18:09

    Optimism is always a practical choice, even when you have such unlikely bedfellows as at Copenhagen. I think it is dawning on world leaders that action is a must and not a maybe. How long it will take for anything to be done is anyone guess. Staying positive can do no harm in the meantime.

  52. 65 Kirk Merritt
    December 7, 2009 at 18:25

    Here is my concern about the decissions that will be made in Copenhagen. Climate warning science has been politicized to the point it is difficult to know what’s true or false. The link here is to the transcript of a speach made by Michael Chrichton to the California Institute of Technology in January of 2003. His critique of politiczed was true then and, unfortunately, true now. This should be required reading for all politicians and policy makers.


  53. 66 rob z.
    December 7, 2009 at 18:27

    The debate on climate change is like US domestic politics;you have those who want to change and those who don’t,and then you add the haves & have not.It becomes a battle with 4 sides that gets nowhere.
    To achieve what needs to be done to svae the world requires an economic shift by all nations;and that means a shift in political power.Those on top want to stay on top and not step aside,or step down.
    Rob in Florida.

  54. 67 Tom K in Mpls
    December 7, 2009 at 18:37

    I trust the capitalists that want the more efficient systems that produce greater sales and profits than politicians that want to do anything so they can ‘prove’ their worth. I prefer inaction too bad action. Also, greed of many of the poor is a big motivation. They want handouts.

  55. 68 J.A.H. Bloemendaal
    December 7, 2009 at 18:42

    One of the reasons why people in developing countries are poor and thus cannot cope with climat change is the rampent corruption in their governments.
    When in Copenhagen it is decided that the West will help developing countries through transferring huge amounts of money, will there be a system in place to make sure that all of it is used for this purpose ?
    If not, allow me to suggest that the usual percentages are sent to these governments Swiss bank accounts directly. It is quicker, and saves bank tranfer costs.

  56. 69 patti in cape coral
    December 7, 2009 at 18:48

    I’m not saying that I agree with him, but all this reminds me of a joke George Carlin made about how silly it was that people were running around trying to “save the planet.” He said when the planet got tired of us, it would just shake us off like an annoying flea.

  57. 70 Alan in Arizona
    December 7, 2009 at 19:11

    We are so far behind in taking action on this subject. CO2 is nothing compared to all the other chemicals that evaporate into the atmosphere. My day job involves all of the EPA reporting and compliance and the handling of all of the waste. We really need to deal with the entire aspect of the air we breath or we will keep spewing large amounts of Volatile Organic Compounds ( VOC’s ) and Hazardous Air Pollutants ( HAP’s ) into our air. CO2 emissions will seem like a day dream we wish we could have held onto.

    Our leaders need to wake up and watch the Rose’s die. Our countries Environmental Organizations really need to inform us as citizens and give the populace a comprehensive understanding of how dangerous the situation really is.

    This Copenhagen gathering is just a bunch of clueless leaders doing the Hokie Pokie and The Chicken Dance to keep themselves entertained for 2 weeks.

  58. 71 John in Salem
    December 7, 2009 at 19:20

    Copenhagen is political theater performed for the purpose of preventing panic by giving us the illusion that something meaningful can still be done.

  59. 72 patti in cape coral
    December 7, 2009 at 19:21

    The man who was just speaking said that the debate wasn’t about climate change actually happening, but the debate between left and right is about the cause of climate change. This isn’t true. Part of the debate is still about whether climate change is happening at all.

    • 73 Tom K in Mpls
      December 7, 2009 at 19:33

      I don’t see the debate being about if climate change is happening. Virtually all agree it is happening. Now there is a higher percentage that think it is going up ( I’m a recent convert ). The big and wide open debate is what role does man play. Science does not have good records for more than a century, barely a blink in the planets age. Our science does not fully understand all of the myriad interactions involved. And temperature increases have consistently been below past projections. Why?

      • 74 patti in cape coral
        December 8, 2009 at 14:46

        @ Tom- I used to think everyone agreed that climate change is happening and the debate was about the cause, but I have heard and read that a significant amount of people still don’t believe it is actually happening at all.

  60. 75 Tom D Ford
    December 7, 2009 at 19:21

    Jeepers creepers, your Denialist even denies that he is a Denialist!

    Oh, and “Lunatic Right” is redundant!

  61. 76 Mike in Seattle
    December 7, 2009 at 19:24

    How can we have an actual discussion and debate about the nature of climate change when so few people have the background in mathematics and various fields of science to understand what is going on?

    Why should we value the opinions of those who haven’t bothered to study the material in the first place?

  62. 77 D from Indiana
    December 7, 2009 at 19:30

    Most of the people here in the States need absolute proof that global warming is tied to human behavior before they start making changes. Until then, we will continue to do what we’ve always done; Consume recklessly.

  63. 78 Nate, Portland OR
    December 7, 2009 at 19:36

    The anti-anthropogenic climate change fellow just brought up the extremely discredited point that “we used to hear about a man made global ice age ~20 years ago…”

    What happened then was that a paper was published that concluded that there was a risk of a global ice age due to particulates we were putting in the air. The press got a-hold of this ONE paper and proceeded to sell newspapers with scary headlines. Meanwhile, the peer-review process kicked in and the paper was discredited within months.

    The current situation is very different. Many scientists have collected data and published results that suggest anthropogenic climate change is real. The evidence is much stronger. On the other hand, any evidence that the integrity of the peer-review process is breaking down on this issue is very concerning.

    This fellow should spend more time looking at the science and less time reading discredited anecdotes on ideologically driven web-sites.

  64. 79 Jane Steele
    December 7, 2009 at 19:37

    I think everyone can aggree that pollution is bad for the environment and has negative effects on the planet – period!

    Maybe we are going through a “natural cycle” of warming – but common sense tells us that all of the pollutants we are pumping into the environment daily aren’t making the Earth a better place to live and we need to address these issues – Because there are worse things than the temperature going up a few degrees.

    • 80 Kalai in San Francisco
      December 7, 2009 at 21:39

      I agree with Jane on this. Even the people who deny ‘global warming’ cannot disagree that the planet is getting more polluted everyday. Shall we better start working on improving the quality of life rather than whining about ‘correctness’ of data?

      • 81 Robert
        December 8, 2009 at 16:34

        The statement that the world is getting more polluted everyday is not quite accurate. It is true the developing countries, because of their backward political and cultural systems and the poverty that is common there, continue to brutalize their environment. It is an indisputable fact that the developed world is getting cleaner in everything they do. It is the product of generating wealth through a growing economy and environmental awareness. Wealth brings health, cleanliness, and stability. Much is said about greed in a capitalist system which has proven to have failed. Capitalism didn’t fail, greed did. And greed, concentrated in the hands of a few, breeds socialism. Witness the linkage between Wall Street and the current US administration. And with socialism will ultimately come more environment degradation as the standard of life degrades worldwide.

  65. 82 mers in Oregon
    December 7, 2009 at 19:37

    I AM a climate change scientist. I am becoming increasingly irritated by listening to “pundits” expound upon the science behind climate change studies. I have no more authority to offer financial advice (for example) than they have authority to speak on climate change. I am finding that communicating the true science to the public at large is coming up against the ever-growing obstacle of misinformation they perpetuate. People are more willing to accept what they hear from mainstream media than from true experts. It is the responsibility of a conscientious media.

  66. 83 Ryant T
    December 7, 2009 at 19:42

    The concern today is the risk of accelerated climate change during a relatively mild, biodiverse, and populous interglacial. Regardless of what vocal politicians, fossil fuel geologists, and economists think, decades of science point to cumulative human pressures on climate. Pressures that can still be alleviated at reasonable cost if nations are willing to cooperate on phasing out fossil carbon.

    CO2 accumulation and feedback effects are real:

    This reality doesn’t mean the infant warming trend isn’t mixed with the usual short-term fluctuation that allows politicians to cry “global cooling” every few years:

  67. 84 djrabbit
    December 7, 2009 at 19:54

    I’m very disappointed that you chose to invite a denier (sorry, a “climate-science skeptic”) to hijack what could otherwise be a useful and productive discussion. I live in the US and tuned into BBC (digital radio) today to get perspectives on the politics, policies, goals, etc. of Copenhagen conference, only to find one of your “experts” — who admits he is not a scientist — questioning the scientific consensus in the 4th IPCC report.

    If you want to have a show about climate science & invite a “climate-skeptic” to give that perspective, fine. But to turn every climate discussion into a re-hash of old denier talking points is not helpful. In fact, BBC is playing right into the hands of the organized FUD campaign (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) of those that have a financial interest in delaying progress on addressing global warming. Can’t we ever have a show about climate politics or solutions without inviting a denier to derail the whole discussion?

    For all of our sakes, let’s hope that the organizers at Copenhagen do a better job preventing their critical negotiations from degrading into “debate” over science that is already well settled.

  68. 85 Steven
    December 7, 2009 at 19:59

    Science isn’t a democracy–it is not about which viewpoint has the most supporters, but which viewpoint is best supported by the data. A number of Nobel prize winners won because they discovered that the consensus was wrong. If you want a real science debate, gather up a number of scientists working in relevant field & have them explain how the available data supports their hypothesis. This would give outsiders a view into what is known, how it is being interpreted, and what the next steps in research will be.

    Additionally, policy isn’t set by scientists, but by the people. After science has determined what is happening, the people of the world then need to decide what to do about it. Maybe we would be happy with global warming and just need to buy more sunscreen. Maybe possible solutions to global warming, such as moving to renewable energy, might be good for many other reasons beyond just stopping global warming. People who aren’t keeping up on this process should read up & ask reasoned questions before kicking up dust over everything that’s already been done & settled.

  69. 87 Vijay Pillai
    December 7, 2009 at 20:02

    I should feel sorry for those in need of absolute proof for climate change as a result of human behaviour. There is no such thing as absolute proof in anythink. This is all relative indeed. Beyond reasonable doubt now replaced by balance of probabilites. Even in engineering the advancement of soil mechanics were based on experience guiding the theory and it should not come as a surprise even after 4 decades of better scientific insight from cambridge ,uk many US soil engineers still cling to their own such as now closed down HarvardUniversity soil theory like steady state theory for shear strenght and not cambridge university critical state soil mechanics

    • 88 Bert
      December 7, 2009 at 20:55

      It’s not so much that one needs “absolute proof.” It’s that one needs to know what measures to take.

      Just wringing our hands that the weather is changing doesn’t do much. And leaping on CO2 emissions as the solution won’t do much either. Just like you wouldn’t prescribe cold medicine to heal a broken leg.

  70. 89 Nick,Ohio
    December 7, 2009 at 21:15

    My skepticism with the world leaders to arrive at a fully agreed-upon solution is based upon the attitudes of many global warming nay-sayers in the US. It is difficult to be heard over the din of a few very loud people. In fact, even though our President may be in favor of the US fully participating in and leading the efforts to eradicate global. warming, it is the intransigence of those we’ve elected to Congress that make the loudest noise.

    The only way in which the US can be a part of any concerted effort by the UN or any other group of countries in this effort, to contain our damage on the environment, is to continue speaking up until we are heard.

    It is only through our involvement in peacefully making it happen, that we will ever see real change.

    The economy can improve with further environmental controls, as companies will be clamoring to meet the demands placed on them as the result of the conference in Copenhagen. Jobs will be created and the overall longer-term effects of lower productivity due to more money being spent on environmental controls, are a very small piece of the pie (around 2% of any economic gains, according to some economists). The advantages of protecting our environment are priceless.

    As has been said many times… act locally, think globally.

    I hope Copenhagen is a rousing success.

  71. 90 David
    December 7, 2009 at 21:16

    Well said Nigel
    “December 7, 2009 at 11:46
    Capitalism and the things required to turn back the losses wrought by Climate Change are oposing values and since the Copenhagen conference will be populated by mainly capitalist governments with their own political futures at stake it is unlikely that anything that comes out of the meeting will have any real effect on what is happening to our world. Climate change is going to have to become a huge political issue capable of dislodging governments or keepng political parties out of power before anything will be done”.

    I have said it before and I will say it again. The route that capitalism has been following for many years is a route to destruction. We need a neutral system, a system of marriage between capitalism and socialism, for mankind to coexist and try neutralise climate change.

  72. 91 Dan
    December 7, 2009 at 21:19

    @Vijay Pillai
    I feel sad for those that are so willing to be fooled or fall for the hysteria created about the myth of Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Chanege, or whatever euphamism become the flavor of the day or is represented by a cuddly little polar bear.
    It is a LIE not supported by science but by anecdotal observations that politicians, looking for more of YOUR money,turned into statistical certainty.
    The “settled” issue now is that the data was rigged and that the science was politically motivated.
    We can always tell when a politician lies….his lips move but now scientists have lowered themselves to that level.
    Vijay, you seem like a smart guy, apply scientific reasoning against true data and the truth will bounce right out at you.
    Look at who profits from Global Warming and you will see politicians, Al Gore and those who cannot look out the window and tell you today’s weather but can tell you the weather in 50 years.
    It is a FRAUD.

  73. 92 T
    December 7, 2009 at 21:39

    Yes it is. One reason: it’s literally a power struggle between the large countries against the smaller ones who are standing up for themselves.

    The people who say climate change is a hox haven’t done three things:

    They’ve never conclusively proved that it is fake.
    They’ve never proven why scientists who say it’s real would risk their careers on a lie.
    And they always try to outtalk their opponents by throwing out lots of scientist’s names. Why? Because they’re counting on much of the public not knowing who’s who. But he has an impressive title. So he MUST be an expert on this.

    Enough with the silly games.

    • 93 Robert
      December 9, 2009 at 01:08

      “They’ve never proven why scientists who say it’s real would risk their careers on a lie.”

      The truth of the matter is that many reputable scientists have risked their careers for years speaking out against what they know to be a hoax, or consensus as some call it.

  74. December 7, 2009 at 23:13

    Added note:

    While politicians like to stress the “CO2 saving reasons”
    for bans on ordinary light bulbs etc, there are of course industrial politics involved

  75. 95 Elias
    December 8, 2009 at 00:16

    It is the most important summit, if its true the earth needs saving.

  76. 96 Tony
    December 8, 2009 at 01:13

    I’m inclined towards global warming and the precautionary principle but I wish the advocates would stop ridiculing the sceptics. I just heard the sceptics described on the BBC as more out of touch with reality than holocaust deniers.

    As Einstein pointed out, science is not democratic. A single humble patent clerk or a studious monk can overturn the canon of the scientific community. The 2005 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine was awarded to two Australians who were ridiculed and pilloried for many years by the scientific establishment for ideas that are now completely accepted (that stomach ulcers are caused by an infection, not stress).

    The fact that MMGW advocates are in the majority does not give them the scientific right to ridicule and dismiss minority views. The minority can be and often turns out to be right in science, even if its a minority of one.

  77. 97 T
    December 8, 2009 at 04:30

    Working late online. And I’ve decided to do my part and spread good karma. Hopefully this will convince others to do the same. And then we’ll have an agreement.

    At this stage, why not do it :).

  78. 98 promod
    December 8, 2009 at 05:10

    we can’t compromise with the pace of modernization, neither can we continue with the current trend of haphazard resource utilization and trend of excess pollutants like carbon dioxide etc. The only viable way thus seems to introduce use of Renewable energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and use of Jatropha, ethanol, turpentine etc for the widespread system of transportation. Rather than seeing as the sense of complete replacement for today, the partial replacement would be a wise step towards the full replacement in future. Because it is the fact the nonrenewable resources are not for the longterm, therefore the site specific use of appropriate renewable energy sources may decrease the debate of issue of climate change.

  79. December 8, 2009 at 07:02

    didntt David S say it correct when he stat 1 % of n1 & wow man is stupid We are killing ourselve and we don;t even know it. We look to science to tell us what is happening and when they tell us because we do not like the answer we tell them they are stupid, Why did we hire them in the 1st place. Are we stupid I would say yes even further we are nieve. We think we control what we live on and yet we know not were we live. We are stupid we talk about people that can not see passed thier nose and yet we talk of ourselves. There are people starving , ah fuk them we need to make paper and be somewhere to spend it. We are stupid Did you ever thing in that starving population that we just kill einstien because he didn;t have enough to eat. e We are stupid we ask a bunch of thief to look after our money and a bunch of talker to look after our future. We are stupid we are all going together rich and poor. We are stupid all we need to do is to do it because it was/is the right thing to do
    We are stupid we can not identified what our 4 years knows How to Share. When your 4 years and you are sitting on the griound what will you say of the stars what will you say of the earth what will you say of your dad and your mom what will you say of the passed.

    We take to much for granite and in that way we are stupid. Here a way to save face think only our children will know just how stupid we are/were

  80. 100 Vijay Pillai
    December 8, 2009 at 09:52

    Impression one get is that agreeing for man made global warming is onething but who is going to take action to reduce and how it si going to affect the quality of life of everyone on the planet is another. No one is saying countires at the receiving end of global warming like maldives or bangladeh bear the full brunt .But these nations can also contribute to use sustainable energy and way of life to reduce their c02 emmission as well.
    But the major poluters like coal fired power stationa dn oil producers and oil tankers should bear the full brunt of reducing co2 emmission whether they are developing or developed nations. India and china cannot shirk their responsibility to reduce their co2 emmission and cannot hide behind they are now developing and should not be foreced to reduce. On ehas to remember while western world stabilised their population 50 years ago, these two nation increased their population 5 fold and should not use population as an excuse to do nothing now.

    Further the western natons’s logic of all the people pay for the greed and mismanagement of few should not be applied here to ask taxpayers to foot their unfair policy if they agree at the summit. as an example banks used to increase charges in the past to cove for losses elswhere and now the taxpayers rescued banks with trillions of tax payers money.
    why should vast majority of oil producers and coal fired power stations escape witn minimal reduction or no of co2 let alone methane from farms?

  81. 101 Roberto
    December 8, 2009 at 11:21

    RE “” some scientists say it’s the most important summit to take place “”

    ———– Some scientists not the brightest and prone to hyperinflation as they ventilate their personal stores of hydrogen sulfide.

    The LAST THING needed to deal with man-made global warmING is a massive, outdated, EXPENSIVE, inflexible political agreement that compounds the problem.

    Understanding is an ongoing process, so any agreements need to be incremental and temporary to allow for better ideas and solutions for the future.

  82. December 8, 2009 at 22:32

    This is an incredibly important conference, not just in dealing with climate change but in dealing with change in general. We are clearly doing things incorrectly – economically, ecologically, socially and politically. The global economy is unsustainable, how we externalise our impacts on the environment is unsustainable, how the gap between the haves and have not continues to grow is unsustainable, as is the imbalance in availability to food, and finally the way politicians are subverted by commerce, the corporate-political-nexus if you will, is also unsustainable.
    So what hope is there for change from a world that does not readily accept change? Not a lot, but more the pity really.
    Just think of all of the positives that could come out of this – better ways of doing buisiness, of creating and storing energy, of sharing the resources of the world more equitably, of creating and not crushing hope.
    But what holds us back? The leverage of the profoundly skewed financial system over the political system. Money subverts democracy and until we turn that one back we are all headed towards cold, rough water without lifejackets or wetsuits.
    We can provide sufficient for all, question is will those who have the most be prepared to share their excess with those who have close to nothing?
    From the leaked agreement in Copenhagen, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8402502.stm
    it appears not.

  83. December 9, 2009 at 12:39

    To all the conspiracy theory supporters:

    The damage you are creating is immense. The lengths to which you will go to in order to discredit the biggest and most organised human effort to fight climate change are sad.

    The energy spent on being skeptic about human led global warming should be directed at trying to do something in order to help. There is nothing for you to lose apat from your insatiable need to “be different”. Your creativity probably holds many of the solutions humanity needs now. Read the IPCC reports, Garnault, Stern… It is not comparable to “little ice age” theories based on 1,000 year cycles.

    To all of those who help fight the worse effects of climate change at COP 15 and elsewhere:
    Thank you.

    • 104 Robert
      December 9, 2009 at 20:49

      The damage caused to the global climate change consensus is immense, but it is not by the skeptics as much as it is by the revelations recently at the CRU University of East Anglica. I would suggest you go online, download them, and start reading. It is clear that not only was the data used to write the IPCC report and Copenhagen Treaty cooked extensively, but a shadow has been cast over the body of climate change research as a whole. If a report used to write a treaty that has such far reaching political and economic impacts worldwide is rigged(Oh, by the way. The data for the studies was dumped because they were moving to new quarters and they didn’t have the room to store it?Hmmmmmmm…), the probability is high a large part of the rest is suspect as well. We have all been lied to. The focus of all of us now is not to try to win the debate, which now has a chance of actually happening, but to find out what the TRUTH is.

  84. 105 Jemil
    December 9, 2009 at 13:32

    Hello there this is Jemil from Ethiopia I am watching the Coponhagon15 my simple questions to
    the world who is suppose to be heard the politicians or the Scientists? I think the Scientists
    who are coming with fact and figures (testable evidence) we need action not suggestion on
    cop15 it would be more important if action taken in the following days thank you!

  85. 106 Enea
    December 9, 2009 at 18:09

    Dear Pablo,

    When i was 19 years old (around 20 years ago), i decided to get a vegetarian . It wasn’t easy to be accepted from the society!!
    Now also in Italy is largely accepted this choose….
    New economy is now green economy ….. as there is a real trouble and a real emergency.
    I think that the quality of life and the ingenium of the people could save the planet , as also with spontaneous defense of “green” principles.
    A great result would be change monetary system , goods and services valuables as damage for the earth (cheaper are those with less pollution…);
    As the Swedish model teach us!!

    You’re welcome,


  86. 107 Enea
    December 9, 2009 at 18:15

    When i was 19 years old (around 20 years ago), i decided to get a vegetarian . It wasn’t easy to be accepted from the society!!
    Now also in Italy is largely accepted this choose….
    New economy is now green economy ….. as there is a real trouble and a real emergency.
    I think that the quality of life and the ingenium of the people could save the planet , as also with spontaneous defense of “green” principles.
    A great result would be change monetary system , goods and services valuables as damage for the earth (cheaper are those with less pollution…);
    As the Swedish model teach us!!

    Thank you,


  87. 108 Terry McAnish
    December 13, 2009 at 10:52

    Offsetting carbon emisions to Africa may be counter productive as in countries like China and India there is an enormous pool of cheap labour so if Africa industrialises itself where are they going to do their carbon trading.
    What we have seen in the UK is companies moving their production facilities abroad where labour is cheap but we still buy the products, so we are still responsibile for the pollution from these companies and products they produce so how do we offset that responsibility.

  88. January 5, 2010 at 11:58

    Hi! Really good information, I have bookmarked your site, perhaps you would like to take a look at http://www.bio-partners.co.uk as we have some information you may find usefull in the members area – Keep up the Good Work!

  89. 110 Colin L Beadon
    January 29, 2010 at 01:36

    Nobody wants to tackle population explosion, on a finite Earth.. There is nothing as serious as population explosion, if you bother to think about what it really means, to all the life sustaining Earth systems, mainly water, agricultural land, and carbon burning, those demands which go up with eary new birth.
    Are we really that blind we don;t appreciate that ?

  90. 111 Colin L Beadon
    January 29, 2010 at 01:56

    Can’t we appreciate the drain on finite Earth systems goes up expotentially with every new birth exceeding the rate of human death attrition. Where will nature shortly survive ?
    Where will rivers still pour, lakes fill with fish, ranges fill with the wild creatures. How much longer will the minerals last, the black oil, the hiss of gas. How much longer will the forests shelter the earth beneath them, and grab the rains falls and give shelter to the wild creatures? How much more concrete and roads shall we build, how many more street lights chase the beauty of moon and stars. How many more towering sky scrapers will disconnect us from the truth of nature that spawned us, and gave us the deep natural feelings of the true Earth, all those simple natural things that guard our sanity ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: