On Air: WHYS from Copenhagen

We broadcast a discussion on climate change from the Copenhagen Concert Hall with 450 young people from around the world.  Sheetal live- blogged the event at 1300 GMT so below you have  a play-by-play of how the event unfolded. 

1302: just listening across to a practice run before they do the programme for real in 6 mins time. There are young people from all over the world – just had Ghana, Australia, UK, and India in the last 3 mins…

1303: Ros has just had to go and get some water before the start of the programme

1304: Ros just telling the participants that there’s no music to keep the pace up, they’ll have to do that themselves! On air in 45 secs…mics up!

1306: Welcome from the Copenhagen Concert Hall from various participants. Is democracy getting in the way of climate change? Trina from India says we must all change our economic systems to tackle climate change…

1308: huge round of applause to start off the discussion. Ros explains the angles of discussion have been decided by the ‘climate advocates’ at the conference

1310: Karl from Sweden says he’s frightened when he hears democracy is a problem. People need to agree CC is a problem.

1311: Greg from US says democracy allows people to exercise choice and this is what is needed with climate change. And it’s the countries needs that need to be looked at first, not global issues. We need to respect US needs first, then global issues

1313: Cosmos from Ghana says democracy is about awareness. Normal people in Africa do not have a say in political discourse

1315: Ros is scene setting, Van Morrison is in one of the concert halls

1316: Livinia from Ecuador says the world is lacking in good leaders, countries should look to Ecuador’s example

1317: Esther from Nigeria says they’ve been there for 3 days, but people are more concerned about their own countries rather than a global solution

1318: Lorea from Canada says the system is the big problem – countries are able to exploit other nations for their own gain. She says global democracy means no nation would be able to exploit another for it’s natural resources

1320: One participant says we need a different system altogether. Ros asks about human nature. Icelandic guest says if we blame democracy we should just blame ourselves. Human nature needs to change.

1320: participant from UK says creating utopia is not going to work.

Email from Laurence in Colorado:
My big concern about the meeting in Copenhagen is that once again, the United Nations is proving to be completely inept at accomplishing anything more than a buffet. The UN needs a really strong leader, a Churchill, or it needs to cease to exist.

1322: Lots of hands up wanting to respond to how we change human nature

1323: Lamaa from Egypt says developed countries need to pay their own price, the developing world has already paid its price with taking the waste of the rich nations. She gets a bit of applause….

Dan posts on our blog
The 3rd world nations have DEMONSTRATED that they have no interest in solving the problem. They know Global Warming is a myth so as to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

1324: participant from Denmark says we should just become less greedy…stop buying so much, become more aware of global and cultural issues.

1325: Jane from UK says it’s fundamentally wrong to say humans are naturally greedy. People want better quality of life, not more consumption. Govts should be promoting happiness, not GDP…ripple of clapping in the audience. Another UK participant disagrees with this

1327: Elina from Finland: when we have a mindset of a global citizen that’s when we can tackle CC

1328: participant from Ethiopia says we need more cross collaboration.

1329: break for news bulletin, Ros talking to audience about how the second half will start, after getting a countdown from Mark in his headphones

Chintan in Houston posts on our blog
Democracy can’t possibly get in the way of climate change. It is the only reason so many activists are out there right now trying to get their voices heard and insisting the lawmakers to make a decision that will slow down global warming.

1331: Ros is rounding everyone up, only 90 secs to go. Someone just asked if she has time to go to the bathroom…still waiting for an answer from Ros!

1332: Big round of applause to the start of the second half, Ros does his intro again. Participants have been munching on sandwiches during the break…

1334: Nazeena from Bangladesh says there will be 30million displaced people in 20 years time. They are not greedy, they just want somewhere to live.

1334: US participant says messages of hope and progress need to get through to the politicians and this isn’t happening.

1335: Francois from Canada says his economy is controlled by private companies, not by democracy.

1336: UK participant says we need to be hopeful of a solution. Even if a deal isn’t reached, at least people are talking.

1338: Abdul from Indonesia says democracy teaches us it’s a faceless system, much like other systems. Leaders that make a decision now cannot be held responsible in 10 years time, everyone should take individual responsibility.

1339: Sri Lankan participants says we need to lok at more scientific solutions.

1340: Ros says he’s still lacking the details he needs to understand what people are saying. Esther from Nigeria explains that global democracy is about mutual respect.

1341: A participant is across the Copenhagen blogs, people are saying that there isn’t a clear sign of progress at the actual summit…yet

1342: Nepalese participant says the fact that no deal has been reached yet is incredibly frustrating. Ros reiterates that the world leaders still haven’t reached a compromise..so what should be done?

1343: Laura from Mexico says the process at the Copenhagen summit is NOT democratic, this makes her angry.

1344: Ros says tempers are fraying at the summit, some NGO’s have walked out of the talks, gets reaction from the participants.

1345: Leona from Sweden says make the big companies pay back their debts to developing nations.

1346: we have moved quite far, but we still need to educate people. Megan from Canada say we’ve come to Copenhagen knowing full well that we will need to meet again, it’s no surprise that no deal has been reached.

1348: one participant says things can change in a couple of hours. Ros asks the audience if they think a deal can be reached, less than a third put their hands up.

K. Bala posts on our blog
The war in Afganistan, Iraq has caused/causing considerable pollution. I understand from Srilankans that indiscriminate bombing in the north of Srilanka has has considerably increased the number of Cancer patients there. I really appreciate the speech made by Prince Charles appealing to the nations to place their ‘signatures’ to find ways and means to mitigate the causes for climate change.

1349: Fumi from Nigeria says whatever decision is made needs to be held to account

1350: Danish paticipant says all she hears about is politics, does this mean we all have to become politicians to make a change?

1350: female participant says it’s too late for a deal now, too much change and no action, we will have to meet again

1351: Ravi from India says he’s optimistic that a deal can be reached. And if we fail, we can restart the process

1352: Kevin from Kenya says the world is becoming smaller but NGO’s are being locked out because there is no democracy at a global level…change the system. A ripple of applause from the back…

Jeremy posts:
Governments love unseen enemies; Terrorism and Climate Change are perfect issues for them to use against the peoples that they govern. There are far greater issues at hand than just Carbon Dioxide. How about taking the $10 billion or whatever that has been pledged by these misguided fools in Denmark, and actually use it to feed the hungry instead?

1353: Danish participant says he loves watching so called demcratic politicians fighting in Parliament, especially in the UK. Expectations for a deal have been too high, how can we expect so much when so many politicians are fighting each other to get laws passed?

1355: Ryan from North Coralina says it’s human nature to be tribal. Very pessimistic about a deal, we should be looking at market based incentives. Ros says the audience had a sharp intake of breath at this suggestion…

1357: Ros asks if they’ve been let down by the summit. Danish man who travelled for several hours says we need to stop living the way we live now.

1358: female participant says industry is frustrated by climate change

1358: participant from India says we need to be louder in telling our politicians we need change

1359: close of programme, Ros thanking everyone, lots of applause. And I can hear people going over to Ros for an off mic chat…

113 Responses to “On Air: WHYS from Copenhagen”

  1. 1 Chintan in Houston
    December 17, 2009 at 14:24

    USA commits to $100 billion as climate change aid by 2020.
    How much do you think EU will commit, they are the next larget economy behind US?

  2. 2 T
    December 17, 2009 at 15:23

    One problem in the States? A BIG hangup with the word “socialism.”

    if you say anything about global democracy, instantly that’s a threat to the “superior” American way of life. Why is that a threat? If global warming threatened to submerge the States, this attitude would instantly change overnight.

    • 3 Kenn
      December 17, 2009 at 20:29

      Because carbon trading and moving money to poorer countries is another form of distribution of wealth.

      What would be better is making economic incentives for people to be more responsible. I can not stress this enough. If it was the same price for a car that used less gas (hybrid or fuel cell) i would buy one, but i cant afford the 35k price tag of a hybrid. If it costs 2500 dollars to put solar panels on my house i would do it in a heartbeat, but i cant afford the 25k it costs after rebates and incentives.

      I can not understand why we need a global commitment, its easy to get a global commitment, everyone starts doing their part. But until it becomes economically feasible to do our parts, it will never happen.

  3. December 17, 2009 at 15:32

    Unity worldwide over climate change entails a united political and economic policy to deal with it. This also entails huge efforts to make radical changes in the way human activities are carried out. However, this can be difficult to achieve to the letter when the delegates are back home as each country will strive to keep its economy going even at the expense of the environment. It’s also hard to ask rich people to lower their living standards and poor people to linger in poverty for the sake of the environment.

    Climate change will remain a hostage of the economic changes around the world. Politicians, in general, are ready to sacrifice an environment issue to keep their economic promises. It’s all a matter of which side to change to to tackle what is apparently a decisive issue concerning climate change.

  4. 5 T
    December 17, 2009 at 15:42

    “The States promise financial aid. But, an agreement will have to wait till 2010.”

    How much will they contribute? And considering their massive financial problems, how will manage to do it?

  5. 6 Dennis Junior
    December 17, 2009 at 16:48


    Thanks for the excellent LIVE blog….

    =Dennis Junior=

  6. 7 Peter Gizzi UK
    December 17, 2009 at 16:51

    It seems The BBC is very “pro” global warming. Doing The Governments bidding yet again! If what I heard on the wireless this morning is true it would seem Copenhagen has been a complete waste of time and tax payer’s money yet again! World Leaders using it as another excuse to “live it up” at our expense. Will anyone measure the carbon footprint of this conference or would that be too honest?

    I have yet to see any politician or for that matter scientist living a “green” life yet they delight in telling us we must do just that. Utter hypocricy!

  7. 8 jens
    December 17, 2009 at 16:54

    Funny how everybody bashes the USA, but gladly expects/demands us to pay for everything and accepts our money. i am getting sick of this mentality.

  8. December 17, 2009 at 16:57

    Of course markets are the key. They are to many of our social ills. We have to stop thinking money is not power. We pay the idea lip service here in the US. (Just like we pay religion lip service.) But we don’t practice as if we believe it. We will sit around talking about how heinous of a crime it is for a company to employ subhuman work environments, and spew pollutants into the air, ground, and water. But as long as that factory is selling its bicycles at Wal-Mart for “everyday savings”, we are willing to keep that factory prosperous.

  9. 10 Patrick from Vancouver
    December 17, 2009 at 17:32

    Are we too selfish (as individuals and / or countries) to find a communal solution?

    YES! We are too selfish, more precisely we are too corrupt. The very nature of mankind makes it impossible to ever come to a consensus. We most certainly will let the climate crisis continue to the bitter end with no real change ever having been made by either the business community or any significant government.

    The loss will be all ours. The panet will forget us soon enough.

  10. December 17, 2009 at 17:41

    What is inspiring to me about Copenhagen talks is the large turn out and interest by the young people on matters climate.As trustees of posterity, you have made our voices heard on why all should care for earth and neighbor- the core of responsibility.

  11. December 17, 2009 at 17:44

    What is inspiring to me about Copenhagen talks is the large turn out and interest by the young people on matters climate.As trustees of posterity, you have made our voices heard on why all should care for earth and neighbor- the core of responsibility.

  12. 13 patti in cape coral
    December 17, 2009 at 18:06

    I will be listening to the pre-recorded show. Just from what I’ve read, I’m sorry I missed it live.

  13. 14 Anthony
    December 17, 2009 at 18:14

    Ask them if they really think the U.S. is gonna be able to contribute all that. That’s like my drunk unemployed uncle who used to promise “I’m gonna take you to Disneyland for your birthday”… yeah right.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  14. 15 Anthony
    December 17, 2009 at 18:15

    @ jens

    I hate that too!!! It’s like the majority of countries are in 7th grade!!!

    “I hate you, and I wish you weren’t my parents!!! Now feed/clothe me and I want my allowance!!!”

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  15. 16 jens
    December 17, 2009 at 18:20


    Cheer up man, the globe will warm even if we all crawl back into caves and use only wood as fuel. this doom and gloom armageddon talk is unnecessary. what we need is solutions of how to deal with what will happen. but then heck why be pragmatic if panic and doomsday senarios is such an attractive alternative.

    frankly I laugh at all the street protesters, since all the yelling and fear mongering will not contribute to a solution. funny how the left accused Bush for fear mongering, but then uses the same tactic when it is convenient to fear monger about the climate.

    • 17 Patrick from Vancouver WA
      December 18, 2009 at 00:55


      I’m cheery enough.

      I have not been foolish enough to add to the world’s overpopulation problem by having children so my level of anxiety is low on this issue. I’ll do as little harm and help as much as I can because it’s the right thing to do but I’m good with this situation. We asked for it and looks like we are going to get it.

      I take comfort in the knowledge that I will be long gone before climate change has made life really miserable. I do hope I’m wrong about humanity and our prospects as a species.

  16. 18 Alan in Arizona
    December 17, 2009 at 19:12

    @ Jens

    I totally agree. The US can’t do it all! Every country should pitch in a certain amount for each person in their country. Period. No credits, no swapping, no refusal. If a country doesn’t want to, slap an embargo on them.

    We already have tire companies and auto repair shops charging environmental fees for disposal of oil and tires. I don’t mind paying it, knowing that the oil won’t be dump in the trash and the tires can be recycled. Instead of increase taxes for some and not for others, we just need a set fee for certain things. And we need a credit for those individuals doing something useful.

    Forget Democracy and give the power to the people to do the job. Our leaders have never had it as hard as the majority of the people in the world.

  17. 19 steve
    December 17, 2009 at 19:13

    It’s scary hearing the people on the show calling for a global government. That’s REALLY scary.

    • 20 Lisa
      December 19, 2009 at 18:50

      YES – I agree with this sentiment. Let’s back off of THAT one. It’s a great way to remove any and all civil rights.
      SCARY indeed!

  18. 21 Megan
    December 17, 2009 at 19:14

    I think greed of the powerful countries is key here, when politicans can stop working for corporations and start thinking about the value of the earth we can start making progress!

  19. 22 Anthony
    December 17, 2009 at 19:16

    None of this is going to matter if a few nukes go off.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  20. 23 chinaski in LA
    December 17, 2009 at 19:17

    I am absolutely shocked no one is asking for irrefutable proof of the link between climate change and human’s behavior.


  21. 24 James
    December 17, 2009 at 19:19

    Hi All,

    I have to say I am absolutely alarmed by some of the statements being made on your show. They are ill-informed and do not have a firm grasp of the concept of democracy, which stems from a lack of knowledge.

    This un-shaking belief in Climate Change comes from a similar lack of knowledge.

    They should admit it, they have been so often subjected to being told that CO2 is bad and humans are causing cimate change that they believe in it without blind faith.

    one more thing, what about all the Hammer & Sickle flags being waved on the streets in Copenhagen – is global communism the answer if you have no faith in democracy?

    many thanks, James in Berlin

  22. 25 Shannon in Ohio
    December 17, 2009 at 19:20

    I applaud the idealism and dedication displayed by these young guests, but I doubt that the representatives currently “working” in Denmark do.

    Do those in developing nations seriously believe that any money offered by more developed economies will truly go to help the people–or will yet another politician from a poor country set up yet another bulging Swiss bank account?

  23. 26 Tim Harbison
    December 17, 2009 at 19:20

    The problem isn’t democracy or any of the alternatives. The fundamental problem the world has in attempting to address the issue of climate change, or any other significant issue, is rampant capitalism. When we are focused on what we have and what we can gain, we fail to see the importance of addressing the issues that are truly important.

    • 27 Kenn
      December 17, 2009 at 20:44

      Then the answer is to make a better life through reusable technology a marketable commodity that can compete.

      Legislation and forcing it down people throats will never work, they need to embrace it of their own volition for more than altruistic reasons.

  24. 28 Arron from Ithaca
    December 17, 2009 at 19:20

    First you have to understand America is in a Corporate Democracy. Companies are telling our politicians what they want to do. Remember Bush wasn’t even elected the first time around.

    • 29 Kenn
      December 17, 2009 at 20:45

      Seriously? What does that have to do with the climate change talks at all? All that is is vitriol from the extreme left and better not brought up in an adult debate.

  25. 30 steve
    December 17, 2009 at 19:23

    Gotta agree that the views expressed are utopic. It’s not realistic. This show sounds like the expectations of Obama when he was elected and inaugurated. People talking about global government, changing human nature, are things that simply aren’t going to happen. People need to think of ideas that are realistic.

    If you were not greedy, you would on a daily basis, give all of your money, belongings, and food to homeless people. If you don’t, you are greedy, because you want it more than you want them to have it.

  26. 31 Adam Creviston
    December 17, 2009 at 19:23

    Global democracy? Does anyone else see this as a way for the New World Order to further their agenda? Call me crazy or perhaps a conspiracy theorist but this never gets talked about.

  27. 32 Jessica
    December 17, 2009 at 19:24

    Global democracy is an awful idea. What will happen if an evil person gains control? Like Hitler or Stalin or Hussein? Who will be there to keep this person in check, and eventually remove them from power?

  28. 33 steve
    December 17, 2009 at 19:25

    Wow, this is turning into a communist party meeting. Did you guys realize to Soviets were huge environmental polluters and cut corners every way they could when it came to the environment?

    It really makes the global warming cause look laughable when you have all these anticapitalist statements being made.

  29. 34 James
    December 17, 2009 at 19:25

    It is like sitting in a seminar in my first year at university!!

  30. 35 william nderba
    December 17, 2009 at 19:25

    I’m william from Ghana.

    Democracy has never been a problem.
    If we refuse to obey our humanity we shall NEVER be able achieve a single unified goal!.

  31. 36 Anthony
    December 17, 2009 at 19:25

    Greed isn’t human nature. It’s a habit that we are taught.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

    • 37 Kenn
      December 17, 2009 at 20:47

      Then why do small children reflexively rip toys away from others when they want ti and have to scolded NOT to be greedy?

    • 38 Patrick from Vancouver WA
      December 18, 2009 at 00:40


      I believe greed is a manifestation of human nature, a need to be successful so we can reproduce. This drive has become distorted and corrupt with the development of modern society.

      I wish you were correct that it’s learned behavior; we might have a chance to change in that case. The question may be, can we change human nature.

      • 39 Onlooker
        December 19, 2009 at 19:08

        Does anyone really know what human nature is? Does anyone really think about what it means to be a part of this living organism we call Earth? How do we affect it and it us? We are an itchy flea on it’s back, and until we decide to live in symbiosis with it, we will always be.
        The fact is, our planet is a part of the cosmos, and is affected by whatever is happening out there, and so are we.
        In my opinion, that is the bigger picture.
        CO2 is a fear tactic that further drives a wedge between us and the truth of our lives on this planet. And the truth of human nature. Global government is the tactical end for corporate control of food, water, and mind. I for one don’t buy it, and hope the rest of the world will wake up.
        We could have free energy, but since corporate can’t put a meter on it, we don’t. Copenhagen is a huge affirmation to the elite that the masses can be controlled. It’s a shame.

  32. 40 JulieB.
    December 17, 2009 at 19:27

    When will the United Nations step up and take more of a leadership role in making global decisions? The UN should be guiding and directing our leaders in a way that will create the the greatest benefit to world population. This will alleviate some of the reelection pressure at the local level while serving the greater good.

  33. 41 rebecca
    December 17, 2009 at 19:28

    regarding what the American boy said: sure it is a politicians job to look out for his constituency, but it is never in a constituency’s best interest to have gross discrepancies in living standards and well-being. this applies on both a local and a global level. it is not in the us’s best interest to have people differing and dying from climate change in their own countries. however you feel morally about it, the effects will not be avoidable by anyone. I’m writing as a concerned American.

  34. December 17, 2009 at 19:33

    CO2 threat is only real for the ignorant, real physicists realize the hoax.
    Last time journalists and politicians tried, they were dismissed by Niels Bohr.
    It does not matter, India has a 300MWe partly driven thorium reactor, which produces drinking water and electricity cheaper than all the fossil systems.
    If we wanted to contribute, we could build LFTR.
    This a way that IPCC and some looser politicians can keep there face:
    10$/MWh.. one cent/kWh
    The future have never ever look brighter, but we have to take care of human and nature.

  35. 43 Tom K in Mpls
    December 17, 2009 at 19:34

    I had to turn it off half way through. Many wanted perfection now at any cost. Others wanted to change human nature, NOW. Then there were those that want the world to work according to their ideals. Others simply wanted to complain about past wrongs.

    Very few seemed interested in solutions, however weak, that could be effective now. On the whole it was a vent fest, a colossal waste of time. Talking about Tiger Wood would have produced less hot air.

  36. 45 Blake
    December 17, 2009 at 19:35

    This problem is so much greater than pollution from carbon emissions. Why has no one addressed one of the fundamental problems that will overshadow any decisions made – population control? Any decisions made will not matter if we continue to ignore this central problem – THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE PLANET! We choke out plants and animals. Ecological sameness threatens our now global food supply, health from infectious diseases (coupled with not only overpopulation but global travel). Until we address this (the fact that we should only have about 1-2 billion people on the planet period), we will never be sustainable. This is a very unpopular issue, but it needs to be addressed.

  37. 46 David Chitwood
    December 17, 2009 at 19:35

    I don’t think all human beings are naturally greedy, its natural to want nice things. But to be greedy is to want nice things at the expense of other people. I can see how that ties in to the idea that consumption is the answer. If you want, for example, a luxury SUV, and you are aware that it is not environmentally friendly and that eventually that affect trickles down to damaging undeveloped nations and people, but you buy it anyway….that’s greed. I think most people want a more green world, but its the Governments that have the issue of balancing a strong economy with making progress on becoming green.

    David, Oklahoma City

  38. 47 James
    December 17, 2009 at 19:35


    could you pleas ask the audience, how many of them believe that CO2 is a building block of life on earth? Or how many believe that CO2 is the equivalent of a poison?

    Many thanks,


  39. December 17, 2009 at 19:36

    All the people speaking in Copenhagen sound like they are in their 20’s and younger.
    They sound like they have no perspective or understanding of the REAL issue:
    I have not heard the word CAPITALISM mentioned once.
    Democracy is NOT Capitalism.CORPORATE CAPITALISM is the issue in every country.
    CAPITALISM is a fullblown disease here in the USA. There is NO Democracy in the USA when yopu get into things like HEALTH CARE (Insurance Corporations), FOOD (Agribusiness) etc.
    The Corporations control this world.
    Talking about “democracy ” is so 20th century.The USA was able to separate Church and State.
    Their next battle is to separate CORPORATION form State.
    This “GREED” everyone is talking about is CORPORATE GREED” .
    CORPORATIONS do not acknowledge political parties, countries political structures or anything else. They overthrown any regime that stand in the way of RESOURCES they are interested in.
    Until the World recognizes and governments unite AGAINST CORPORATIONS sociopathic lawlessness and consumption these young people are wasting their naive ideology and their breath.
    Governments need to take a stand globally against CORPORATE CAPITALISM.

    • December 17, 2009 at 19:49

      Dear Shroudwoman,

      You are right on! The way that capitalism became a disease in the US is through it’s active equation and conflation with Democracy beginning in the late twentieth century, most actively since the election of Reagan in 1980. The rise of Fox News exacerbated that effect and now Fox commentators regularly conflate capitalism and Democracy. I heard Glenn Beck say, in an accusatory tone, that he wasn’t sure that Obama was a capitalist. Frankly, I hope he’s not!



      • 50 Tom K in Mpls
        December 17, 2009 at 20:45

        Capitalism is a tool. So is socialism. Both are flawed. So is every other economic and political system devised by man. Just like people, businesses and nations are good or bad in varying degrees. Most are what most people would consider to be generally good.

        Stereotyping people is considered wrong by most vocal people. Yet these same people scream blind accusations to businesses and governments without being able to back up their statements. For once, could we have rational and supported statements instead of rhetoric?

  40. 51 jayne in Scotland
    December 17, 2009 at 19:36

    There is a growing global awareness that the system that has produced Global warming ,cannot resolve it ….to carry on in this foolishness is to condemn our children and our childrens children to a life of misery and shortage at the very least …at worst the abyss of no return.

    Whether we like it or not history has now put the ‘neccessity’ for real and fundamental social change on the agenda….It will happen …one way or another…..

  41. 52 Shaikh
    December 17, 2009 at 19:38

    I think the pretext of global warming is being used to do the ugly politics of making rich nations richer, and poor nations poor, by making rules for industries in developing nations that will hamper growth.

    I believe Global warming is true, and nations must be made to commit dollar on dollar for what they spent on their military.

    After all, who would these politicians rule if there is nobody left to be ruled or consumed?

    • 53 Kenn
      December 17, 2009 at 20:54

      Military? The ONLY reason Canada, Australia and European countries can have such a minuscule military is because the US power projection umbrella extends over them.

      If we withdrew all foreign aid and protection this world would go to hell in hand basket pretty quickly.

      This is the same type of thought being brought up by other people where they condemn the US for everything we do, and then demand of us that we hand out everything we have to make their lives better.

  42. 54 EchoRose in Florida, US
    December 17, 2009 at 19:38

    A number of the speakers are correct, Democracy is not the problem per se, the problem is the majority of those in power (whether through Democracy or any other system) are PUT in power via money via large self-interested corporations, so unforntunately, those in Power are most loyal to those that pay to help keep them there and NOT the people who need honorable leadership the most.

  43. 55 Mike, WA, USA
    December 17, 2009 at 19:41

    This discussion underscores why the Copenhagen Summit is likely to accomplish nothing and why the U.N. has grown completely ineffectual. We have a pressing problem to address that needs to be addressed in the world as it exists today and people in this room are talking about changing human nature and a mythical global democracy.

    Without democracy you would not be in that room speaking your mind on a publicly supported radio system For those who believe that democracy prevents President Obama from doing what’s right, consider that, without democracy, there would be no President Obama.

    Wide-eyed idealism about “global democracy” and the demise of national self-interest is all well and good, but the climate change issue is in the here and now. Keep pressing Mr. moderator, your participants are making arguments that are intellectually dishonest.

  44. 56 Tom Law
    December 17, 2009 at 19:42

    GLOBAL DEMOCRACY re 17th Dec debate on democracy and climate change

    I think you should mention Avaaz an organisation that petitions on global issues and currently has 13.5 million signatories to pressure leaders to finalise a climate change deal in Copenhagen.


  45. 57 David Waln
    December 17, 2009 at 19:42

    The main impediment to solutions to CO2 emissions is the same as the main impediment to Peace, i.e., a tribally adapted species pushed past its’ natural limits to organize itself cooperatively.

    If we don’t acknowledge that we are maladapted I think we will not ask the right questions about how we might compensate. Further,
    it is very likely we will take for granted how extraordinary the success stories are, and thus not learn from theim.

  46. December 17, 2009 at 19:43

    I have heard several comments regarding humans “saving the Earth.” I believe that this kind of thinking demonstrates our arrogance as a species. The idea that we will have to “save the Earth” is ludicrous. If we do nothing, I will quote an old friend who used to say: “When the Earth gets done with us, she’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.” Rather, I think we should be concentrating on what kind of lifestyle and environment we are leaving behind for future generations. Anyone who has studied the history of our planet has found periodic mass extinctions. I personally feel that we as humans are on our way to another “big squeeze.” The “big squeeze” was an event that occurred about 60,000 years ago during which the human population dropped precipitously, on the order of 90% extinction. The only people who survived were the most resourceful and the most intelligent. Accordingly, after this event, the explosion in cave art and cultural development began. We already know that overpopulation is a huge problem for our species and as such, should be actively addressing that issue. If we don’t, it’s likely that we will experience another “big squeeze” caused either by disease, asteroid/comet impact, war (think global), or some other unseen collapse. The humans who survive that (if any) will likely have the mindset and value set to treat the environment that survives with proper respect.

  47. 61 gary
    December 17, 2009 at 19:43

    Re: Is democracy an impediment to finding solution to Climate change

    As a US a citizen, I find the observations interesting that a few greedy folks on Wall Street recently put the world economy into a tailspin, these were a tiny percentage of our population, and we represent only about 4.5% of the world population. Quite clearly democratic governance IS CAPABLE of substantial global impact. Why don’t you folks, as citizens of the rest of the world, make use of democracy and the fact you out-vote us nineteen to one, to effect global change?

  48. 62 steve
    December 17, 2009 at 19:45

    All of you travelled thousands and thousands of miles to Copenhagen. How much CO2 was released by you visiting there when you could have stayed at home and not used up the resources to get there?

  49. 64 Robert
    December 17, 2009 at 19:47

    To say that the United States owes more to humanity than it has already given is truly absurd. To take a single issue, such as CO2 emission, and discount all the other contributions of the United States is ignorant, and short sighted.

    That these accusations are predominantly coming from individuals who come from societies that are closed and autocratic does not surprise me. They themselves are examples of what close-minded accusations can do for the advancement of individual nations. Focusing blame on the USA is more due to their jealously of the way of life of individual Americans – many of whom come from their home countries.

    They are envious, and envy is leading them to demand that America send them money under the guise of ‘saving the world’.

  50. 65 Anthony
    December 17, 2009 at 19:48

    You guys haven’t said the obvious. Maybe there IS NO fair way to handle this. Some countries will be treated unfairly. Maybe they should worry more on figuring out who will be treated unfairly.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  51. 67 chinaski in LA
    December 17, 2009 at 19:50

    Why don’t we just force countries to do what a select group of individuals propose?

  52. 68 steve
    December 17, 2009 at 19:50

    Even if there is some agreement at Copenhagen, what are the odds that individual countries will adopt it? If it becomes a proposed treaty, the US senate would need a supermajority to approve it. Unlikely to happen. And what about other countries as well?

    Is this the reason for the talk of “global governance” to override the wishes of the people of the particular nations? Sounds a bit like a dictatorship.

  53. 69 stephen/portland
    December 17, 2009 at 19:50

    I have had it with this subject; I adopted a Polar bear and gave it a nice home. And the freaking thing ate my family.

    So that’s all the thanks you get.

  54. 70 Scott in USA
    December 17, 2009 at 19:50

    I think “greed” is the wrong word to describe the behavior of most consumers. I think it’s more an issue of priorities and awareness at micro vs. macro levels (personal vs. society).

    A poor parent might be all for minimizing adverse effects on the environment, but if it is a choice between feeding their children and preventing an infintesimal amount of global warming, the will choose feeding their children. It is through that parent’s democracy and the work of good intentioned companies that a world will be created where the parent does not have to choose between their children and the environment.

    And as a less bleeding heart example, someone buying a TV doesn’t necessarily know all the environmental impacts of their purchase, and rarely knows which brand is better for the environment. They only have a limited amount of information from which they make the decision to buy a TV. That same person who buys the TV with toxic components may then ask their government and the TV manufacturers to provide the choice of TVs that are better for the environment.

  55. 71 Justin Reynard
    December 17, 2009 at 19:51

    Thank you to all of you in Copenhagen!! Your presence there makes me realize that there are many out there that care about this issue. Although it is disappointing to hear there may not be an agreement hold your heads high. This shows that so many of you will do ALL that you can in your own country city and neighborhood. Realize that this is a call to all those out there (like me) who support progressive environmental policy, and the message is: Do what you can as the INDIVIDUAL. I firmly believe that if each person acts Locally we will change the world Globally.

    Thank you all so much!!

  56. 72 Indy Duke
    December 17, 2009 at 19:51

    Until we the people, not the politicians decide to get off our buts and force the issue with our voices and our wallets all is lost.

  57. 73 Angel
    December 17, 2009 at 19:51

    If only there was a way to invite yourselves to have an audience with the representatives at the conference there; that is what I would seek. If they heard the opinions and frustrations of the immature machinations coming from the politicians, they would realize that they will go home to angry constituents if they don’t put down their hand waving and droning.

    I believed they were going to go through the motions when I first heard of Copenhagen, so I am not surprised that nothing has happened.

  58. 74 Todd in Atlanta
    December 17, 2009 at 19:52

    If I’m understanding things clearly, this idea of ‘global democracy’ is a baaaaad idea. Ultimately, pure democracy amounts to some form of mob-rule, and I’m sorry, history has taught me NEVER to trust the masses. In America, there was a point in time when the majority of the masses discriminated against blacks, Native Americans, Irish, and even Jews. Rule of law was responsible for fixing most of these problems.

    Global democracy is absolute pie-in the-sky, utopian nonsense. Coming up with a democratic rule of law that takes each nations issues into consideration, is the key. It might be expensive, but a case-by-case solution for groups of nations is the key.
    People DO consume, and it’s been that way for thousands of years. We can redirect the markets to the advantage of helping the climate, and bring-up developing nations. There is a massive economy for the developing nations to partake in , through environmental economies.

  59. 75 vijay pillai
    December 17, 2009 at 19:54

    The question should have been how much the rest of the world like china,india, Russia and EU would commit ?

  60. 76 James
    December 17, 2009 at 19:54

    democracy? What about the Irish journalist bundled out of the climate summit by UN security?

    Global government? Dangerous ideas!! Naive parroting of ideas that have not been thought through at all.

    Global democracy when democracy in a single country is hard to achieve.

    Where is all the gratitude for how much the West has really done for the world, especially developing countries?

  61. December 17, 2009 at 19:57

    Whatever some those students are studying,I sincerly hope that it is not politics.No democracy and change human nature? Please
    send to North Korea for brochures!

  62. 78 James - Berlin
    December 17, 2009 at 19:58

    What is the carbon footprint of the audience?

  63. 79 Alistair Walker
    December 17, 2009 at 19:58

    When I heard this WHYS was for young people only, I knew it was a mistake. These young people are idealistic anti capitalists. It is the most biased one sided debate that WHYS has ever broadcast.
    By any measure humankind has made enormous strides since the industrial revolution. We live longer healthier lives, we are better fed, have eradicated many diseases. Life expectancy has doubled in the last 100 years and even more pronounced in the developing world. In 1950 1 in 5 babies died in infancy, whereas 1 in 18 die today.There are more of us because we didn’t start breeding like rabbits but we stopped dropping like flies.
    The material condition of life will continue to get better for most people in most countries, most of the time, indefinitely. Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today’s Western living standards. However there will be many people will continue to think and say that the condition of life is getting worse.

  64. 80 Frauke
    December 17, 2009 at 19:58

    mankind has always achieved to do what we have set ourselves as goals; Build pyramids, atomic bombs, great walls, fly to the moon and what not. why not set ourselves as goal now on cleaning up the mess we have created.Every child is supposed to learn that, now we as grown people have to add deeds to the words of all good intentions.

  65. 81 James - Berlin
    December 17, 2009 at 19:59

    well said Todd!!

  66. 82 Diane in Cleveland
    December 17, 2009 at 20:01

    What impact has this conference had on the environment? All of this consumption and waste with no demonstrable or sustainable results? Shame on all of you. Go home and go local to achieve sustainable and meaningful change.

  67. 83 David Waln
    December 17, 2009 at 20:02

    The main impediment to solutions to CO2 emissions is the same as the main impediment to Peace, i.e., a tribally adapted species pushed past its’ natural limits to organize itself cooperatively.

    If we don’t acknowledge that we are maladapted I think we will not ask the right questions about how we might compensate. Further,
    it is very likely we will take for granted how extraordinary the success stories are, and thus not learn from them.

  68. 84 Alex J
    December 17, 2009 at 20:05

    Humans are indeed fundamentally imperfect, and to varying degrees selfish. The “everyone for himself” attitude is particularly strong in the Western world. But that doesn’t mean those potentially negative attributes can’t be tempered by a cultural consciousness. The trouble is, real awareness of the situation hasn’t reached the critical mass necessary. The disinformers (not the true skeptics), and the “balance at any cost” media that facilitates them, are partly responsible for that.

  69. 85 Manoj
    December 17, 2009 at 20:05

    Can we stop Imaging about any form of monetary funds from any or all powerfull economies……Kyoto protocol is a best example…..everyone will bow down in front of domestic pressure….Copenhegan is a stage should have been used just as a political face of the multi faceted problem…Political solution can never be a complete solution unless there is going to be a social…..scientific…..economic and infact a local cultural solution.

  70. 86 Donald
    December 17, 2009 at 20:06

    Few people seem to observe the fact that sea levels have not risen much at all, despite all the melting in the north, and this shows it is very likely water from melting ice caps will go into the atmosphere, which will INCREASE precipitation, so we may be living in a slightly warmer, wetter and higher atmospheric CO2 world, but all these conditions HELP life, not hinder it – ask any agronomist how to make a fertile greenhouse – add water, CO2, and heat, and you get lush growth. This trend has actually been observed by NASA scientists, who have seen a significant INCREASE in the world biomass over the last forty years – check out the study at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/.

  71. 88 Robert in NYC
    December 17, 2009 at 20:08

    Another thing that was not brought up – probably on purpose – is how all these “young” people managed to afford the trek to Copenhagen.

    Did anyone ask any of these individuals what special interests they represent? I’m sure their initial answer would be something along the lines of “the earth”, but I would love to have known what source of money they are parrots for.

    They would be the first ones to denounce anybody who has any connection whatsoever to any industry that they demonize. However, they themselves never answer for the extreme environmental groups that they represent.

    They are all false grassroots organizers. They are supported by massive global organizations that have their own agenda, using these ignorant people as ground soldiers.

  72. 89 Donald
    December 17, 2009 at 20:11

    When science gets railroaded by politics like it has in the case of climate change, I say follow the money, and the simple fact is that countries with little or no fossil fuel deposits, like France, Britain, and Japan, and the big power companies in the US, have huge vested interests in seeing nuclear energy programs re-started, and scapegoating CO2 provides a fantastic opportunity for them to justify restarting stalled nuclear development programs.

  73. December 17, 2009 at 20:15

    Why is climate change that big a deal? We live on an unstable cooling planet with cracks and fissures in its crust. When will someone mention Glease 23 and other planets that science say are within the earths lifespan of reaching and inhabiting/colonizing.

    Earth is not the end all. We have only 15,000 years until the solar winds start to strip away the earths atmosphere at an alarming rate. Is not the point of all of this debate the ultimate continuation of the human race? Why put some many eggs in this unstable basket called Earth? Are’nt we being a bit sentimental.

    The spave programs of the world are barely funded when in actuallity the colonization of other like planets is our only hope…but then again maybe you all just want us to be happy when the goes into its 3rd ice age.

  74. 91 Qarl
    December 17, 2009 at 20:17

    What hypocrisy. How dare any of the audience even think to talk about climate change! If the world is really is such trouble, how can they justify flying from all over the world just to gather in an auditorium to complain about how everyone else is causing the problem?!

    To quote one of Aesop’s fables, “Physician, heal thy self.”

    I refuse to accept the accusations of people willing to damage the environment just to get the chance to be on the radio!

    For shame.

  75. 92 Manoj
    December 17, 2009 at 20:20

    Are there even a single ‘NGO’ or ‘governmental department’ people whom you have come across on your way trying to digitally inform you about the environmental situation in Denmark, Germany, Maldives or Indonesia????…….Cant there be global funding for global service department dedicated towards removing the ignorance of the bulk of people living in this world of what really is the meaning of..”Global Warming”……’ Environmental decay’…..Is it fair and fruitfull to keep the majority of global population away from this debate??……Thanks to programs like BBC…who atleast try to keep us connected….

  76. 93 jayne in scotland
    December 17, 2009 at 20:29

    Capitalism has been the most powerful and revolutionary force this planet has seen . It has created wealth and commodities that are astonishing ( hence the co2) . However it produces these not principally for ‘need’ but for profit .

    Due to its own internal contradictions, ‘profit overall ‘ has been usurped by credit …and that is now at an end .

    The Bankers and corporations that hold sway on our politicians are in a catch 22 …On the one hand the inexorable need to return to profit…the other to meet the exponential and previously unheard of demands of global warming .

    This tension between these 2 opposing ‘necessities’ is what is causing Copenhagen 15 to falter….and will characterise all future agendas and outcomes…..until the contradiction is resolved by ‘ us ‘

    • 94 Tom K in Mpls
      December 18, 2009 at 17:01

      Profit never occurs without a percieved need. Credit ‘turbo charges’ capitalism, sometimes too far. The bankers will gladly go with new viable customers and drop those that loose their customer base. It is up to us. It is based on what we choose to buy.

  77. 95 patti in cape coral
    December 17, 2009 at 20:31

    I listened and felt that the people participating were very young and idealistic, which may be good for brain storming, but not so good when coming down to the nitty gritty of concrete practical solutions. Also, there is an unfortunate tendency to get side tracked into playing the blame game. As young as the participants were, they were already showing up to the table with baggage. How much more difficult (impossible) then for older heads to achieve change? As for me, I will just consume less, ride my bike more, recycle, turn the lights off, turn the air conditioning off (gulp), maybe eat less meat? I will do these things because they kill two or three birds with one stone, and I’m a big fan of that, very efficient. Save money, lose weight, get healthier, help the environment. I have also noticed that the less I own, the less time and money I have to spend maintaining STUFF, and that makes me much happier. What I do doesn’t matter to Copenhagen or make much difference to the environment, but it matters to me.

    • 96 Tom K in Mpls
      December 17, 2009 at 20:54

      Nicely said. Meaning this as a compliment, you address the point, keep things simple, don’t preach, and directing blame.

  78. 97 Manoj
    December 17, 2009 at 20:41

    Just like Patti expressed individually it is more attracted to maintain some healthy life style…and be conscious about our deeds..Isnt it possible for each of us being global citizens to maintain a environment friendly life style…..whether he be a peasent in a far chinese field…or a car manufacturer in Germany……or a software develoer in USA?…..Environment problems can be dealt by a decentralized scheme rather then to strike any centralized deals as in copenhegan…..

    Being a 24 year old..i believe youth has to discuss this problem more seriously because it is we and our children who have to deal with the rather ugly face of global change then the elderly very experienced senior citizens…..Thank you….

  79. 98 Roberto
    December 17, 2009 at 20:52

    RE “” you have a play-by-play of how the event unfolded. “”

    ——— Typical of any large committee meeting of rabidly competing interests and visions. Everyone talks past each other with barely time for a serious contemplation, streams of disjointed consciousness as it were.

    Again, what is need is respected, visionary leadership, something gravely lacking in western democracies and nary to be found in the 3rd world. In short, the leaders don’t even trust each other to truly effect a change.

    I say to the west, invest these monies in your citizens. Rebates to those showing to use and consume less and let them decide the means. A progressive use tax on those who use and consume above a benchmark. Set an example and the world to naturally follow.

    No expensive boondoggle investment in a massive system that won’t deliver. Instead, the citizens will figure out what works best and let the touted so called “free market” economy innovate the solution that folks can afford to invest in.

    The wealthy can continue to live high on the hog if they want, but now they would pay the true costs.

  80. 99 Kevin PE
    December 17, 2009 at 20:54

    While were all on the corporations vs. democracy vs. world government vs. skeptics vs. denialists debate, does anybody have more on this story.
    Calls for resignation of Dr. Pachauri, chair of the IPCC because of his compromised and conflicting interest as director-general of the TATA (Indian based steel makers) Energy Research Institute. TATA Steel to receive millions of Euros in carbon emission allowances, they will also close plant in the UK and move steel works to India, also receiving Carbon handouts for building replacement there. Talk about a tangled web – they then use the innocence of children – I HOPE NOT!

  81. 100 jayne in scotland
    December 17, 2009 at 20:56

    I would just like to thank the world service team as a whole for providing excellent coverage on this event …thanks and well done .

  82. 101 David Waln
    December 17, 2009 at 20:56

    Things that aid tribal survival: [a partial list?]:

    Identity Localized.
    Suspicion of differences.
    Believing every problem has a human villain.

    Things that aid global survival: [but some might kill you in a tribal world]:

    A blindness to superficial markers.
    Identity more generalized at least too the species level.
    Introspection more well developed.
    Imagination more developed.
    Ability to handle complexity greatly expanded.
    Global telecommunications technologies for all concerned.

    We have a few individuals – Obama say – that might function well in a global cooperative structure. But it is important to remember that they are likely flukes of the crucible – they do not represent any genetic predisposition.

  83. 102 Davo
    December 18, 2009 at 01:32

    This whole forum is one sided, marxist and some of the worst new world order propaganda the BBC has produced! The Copenhagen treaty is all about creating a new world government hidden behind the fear of global warming.

  84. December 18, 2009 at 02:25

    Is there any place where we can access the audio of this debate on-demand? Poor old southern hemisphere folk may have been sleeping while all this was happening! I want my mp3!

  85. 104 scmehta
    December 18, 2009 at 07:32

    Our economic as well as electric-power grid systems need to undergo a drastic change; there’s lot of wastage/mismanagement of the generated produce/power.

  86. 105 Ian Samson
    December 18, 2009 at 12:29

    Like every other major political event involving the world’s political leaders, it’s nothing more than a great opportunity to get together to talk, to eat the best foods, stay in the best hotels, drink the best wines, engage on diplomatic levels with each other, and absolutely nothing will come from it apart from an unnecessary waste of each country’s funds.

    The two major global polluters are the two doing the least about it.

    African countries are the least polluters and least polluted and their pleas for funding is nothing more than their own avarice to spend any donor funds on their own excesses and lifestyles, viz Mugabe, et.al.

    It’s a total waste of time and money.

  87. December 18, 2009 at 12:41

    An agreement must be reached this time around at Copenhagen. Financial difficulties is not an acceptable excuse to defend not saving the future of Earth. A 1 trillion dollar Green fund should be set up by the world bank immediately, this money will be newly printed and held against future gains in Green stocks. An Index solely devoted to Green Stocks should be made available on every trading platform. Money will be lent from the fund at 0% interest and payed back with Green Stock Dividends at a predetermined rate. This will create an ever larger Green fund as the world engages in mitigation. Climate change let me tell the doubters has already already begun, the effects of the damage already caused will be seen for the next 10-15 years or more depending on the ability of the earths people to act together. 30 percent of the worlds population is in danger of perishing. Those who have ears listen. Just like your body has a complicated and finely balanced cycle keeping it going so does the Earth. It’s called the Forests, just as Jupiter is there to protect Earth from debris, the forests are there to protect from overheating. Wise up fast folks you’ve been warned.

    The Oracle

  88. 107 RobinT.
    December 18, 2009 at 12:56

    I did not say clearly but out of this conference comes up with a fund to help mitigate any climate change that affects low lying nations and certain island states would be good.

    But, I am thinking who will decide if Tuvalu for example is not being inundated due to climate but by other factors such as a combination of a) the fact that they are in an area of the oceanic plate that is rapidly sinking, b) they have drawn down their groundwater compacting earth and, c) have dug up their reef to make an airstrip leaving themselves exposed to storms. All nothing to do with any rising sea levels.

    Or Bangladesh where on a BBC program a fact was slid in, that probably most people watching missed, which is that there used to be 25 drainage canals which have not been dredged for years, have silted up and when the Ganges floods the only route for the water is over the land.

  89. 108 Nigel
    December 18, 2009 at 13:19

    One of your commentators from Camberidge made the point that by disagregating the problem into industries and others would result in the key players, NOT governments, coming up with solutions like they did with the ozone depletion scare earlier this century. This is the most sensible thing I have heard on the subject so far. If anyone thinks that by paying Brazil the economic value of preserving it share of the Amazon rain forest will reduce the developed world’s demand for wood, put all the criminals who kill Indiginous Indians to get their land for logging to fill this demand asleep, then I might suggest that they are in an unreal world of denial. The ozone people found alternate refirgerants and stopped the use of CFCs, lets ban the use of wood in construction and other areas where synthetic alternatives and other material can be developed.

  90. 109 Illyana
    December 18, 2009 at 13:23

    I’m from the Commonwealth of Dominica in the Caribbean. The island which markets itself as the ‘Nature Isle’ of the Caribbean. However despite the island’s large potential for developments in geothermal technology and hydro power, because of our fast-falling national treasury nothing has been done to develop such technologies.

    I am delighted to learn of the fund made available to developing countries for the development of green energy and I hope that the Caribbean can benefit from that.

    However I am saddened that a concrete agreement between nations for the survival and protection of the entire world cannot be reached. Leaders-real leaders- are supposed to work for the people! This summit is for people everywhere to ensure the future of our planet!

    I hope that by the end of the summit at least a temporary agreement of some kind can be put forward for the coming year.

  91. 110 Amilya
    December 18, 2009 at 16:38

    I think there needs to be concessions of both sides of the argument. Poorer nations in places such as Africa have a right to ask for subsidies to lessen the impact on their economy but richer nations also have a right to as well. Our industry is already well developed and the amount of change it will require to reduce emissions will have a far greater economic impact here than in the lesser developed countries where their industry is in its infancy and requires little change.

    I am personally disappointed that no deal has been made in Copenhagen and I sincerely doubt there is hope for later summits to be capable of reaching an agreement either. Countries positions are well entrenched and it is unlikely that anyone is going to change their positions now.

  92. 111 Emmanuel Coleman, Accra
    December 18, 2009 at 18:14

    Once again the US has taken a leadership role setting the pace and leading by example. This great country has done a great deal to maintain this enviable position in the world. To me, am comfortable seeing the US lead. We hear a lot of countries who all they do is to talk and criticize but no action but expert the world community to accord them the same respect the world at large reckons to the US. Shut up Mr Hugo Chavez, be quiet Mr Ahmedinejad and follow in humility. If you want to blow your trumpet and show the world who you think you are, Copenhagen is the place to do exactly that.
    Thumbs up to US and her precious citizens. Lead the world once again and again I say lead.

  93. December 21, 2009 at 12:40

    The human species of this planet is heading for a major crisis. It will become necessary to reduce the global population by as much as is necessary to attain global environmental sustainability. This is an impossible task and beyond the capabilities of the countries governments participating at Copenhagen. Many of the governments are constrained by past policies or agendas that run in the face of big business which dominate those countries economies. Typically countries like the US who consume the most of the fossil fuel energy supplies of the world have economies that have developed dependance so great that without it there economy would simply implode. The US dependance for fossil fuel for transport is one thing but that amount whatever it is, is also used in industry. Whether used for making fertilizer or agribusiness or general industry. To make the US or any developed country environmentally sustainable would alter society as we know it completely. Imagine a country with negative growth for decades. As with any economic bubble when the energy bubble bursts the correction to real value sustainability would cost too much for developed societies to deal with. The fossil energy bubble tendrils has been kept afloat by known reserves. This energy should never have been exploited to the extent that it has been. It has artificially enabled growth that is unsustainable over a very long period. Remember oil is stored solar energy and has the same commodity similarity of money and when it runs out or becomes scarce it will cause a crisis similar to the financial crisis only much worse. Imagine the level of austerity that would exist for any meaningful effort was to be made to address our current fossil energy dilemma.
    Cessation of all jet aircraft transport worldwide.
    No use of fossil fuel in the production of fertilizer.
    No petrol to be used in personal transport.
    etc. etc. etc.
    These are the types of decisions that would need to be made. And since no one or no country would likely make them, what then is mans destiny?

  94. 113 Alex Martinez
    December 24, 2009 at 11:08

    Scientists have been apparently manipulating temperature changes to make it look as if temperatures are rising considerably. Is there really man made global warming? I guess the snowfall we’re seeing all over Europe these days is not strengthening the argument.

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: