18
Dec
09

On air: Down to the wire in Copenhagen

We’re all back home and gearing up for another busy today (TV at 1530GMT, radio at normal times). Not I suspect as busy as the afternoon ahead for the negotiators in Copenhagen. We heard a lot of frustrated people on yesterday’s show, but the final judgements will be passed when we see the text that we’re expecting to emerge at some point today. No-one question today – we’ll simply react to the news as it arrives. We’ll post updates here, and you in turn can comment or ask questions as we go through the day.

Latest from BBC News here

UPDATES#

1740 From WWF blog:  Last gasp protest: As the talks begin to fall apart, protesters take the streets to v.. http://bit.ly/8MPE3y

1648 AP reporting draft agreement being considered where rich countries should reduce their emissions vt at least 80% by 2050.

1640 Just had a look at Ed Miliband’s tweets, he’s the British Secretary of State for Energy and Climate change. updated 17 mins ago…he’s back in for more talks soon and he hasn’t slept since Wednesday night.

1620 according to the Guardian, the UN has denied it’s asked leaders to stay on an extra night in Copenhagen to reach a deal.

1600 AP say President Obama is holding an impromptu meeting with Gordon Brown, and other leaders from Australia, France and Germany.

1512  US Republican Sen Inhofe responds to Obama: With unemployment at 10 percent, President Obama should be focused on helping people get back to work.  Instead, he’s promised to send hard-earned taxpayer dollars overseas, possibly to countries such as China and India, so they can deal with climate change.

1507 according to Reuters on Twitter, the UN has asked leaders to stay on in Copenhagen overnight

1444 From the Guardian blog Nicolas Sarkozy’s choice comments: “What’s blocking things? A country like China which has trouble accepting the idea of a monitoring body. India has trouble accepting a target for limiting its carbon emissions…and then there are grotesque positions from a country like Sudan.” “Europe is completely united. A large part of Africa agrees with us completely, the United States is very close to our position.”

1426 Just seen this on Twitter from Richard Branson
Just back from Copenhagen. Read my plea to leaders http://bit.ly/53beIt

1423  From Twitter fores_sverige: The real deadline for COP15: the sign says that the cloakroom is open Saturday 19th until 5 PM

1412:  From Times of London online : Mr Chavez is in a green frame of mind: he recycles a joke he made from the same podium only two days ago (and which Gordon Brown borrowed yesterday). “The people on the street say that if the climate was a bank it would have been saved already.”

1349: Greenpeace has just tweeted that they have a LEAKED: Copenhagen final agreement: With only hours left in the Copenhagen climate treaty.

1336: Japanese PM says no dealwould be a disgrace. Most people think there will be a deal, but it’s whether it’ll be worthy of the name is what people are waiting on.

1243: BBC’s Richard Black links to draft agreeement.


81 Responses to “On air: Down to the wire in Copenhagen”


  1. 1 mike muller
    December 18, 2009 at 14:21

    I had the privilege of spending a week at the conference and find today’s BBC coverage, focusing on monitoring China, to be grossly biassed.

    There are two issues:

    – developed countries have to commit to emissions

    – developing countries must also make commitments to support the global effort

    President Obama went to Copenhagen without any mandate from his government. He was unable to commit even to the minimal 17% that he would like to. He does not have his government or his people behind him .

    China has made very substantial commitments. They have the mandate and the ability to meet them. So why the focus on monitoring Chinese performance when we have the US making promises which even they cannot guarantee they will keep?!

    There is a strong whiff of pass-the-buck here.

    I listened carefully to the Chinese Academy of Sciences presentation of teh analytical base behind China’s technical proposals and implementation strategy. They were far more convincing than the US’s vague promises.

  2. 2 Ganesh chapagain
    December 18, 2009 at 14:27

    Its a moment we have to take steps…climate change is a disease for the planet.Hope from obama have faded ..had he made anouncement on increased cut off by 3% and made a target of 20% cut off by 2020, it would have boosted the summit to make a strong decision..besides these lets hope the summit be able to give good message..

  3. 3 steve
    December 18, 2009 at 14:29

    @ Mike, how do you propose that the US have a mandate before attending? The president negotiates treaties with the advice and consent of the senate. you don’t make a treaty before you negotiate it. What you ask is IMPOSSIBLE under the constitution.

    • 4 mike muller
      December 18, 2009 at 15:06

      Steve

      Its real easy. You pass a law ahead of the event. The president can then work within that framework.

      Obama tried to do that. But where is the USA’s climate legislation? Stuck in the queue behind a whole lot of domestic issues.

      US citizens who believe that climate change is a global problem should be out there banging the drum and lobbying the politicians or we will all be frying in a manmade hell while you gaze at your navels …

      • 5 Kenn
        December 18, 2009 at 17:42

        Cap and Tax isn’t climate legislation, its the creation of a new wealth generation machine and tax center.

        Perhaps some real climate legislation would work instead of another money grab?

        Maybe we can use the untold hundreds of billions of dollars on something useful for the everyday consumer instead of spending 6 million dollars on a PR and Polling firm. My entire neighborhood could have been plastered with solar panels for 6 million dollars.

    • 6 Chintan in Houston
      December 18, 2009 at 16:58

      @ Steve
      The president can pass an executive order just like he did when he asked to close Guantanamo Bay and also send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
      As EPA has now declared CO2 gas as a danger to Americans life, they can formulate new rules and regulations independent of any legislative body like the congress or the senate.
      So, esentially a deal agreed upon in Copenhagen can be achieved even if not 100% what the president wants…there you go!!

      • 7 Kenn
        December 18, 2009 at 17:43

        Yes they can, and the congress can turn around and strip the EPA of its entire existence in the next funding bill if they over ride them.

  4. 8 Lois White Buffalo
    December 18, 2009 at 14:53

    Well, let’s get realistic here folks. It snowed in Texas in November and did anyone in Europe look outside their window. Let’s just declare the summit a success, based on facts. What a novel idea! As if a climate meeting of world spooks is going to determine what the earth’s climate will be. By the way, will someone please tell me who the world dictator actually is in reality, so we can shoot him or her.
    Lois White Buffalo

  5. 9 Gary Paudler
    December 18, 2009 at 15:11

    It is not the case that Obama wandered over to Denmark to see what’s up and then go home and inform the congress. If the leadership in the US was responsible and not in the thrall of commerce at all costs and if they had in mind the long-term well-being of, at least, their people, if not the rest of the world, they would have already had the US on-track to make substantial reductions in CO2 and methane emissions and Obama would have arrived in Copenhagen with a mandate from the US Congress and the people whom they represent to be a leader in the negotiations and drive the creation of a strong treaty. This is pathetic. We have been sold-out. There are hundreds of mayors in the US with more gumption than our president, senate and house of representatives.

  6. 10 steve
    December 18, 2009 at 15:30

    @ Lois

    It doesn’t really matter that it snowed in Texas, or it’s going to dump 6″ of snow here in DC tomorrow before winter even begins, it matters where the ice is melting, and that’s in the arctic, antartic regions.

  7. 11 patti in cape coral
    December 18, 2009 at 15:44

    Not very hopeful, I’m afraid. My sense is that this was a waste of time, but maybe others that are more optimistic are right and this is just a first step. I guess we will have to wait and see.

  8. 12 Tony
    December 18, 2009 at 15:48

    No news is good news.

    I agree that the BBC coverage has been staggeringly biased. There’s barely been a mention of Climategate and its implications. Make no mistake, this is the was a rotten apple and it’s beginning to look like the whole barrel of apples is rotten too.

    You wouldn’t know it from listening to the beeb of course but there have been more revelations such as claims from the Russian IAE that the CRU were misleadingly selective in using Russian data – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/lord-monckton-barred-from-copenhagen-conference-pushed-to-the-ground-by-security/

    Dodgy data manipulation has also been alleged in NZ and Aus. See wattsupwiththat.com for a rational and fair approach.

    This is the most outrageous scam since fractional reserve banking. And so far they’re getting away with it.

  9. December 18, 2009 at 16:06

    Boy will I be glad when Cop09 is over! We might get a different subject to blog about.

  10. 14 T
    December 18, 2009 at 16:08

    Set aside all of the conference hype and speculation. And concentrate on one key talking point for the global warming skeptics.

    They constantly say it’s a lie because the earth has always warmed up and cooled. So it’s no big deal. Does this also mean since people fight wars that’s it’s ok to continue doing that?

  11. 15 guykaks
    December 18, 2009 at 16:15

    Oops!I am sorry guys,i took an early leave for x-mass.But i feel the debate was a success partly..We should appreciate the efforts made so far and we looking forward for another debate may be in Africa which i believe is worst affected by this thing ‘global warming’.

  12. December 18, 2009 at 16:21

    We have evolved into a specie that has no morals or ethical considerations. Everything is measured in terms of money and material wealth. We are on the way back to jungles. This is the real reason why the politicians cannot agree on anything in Copenhagen. It is selfishness and greed. Nobody wants to make the least sacrifice. Those who have the most are least willing to give up anything.

    On the other hand, those who are at the bottom of the pile are ganging up, as always, for hand-outs. They can all go back home and carry out some basic responsibilities like cleaning up their streets and homes to start with and stop polluting their rivers and air, stop cutting down trees and so on.

    Any agreement in Copenhagen would only give licence to the dishonest, thieving politicians to impose sky-high taxes on the already suffering masses to fund their own lifestyles. Some countries have been collecting as much as 70% tax on petrol for years. They call it the green tax or whatever. We are yet to see some of it being spent on reducing the pollution.

    I sincerely hope the Copenhagen summit fails.

  13. 17 T
    December 18, 2009 at 16:24

    Another weakness in the skeptics argument? If someone challenges them, instantly they try to talk past you by bombarding you with even more talking points.
    Instead of paying attention to what you’re saying.

    You want a “balanced debate”? Then do your part and actually debate.

    • 18 Rob Wilson
      December 19, 2009 at 03:33

      Hi T
      If you would like a balanced debate then how about addressing some of the facts that are staring us all in the face.

      1) World temperatures haven’t gone up in almost 12 years – despite CO2 levels rising.
      2) World temperatures have started to dip in the past couple of years
      3) The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998.
      4) The Medieval Warm period was 1.5 degrees C above today’s temperatures. Consequently Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph was at best bad science.
      5) The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.
      6) There is no significant correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, but there is a high correlation between sunspot numbers and temperature.

      If I were you I would be less concerned about CO2 emissions and more concerned about how such a spectacular fraud can be foisted upon us all. Sadly given control or the collusion of the mass media, it is possible to fool a lot of people a lot of the time.

      And PS polar bear numbers are on the rise http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868
      ROB Wilson

  14. 19 Kim Gridley
    December 18, 2009 at 16:39

    I’m glad President Obama isn’t going to write a blank check to developing countries who don’t want to be monitored. It has been a travesty how these corrupt governments, particularly those in Africa, enrich themselves at the dire consequences of their own people.

  15. December 18, 2009 at 16:40

    Most of you people need to to step away from the Kool-aid your governments are giving you. While it is true that the climate is changing, there is NO proof that it is man made. There are a great number of scientists who have been saying this. There is proof that the models that the supporting scientists are using have been doctored to get the results they want. Why, MONEY, Trillions of dollars are at stake here. That is why the climate change issue is being shoved down your throats.
    Al Gore who is at the forefront of the cliomate change issue in the states, and probably world wide is an investor in the company that will make the software that every company around the world will need to try to cap off their emissions. Trillions of dollars stand to be made here. There is scientific eveidence that the world is on a cooling trend right now. If this climate change agenda gets passed, all we will end up doing is creating a REAL climate problem, costing millions of people their jobs, and All of us will foot that Tillion dollar bill with taxes that none of us will be able to afford.
    You sheep have to realize that when your government acts on something and it cost money, It is NOT free to you. YOU pay for it in the form of taxes.

  16. December 18, 2009 at 16:49

    Politicians should have to tackle climate change boldly. Instead of having political calculations about how long they can stay in power they should implement concrete measures to tackle climate change effectively.

  17. 22 Robel
    December 18, 2009 at 16:50

    Any deal should include the views of developing countries. developing countries have millions of hungry people to feed. I am pleased with how developing countries handled themselves. Any climate deal is based on self interest not collective interest. That is what i heard from President Obama , his Premise was United states is acting out of self interest in promoting green energy why , because the u.s economy can only bounce with alternative source energy and green jobs to be dominant.

  18. 23 Maurice Tong
    December 18, 2009 at 16:52

    Even it’s a tiny little step, any step forward is a positive improvement.

    But, I’m hoping to see the tax on gas all around the world to be doubled or even tripled in the year ago.

    This way, companies and people all around the world would think seriously on developing alternative energy.

    Maurice

    • 24 Kenn
      December 18, 2009 at 17:48

      Yeah, while i lose my house because i have to pay 9 dollars a gallon for gasoline,. No thank you.

      The people of america would burn DC to the ground before they allowed that tax through.

  19. 25 Guido
    December 18, 2009 at 16:54

    When the conference goes on over night it is an advantage for the EU leaders, they are used to endless negotiations. In EU summits an agreement is often reached over night.

  20. 26 Samuel
    December 18, 2009 at 16:55

    Developing countries should accept whatever the developed world are willing offer – I don’t think Cop15 was a negotiation forum/sumit but rather and communication channel. Developing countries sieze this exchange forum to comunicate their wishes, likewise, developed countries’ message was clear – “this is all we have to offer – take it or leave it”.

    Samuel
    Kigali, Rwanda

  21. 27 Kevin PE
    December 18, 2009 at 17:03

    No matter what agreement is finally announced, we can all move forward with a greater degree of focus as to the urgent need of cleaner technologies.
    Indeed many of us will hopefully have greater awareness as to the environment around us and the will to “clean up our act”. There will also unfortunately be those that will see a golden opportunity to take advantage of this green enthusiasm and will no doubt lay the blame for every mal-administered or natural disaster at the door of (western created) climate change. I can already sense many of the world’s despotic leaders refining their speeches to redirect the blame for all their nation’s woes. Gross negligence, rampant corruption and greed have now received a welcome reprieve. In order to succeed, our commitment to a cleaner, more sustainably future, must not be allowed to be hi-jacked by those who would seek to profit.

  22. 28 Alan in Arizona
    December 18, 2009 at 17:04

    I had the HUGE privilege of listening to a couple of minutes of the proceedings this morning on NPR as part of a story. The comparrison to a group of 190 children was spot on. In reality a bunch of buerocrates set to toss our planet into the abyss.

    I say we just do the work ourselves and forget about our governments. Let them deal with something unimportant. That way the damage won’t matter or effect anyone.

    I’m also disillusioned with Obama and his speeches. They are so polished and precise. I no longer feel he has his heart into it. I think it would have been more powerful if he would have just spoke using his own feelings. It might have had a better effect than the rhetoric.

  23. 30 chinaski in LA
    December 18, 2009 at 17:04

    Copenhagen is the New Coke of world issues. There is still no direct evidence of our involvement with the changing climate of planet earth.

  24. 31 Pacharo Msowoya
    December 18, 2009 at 17:11

    The developed world took our resources for free, they developed while polluting earth. Now they want us (developing world) to help them in mitigating climate change! Thats utter rubbish. It should be the developed cutting emmissions and putting aside financial resources to help the poorer nations cope with the effects of CC. After all, the developed nations contribute more than 80% of global emmissions.

    • 32 Kenn
      December 18, 2009 at 17:53

      So what you are saying is because developing (I use this term loosely) countries have terrible corruption problems, people who don’t know how to run a country, and the strange desire to kill everyone not identical to those in power (in some cases) we should PAY you for it?

      Here is an alternative. Clean up your own countries, pave the roads, get the water running and make plans for solar and wind energy, then I would happily send a couple of dollars to you in the form of the equipment to install and the people to train your countrymen on how to do it and educate them.

      • 33 Pacharo
        December 18, 2009 at 19:20

        am sorry that you look at this issue blindly.. the developed nations, especially US is using climate change as a tool to hinder developing countries from getting developed. that’s why they are now busy arguing with china because they see that a few years from now it will overtake them. for your own info. am an environmentalist, and i believe that its better to mitigate the dangers and/ effects of climate change. that said, i would not settle for any agreement that hinders us from developing our countries. In my view, its even better not to have a deal so that anyone who wants to develop should develop they way they like, and eventually deal with the effects individually.
        America and Associates polluted this world and when it came time for Kyoto, they did nothing, and now they want developing/ poor nations to help them. NO WAY!!

    • 34 Kim Gridley
      December 18, 2009 at 17:54

      There was not one delegate — not one — who thought that the developing nations shouldn’t receive any financial resources to help those nations cope with the effects of CC. However, there is definitely a huge and very real concern that developing countries, especially those in Africa, don’t have the reliable infrastructure to be able to handle such large sums of money. Developed nations have been pouring money and aid into Africa for decades! One wonders if any of it ever trickled down to the people!

    • 35 Kevin PE
      December 18, 2009 at 18:11

      Please stop with this victim mentality, you and your countrymen will never lift yourselves while you continue to wallow in this victim mentality. By your own explanation, you are a “developing” country. Stop whining and get on with the “development”.

  25. 36 vijay pillai
    December 18, 2009 at 17:11

    world dont know much about china’s emmission of co2 and the need for journalist to bring to attention at this crucial time when they are not taking initatives like the europe and usa. China is no an unprecidented growth for a decade and will contune to increase unlike other nations with less population not just 100 million but more than 1300 million citzena and it time say 10 years time might have moe cities with more popuation than rest of ghe world cities put together not even india can match while other advance nations reduce co2 emmision it might increase to catch up witht eh west interms of prosperity. Not many people can visualise except master planners.

  26. 37 Guido
    December 18, 2009 at 17:27

    In the discussion there should be more distinction between different so called developing countries. There are many countries which are still dominated by agriculture, they are likely to be the victims of climate change, and there are countries like China.

    China is at least in part of the country an industrialised country with massive CO2 emmissions. The difference to Europe or the US is much larger service sector in these nations.

  27. 38 Roberto
    December 18, 2009 at 17:35

    RE “” Al Gore who is at the forefront of the cliomate change issue in the states, “”
    ——————————————————————————

    ———- Oh dear, the rallying cry for ninny conservatives, ol’ Mr. Meanie Grinch Gore trying to steal from poor Mr. Global INC to save the baby seals is it now?

    Meanwhile back at the pass, the true political conservatives in the CIA and Pentagon are already planning future operations around global upheavals caused by climate change.

    And, yes, they mean to save us from impending doom, or so they market themselves, so relax. You’ll still make it into the Flat Earth HallO’ Fame.

  28. 39 Sergio Joaquim Dique
    December 18, 2009 at 17:46

    rich countries got rich through the destruction of all resources. Gold, timber, oil, everything, you name it.

    now, if a developing country tries to make progress, everyone now thinks we have to be responsible.

    for me the deal should be:

    America, Britain, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, should pay the developing countries enough money for them to meet their development requirement in climate friendly manner.

    plain and simple. no politics needed.

  29. 40 jens
    December 18, 2009 at 17:46

    i am tired of the climate change debate. Who cares what is responsible for the slight warming. i am much more interested in what the consequences are and how we are going to deal with them.

  30. 41 BILLY WACHAKANA FROM KENYA
    December 18, 2009 at 18:10

    the americans have been braggin everywhere including hollywood movies, media houses and even presidential speeches that they are democratic people. The copenahagen summit is proving these claims of a democrattic country as useless. the americans always want to put their needs ahead of anything. perhaps they shouldnt brag anymore coz they have failed a test of global democracy.

    • 42 Kenn
      December 18, 2009 at 18:24

      We don’t have a global democracy. And the US isn’t even a democracy. We are a democratic republic. Look up the terminology.

      Everyone puts their needs above others, thats how we survive. I take you have given everything you own to the homeless and now you yourself are homeless? If not you are a hypocrite.

      Besides, its not my job to give up everything i have and own so some person in Africa can take my money and use it on more guns. I’m willing to contribute to a fund that supplies equipment to ‘developing’ nations, that and training and education.

      I sure do not want it run by the UN… we saw how well they did with the whole “Oil for Food” program and just about everything else they are involved in. The whole lot fo them are just as corrupt as anywhere else.

      • 43 Tom K in Mpls
        December 19, 2009 at 02:07

        Don’t forget, the ‘Oil for Food’ guy is the same guy running the ‘Pay to Pollute’, aka ‘Carbon Credit’, scam from somewhere in China. And people actually want to do this…. Kinda bad when a Canadian has to hide in China to keep power.

    • 44 Kim Gridley
      December 18, 2009 at 18:36

      So Billy, enlighten us all about Kenya’s government.

  31. 45 Tom K in Mpls
    December 18, 2009 at 18:11

    I seriously hope the summit does nothing. The only efficient and effective results will come from all of us using more efficient practices and products. Capitalism will gladly sell us the better products we ask for. The better products have been coming all along, now we just need to consume less.

  32. 46 T
    December 18, 2009 at 18:26

    Listening to Obama’s Copenhagen speech online. He keeps talking about decades of inaction. “We will do what we say.”

    What he’s NOT saying is we won’t support any huge carbon emission cuts. Because that would disrupt the lifestyle that we as Americans are entitled to. Instead, a 4% cut.

    The States is is one of the biggest parts of the problem. And by doing this, Obama’s perpetuating the problem. More lack of transparency.

  33. 47 Anthony
    December 18, 2009 at 18:26

    $50 says that this was a waste of time, and nothing will be resolved.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  34. 48 patti in cape coral
    December 18, 2009 at 18:33

    Tom – I agree, it’s up to us. Government can’t or won’t do it.

  35. December 18, 2009 at 18:37

    Face-saving measures are not the desired targets that climate experts were recommending. Future generations would be appalled by the selfishness shown by the key polluting nations. The key drawbacks of this conference should be high-lighted and there should be a follow-up within six months. This is far too important a conference to be swept under the carpet: the lessons learnt would be an eye-opener!

  36. 50 ARTHUR NJUGUNA
    December 18, 2009 at 18:50

    If copenhagen is anything, it has placed a huge indictment on leadership across the board. If there is world leadership too, it is really wanting at this juncture given those stale speeches that should be drained through the sinkhole. World leaders are very active when dealing with negative issues and perhaps most of us are getting recruited into this make believe theatre of the absurd.
    My point is this, who cannot understand that we all now continue to look like a family of drunks who torch their own home and continue to be aloof as if nothing is happening? Whose house is burning? We ask in a stupor. As if that is not enough, where are the good religions in all this – the Jesus and Mohammed people? Christ in Heaven, have you now decreed that we that we outwit and destroy even the very animals that God created and left to our care?

  37. 51 Kenn
    December 18, 2009 at 19:02

    I took the time to read the draft proposal… what a joke.

    ‘A Technology Mechanic” to create new technology to combat global warming? These people couldn’t create a jar out of clay, let alone anything useful to anyone. All they create is a ton of CO2 from all the hot air spewing out of their mouths

  38. December 18, 2009 at 19:03

    It would seem everyone is talking,but no one is listening.Copenhargen was a sad start,and I fear it will be a sad end too.Any agreement will be half hearted,in faith and in practice.Third World,has had tremedous help over the decades,but to no visual avail.Most of Africas dreams lie in ruins.Are they now expected to become partners,in order to save the world?

  39. 53 Max Mahajan
    December 18, 2009 at 19:04

    The Earth’s Atmosphere is an ENVELOPE! Beyond that is the vacuum of space.

    Since Nature abhors a vacuum why is it that the Earth’s Atmosphere is NOT dissipated into space?

    Because of Newton’s Law of Gravitation!

    Since the Earth’s atmosphere is there to stay its COMPOSITION can and IS affected by Man, Volcanoes, and Forest Fires etc. In other words:

    What we put INTO the atmosphere is there to stay until Nature ‘balances’ it again (with its reactions thrown in; in the form of hurricanes, warming cooling & whatever. BUT Nature takes a very long time to redress the changes (what we put into the Atmosphere).

    Nature has time! We don’t!

  40. 54 archibald
    December 18, 2009 at 19:07

    This discussion is a journey to nowhere. It is a simple decision, to rapidly kill off the remaining healthy parts planet or make an all out effort to save it. The collective world economies could easily foot the bill, but, most of the bigger players are just too greedy to help those that cannot.
    It is so unsettling to think of all the things that continue to happen as world leaders needlessly slog away at this conjured stalemate, prolonging the discussion indefinitely and giving elbow room to those who would prefer to see it all fall to pieces. Blinded by our tiny minds, we continue to trust leaders who have proven, time and time again, that the only people worth saving are themselves and their precious investments.

  41. 55 Kacey
    December 18, 2009 at 19:08

    Although the more developed nations are more responable for the situation they should also have the largest say in the soloution that THEY will be paying for. The developed nations of the world acheived that status though hard work and adhearence to a common culture / set of rules. Those contries that have not achieved this status may need to consider assimilating some of these cultures instead of clinging to one that has failed to yield the success necessary to not need help.

  42. 56 roboturkey
    December 18, 2009 at 19:08

    Why is it surprising that there is no consensus or resolution to the Copenhagen summit? There is no definite solution, only alarmist fears over a building suite of data. This is a clear demonstration of a bunch of solutions in search of a problem.

    Copenhagen should be the beginning of a rational process where a UN-sponsored group can settle in as a permanent committee to hammer out a plan to address the issue of carbon emissions.

    No carbon = no economies. No wonder there is no progress.

    The demands of the undeveloped world look like Mafia shakedown demands.

    The only big corrective proposal, “Cap and Tade” is a blueprint for corruption.

    There is no reason to expect a resolution here. Believe me, we are not either surprised or discouraged.

  43. 57 Tom K in Mpls
    December 18, 2009 at 19:09

    On more thinking, I suspect that Obama does not support this issue and is smart enough to avoid the political suicide that would come from saying so.

  44. 58 D in Indiana
    December 18, 2009 at 19:14

    Has anyone mention the financial effects of restricting emissions? It’s only been a year or so since the economic crisis. Maybe this is the wrong time to be asking for all this change.

  45. 59 ARTHUR NJUGUNA
    December 18, 2009 at 19:15

    Listening to his ‘power’ speech, President Obama only made a deal that is vague. This was an opportunity as an American predident to take charge of world leadership. Unfortunately he decided to sound as an American president only without knowing that his appearance and what he had to say counted a lot in showing the rest of the world the ideal direction as charted from copenhagen.

    Following this cue, the others will surely gloat like he did and do nothing in the end after promising the ‘stimulus package’ for the climate. It will be very sad if all we have been waiting for is just sponsored tuorists to Copenhagen with all perks and nightout paid for.

  46. 60 AJ, Potsdam, NY
    December 18, 2009 at 19:16

    One issue that I had hoped would be discussed is the effect of the uncontested rising atmospheric CO2 concentration on the Earth’s surface waters – particularly its oceans.

    Studies published by the Royal Society in the U.K., and the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the U.S., reveal that ocean pH levels have been dropping since the Industrial Revolution – and that this trend is now occurring even more quickly than had previously been expected. The declining pH is approaching a biological ‘tipping point’ which, when reached, will result in a cataclysmic collapse of the oceans’ ecosystems – and with them their food chains, upon which humanity is so dependent.

    Irrespective of the question of temperature rise and its concomitant effects, this aspect of humanity’s contribution to the rising global atmospheric CO2 concentration has hardly been discussed.

  47. 61 roboturkey
    December 18, 2009 at 19:26

    Why exactly does “the developing world” believes that it will have any athority over the economies of the US and China. Won’t ever happen. The US will need to ratify any agreement as a treaty through the US Senate, where there is no support for resolution of any agreement that acts as a throttle on our economy.

    Here are some harcsh facts:
    The planet will have to bear whatever burden an expanding carbon-based energy system causes.
    The “developing world” has no authority to act againsts the “Developed World”. hard as it is to face, the developing world has already lost that race.
    Climate change is in motion and the chips will fall how they may.

  48. 62 Max Mahajan
    December 18, 2009 at 19:31

    Re: Anthony December 18, 2009 at 16:40

    “Most of you people need to to step away from the Kool-aid your governments are giving you. While it is true that the climate is changing, there is NO proof that it is man made. There are a great number of scientists who have been saying this. There is proof that the models that the supporting scientists are using have been doctored to get the results they want. Why, MONEY, Trillions of dollars are at stake here.”

    “Trillions of dollars are at stake here” – precisely!

    And all those dollars at stake are those of the vested (polluting) interests!

    I, and many other people are and would be willing to pay taxes or higher prices for goods & services or reduce consumption so that we can have a cleaner Planet, cleaner air, better health etc.

    Why do you have a problem with that? Do you support “paid shill’s”?

  49. 63 Tom K in Mpls
    December 18, 2009 at 19:40

    Given the vague assumptions and empty rhetoric, I vote we change the show to cover Micheal Jackson *and* Tiger Woods! They are known to have an actual effect on the world and don’t rely on politicians.

  50. 64 vijay
    December 18, 2009 at 19:43

    The Mass hysteria created by climate change proponents is sinister,USA&Europe(600mn people)who have used the worlds resources are trying to stop(5.4bn )from developing to their full potential

  51. 65 Cody (USA)
    December 18, 2009 at 19:44

    I cant say that I truly don’t know all the details behind this conference, but what I do know is that what is done here in Copenhagen will set a standard what the world can achieve together in the next 20 years. We cant keep running into these bureaucratic “technicalities,” When the Interest of the human race is at hand. I find it Ironic that countries can commit to war, genocide, or the taking of a life faster then preserving a habitable planet for the human race. I suppose we will never move forward, as a whole, if the power to do so is in the hands of people who look at the world with interest only in money and power, and not in the preservation of humanity.

    My question is, Why cant we achieve this? and what are the negatives of doing so?

  52. 66 xavier
    December 18, 2009 at 19:46

    Corruption in Africa indeed is responsible for the various environmental tragedies all over the continent.

    The Niger Delta crisis, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia or Sierra Leonian wars are all as a direct result of corruption and failures of governments in the affected countries.

  53. 67 xavier
    December 18, 2009 at 19:47

    The USA needs to show good faith and commit to stringent cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, adoption of clean energy, and other environmentally responsible measures to move the conference forward.

    • 68 Cody (USA)
      December 18, 2009 at 19:52

      I agree, I as an American feel that we should take the lead since no other country really has the leadership to do so, maybe besides England (G.Brown)

  54. 69 T
    December 18, 2009 at 19:48

    If an agreement were worked out in the U.N., what would happen? The States and some other countries would once again use their veto power. So it would be the major countries against the smaller. No difference to what’s happening now.

  55. 70 jayne in Scotland
    December 18, 2009 at 19:53

    What has happened today is producing an energetic shift in consciousness . A realisation amongst many that the haloed system of the ‘free market ‘ is failing at all levels to solve our problems . Promises made on the basis of debt begetting more debt can only be hollow.

    What is’ real’ though is Trillions to banks that can’t lend lend , and a further callossal transfers of money to the tune of $636 billion by Obama alone for military expenditure ….

    …that is the direction they are taking us ……because .they’ve just put their money on it!!

  56. 71 Frank in the USA
    December 18, 2009 at 19:56

    No one was willing to do anything about overpopulation when we had the opportunity 30 years ago, and no one is going to do anything about climate change–which really is a symptom of overpopulation.

    Our efforts would be better focused on how to adapt to the inevitbale, rather than beating our heads against the wall trying to prevent it.

    Farming wheat in Greenland might be a good start.

  57. 72 steve
    December 18, 2009 at 19:59

    It’s funny all the praise about china. It’s the country that has substandard safety procedures, is very heavily polluted, exports tainted products, lacks a democracy, and jails and executes people for speaking their minds.

  58. 73 Ryant T
    December 18, 2009 at 20:03

    To really get the ball rolling, we need an internationally-adjusted cap & trade system with protections against corruption. Targets need to be established and higher fossil carbon prices need to be phased in worldwide (given the global nature of the markets), while rebates are offered for improved efficiency and renewables. Otherwise, change will occur at a snail’s pace, as nations exploit coal fuels and tar sands instead of the initially less convenient options.

    • 74 Kenn
      December 18, 2009 at 20:47

      What would cap and trade do but transfer wealth into the pockets of the people that run the system and trade the commodity? Its not a solution to the problem, just a way to make money off of it.

  59. 75 Kevin PE
    December 18, 2009 at 21:10

    Regrettably and tragically the Copenhagen conference and any deal to emerge is too late. According to every guest participant in the last few programs from developing (why do we keep calling them that) and poorer countries, it is all in vain. Their respective nations are already in the grip of devastating climate induced calamity. The only measure that can cure and repel this evil is CASH. Now that they know what it is and who has caused this terribly burden to befall them, no amount of scientific evidence (even if only predicted to occur in years to come) can explain the sudden and dramatic changes that have coincided with this new knowledge. From now on every mudslide, every dry season/wet season (late or early), every crop failure, every heat wave/chill and even miscarriage will no longer be attributed to nature, but to that great western evil – global warming. Come on! There must be a rational and scientific approach with the correct information applied to POTENTIALLY affected people.

  60. 76 Bert
    December 19, 2009 at 01:16

    I’m actually relieved that things are going about as I had expected, i.e. not much to show for Cop09. Not because I doubt all the climate-change measurements that many keep pointing to, but because I’m fairly convinced that human CO2 emissions are NOT the cause, and therefore NOT the cure.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the activists are happy to latch onto the CO2 hysteria mostly because the activists think that it;’s impreative to do SOMETHING. Even if that something is totally irrelevant.

    Let’s use the hypocratic oath here. Let’s at least “do no harm.” So, how about everyone concentrate on a reforestation program, on mandating reasonable fuel economy measures, and lay off this CO2 emphasis?

    Reforestation is bound to be good, especially in areas that humans have deforested. Draconian limits of CO2 are devastating, potentially, and based on make-believe science.

  61. 77 David Hutchison
    December 19, 2009 at 09:58

    The very real plight of the poor countries of Africa is not helped by the sight of Robert Mugabe sitting down at a banquet in Copenhagen, hosted by the queen of Denmark stuffing scallops & turkey etc.,
    This is a man who has systimatically starved his own people. Nor is it helped by the Tunisian delegate crying about the small amount of funds promised by the rich countries to offset the effects of climaye change?
    Did he also cry for the people of Darfur?

    I am afraid this does not play well with the people of the US & so makes it all the more difficult to influence congress towards approving climate change funding.

    David, UK

  62. 78 DavidG
    December 19, 2009 at 13:34

    It has finally become obvious that the kind of CO2 reductions necessary to contain a global warming to 2°C are simply impossible to implement.

    The reduction in standard of living in developed countries, and the drastically reduced rate of growth in developing countries, would ensure that leaders who tried to implement the necessary measures would not for long remain leaders.

    China has committed to a 40% – 45% reduction in “carbon intensity” by 2020. This means that if China, already the world’s largest emitter, maintains its projected rate of economic growth the amount of CO2 emitted by the country will increase by around 90%. India has suggested an emissions target that will approximately triple its emissions by that date.

    No matter what the rest of the world does it is a cast iron certainty that the amount of CO 2 emitted globally in 2020 will be dramatically greater than that emitted today

    Instead of pouring vast sums of money money into doomed attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions it would be far better to fund intensive research into methods of energy generation which are cheaper than burning fossil fuels. The only way to stop people burning fossil fuels is to find a cheaper way of generating energy.

    It’s possible that this may prove unachievable – however reducing CO2 emissions to any significant extent is certainly unachievable.

  63. 79 T
    December 19, 2009 at 16:40

    Looks like there are two things now. First, an “agreement” that’s not legally binding, has no real targets in it. And, is so watered down we all say, what’s the point of it?

    Second, the States and the U.K. have to deal with other countries wanting their fair share (China, India and others). They’re willing to take on bigger carbon cuts. Yet, Obama won’t agree to them. Why? Because it’s a threat to “our way of life”? It’s the usual we-are-superior thing.

  64. 80 t
    December 20, 2009 at 19:35

    Listeing to a BBC call-in podcast. And there are lots of climate change skeptics complaining. We’re being censored! We’re being shouted down!

    No you’re not. The problem is you’re using talking points instead of actual facts when you try to make your case. And that’s not a debate. Try doing your homework first before you go on.

  65. 81 wintergreen
    December 21, 2009 at 09:31

    My Prime Minister went to Copenhagen and all I got was a bloody big Tax Demand


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: