The pressing questions from Copenhagen

The blame game is getting more pointed and passionate by the hour. Krupa’s already posted about China’s role in reaching the accord. I’d add these questions into our discussion.

– Do you think the world’s leaders took the threat to the world’s economy more seriously than the threat to our planet? Some of you argue they were more decisive and spent committed money at the G20 in London. And do you mind if that is the case?

– Did President Obama behave in a disrespectful way? He told the White House press corps a deal had been agreed before many countries knew about it. And he was on Air Force One before they had a chance to respond. If George Bush had done that, how would you have reacted?

Does the UN need to be removed from global negotiations on climate change? Has it shown itself to be incapable of forcing leaders to take tough decisions?

Are we witnessing the beginning of the end of Western power? Was this the summit where the developing world said enough is enough? Was this about China digging in, or about a much broader coalition of poorer countries refusing to bow to Western pressure? And would such a development excite you?

Roger Harrabin is the BBC’s environment analyst. He’s written a fascinating article about the whole Copenhagen process. In it are some statistics which warrant pulling out.

17 years since the Rio summit when world leaders pledged to keep emissions below a level considered dangerous.

6 Chinese… are responsible for the same emissions as one American.

16.6%. The $100billion offered to the developing world is 16.6% of the annual US defence budget.

18% of scientists surveyed think the IPCC has exaggerated the threat of climate change.

17% of surveyed think the IPCC has underplayed the threat. (The rest think it’s getting it right.)

60 Responses to “The pressing questions from Copenhagen”

  1. 1 Roy, Washington DC
    December 21, 2009 at 15:40

    I wouldn’t call spending $100 billion a year on something like this taking the world’s economic problems seriously.

    • 2 Leonel Contreras
      December 22, 2009 at 01:27

      Correction:$100 billion by 2020 is what was offered not “a year” this mean 9 hundred million a year in high interest loans to poor countries ,not charity involved as we all know this loans will become piece of cake of the corruption scam ,that as usual will return to the developed countries banks accounts.Ask Switzerland

  2. 3 Linda from Italy
    December 21, 2009 at 15:59

    Are we witnessing the beginning of the end of Western power?
    This is perhaps the most interesting question among all the debris and fallout from the Copenhagen debacle.
    Power is, and always has been measured in economic terms, because those with the most money get to buy the most lethal toys. This is why China, no longer Communist but out capitalisting the capitalists, won’t budge on economic “development” and continues not to give a damn about its own citizens and environment, let alone the rest of the world. At this point you could say why shouldn’t it, after all isn’t it China’s turn to pollute and enslave?
    Except that while many of the things European colonialists and US pretending-not-to-be colonialists were morally reprehensible, no one actually realised at the time that they were setting us on the way to the extinction of the human race.
    If this is the end of “Western” power, so be it, but after this particular decline and fall, what hope for the planet?

  3. 4 Jennifer
    December 21, 2009 at 16:06

    I think the most pressing question should be why are we still talking about this?

    Copenhagen and it’s “talks” have lost credibility.

  4. 5 Andrew in Australia
    December 21, 2009 at 16:23

    Knowing what we do know – despite what the blinkered, armchair experts believe and self-interest parties claim – this could be the beginning of the slide downward for the planet as a whole and we all will lose ultimately.

    To say that well you did it for so long, we have the right to do it now, we want to catch up is not only short sighted but suicidal because even nation A and B feel the need to spew out greenhouse gases unchecked because ‘they’ did it, will come back to haunt them.

    But as with everything in this world it is about (a) ‘me’ and my comfort (b) the pursuit of short-term profits (c) shorter term view that we the lucky few wont be around to feel the worst effects of our excesses. For those reasons the outlook is bleak so I hope they enjoy what we have while we have it. Sadly I am young enough to possibly reap their greed later on.

  5. 6 Gary Paudler
    December 21, 2009 at 16:23

    Obama behaved in a way disrespectful of the people who put him in office. He showed-up late for the COP15 with nothing to offer, thought that he could charm or twist arms and get away with some meaningless drivel and hurried back to Washington to finish selling us out to the insurance (oil, pharma, banking,ag) industry. You can’t squeeze a CO2 molecule between the economy and the climate; where do you think all that money comes from? It isn’t all ether-ware derivatives and shorted futures. The wealthy nations (or the nations that were wealthy ’till they screwed the pooch thinking that they could have prosperity without actual production or jobs) got wealthy exploiting and converting and trading resources; their own and whatever they could extract from unstable, under-governed and easily-coerced developing countries. It’s not hard to understand how the first Gringo to see Canada’s forests must have thought that it would be impossible to cut down all those trees, now we know that it’s very possible and deadly for our future. Same with fish, coal, soil, water… These guys know that inaction now guarantees misery and poverty for much of the world in the near future and they can’t, or won’t, break the chains of their corporate masters who care about nothing more than the next quarterly report and how much money they can extract before reality catches up with them. They know what they’re doing and it is absolutely counter to our well-being.

    • 7 Looking past the facade
      December 21, 2009 at 19:11

      “Obama behaved in a way disrespectful of the people who put him in office. He showed-up late for the COP15 with nothing to offer, thought that he could charm or twist arms and get away with some meaningless drivel…”

      Yes, I’m beginning to find the hype around him a little strange, if not misplaced. Why did anyone even think he’d be able to offer up a meaningful solution? Don’t forget he was only in the region to pick up his *cough* nobel prize.

      I think the world would be a very different place today if Al Gore had become president. But I guess people warm more quickly to a media friendly image rather than a person of any substance.

      It’s strange how in a recession hit world most countries (during election campaigns) are electing / elected more conservative governments, with the notable exception of the USA.

      P.S. I’m not an advocate of Al Gore’s, but just making the point of no Bush or his policies.

  6. 8 t
    December 21, 2009 at 16:28

    All of these points lead to two things. First, the carbon trading market is the new market of the 21st century.

    And second, China is the States biggest creditor. Which means they’ll use their leverage to push for higher carbon cuts from the U.S. And Obama has to put with that. Or risk that the Chinese will stop buying U.S. debt.

  7. 9 Elias
    December 21, 2009 at 17:06

    Its no surprise that no agreement has been reached, considering the many heads of state will not and cannot accept a deal which is not in their interests to do so. We will just have to wait for either the worst in climate change to happen or just hope the 18% of scientists surveyed who think the IPPC has exaggerated the threat of climate change are right.

  8. December 21, 2009 at 17:26

    The Chinese have real clout and will not budge an inch unless they are handled carefully and dip^lomatically. The Americans have come to realise that the hard way. We have to count our blessings that at least a minimal agreement was reached . The small steps taken now will be be a spring-board for leaps later on. Hopefully in six months, the nay-sayers will change their tune and realise the real implications of climate change.

  9. 11 Shannon in Ohio
    December 21, 2009 at 17:28

    I think the biggest disappointment (among many) to come out of Copenhagen was the rude and, at times, quite childish behavior displayed by so many of the representatives. President Obama floundered. I was also irritated by the tantrums staged by some representatives from the developing world, who seem to be in complete denial about the their countries’ horrible track records with aid money.

    Saddest of all is the fact that so many ordinary people around the world are now squabbling on forums like this one. Aside from global rancor, the only thing thing to occur as a result of the Copenhagen summit was a massive carbon footprint.

  10. December 21, 2009 at 17:36

    China is on a meteoric economic rise and cares tuppence of what other countries think! Fortunately the Chinese acted with some restraint at the Copenhagen conference. Brinkmanship was averted. But world leaders realise that for any agreement to succeed the Chinese have to be willingly on board. The United States will have to sharpen their poker skills!

  11. 13 archiblad
    December 21, 2009 at 17:39

    We cannot continue to ignore the urgency of environmental deterioration just because the Copenhagen talks failed. Such thinking is a blatant denial of all evidence to the contrary, scientific or not. Looking out the window and reading world weather and environemntal reports should be enough to convince anyone with a brain that we are having an effect on our environment. Time to make decisions without the politicians.

  12. 14 Tom K in Mpls
    December 21, 2009 at 17:53

    Re: economy vs planet. The economy is somewhat more in their scope of expertise and abilities, but still not their job.

    Obama: His job does not always allow him to make every one happy. Trying to please everyone is always a foolish choice.

    Climate change: No level of any government should try to control the weather.

    Shift of power: Power always moves, up down, east west…..

    Kinda short on worthwhile news eh?

  13. December 21, 2009 at 18:07

    Of cousre the economic situation has taking a for front over the climate change issue. The World economy is a REAL issue. The Climate change issue is one created on false information by people who stand to make trillions of dollars off of it. IT IS NOT REAL PEOPLE. Just look a little deeper into it and you can all the proof you need.

  14. 16 Linda from Italy
    December 21, 2009 at 18:38

    Maybe one of the problems with Copenhagen was trying to deal with too many issues at once. Poor old Pres. Obama and a lot of other Western leaders not only have to try to sell the idea of cutting emissions, sparking off the shock horror stories about no more private cars and wind farms in every back garden ( personally I don’t know what people have against wind farms, I think they are rather beautiful), but then there was the spectre of “rich” countries having shell out oodles of money, aid by any other name, to support the vulnerable countries – and here we go again with money down the drain of corrupt political “leaders” and their fat bank accounts.
    Pray what is a rich country these days? The US and Europe? Both in serious economic trouble, particularly EU countries like Greece, Ireland and Italy. China on the other hand has 300 billion in the CiC fund plus mountains more money in their “social” fund which doesn’t seem to be going on any kind of social development. So maybe the nouveaux riches should pick up the tab. Blame, blame, blame, pass the buck, yet again, while the planet slowly withers and dies.

  15. 17 D in Indiana
    December 21, 2009 at 19:09

    I’m ready for the end of Western domination. Maybe we can finally start spending money on domestic issues rather than dump billions of dollars into policing the world and helping others fight wars.

  16. 18 Anya
    December 21, 2009 at 19:25

    I think the root of a problem is American voters. American politicians only respond to popular issues or else they are voted out. Chinese economy has been able to flourish and pollute in big part thanks to the American consumers. Global warming is just not big enough concern for many Americans.

  17. 19 Lisa from the U.S.
    December 21, 2009 at 19:26

    I find it very disturbing that the U.S. continues to believe itself the head of the entire world, where it refuses to abide by or even sign on to the Kyoto treaty, or take into consideration that we are only ONE country among hundreds more in this world.
    Obama’s position “a priori” that stated that no legally binding agreement would come out, is hubris pure and simple and it is no wonder that the rest of the world, mainly the poorer countries who have paid a very clear price for Western expansion, consumption and wealth would be terribly offended by this position.
    Yes, democracy was once against hijacked.
    The right wing in this country have always had a false sense of sovereignty when it comes to a U.N. like body. Where is their sense of sovereignty when they defund their own country to benefit the international banking systems or the oil corportations?

  18. 20 gary
    December 21, 2009 at 19:27

    I don’t understand all the fuss. The Copenhagen Conference concluded exactly as was predicted (Well, at least as I predicted), and it did so for perfectly understandable reasons. No one was at fault but us. Societal power arises from discussions about opinions of facts, and not from the facts themselves. Everyone loves their own opinions more than they do other people’s facts! So welcome to the ride, we will continue along our present bumpy path until a significant majority holds the opinion that something should have been done…

  19. 21 John LaGrua/New York
    December 21, 2009 at 19:28

    There is all together too much hype about these summits .Complex issues like climate change require quiet negotiations eliminating the grand standing that summits bring.Political leaders now seem to relish celebrity ,create unrealistic expectations and play to their respective constituencies .Obama and other leaders should stay home and watch the store ,deligating these issues to competent subordinates who would work to achieve realisic goals .

  20. 22 Russ
    December 21, 2009 at 19:30

    I am fully against true pollution. However my plants and green house appear to be loving the CO2 and warmth found in the green house. Granted, I haven’t been able to grow any glaciers, but the vegetation is thriving. Maybe the natural climate cycles we experience aren’t as bad as we want to believe.

  21. 23 t
    December 21, 2009 at 19:32

    With other commodities (gold, silver, oil, etc.), there are finite amounts. So far, have you heard anyone say that we’re going to run out of CO2 in the near future?

    Right now, carbon derivitives are THE new market tool worldwide. If you don’t like that, then (a) learn basic economic terminology. And (b) get up and act.

  22. 24 Mike in Seattle
    December 21, 2009 at 19:39

    How can the United States do anything when it’s own senate has a significant number of members that have politicized the issue or simply don’t believe in science? There are plenty of citizens that wish to make things better but the senate keeps our hands tied.

  23. December 21, 2009 at 19:39

    Whats really upsetting me is this “Western” vs “Eastern” spat that a lot of people just can not seem to get over. Being from South Africa (and neither East nor West) and currently working on Manila I am right upset about the pettiness of the politics. The whole “us” vs “them” is so 80`s. Get over it people, there are serious issues for the whole of humanity.

    In my ideal world I would set targets to reduce the the carbon emissions and all the those that tow the line get to continue trade, those that dont sign up, get excluded from trade with countries that do do the hard work. Our world is more important than your profits.

  24. 26 A.J.
    December 21, 2009 at 19:40

    What on earth has to happen for the world governments to seriously tackle the problem of climate change? Pacific island nations are disappearing, glaciers are receding, pollution is out of control. Every nation has some selfish and at times ridiculous reasons for doing nothing and feel they have no responsibility in combatting this huge problem. India is too poor, China is headstrong and selfish, the U.S. congress bickers incessantly. We are collectively destroying the atmosphere and continue to drag our heals, blame others and deny altogether that the problem exists at all. We’ve no more time to waste. If we continue on this path we will all be responsible for the demise of the sustainability of this single planet we all share and on which our very existence depends. Grow up. Fess up. Suck up your pride and for gawd’s sake DO SOMETHING!

    • 27 Kevin PE
      December 21, 2009 at 22:05

      I agree, but shouldn’t we first distinguish between fact, emotion and many untruths.
      In 2004, Stockholm University professor Nils-Axel Mörner, of Sweden, published a paper in Global and Planetary Change regarding his extensive research of the ocean around the Maldives. He noted, “In our study of the coastal dynamics and the geomorphology of the shores we were unable to detect any traces of a recent sea level rise. On the contrary, we found quite clear morphological indications of a recent fall in sea level. “Dr. Mörner’s research indicates that sea level about the Maldives has fallen approximately 11 inches in the past 50 years.

  25. 28 Manoj
    December 21, 2009 at 19:44

    Wishing a Merry christmas…to BBC and its whole team .

    ”Threat to the world’s economy more seriously than the threat to our planet? ”……..Is this the real cause for the suffering of Mother Earth??..Being a Power engineer myself I have seen how there are still so many government hurdles in many countries before a green energy technology can be implemented to quence our thrust for utility Power ….A general treaty binding Technology exchange for power and emission control technology could have been more economical profittable for the whole world. Isn’t it too late for us to discuss on whether the western strong countries or Asian giants should agree to it while at each moment there are tons and tons of green house gas emitted in poor ,developing and developed countries damaging our existence ??….

    Thank you

  26. 29 Nonso Udeh
    December 21, 2009 at 19:49

    Please spare China. The USA is the world’s largest emitter of Co2 and shouldn’t be allowed to take climate change discussions for granted or treat them with kid gloves. If the USA were not the UN, I would’ve suggested that America be forced to the river and forced to drink as well.

  27. 30 Tom D Ford
    December 21, 2009 at 19:49

    To those who think it is not possible to negotiate an enforceable international treaty let me remind you of the WTO that rules over international business.

    Now, I don’t like the WTO but I recognize that it is proof that an enforceable international treaty is possible.

    So that barrier of a domino is knocked down.

    So bring on the next next theoretical barrier to a climate change treaty!

  28. 31 Emmanuel Coleman, Accra
    December 21, 2009 at 19:50

    The Climate Summit wasn’t a failure to me although not all the set-targets were achieved. The summit recieved a lot of media coverage and that on it’s own is enough to convince and sensitize the world community of the serious threats climate change poses to us. Decreasing global temperatures should now be an individual assignment now that our leaders couldn’t help much. We those who care about these threats of climate change should now take it upon ourselves and save the earth from becoming a catastrophy.

  29. 32 Larry from US
    December 21, 2009 at 19:53

    Economy vs Threat to Planet: Of course, but two problems exist with the idea of the question, first though the bbc wants to ignore climategate, its the urban legend (eg. mars invasion) of our day and, second, the worlds leaders are there because they get the support of the corporations and the rich.

    Obama behaving desrespectiful: Yes, but Obama doesn’t want to be like Bush on all things.

    Remove UN: Climategate

    Beginning of the End: Not the beginning but a milestone in a long road. As the west elevates the rest of the world to a political-equalness, the west decrease its potential of leadership.

  30. 33 Tom D Ford
    December 21, 2009 at 19:54

    We don’t need fantastic new tech, all we need to do is invest and build the tech we already have. We already have what we need, we just need to build it!

  31. 34 Reverend LMF McCormack
    December 21, 2009 at 19:59

    Green cars?
    the diesel engine was designed to run on vegetable oil.
    Take all those gas guzzling SUVs with diesel engines. Run them , as designed, on 50 parts vegetable oil and one part mineral oil, two parts if in cold climate.
    Abolish gasoline.
    Save a great dal of money, the vegetable/mineral oil mix is about 20 cent per gallon.
    Breathe easier, it’s clean.
    It’s also very easy to do. I have an acquaintance who’s been doing this for over a year. He’s not mechanically inclined or any kind oof scientist or engineer.
    Can someone please calculate the impact of this on climate change?

    And who cares who made all the pollution, we ALL live with it, we all will die with it unless we do somthing NOW

  32. 35 Manoj
    December 21, 2009 at 20:05

    Is this ” Saving Climate Saving generations” ..’tempo’ be maintained throughout?…Or is it going to be just a Hot topic ready to run low in a short time….?….Will we be able to change our life habits , leave our comfort and come out to save energy for the saviour of ‘ Mother Earth’?…..I believe BBC and the media community will be working in a ascending manner to bind human brain together for this common cause that requires our small change in life habits…..above politics..regionalism….religion…

  33. 36 Bob in Queensland
    December 21, 2009 at 20:07

    I fear that big, set-piece meetings like this are always doomed to failure. Perhaps the new paradigm should be “let’s all do what we can” rather than trying to reconcile more than a hundred differing sets of priorities.

  34. 37 Shaikh
    December 21, 2009 at 20:25

    I believe it is preposterous to assume that a bunch of politicians in a room and billions of dollars will save planet earth. Saving our environment is a personal responsibility that is shared by everybody.

    So long as disparate economies will exist, consumerism will exists. An average american produces 35 times more garbage than people in less developed world.

    Examples like that are the real environment problems. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of something that was burnt.

    • 38 Bert
      December 22, 2009 at 00:30

      Speaking of preposterous of enormous proportions: the idea that politicians sitting at a table can legislate how many degrees the planet will be allowed to warm (or cool, for that matter), in the next so many years. Why isn’t that laughable?

  35. 39 eSCe
    December 21, 2009 at 20:33

    Goodness , how ungracious this sort of summit can reached any conclusion. I think its a no brainer. Calculate the amount a country can emit per person and agree to keep it to that limit. Pay back the same for past emission on an average population for per person used with a define time scale.

  36. 40 Megan from Canada
    December 21, 2009 at 21:14

    As a scientist, where is the global warming? It is bunk science. Models are not facts. The sun has a far, far, far more important role on our climate. What hubris, humans have to think that we have that much influence on climate. We have a hard enough time predicting the weather for the next couple of days much less what is to happen 10 years down the road. All I see is a money transfer here. We should be concentrating on rcleaning up real pollution problems.

  37. 41 t
    December 21, 2009 at 23:34

    Here’s another question that WHYS should look into.

    How much internationally are the climate change skeptics spending on their message? Correct me if I’m wrong. But much of their backing comes from corporations (and some from rich individuals). The MSM is treating them almost as an oppressed minority.

    Now, compare that to people who believe it’s real. How many times do we see protests on TV for more than 10 seconds? And, if Al Gore is wrong, why would he put up with years of abuse? He’s ceertainly not speaking out for the money.

    • 42 Tom K in Mpls
      December 22, 2009 at 17:30

      And those of us that believe it is real, but mans role is waay over rated? And Gore is getting support from many companies to act on his agenda. You are free to choose who you believe will do the most good, but you need to know, they *ALL* do it for the money.

  38. 43 Bert
    December 22, 2009 at 00:28

    What were these scientists asked? And what kind of scientist were they?

    Were these scientists asked whether the planet is warming, or we they asked whether curbing output of human CO2 was the solution? Were they physicists who understand how self-regulating systems work, or were they climatologists who take temperature readings and use those to predict the weather?

    I always wondered about the wisdom of having President Obama making a grand entrance at the 11th hour, truth be told, and I wondered why that wouldn’t have offended many in attendance. The idea of it offended me, for instance.

  39. 44 Omer from USA
    December 22, 2009 at 01:46

    United States of America was the world power. It is the world power, and it will be the world power forever.

  40. 45 t
    December 22, 2009 at 05:26

    Here’s a idea. Since the Bailout Idea didn’t work out, why doesn’t Obama charge a super tax on all Stateside firms that profit from carbon derivitives? Then use the money to cover the cost of implementing carbon cuts and alternate forms of energy.

    Only one problem. How much money will these firms spend on their lobbyists to block this?

  41. 46 Frank in the USA
    December 22, 2009 at 07:33

    Here’s why it’s hard to believe that “global warming” is anything more than an attempted heist by leftists, confused young people, and underdeveloped countries:


  42. December 22, 2009 at 07:40

    I think the main thing to tackle climate change issue is to help poor nations and remove corruption from their states and have honest people in power ….
    having made conference like Copenhagen would not solve the problem of the world and industrialized nation should cut gases equally…

  43. 48 Hardy
    December 22, 2009 at 08:48

    People in the developing world want clean air and well-protected environment as well, but it is dishonest to keep blind eye to the fact that most of them still live in poor condition and desire only enough food and better accommodation, while western people take for granted. It is hard for poor people to give up the chance out of starvation. As we know, 80% of carbondioxide in air are emitted by the developed world, so they have more responsibility to take their duty but not force the poor people to abnegate their little food and bear the evil consequence.

  44. 49 Roberto
    December 22, 2009 at 10:15

    RE “” Do you think the world’s leaders took the threat to the world’s economy more seriously than the threat to our planet? “”

    ———— Thought everyone already knew that politicians are usually elected on the basis of the coffers they raise from economic interests that support them.

    The economy on Wall street hinges primarily on short term quarterly reports and rumour mongering, so not exactly rocket science to figure out where politician loyalties are. They dole out as much of the public treasury and favourable laws as possible before ducking out to lucrative “consultation” business as their promotion.

    Obama was less dependent upon business donations than the past two administrations, so the hope is that he will be the exception to the rule, but already he had to continue the corporate welfare programs started by the previous administration along side the two wars they started.

    We’ll have a better idea by the time of the next election cycle the direction he will be taking regarding climate change. The death of Copenhagen 2009 may well be the canary in the coal mine episode for global consensus.

  45. 50 Baz
    December 22, 2009 at 13:24

    The Blame Game.
    National self interest, is the wrong approach to solving this particular problem. What was needed at Copenhagen in the very least was a consensus on a vision of what a carbon neutral humanity would look like living on fragile earth in 2020. This coherent vision was not evoked. Each country has a different starting place. Lessening the carbon footprint of western democracies may take less time than solving overpopulation in some countries but both are a crucial. This is a complex problem that needs a comprehensive approach. Cap and trade is not a solution; as one wag pointed out it is akin to the selling of indulgences. One wonders who stands to profit from this scheme. .

  46. 51 A R Shams
    December 22, 2009 at 15:47

    UN should have the authority and power to exercise on any country that does not respnd and act positively on any of its global humanitarian mission.

  47. 52 audre
    December 22, 2009 at 16:30

    The climate is changing but man will never be its savior.

  48. 53 A R Shams
    December 22, 2009 at 16:55

    UN needs to be empowered to be capable to apply its authority impartially and independently to suppress any country to do accordingly on any decision taken by its majority member nations on global humanitarian causes, e.g. global ‘climate change’.

  49. 54 mat hendriks
    December 22, 2009 at 23:26

    Most nations are of good will on this matter.
    Nature and climate, matters of th most high importance.
    Nations can no more, ignore this problem of the future.

    By the way:
    Our future is of the highest importance, together with our every-day life.

    More than hunders nations together,in one summit.
    -to set an agenda for the future
    -to create solutions
    -to give arguments
    -to finance this project for all
    -to give special care for the poor nations
    -to try working on equal base
    -to set limits of reducing or growth of invest to

    All these points, to set by so many participants is a to difficult
    way of tackling problems and settning targets for the future.
    A new structure of working international wide- will be helpfull.
    But out and inside the conference, was the right “inspiration”.
    Leaders did their almost to create solutions,
    -Not in Kopenhagen, but in Mexico, the world will see
    how we give the next generations a new change.

  50. 55 A R Shams
    December 23, 2009 at 17:15

    ‘Climate change’ is a global humanitarian issue and hence all the nations rich or poor; developed, developing or under-developed should do their utmost possitively responding to the UN’s move.

  51. December 24, 2009 at 07:52

    Getting started to work on climate change frm pen and papers to human psyche is more important. Reaching a strict resolution unlike that of Kyoto is needed.

  52. 57 scmehta
    December 25, 2009 at 08:54

    The “blame-game”? Whose game is it any way?
    All of us are to blame us all for all bad that has happened to our Home-The Earth.
    now, there is no place for any egos and excuses; no more. We just have to get on the with the job; the best and the quickest way we can.

  53. 58 A R Shams
    December 25, 2009 at 13:47

    What UN needs is to have itself empowered to get done what its majority memeber nations both poor and rich combinedly wish to do on any humanitarian work, e.g. ‘climate change’.

  54. 59 Peter of Calabar
    December 26, 2009 at 23:48

    Just a thought guys: what hope is there of checking global warming any time in the future in such a fast developing world as ours? For illustration, lets say 500 folks today are emitting polluting gases. With any check on emission levels courtesy of Copenhagen – and at this fast pace of economic development – how does the world gain if by tomorrow a 1000 folks or more are releasing reduced levels of the same pollution?

  55. December 27, 2009 at 16:24

    $100 million is currently 10% of the US yearly military budget when Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense is taken into account., so i guess that show how important it is to the US.

    Gordan Brown spent $1.4 trillion on the UK banks, so i guess that shows which is more important to him.

    The Copenhagen summit was a fraud, and all those involved should be thrown out, and replaced with people that know how to do the job they were hired to do.

    Self-fulfilling prophecy or not, 2012 is going to be an interesting year.

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: