RSS

December 22, 2009

Jenli

Copenhagen is the end of the striking role of the UN and the IPCC in this process. We will see some further Climate Conference in the future but no real success in the main target, the reduction of atmospheric CO2. All the targets as mentioned in Kopenhagen by developed or undeveloped staates were greatly unrealistic, especially the demand of the undeveloped states to reduce the CO2-emissions of the developed states for about 50 % up to 2020. This is simply impossible without striking consequences to the economy of these states and the world economy.

An Italian study showed, that today that the atmospheric part of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is about 420 ppm and further emissione (including Methane) will - although emission reduction in many states happen- fastly rise to about 700 ppm if no natural process like CO2-sinks or something else can stop it. So the best way to handle Climate Change is to manage the problems rising from, in other words: to adapt! For this we should spend hundred of billions of dollar and not for a disastrous cap-and-trade-regime that will feed the financial branch to the next crash and won't help nothing!

December 22, 2009

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (507)

The much ballyhoed Copenhagen conference on global warming ended up with an agreement that includes both more and less than meets the eye and all depending on perspective.

It is obviously less than meets the eye in the sense that there are no mandatory (or enforceable it might be added) emission cuts. All is voluntary. However, it does establish a legitimate frame with reference to the limits of hoped for temperature increases.

In that sense, the document might well provide enough political clout to force more aggressive repsonses from national governments than many of those disappointed in the conference may think.

However, like much with the entire global warming debate, the elephant constantly present in the room but never seriously acknowledged is why the interantional community does not embrace something akin to a global Manhattan project to look for technology that can be commercially viable that will reduce carbon emissions.

China, particularly wise in this area, is moving with many nuclear power plants to avoid increasing devotion to carbon based energy (and I am sure they are pleased it reduces their exposure to political volatility in many of the producing nations). The major expansion of nuclear energy would be a positive development, though there are admittedly many thorny security questions associated with this.

Innovation has led to practically all the changes in human history that have enabled man to constantly improve his material (if not spiritual) lot in life. Mandatory cuts in emissions may spur innovation, but it seems much more beneficial for an international pool of capital to be placed at the disposal of our great minds in order to not just develop the possible, but to develop the practical. That is the carrot approach.

It seems ironic that for so many adverse to using sticks in the security arena want to embrace sticks in this arena where, arguably, those sticks will have even less potential to create the desired outcomes than they do with respect to security.

December 22, 2009

Ann H. Sontz, EuropaSurvey, Silver Contributor (26)

Previous comments make clear the difficulties of developing a legally-binding climate policy that includes the particular needs of developing nations. This could be a prospective goal of any future conference that will be scheduled in 2010.

An additional backdrop might also be a clarification of the scientific evidence that will underlie future deliberations. Any climate pact should include a public that is convinced of its relevance for daily lifeways. A comprehensive evaluation of the scientific evidence, including that which selected climatologists consider negative in nature, appears a necessity for full public participation. This is particularly true given the sceptiscism that arose during COP15 and that was widely reported in the international media.

December 23, 2009

Member deleted

Why to be disappointed to Floppenhagen outcome? Did someone believe to this circus? Like other big meetings with lot of participants the main aim probably was to have a nice (paid) hobby with positive slogans about saving earth etc. The political elite, bureaucrats and NGO leaders could have some nice Xmas shopping in Copenhagen and that’s it. Clima change - who cares?

If there is a need to cut emissions and finance 3rd world clima projects so USA and China could decide details between themselves. If there is need to finance huge environmental projects, alternative energy research etc so eg Tobin tax could produce enough money. If clima change is the top priority for EU it could put economical embargo and visa restrictions to G2 to make EU's point clear.

Nothing this will happen because from my point of view the topic is not so important for world powers and political elite which is thinking next elections and not how the world will look 2050.

December 27, 2009

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (324)

My reaction may be summarized by a simple, scientific-looking formula:

COP15 = Epic Fail

COP15 demonstrates that the UN/international accord approach to climate change, in which no country or region undertakes major reductions until all countries are on board, has been tried time and time again, going back at least to Rio in 1992. Anyone who sincerely believes the more alarmist predictions must acknowledge that even back in 1992 there was literally no time to waste. And yet, it has been wasted, and there is still no end in sight to the negotiations; therefore it is high time for the believers to consider new approaches.

One new approach would be for countries to unilaterally commit to reductions, just as the EU has. As the editors state, "As of now, the European Union has the only binding carbon deal in the world". Unfortunately, it is equally true that, as of now, the EU is in violation of the only binding carbon deal in the world (although it has made some sincere and very expensive attempts at compliance).

If meaningful, international agreements are not forthcoming, and meaningful unilateral agreements are mostly honored in the breach, it follows that preventing climate change is no longer a realistic goal. Therefore, another new approach would be to consider the cost-benefit and risk-reward aspects of amelioration and adaptation. Bjørn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus has done excellent analysis on this very point, and has identified various projects and initiatives that would provide benefits between 10 times and 1000 times the benefit per dollar spend, as compared to global warming prevention.

On the basic science of AGW, Lomborg is not a skeptic; yet the mere suggestion that there might be worthwhile alternatives, other than prevention, has seen him branded a heretic by far too many. The epic failure of COP15 should be read as a vindication, via the collective wisdom of the crowd, of his position that prevention is simply not the right way to go. Why not try out Lomborg’s approach?

Personally, I've read the various IPCC reports and also the dissenting NIPCC report, both of which are peer reviewed by top scientists. I remain a skeptic. Decades from now, anyone with a sense of history will look back in bemused bafflement at this global hysteria over a mere one degree Celsius (more or less) of random, mostly natural climate variation.

December 27, 2009

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (324)

Update: for some reason, my links are not highlighted in the text above. So, here they are:

Copenhagen Consensus: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

NIPCC (official dissent from the IPCC): http://www.nipccreport.org/

December 27, 2009

Marie Claude

I had the big laugh of my life ! how could possibly these arrogant fonctionnaires think that they would cheat on China ?

Must be someone else laughing on the Kremlin square !

we are becoming that soviet union that Vaclav Klaus is warning us about !

All that to pick more money on tax payers !

But but, are the glaciers melting ?

of course, in the Alps it stated from 1860 ! as they moved many times before

p'tain de bonne idée qu'ils avaient là for maintaining an elite at the global direction !

ah, ça ira, ça ira, les fonctionnaires à la lanterne,ah, ça ira ça ira, les fonctionnaires on les pendra !

oops, don't be surprised that is a popular revolution is marching on !

December 30, 2009

Chen Sheng

I am a strong environmentalist, but the not-so-optimistic result of Copenhagen does not surprise me. It is, despite a more active participation of several big newly industrialized states such as China and India, a similar international context as it was in 1997 for the Kyoto Protocol--the economic gap and divergent national interests make it difficult for cooperation between the developed states and the developing ones.

Like many other international issues, Copenhagen is constrained by the nature of the international community that lacks authority. I do not see any alternatives here if big states do not take the lead. However, I think the problem within the five nation's proposing pact is how to hold developing states' promises accountable. For example, although China promises to reduce about 45% of its CO2 emission, it refuses any interference of other states, which makes it difficult for the international community to know whether China keeps its words.

Nevertheless, in spite of the problems mentioned above, I consider Copenhagen as encouraging if not successful, because this meeting caused much more attention around the world, put environmental issues on the table, urged states to take multilateral cooperation, and made the public realize the nature and consequences of climate change. Even if an international cooperation in regards to climate change binding treaty fails (I hope not), there is still a possibility of regional cooperation which will be based on the message Copenhagen aims to send to the world--we have to work together to protect our living environment and that 2 degrees matters!

January 5, 2010

Ramen Benyamin, University of Toronto, (7)

The overwhelming response regarding COP 15's presumed "failure" (or more appropriately, lack of success) is not surprising considering the amount of negative media attention gearing up to the summit and the lack of confidence by the general public in the abilities of large multi-national conferences to achieve any binding resolutions. The conference seems to have been successful in producing a very important to-do list as well as establishing a funding program supported by a series of "i owe you's" by the world's richer nations. I don't mean to be skeptical about any future successes this conference may produce. Rather, it is more imperative for global culture as a whole to take a more hands-on approach towards solving the problem. A technological innovation program (like the Manhattan project already mentioned) is far more vital to tackling these problems and will not likely be led by government agencies but rather by private industries who must be pressured to do so by their consumer basis. Fabric bags, low-energy bulbs and hybrid cars are small steps towards a larger solution. Reduction in cattle breeding would be a much bigger step requiring a more intense commitment by consumers as well as finding a means of stabilizing profits for companies and their employees. These are the more major problems that hinder any further steps forward in the process. The solutions to the environmental crisis will not come from the top down but rather rise from the bottom. It is not a fundamental crisis of politics and policy but of culture as a whole. Conferences like Copenhagen will continue to fail as long as society as a whole remains dishonest about their willingness to change.

February 15, 2010

Joe Noory

It was pedantry. No-one was willing to give anything, especially the Europeans who could mouth the words knowing that nothing would come of the whole conference.

The culture of summitry isn't just ineffectual, it's ridiculous, because there are a generation of participants and public observers who now confuse it for action.