Dark clouds are gathering in the run up to Copenhagen's U.N. climate negotiations in December.
Credit: iStockphoto
COPENHAGEN: Environment ministers from 42 key nations in the game of climate poker are meeting this week in a bid to avoid a finger-pointing fiasco at next month's UN conference on global warming.
Just three weeks are left before a planet-wide huddle initially billed as the moment when mankind would start to reduce climate change from behemoth to a manageable peril.
After two years of haggling, the 192 members of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remain badly deadlocked.
Scant progress
After a round in Barcelona this month yielded scant progress, fears have risen that the December 7 to 18 forum in Copenhagen could be an embarrassing failure, witnessed close up by scores of heads of state or government.
It now falls to Denmark, hosting what will be the last ministerial-level parlay, to broker a credible outcome. "Because the time remaining for negotiations is extremely limited, attention... must be focussed on resolving high-order political questions necessary for agreement," said a briefing paper warning ministers.
According to a diplomatic source, Danish Climate Minister Connie Hedegaard will present a proposal for a "binding political agreement" next month. The "five-to eight-page" draft document establishes pledges that would be fleshed out next year, the source said.
It would notably spell out ways of sharing curbs on greenhouse gases. Rich countries would identify their commitments for reductions "over the medium term," a time-frame usually meaning 2020. Developing countries would also urged to spell out their own intended roster of actions to tackle greenhouse gases.
Brave cuts from Brazil
Brazil on Friday became the first emerging giant to make a nonbinding promise of this kind, saying it would make a voluntary pledge to reduce its emisssions by between 36 and 39% by 2020 as compared to anticipated trends.
Underpinning all commitments would be agreement that actions have to be transparent, measurable and verifiable. The deal would give the green light to "fast-start" funding to help poor countries switch to a low-carbon economy and fight the impacts of climate change. This would be the first step to a much larger inflow of funds.
Further negotiations would take place in 2010 to put flesh on the skeletal agreement, with the goal that the completed pact will take effect from the end of 2012, when the current pledging round under the Kyoto Protocol expires.
That Giant Sucking Sound Is Our Liberty Going Down the Drain
Ah, yes! The Statist Nirvana is at hand!
A world government ( see Lord Monckton) that will supersede all national and local authorities, will cripple economies all around the world, will turn the Third World into dependent welfare clients through the payment of so-called "carbon debts", and attempt to impoverish the West!
Have I missed anything? I'm sure it will be much worse than I've described!
And yet, the world has been cooling for the last ten years or so!
Tell me, if global warming is as bad as described, why were people living so much better during the Medieval Warm period, when temperatures were much warmer than the more conservative predictions of the the AGW/Church of Gore Alarmists?
Hmm?
Yes Visitor ,You have missed a lot
Dear " Visitor " in answer to your own question :
"Have I missed anything ?"- YES !
You can not tangle the Medieval warm period with the barest thread to the current chaos generated by our astounding present day population.
I would say more but your current take on the situation has left me almost speechless . It is people like you who make me weep with despair.As a species we have not inhabited this earth very long and our time here may be very brief indeed if people like yourself will use any argument no matter how weak,ridiculous or irrelevant to avoid acting to save this glorious planet.
That giant sucking sound you describe is the dying gasp of an over- burdened planet....However the planet may eventually recover long after the demise of our kind and the millions of other species we carelessly doomed
Blah, Blah, Blah!
Once again, total rejection of my points with absolutely no intelligent response to the arguments raised.
Is this all the enviro-statists can do? Aren't any of you up to the task of refuting my points without ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion?
Let's look at a couple of facts: More than 90% of all species that ever lived on this planet are now extinct. Of that vast number, only a few went extinct in the last 200,000 years of human existence. So how did we humans retroactively extinguish all those species?
While we're at it, let's consider the basic tenets of evolution (no, I'm not a Creationist, nor am I advocating Intelligent Design): Name for me one single species that ever evolved on this planet the DID NOT change the environment, wipe out some other species, and made new homes for other and newer species? If Darwin was correct (and I believe that he basically was) then we are merely doing what Nature has been doing for all those aeons before we appeared.
Name for me one human activity that can match the power and the pervasiveness of such things as solar activity, cosmic rays, vulcanism, ocean currents? The simple fact of the matter is, any effects human activity has on the Earth are dwarfed to insignificance in the maelstrom of totally natural activities and cycles. To think otherwise is, quite simply, delusional hubris.
Have you ever seen that photo that's floating around of the Earth at night? You can see where all the people are by the lights they generate. Even with six and a half billion people, most of the land area of the Earth is DARK! We're not overcrowded. We just like to live in a few desirable places. Indeed, we are essentially puny in the grand scheme of things. Compared to Nature, we are no threat to anyone!
Long, long before our first ancestor walked on two legs and banged a couple of rocks together, Nature has been busily creating -- and destroying -- new kinds of life and new environments for that life to thrive in. I defy anyone to refute my point that Mankind is merely the latest in a long line of species that did exactly that. Sorry, but there are no exceptions. Either Mankind is part of Nature, as the Darwinists insist, or he is a separate order of creation, as the Creationists believe. You can't have it both ways.
And aren't you the least bit disturbed by the loss of liberty, the oppression of humanity, that will result from the Copenhagen accords? Do you really think that some bureaucrat in Denmark will give you, wherever you may live, better representation than your own local government? Or will you be happy that some Third World dictator may have veto power over the majority of the voters in your little corner of the world, with whom you disagree? Is that your idea of liberty -- dictatorial control over the folks who disagree with you, even if they are in the majority?
While we're on the subject, you mentioned " the current chaos generated by our astounding present day population". Just curious, what would you propose to "remedy" the situation? Force sterilizations? Maybe a nice plague? We're already consigning millions to death by malaria and other mosquito borne diseases, thanks to the ban on DDT. Who should be exempt from your "remedies"? What "enlightened" elite would you spare from the culling? Would you include yourself in that group?
Your argument, as evidenced by your comment, can be summarized as follows: "Shut up! He explained." You answered my reasoned arguments with raw emotion and vitriol, which might have made you feel superior to me, but did nothing to persuade me that I'm wrong.
Surely, I'm not the one with the weak arguments. Insult is the final refuge of a losing argument. Not even Wilson DaSilva dared to respond to my points in previous posts. He also said, in effect, "Shut up! He explained."
Now, isn't that scientific? Shut down debate? Whatever happened to skepticism?
it's simple maths
darl, really simple maths - take a deep breath and try to calm down - no one bothers replying? - why waste the time....
Partially agree
Your argument is quite clever and does have the fact. However, we can not totally minimize the human influence on the planet. The places where people have cut down entire forest for heating, cooking, building materials erode very quickly and all the species that used to live in that part (including humans) may have disappeared or had to move elsewhere where the resources where not depleted. We have to try to stop ruining the planet in this way with cutting the forest, poluting the rivers, lakes, sea and air beyond repair. Surely it is posible to find the balance that will help to save the planet and still leave to us humans enough freedoms. People have to think seriously how many children they have because this is the fastest and the simplest way to reduce consumption and subsequently polution. The religion will be a huge obstacle for this plan hence all religions do not allow people to take control of this part of their lives. Sad......
It Really Is That Simple
In my above comments, you can nowhere find where I advocate "soiling the nest", so to speak. I believe in being a good steward of the Earth. But that doesn't preclude belief in the fundamental Liberties that God (Yes! I said "God") gave Man.
The reason said Liberties must be God-given is because, if they are not, then they are only what we imperfect humans decide they are. One look at the history of the 20th Century, wherein major atheistic governments slaughtered at least 100 million people, should demonstrate just how well that worked out.
You suggested what I would call a false choice, between saving the planet and leaving us humans "enough liberties." Again, you deny the God-given Liberties in favor of Man-given liberties. Once again, the individual comes up short when the State decides that he has too much liberty. Indeed, a case can be made that increasing individual Liberty, rather than limiting Liberty, will greatly benefit the environment.
The simple expedient of ironclad property rights, with minimal government interference, will, of necessity, clean up many of our environmental woes. After all, who wants to destroy his own land?
Property rights, coupled with a vibrant free market, will minimize the need for the kind of clear cutting of forests that you described. After all, how many folks in the wealthiest nations have to clear cut a forest to feed, house, and warm their families? Wealth is good, my Friend! Everyone should have the chance to earn it!
Please note that the areas of the world that have the worst environmental degradation also have the worst records for individual Liberties. By the way, there is a very good reason why I talk about "individual Liberties" rather than "human rights": the former is God-given, the latter is merely what we recognize as "rights" and we can change our minds at any time.
As for "religion will be a huge obstacle" for reducing population, well... please see my comments about the history of the 20th Century. Not even the bloodthirstiest religionist of history can match the atheists for slaughter on a grand scale! I suppose that's one way to reduce the population. However, the Judeo-Christian ethic has, with only a couple of exceptions, done much to moderate basic human aggression. Atheism is simply incapable of such a feat.
If we are overpopulated, then who do we target first for reducing their reproduction? How do we enforce such reductions? How will our economies survive when there are more and more elderly and fewer and fewer young working people? Do we start with the Elders of the Church of Gore? Or do we start with those pesky climate change skeptics? Will you voluntarily submit to sterilization? Or do we merely resort to a lottery?
And are we really overpopulated? Consider that it would be possible to take the entire population of the world, break it up into groups of four people, give each group a house on a quarter acre of land, and still fit everyone on the dry-land area of the state of Texas. Now, I'm not recommending such a draconian move and I certainly hope some enviro-statist doesn't pick up on the idea and try to make it a reality through some sort of world governance. I was only trying to illustrate just how spread out Mankind is, compared with the surface area of the Earth. We're not overcrowded (indeed, in the example above, it would be quite comfortable, similar to many areas within the New York City limits!) but we do like to live in only a very few places.
Now, before anyone tries the old "Flat Earth/Creationist/AGW denier shibboleth, let me assure everyone that I am not a Creationist nor a proponent of Intelligent Design. And, while I seriously doubt Mankind is the bane of the environment as is portrayed by the Church of Gore, I do believe in climate change. In fact, the only thing about the climate that stays the same is that it just keeps on changing!
Look, I like clean air and clean water as much as anyone else. But I happen to value my Liberty, and the Liberty of every human being, far more. Without Liberty, the environment will more certainly be destroyed, than not. Just look at the former Soviet states and their eco-disasters. Chernobyl, anyone?
I am sorry, but I truly believe that there are no problems facing Mankind or the Earth that cannot be made worse through the curtailment of Liberty. Conversely, increasing the number of people who live in Liberty will only make every single problem better.
This is not merely a matter of faith on my part. These are historical facts. Let's not repeat the horrid mistakes of the 20th Century. Let's try to increase Liberty, rather than limit it.
The Earth will be a much better place for it!
Perhaps read some science
Dear Climate Sceptic,
I can’t believe that someone as educated as you, hasn’t come to grips with the facts. Haven’t you had the opportunity to read the scientific reports rather than the denialist nonsense? You have to move beyond the Shock Jocks and the material put out by vested interests and read the climate and ecological science.
Of course most species that lived on the planet are now extinct. Natural selection and sexual selection, along with the generation of variability by mutation, are the drivers of evolution and without them we wouldn’t be here. But that doesn’t mean we should consign ourselves to become dust and join them. Nor does it alter the fact that we’re in the greatest mass extermination in history, and this event is caused by man. We are losing three species per hour.
And yes, of course nature is red in tooth and claw. Animals eat other animals and plants, and sometimes the result is extinction. But the survivors over a long period of time are in a delicate ecological balance. But humans are something else again. Because we invented agriculture and civilization our populations have grown far beyond a sustainable level. Our growing population together with our high standard of living have resulted in a situation where we are living well beyond our means. For a sustainable world, we should be living on the interest, not the capital. Populations, with no constraints, will grow in an exponential fashion. The human population is expected to exceed nine billion by 2040, and our capacity to provide food and water will be unable to keep pace. This problem is greatly compounded by the increasing standard of living we all take for granted.
And then came the industrial revolution, something else that sets us apart from the rest of Nature. For the past 200 years we have been pumping out greenhouse gases to support our addiction to all the conveniences of modern life. And I’m afraid man’s influence is not insignificant! And yes, sure, the physical world is very powerful, but there’s not a lot we can do about solar activity, ocean currents, volcanoes and asteroids. Maybe, one day, they will bring about our demise. But surely that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take responsibility the mess that we are creating.
Of course the thought of world co-operation is a little daunting, but surely it is exciting as well. The world has reached a stage when there will be more and more problems that breach national boundaries – a situation that can be described as the tragedy of the commons. Climate change is the most urgent, but it will be followed by other problems that relate to overpopulation such as pollution and food and water security. If we don’t solve this problem quickly, then we will be dealing with issues of starvation, scarcity of water, mass migrations and quite possibly, wars arising from these issues. I only hope we can build a world of mutual co-operation in time.
Check the Emails
Sorry!
I've been busy reading the emails out of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit. Perhaps you've heard about them: How Phil Jones was busy deleting data sets, refusing Freedom Of Information Act requests, skewing statistics to show warming? You know, the emails wherein the proponents of AGW/ACC admit that they're fudging the data in their favor.
If that's the basis for building "a world of mutual co-operation" you want to work with, well, then I'll fight you over it. Liberty is my main concern and the surest way to lose it is to base policy on suspect research.
There are so many problems with the proposed "solutions" for AGW/ACC -- which I don't consider to be real problems, as any effect humans have are lost in the effects of the Sun, vulcanism, cosmic rays. These "solutions" are nothing short of a Statist's wet dream of totalitarian world government, massive death tolls for millions of people, destruction of many economies, and squalor for the masses. And if that weren't bad enough, the elites of this "green utopia" will live in unbridled luxury, thanks to the "investments" in the carbon credit scam pushed by the loathsome Al Gore.
And why should we believe predictions of impending "starvation, scarcity of water, mass migrations and quite possibly, wars arising from these issues"? None of the climate models have predicted the decline in temperatures of the past ten years. None of the predictions of more and stronger tropical storms have been correct. Nor has sea level changed all that much in recent years, despite the shrill warnings of drowning sea coasts. Paul Erlich, you might recall, has been giving Mankind ten years untill starvation for the last three decades or so.
What makes you think they're right now?
I suggest you look up people like Robert Felix, Joseph DeLeo, Roy Spencer, Richard Linzer, and Tim Ball. Read what they have to say. While you're at it, look up the emails and other papers from the CRU at the University of East Anglia ( http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php ) When you do all that, then tell me about "coming to grip with the facts".
Copenhagen Conference
A MUST READ “The Australian” 24 October 2009 current edition, ‘INQUIRER’ section “Heat is on global warming”
Three of the world’s most successful senior scientists from across a wide spectrum of science and ecology agree on the cause, effect, solution, misinformation and the REAL TRUTH of this distorted subject. Their words are in “The Australian” 24 October 2009 current edition, ‘INQUIRER’ section “Heat is on global warming”, they present the real facts on both sides of the discussion.
This is a must read for everyone, particularly politicians who need to get their facts right with some real understanding of global warming before they go to vote on an issue very few seem to have a full understanding of, if you do not finitely understand the issue do not vote for it until it is fully proven correct.
Nathan Myhvold a Senior Scientists – a polymath who did quantum cosmology research at Cambridge with Stephen Hawking, co founded “Intellectual Ventures” that file 500 patents a year. He was Microsoft’s futurist, strategist and founder of its research lab and senior adviser to Bill Gates. His small group of scientists and engineers has sent satellites to the moon, helped defend the US against missile attack and via computing advances—changed the way the world works, and conducted definitive research on climate science. His outstanding group of scientists agree that global warming is ‘oversimplified and exaggerated’.
Lowell Wood an astrophysicist and protégé of physicists Edward Teller; he worked at Universities, for the US government on the “Star Wars” missile defence program and private firms.
Ken Caldeira runs an ecology lab at Stanford University for the Carnegie Institution, he is one of the most respected Climate Scientists in the world, he contributes work to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and received a ‘Noble Certificate’ sharing in the Noble Peace Prize on Global Warming in 2007.
Lowell Wood openly states climate prediction models are “enormously crude in space and time” they can’t model natural phenomena like hurricanes because the grids used are too large—smaller grids would require more computing power. “We are trying to predict climate change 20 to 30 years from now, but it will take us almost the same amount of time for the computer industry to give us fast enough computers to do the job”. The technology does not exist. The emphasis on CO2 is “misplaced” because CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas – water vapour is, present models do not know how to handle water vapour and types of clouds.
Nathan Myhvold, points out CO2 is currently 380 parts per million—80M years ago when our ancestors were evolving it was at least 1000 ppm—the same concentration is the regulation standard inside energy efficient office building. So plainly CO2 is clearly not poisonous and changes do not mirror human activity.
Ken Caldeira says a doubling of CO2 traps less than 2% of outgoing heat and an increase in CO2 means plants require less water to grow. His study showed doubling the amount of CO2 will yield a 70% increase in plant growth of agricultural food—thus reducing world starvation.
The men at “Intellectual Ventures” point out the wrong ideas on global warming are replicated and all wrong. That rising sea levels “aren’t being driven primarily by glaciers melting”, it is driven mostly by thermal expansion of ocean water as it warms up. Solar panels are designed to absorb light from the sun, but only about 12% gets converted to electricity, the rest is re-radiated as heat contributing to warming; the bigger they are the more “warming debt”.
Politicians must not destroy Australia’s future with bad ETS legislation or they will be recorded in history as our biggest fools ever who were too lazy to become informed before they voted.
Sincerely
Gil May