Thread: Copenhaghen

Is anyone surprised this climate summit in Copenhagen has turned into a complete farce? I am laughing my arse off at the antics of the “developing world” who are blackmailing the politicians of the “developed” world into paying them for creating an agreement. Shit, who didn’t see this coming? Obama and so many others have publicly stated the goal of reaching an agreement in this summit. So, those who can block an agreement can easily blackmail the taxpayers of the developed world who will have to pay up to avoid political embarrassment. Shit, watch Obama and all the Euro leaders start shelling out other peoples money, which will end up in Swiss bank account and not into development of green projects, to ensure some sort of “agreement” is reached. What a fucking farce!

Let us imagine, an agreement is reached. So what? What would the agreement be for? To meet goals in some future date when all the current politicians signing the agreement will be long gone and in which the current leaders will have little incentive to move towards and which the leaders to follow may or may not decide to honor. So, any agreement will mean little. We know that most of the signers of the Kyoto Protocol did little or nothing and did not meet their agreed targets. What makes us think this time will be different?

Ok, let us suspend disbelief for awhile, and assume that we buy into the dodgy science used to defend the idea of global warming and we accept all the doomsday predictions and we also believe that an agreement will be signed and those who sign will actually do as promised. So what? If we are currently heading towards a brick wall at 100 MPH, what good will it do to agree to not let our speed increase to over 110 MPH?

A fool and his money will soon be parted, but in this case the grant seeking dodgy climate “scientists,” socialists looking for yet another reason to impose more government, and corrupt African politicians have fooled the people on a global scale and this climate debate is all about enriching a few special interests and has nothing to do with environmentalism.

Watch your tax dollars (well, I live abroad and don’t pay taxes to my home country so hahaha on the rest of you) being flushed down the shitter,

Originally Posted by zemotion

So, any agreement will mean little. We know that most of the signers of the Kyoto Protocol did little or nothing and did not meet their agreed targets. What makes us think this time will be different?

In my case, nothing.

Originally Posted by zemotion

If we are currently heading towards a brick wall at 100 MPH, what good will it do to agree to not let our speed increase to over 110 MPH?

Simple arithmetic actually- ask your kids to work it out.

Originally Posted by zemotion

A fool and his money will soon be parted, but in this case

..I doubt you ever had any.



Global warming is happening, to what extent it is man made (anthropogenic) is a topic of debate, to what extent mankind can succesfully alter that anyway is debatable.

But researching cleaner and greener technologies is quite sensible given the finite amount of fossil fuel, and the increasing expense of extracting it. And most people prefer not to live in a sewer.

^ You didn't absorb a thing he said, SB. Pull off your ear plugs and blinkers.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

You didn't absorb a thing he said, SB. Pull off your ear plugs and blinkers.

Sorry Sabang, I will have to agree with the OP on this one as much as I respect your posts on the main.
Altho it is a proven fact that this has happened numerous times in the last billion years or so and the earth has been in a warming cycle now for the last 20,000+ years, there is no proof that man has indeed made it happen, as it happened before and we were not even here yet, so maybe we have made it happen faster than it would have normally happened, then it will be over with faster so can return to it's normal freezing again so it can warm again sooner.

BG I'll have to agree with you whole heartedly.

Bottom line, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Bottom line, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall.

Or colder one, come to that.

We's still have dinosaurs running around.

good post zemotion,
You might get a bit of stick from the pro climate bunch,

but as they say the truth always hurts.

South african nations have just demanded 65 billion dollars at coppenhagen

Originally Posted by meepho

South african nations have just demanded 65 billion dollars at coppenhagen

Well shit - let's just give it to ém!
After all, they have so little and we have so much...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by meepho

South african nations have just demanded 65 billion dollars at coppenhagen

Well shit - let's just give it to ém!
After all, they have so little and we have so much...

Well boon, what do ya reckon they'll spend it on,

A. A yacht to entertain each other.
B Look after the poor with along with education and curb co2.
C Private army with accesories.

if we give them the money, f==k we'll have problems.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Bottom line, no one can show that a warmer climate would produce negative impacts overall.

Will result in a couple meter rise in sea levels. Bangkok, Pattaya and Patong would be devastated and cease to exist.

Oops. Sorry. Just noticed you were referring to negative impact.

When the climate changes, the conditions that support regional ecology will change. The ability to grow certain crops will change, as will the availability of clean drinking water.
Depending on the pace of change, some species will be able to adapt and others will not.
Everywhere in the world is currently adapted to local conditions, from the design of our homes, to what we eat and how we interact socially. All this will change.
In the northern hemisphere, birds and insects are nowconsistently being found well to the north of their usual ranges and limits. They are adapting to climate change because they can, and because they have an instinct for certain conditions which are appropriate to their survival.

If only the OP and his followers were as intelligent as the insect community.

Zemotion? Nice try AA.

^ Did Al Gore walk there?

Originally Posted by chassamui

When the climate changes, the conditions that support regional ecology will change. The ability to grow certain crops will change, as will the availability of clean drinking water.

Yep; sadly your argument holds no water (hehe) -- that's been happening forever. What caused the Ice Age? Why did tribes abandon their homes and move on? Why did rivers naturally change course centuries ago? Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Interesting article. It points to the fact that climate change is still happening and that there is more than one cause.
I still believe that one of those causes is man made pollutants of all kinds. It is hardly likely to be a coincidence that the rapid changes we are experiencing now are unconnected to climate change, and that is the real danger.
The speed of change can be reduced if we act responsibly with our use of resources.
it is folly to think that we can go on using coal for example, and have no impact on air and environmental quality. To do so is selfish and stupid.

Doing "something" has consequences.

Implementing climate change policies will result in slower economic growth. Slower economic growth results in slowing in the reduction of poverty. Poverty is correlated with lower life spans, more infant deaths and so on.

The Brookings institute found that if the full Kyoto Protocol had been implemented worldwide (which it wasn't) it would have resulted in much slower worldwide economic growth with the knock-on effect of having 30 million additional preventable deaths in the poorest regions of the world per year.


How much more poverty and increased deaths in the least developed countries in the world is a valid trade off for the politicians to be seen to be doing "something?"

So, a case could be made that all the additional deaths and poverty from doing something is much worse than doing nothing.

But I am an optimist, whether or not a deal is made in Copenhagen we can be pretty sure we will come closer to doing nothing than something over the next decade or two.

I am optimistic in the ineffectiveness of governments around the world in enforcing these wrong-headed policies.

Here is another example, many people have high cholesterol, and think they need to do "something" to bring their levels down. So they begin to take cholesterol reducing drugs which may cause kidney failure and an early death. They would have been better off living with the high cholesterol than "doing something."

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Simple minded people see simple-minded solutions to complex problems and ignore unexpected consequences. World history is full of mistakes being made by simple-minded people implementing simple minded solution while ignoring possible knock-on effects.

I think it is safe to classify you into the simple-minded camp.

Of course, all the hot air, the only real outcome in Copenhagen, and emissions from the private jets taking the delegates to the conference will probably raise temperatures a tad.

But what the hell, at least they are "doing something."

If climate change is really happening, nothing done in Copenhagen will change it, it is just a huge waste of money and resources.

If Climate change is not happening, nothing done in Copenhagen will matter, it is just a huge waste of money and resources.

The climate change conference is about politics and money, not about the environment.

Not the first of the last international conference in which the only tangible result will be an increase in hot air.

Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

And that's all ya need to know.

Originally Posted by chassamui

I still believe that one of those causes is man made pollutants of all kinds.

speed of change can be reduced if we act responsibly with our use of resources.

Point 1. i am a schetic on global warming, however you are correct. If the leaders were honest, and stopped knee jerk reaction, with tax and scaremongering. they would get a better response from the poulace.

Point 2 correct again, and again with honesty this could be a stronger argument.

however people are not stupid. If per chance things were as bad as they say,
there is little we can do, as the underdeveloped countries will bleed us dry or make things worse, we are our own worse enemies. People will not pay tax to allow other people to live a stress free life whilst paying for it.

Hilary cinton.

WE will pledge 100billion towards poorer countries.

Who the f==k is WE

I'm trying to get to grips with a bit of what is happening in Copenhagen. On the one hand, I remain sceptical of how greedy, self interested people can co-operate on an international basis to refuce carbon emissions/ Greenhouse gases. Otoh, I've long said that, on a commensensical basis, that we in the developed world who have already chopped down most of our forests can hardly ask those in developing countries to preserve theirs, unless we damn well pay them to do so. But even then, how do we enforce this- just look at all the illegal logging that goes on in Amazonia and Indonesia. Anyway, a decent 'starter' article I thought:-

THE FOREST DEBATE
CAN’T SEE THE CARBON FOR THE TREES

Global warming has become big business. The buying and selling of carbon offsets – credits earned from reducing greenhouse gas emissions – is already a $150 billion business worldwide. It’s projected to skyrocket to $3 trillion by 2020.

But the market is largely unregulated. Currently, there is no legislation in the U.S. to govern this market, and many of the rules proposed by Congress do not line up with the European system already in place. The negotiations coming up this December in Copenhagen are meant to resolve key discrepancies. One major issue on the table is what to do about forests.

Keeping forests standing is critical for two reasons: first, they operate as a carbon sink, sucking in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and cooling the earth. Second, when forests are chopped down and burned, they release their stored carbon into the air.

Deforestation is the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. It accounts for 20 percent of all emissions, which is more than the emissions of all of the world’s transportation systems combined.

Planting new trees is a universally accepted way of earning carbon credits. But avoided deforestation – that is, protecting a standing forest and agreeing not to chop it down – is highly contentious. The Americans and other forested countries are in favor of this practice, but it is not allowed in the European system.

The European argument is, How can you insure that a protected forest will not be chopped down in the future? And if you protect one area, loggers and farmers may just deforest a neighboring plot. What happens in the case of naturally occurring forest fires? Or disease?

There are too many uncertainties, says the EU, in trying to earn credits from a living organism. But the U.S. sees avoided deforestation as the least expensive route to reducing carbon emissions, and the best way to get American industries on board.

There is, however, one more factor that has largely been overlooked by markets and economists: people. As these carbon preserves expand around the world – Indonesia is considering its vast forested land – what happens to the local people who live and survive by these forests?

FRONTLINE/WORLD: Carbon Watch: Blog| PBS