There is a Deal in Copenhagen

Fri, 2009-12-18 14:02Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

There is a Deal in Copenhagen

UPDATE: Ignore this

It’s sure to be derided as inadequate - it’s sure to BE inadequate if you were hoping for something that would actually solve the problem - but there are some great financing elements, and there will be more to come ….

One thing for sure: President Obama passed through the press conference room - a secure route to the building exit - and said something that sounded like, “It’s time to go home.” He also shook hands with the incredibly cute young Danish  women who have been working in the media centre, setting off a series of whoops and screams.

Then he turned up, a disembodied voice on a Whitehouse feed, having a cosy press conference with the Whitehouse press corps, declaring that a deal is in hand and that it will get us moving in the right direction. If Canada just stopped moving in the WRONG direction, that would be progress.

Previous Comments

Since your in copenhagen on the ground floor what does your gut tell you? Is it a hard binding target of 350 ppm agreement or a loose political arangement with lots of wiggle room?

A hard, binding target? Surely you jest.

But Obama spoke. And delegates swooned. That’s the important part. ;)

If there’s one thing Obama knows, it’s financing. He can find a trillion dollars any time he wants. It’s quite amazing. We need to all quit working and get cheques from the government. The government is a golden money tree.

Additional point - the leaders couldn’t even get together for the traditional summit photo! such unity!

This entire summit can thus be summarized in two words. “failed photo-op”

so there is a deal which does not solve the problem but you can find something “great” with the financing? your showing your hand richard.

George Monbiot: “This is the chaotic, disastrous denouement of a chaotic and disastrous summit. The event has been attended by historic levels of incompetence. … Corporate profits and political expediency have proved more urgent considerations than either the natural world or human civilisation. … The governments which moved so swiftly to save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns.”

Bill McKibben: “The President of the United States did several things with his agreement today with China, India, and South Africa: He formed a league of super-polluters, and would-be super-polluters. China, the U.S., and India don’t want anyone controlling their use of coal in any meaningful way. It is a coalition of foxes who will together govern the henhouse. … Obama has taken the mandate that progressives worked their hearts out to give him, and used it to gut the ideas that progressives have held most dear.”

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK: “there are no targets for carbon cuts and no agreement on a legally binding treaty. … The bullying tactics of the developed countries have ensured they have got what they want, despite the attempts of some developing countries to stand their ground.”

Sadly, politics and vested interests as usual carried the day. And now let the spin begin …

Looks like Obama earned his Nobel Peace price after all, eh?

This summitt went from Hopenhagen to Brokenhagen.

There is no deal, at least any deal that matters. No committments, no targets, nothing legally binding. It’s the status quo all over again. The corporate backed politicians win the day, and stay on course for inaction.

Ah yes, already back to blaming the “corporate backed politicians”. I knew it wouldn’t take long.

But here’s a few suggestions the next time the UN holds a climate summit.

1) Leave the NGO circus at home. Those clowns can march in their own country. They aren’t “civil society”, they are a fringe.

2) Don’t hold a conference unless you are serious. We’ve heard the lofty rhetoric for years. Now show us that you have the support of the people first, before you spend billions on a vanity conference. You don’t at present.

3) Maybe try living the lifestyle you want humanity to adopt. Buy a (much) smaller house. Give up air travel. Downsize, downsize, downsize.
Don’t fly Air Force One (Obama) and don’t fly private jets (Gore) to these type of conferences. Until you are willing to walk the walk yourself, don’t expect anyone to pay any serious attention to your rantings.

4) Cancel the Mexico summit scheduled for next year. It is already a bust too. Another exotic location for fringe protesters to party, protest and disrupt is not needed. And with mid-term election in the US next November, the chance of the US committing to any binding targets next year is less then zero.

“Ah yes, already back to blaming the “corporate backed politicians”. I knew it wouldn’t take long.”

Are you suggesting that the politicians of the developed nations are somehow not corporate backed and not beholden mainly to industrial interests? That’s hilarious!

God you fringe deniers need help. Seriously.

Our politicians are mainly beholden to our electorate. They are beholden to corporations to the extent that 90+% of working Canadians are employed in corporations and it would be foolish of any politician to not consider the effect on millions of Canadians’ livelihood when weighing policy.

Environmental NGO’s employ how many? And the Green Party of Canada has how many seats? Who is really the fringe?

I’m the one chuckling now. :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal

In a nutshell, non-legally binding, no imposed hard targets, no imposed contributions to a global slushfund for AGW. Any CO2 cuts are dictated by each country ie whatever they want, any contribution to slush fund dictated by each country, ie whatever they want. Amounts to less ‘forcefull’ ‘treaty’ than Kyoto…which turned into an abject failure for warmist/alarmists/ecomentalists”

In other words a win-win!

Wanna bet Climategate had a part to play in this? Yepper.

Why not view this wishy-washy outcome at Copenhagen 2009 as an opportunity to see whether or not (1) CO2 concentrations really will continue to increase (2) the Earth really will get warmer (3) sea levels really will rise, and whether or not all other calamitous predictions, such as those made by Al Gore, and others of his ilk, will come to pass. Take the apparent failure of negotiations at Copenhagen as a golden opportunity to really do some good, unbiased science, without “cooking the books”.

Let’s see the American Enterprise Institute’s emails. Or CATO’s. I remember thinking. All I see now is spin. You denier guys are such losers.

Seems to me, from what just happened in Copenhagen, you guys are the clear losers.

What happened in Copenhagen was weather not climate. By now you’d think you smart Alecs would know the difference.

I was referring to the fact that Copenhagen was a failure.

But since you bring it up, when does the climate become the weather? Are you saying that AGW affects the climate but not the weather?

Talk radio was climate stuff all day. I learned a couple things.

1) scientists know how to control global temperature! The science is that robust! They can actually set the global climate like you and I set a thermostat, if only the politicians will get their act in gear and sign a legally binding agreement to reduce emissions to the appropriate levels.

My gut tells me they’re out of their minds but I’m going to withhold judgment on that for now.

2) If we fail to hit peak CO2 emission and start to decline by 2015 (write that down) we will cross a point of no return where we will trigger positive feedbacks that will ensure worldwide disaster.
The science is that sharply defined!

Again - gut feeling - I think they’re smoking something very bad, but what do I know? Maybe science is just that great now that they can tell the future with such precision.

Why would it be a surprise to you that they predict what will happen if the earth warms by 2 degrees or 4 or whatever? Because you’ve been listening only to ignorant denialists who cannot think long-term.

That and the fact that we’ve never seen a quick and dangerous temperature change before in recorded history. The science is all too new and too speculative. I contend that the combination of the oceans and the atmosphere and how they work together is too complex to be fully understood by a bunch of guys who went to school for a few years.

Show me a scientist who thinks he can save the world and I’ll show you a guy who uses blinders to maintain a narrow focus.

Not everyone is as determined to stay ignorant as you think.

Look it up. Copenhagen is as passing as the weather. If you think Copenhagen indicated anything but a transitory moment, you might as well be getting up in the morning and checking the climate before you book your golf game. More like pissing in the wind.

In other words, you can’t answer the question. As I suspected you wouldn’t.

BTW, I don’t golf. Hate the game.

Do you think that it’s possible Monbiot and the other MSM alarmists are downplaying this deal so that when it becomes public it is tougher than it was made out to be and all the alarmists are placated? As I don’t think anything would really placate the radicals. You need something to keep the nutjobs from looting. Did you see what the copenhagen streets looks like now?

I would not put it past the MSM to throw a curve ball like that.