Support NeoGAF

[cntr]

I'm glad that most nations on this Earth are trying to do something to help the planet that we've been raping for years.

Don't be hyperbolic.

Just build some nuclear plants - we already have the solution without ridiculous taxes.

Well, it's a topic that will be brought up here, so I'll recommend this chapter for anybody who wants to discuss it: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml

In fact, I recommend the whole book for anybody interested in energy, here is the dedication, and the chapter selections are on the right.

 

[cntr]

For the record that's just one reason I think alternative energy should be promoted, I believe climate change is happening and rational measures taken to mitigate it. And by rational I mean a tax or cap-and-trade system and none of the leftists no-nukes or retarded ideas form so-called environmentalists that are just as dangerous to the world as people denying what's happening.

The environmentalist attitude and confusion to solutions like Cap and Trade/Carbon tax is a problem, but thankfully, we can implement a good cap and trade system or a carbon tax and those are what is on discussion now.

I could type more and more on so many other benefits, but what's there is enough - the whole planet might be inhabitable. Don't believe it? OK, how about sending a few more trillion to muslim nations? Or launching the great next industry that will dwarf silicon valley? If none of these things interest you, then you're hopeless.

You could also mention oil running out, though.

 

[iamaustrian]

Just build some nuclear plants - we already have the solution without ridiculous taxes.

what the fuck?

 

[Ripclawe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

So... Theyre mad because they have to show something for the money theyre getting..?



Noone forced you to read this thread.

:lol This is nothing more than a photo op and no way any developed country will cut its economy down for the sake of climate change.

 

[KHarvey16]

:lol This is nothing more than a photo op and no way any developed country will cut its economy down for the sake of climate change.

I guarantee it's gonna happen eventually. Maybe not as a result of this conference or the next, but eventually.

 

[paranoidfortean]

I breathe out poison! Holy shit!

 

[Deku]

The short of it is, developing countries wants free money and to pollute more than rich countries. Put differently, rich countries should retard their growth to help out the poor countries.

Rich countries are unwilling to do so.

Summit = failure.


I'm by no means a climate skeptic, but this UN driven summit is deeply flawed. It should fail, nor should developing countries feel entitled to pollute and get transfer payments to do so.

 

[mentalfloss]

Shouldn't the rich countries support the poorer countries and help them to develop their solutions in order to combat man-made global warming? Shouldn't the poor countries make a sacrifice to enjoy the plethora of jobs flooding in when we alleviate the energy crisis? Don't they realize the scientific consensus compels them to act?!?

 

[Deku]

Shouldn't the rich countries support the poorer countries and help them to develop their solutions in order to combat man-made global warming? Shouldn't the poor countries make a sacrifice to enjoy the plethora of jobs flooding in when we alleviate the energy crisis? Don't they realize the scientific consensus compels them to act?!?

the post-colonial leftist analysis most of these developing countries champion generally blame the west for global warming, while implicitly condoning the developing countries to essentially follow the same path of industrialization as a kind of 'owed privilege' to development.

Countries like China in particular like to borrow this kind of language to justify their exclusion from any kind of binding agreement, or even an attempt to cut emissions while at the same time, leading a coalition of poor countries with their hands out asking for 'please sir, I want some more aid' and building more and more polluting coal fire powerplants.

I think the idea of developing clean tech is great, the idea of actually cutting emissions is great But everyone has to be in it. But the system of distributive 'wealth' that the internationalists are following is not. Which is why any kind of binding agreement will fail. The US public will never ever sign on, and every single treaty will fail.

It's essentially calling for a fall in the living standards of the west, which will not be acceptable to the western public when the rubber meets the road. The environment is a feel good issue, and polling will always show broad consensus on it. But there's also broad consensus on wanting to do better economically.

I've yet to see these same progressive pollster pose the question of whether the public will trade their living standards and turn it over to an unelected international body to parcel out who gets what and who 'pays' for future co2 emissions, which will mostly NOT be coming from the rich countries.

 

[ZephyrFate]

I breathe out poison! Holy shit!

You don't, actually, but a combination of tons of us breathing at the same time has an adverse effect regardless.

This is shown by the Little Ice Age, which only happened because of us.

 

[Atrus]

Eh, fusion reactors all the way. Water is kind of available.

Sure, if you happen to have a functioning commercial reactor on hand. Despite the tens of billions already spent and allocated to be spent, we're still a decade from our first functioning reactor and that's assuming that there'll be no unforseen impediments.

ITER is supposed to be finished by 2018 and it'll take a further 30 years to complete it's experimental testing and feasibility study.

In the mean time we need to find a way to steer 10 billion humans off of non-renewable resources, and toward a method of living that is sustainable, if there is even such a thing for 10 billion people or even the 7 billion we have today.

 

[Incognito]

In fact, I recommend the whole book for anybody interested in energy, here is the dedication, and the chapter selections are on the right.

thanks for the link. very good read so far..

 

[Chrono]

and toward a method of living that is sustainable, if there is even such a thing for 10 billion people or even the 7 billion we have today.

There is such a thing, not only that but there will be abundant energy, food, and water in the future. These things will be dirt cheap. The accelerating advancement of science and technology leading to the singularity will end scarcity.

 

[Javaman]

You don't, actually, but a combination of tons of us breathing at the same time has an adverse effect regardless.

This is shown by the Little Ice Age, which only happened because of us.

No, that is absolutely false. There is a hypothesis that people contributed to it but even that hasn't reached widespread scientific support.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/strange-bedfellows/

 

[blu]

There is such a thing, not only that but there will be abundant energy, food, and water in the future. These things will be dirt cheap. The accelerating advancement of science and technology leading to the singularity will end scarcity.

sorry but this is plain naive. it's like claiming that 'if i keep pressing on the gas pedal while on the highway, i'll eventually hit 200mph regardless' neglecting the present risks of crashing and burning way before that due to traffic, state of the road, the car, etc.

the one thing that can help an intelligent agent get out of a shit hole of a situation is .. situational awareness. we need to focus our resources as a civilization on figuring out what we're experiencing, what mechanisms are at play, and which buttons and levers we should not touch/stop pulling*. it's either that or divine intervention - seemingly the majority of the planet's population (so well demonstrated by some vocal gaffers in this very thread) relies on the latter ('scientists will surely save us, if not them - god for sure'). but god forbid we tried to consider the consequences of our own actions ('who - me being an energy hog, not ever trying to account for my energy consumption?! - no way! but even if i were - it's my constitutional right to be so, so fuck off!').

* while the pendulum of my wall clock is naturally swinging, i could, intentionally or not, apply force and take it out of its acceptable amplitude, which would likely break the clockwork, or at least throw it off. guess who would be the culprit for the broken clock - the pendulum or me *cries from the back 'the fuckin pendulum - it was already swinging!'*

 

[mentalfloss]

Climate Change Ads:

http://creativebits.org/inspiration/climate_change_advertising_revisited


Some of these are just disgusting and bordering on blatant, political propaganda. I guess it really doesn't make much of a difference to the cause, but it's still a bit insulting to see them capitalizing on fear mongering instead of looking at practical issues a bit more objectively.

 

[bjaelke]

Russian president to attend Copenhagen climate conference

Russia seeks to reach a "common, universal, international binding agreement" at the summit.

I guess that's a start.

Climate Change Ads:

http://creativebits.org/inspiration/climate_change_advertising_revisited


Some of these are just disgusting and bordering on blatant, political propaganda. I guess it really doesn't make much of a difference to the cause, but it's still a bit insulting to see them capitalizing on fear mongering instead of looking at practical issues a bit more objectively.

Coca Cola is actually being sued for greenwashing in their Hopenhagen ads.
http://andrewbannecker.typepad.com/bannecker/2009/11/hopenhagen.html

 

[Souldriver]

Climate Change Ads:

http://creativebits.org/inspiration/climate_change_advertising_revisited


Some of these are just disgusting and bordering on blatant, political propaganda. I guess it really doesn't make much of a difference to the cause, but it's still a bit insulting to see them capitalizing on fear mongering instead of looking at practical issues a bit more objectively.

Some of those are very well done (artistically or getting the point across). I like the forrest-lung being destroyed, and the ones with infra-red where everything is warm except the bear/seals/whale.


There are ads in them from the British Green Party claiming "Labour is old news". Yes, those are political propaganda, obviously.

 

[liquid_gears]

Humans are just like bacteria on this planet. The population has been booming for a long time now, something has got to give. It will crash eventually. The planet simply cannot sustain us forever, relying on science to feed, care and provide for 10+ billion people is not a good strategy.

Sure, if you happen to have a functioning commercial reactor on hand. Despite the tens of billions already spent and allocated to be spent, we're still a decade from our first functioning reactor and that's assuming that there'll be no unforseen impediments.

ITER is supposed to be finished by 2018 and it'll take a further 30 years to complete it's experimental testing and feasibility study.

In the mean time we need to find a way to steer 10 billion humans off of non-renewable resources, and toward a method of living that is sustainable, if there is even such a thing for 10 billion people or even the 7 billion we have today.

Fusion power is feasible imo, it just needs huge amounts of cash thrown at it.

 

[Chrono]

I remember India saying emissions should be considered on a per-capita basis. Do you guys agree with that?

Personally I think irresponsible countries that don't utilize family planning are on their own. You'd think India being both so big and so poor they'd go something like the China route, or at least be aggressive about it w/o mandating number of children by law. Good thing the rest of the world isn't nice enough to sacrifice their comfort for India's ignorance.

Climate Change Ads:

http://creativebits.org/inspiration/climate_change_advertising_revisited


Some of these are just disgusting and bordering on blatant, political propaganda. I guess it really doesn't make much of a difference to the cause, but it's still a bit insulting to see them capitalizing on fear mongering instead of looking at practical issues a bit more objectively.

I like this one:

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/greenpeace_guilty_two

Yes you miserable scumbags, you ARE guilty, among many crimes, of starving people to death.

 

[Enosh]

No, they are mad because the "circle of commitment" (side note: holy shit, who came up with that name :lol ) wants (or at least the Danish text is being interpreted as such) to allow richer nations to emit nearly twice as much as those in developing nations.

Nothing like keeping the little guy down by forcing him to have less resources, AMIRITE?

it's relative

poor countrys probably can't even reach the cap they want to put on rich countrys since they don't have the industry for it, you can't put out more emmission than your industry alows you to and fact is there is a shit loads more industry in the rich countrys

if poor countrys make per average 30% more of what they want to cap them at and rich countrys make 30% more that seems more than reasonable, overall a cut back of 30%, putting both at the same cap would be stupid, sinch rich countrys would either have to scale back to an impossible number in order for the number to also effect poor countrys, or the number wouldn't effect the poor countrys at all, thus 2 seperate numbers

but ofcourse people just look at the numbers and go apeshit about it how we are still opressing everyone

 

[mentalfloss]

So, just to throw this thread a curve ball.. what do you guys think about population control as a means of controlling climate change? Can or should it be used exclusively, or in conjunction with other methods of climate change? Or is it a despicable suggestion that either has no pragmatic effect, or is simply morally reprehensive?

 

[Javaman]

GE to supply world's largest wind farm.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/10/news/companies/GE_wind_farm/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Electric said Thursday it has secured a $1.4 billion contract to supply wind turbines and provide services for what will be the world's largest wind farm operation when completed in 2012.

The conglomerate will supply 338 of its 2.5-megawatt turbines to New York-based Caithness Energy to be installed in 2010 and 2011 at Shepherds Flat, the 845-megawatt farm that stretches across 30 square miles in north-central Oregon.

The Shepherds Flat Project will supply energy to Southern California Edison, providing enough to power approximately 235,000 California households, GE and Caithness said in a statement. It will generate 2 billion kilowatt-hours per year of renewable energy, and represent 1/10 of Southern California Edison's overall renewable energy portfolio.

Each of the turbines would power 700 households at the price of $4,142,011 each (I'm sure a good chunk of that number is for infrastructure outside the price per turbine) for an average price of $5,917 per household. If something like that could be scaled to all of the households in the US (111,000,000) it would cost 650 billion dollars. The number is rough as hell though since the price would go down as more turbine production comes online, and there will always be a need for other power plants to maintain even loads, and there would be difficulties in finding places to put them, but it's amazing to think that we could potentially be almost completely on green power for 1/2 a trillion dollars. I would drop $6,000 in a heartbeat if it meant my power bills would be dropped to a fraction of what they currently are.

 

[Chrono]

So, just to throw this thread a curve ball.. what do you guys think about population control as a means of controlling climate change? Can or should it be used exclusively, or in conjunction with other methods of climate change? Or is it a despicable suggestion that either has no pragmatic effect, or is simply morally reprehensive?

What's morally reprehensible is to think people have the right to breed as much as they want, especially considering the state of the world.

 

[arstal]

So, just to throw this thread a curve ball.. what do you guys think about population control as a means of controlling climate change? Can or should it be used exclusively, or in conjunction with other methods of climate change? Or is it a despicable suggestion that either has no pragmatic effect, or is simply morally reprehensive?

Population will peak once China. India, and Pakistan get middle-class lifestyles. Our population growth peaked when we fully industrailized, and it's now declining in many areas of Europe.

 

[Deku]

Population will peak once China. India, and Pakistan get middle-class lifestyles. Our population growth peaked when we fully industrailized, and it's now declining in many areas of Europe.

so around 2050 when global population hits 15 billion or so.

Then the next wave 'population will peak until Africa is fully developed'

Even if this theoretical peak occurs, this large numbers involved and long expected lifespans means drawing down those numbers will take decades if not centuries.

Perhaps the developed countries should propose as an adjunctto providing aid in the tune of 1-1.5% of GDP wealthy fast growing economies like china, and cutting their emissions 40% below 1990s levels that the recepient of the aid and those who wish to be labeled 'developing' should stop making babies.

Very glad this conference is falling into pieces. China's position is unacceptable.

 

[liquid_gears]

Interesting documentary by Sir David Attenborough on the population problem.

 

[mentalfloss]

"Our Leaders Are Staging A Scam in Copenhagen." - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/our-leaders-are-staging-a_b_387942.html

Good article, despite the sensationalist title.

 

[Javaman]

Interesting documentary by Sir David Attenborough on the population problem.

Can't play it. The player says "Not available in your area"

In a Horizon special, naturalist Sir David Attenborough investigates whether the world is heading for a population crisis.

In his lengthy career, Sir David has watched the human population more than double from 2.5 billion in 1950 to nearly seven billion. He reflects on the profound effects of this rapid growth, both on humans and the environment.

While much of the projected growth in human population is likely to come from the developing world, it is the lifestyle enjoyed by many in the West that has the most impact on the planet. Some experts claim that in the UK consumers use as much as two and a half times their fair share of Earth's resources.

Sir David examines whether it is the duty of individuals to commit not only to smaller families, but to change the way they live for the sake of humanity and planet Earth."

Who the hell are these experts to say "their fair share"? Earth will do just fine with or without us.

 

[cntr]

Personally I think irresponsible countries that don't utilize family planning are on their own. You'd think India being both so big and so poor they'd go something like the China route, or at least be aggressive about it w/o mandating number of children by law.

You're a dipshit. Don't you know the effects of China's one child policy? Girls being abandoned/killed/aborted because they can't provide as much to their parents as boys in a society with hasn't reached gender equality, leading to a horrible boy:girl ratio in China?

 

[Chrono]

Population will peak once China. India, and Pakistan get middle-class lifestyles. Our population growth peaked when we fully industrailized, and it's now declining in many areas of Europe.

Pakistan is five dimensions away from being grouped with China and India.

 

[Natetan]

So, just to throw this thread a curve ball.. what do you guys think about population control as a means of controlling climate change? Can or should it be used exclusively, or in conjunction with other methods of climate change? Or is it a despicable suggestion that either has no pragmatic effect, or is simply morally reprehensive?

There is one arguement says that this is a developed world solution to problems. seeing as the per capita emissions level of even places like india is nothing compared to that in developed countries. Especially the people who would most likely be the target of such legislation, like slum dwellers, have virtually no carbon emissions as it is. And most likely the people in those countries with higher level emissions are having the typical 2.1 children as they have higher standard of living.

As my professor said to us (a class of people from the developed world) Half thee population.

I'm not saying I agree with either side. I do think that there is too much emphasis on some connection between population and emissions. As countries gain hire standard of living, they will pollute more initially, and then drastically reducing. Every country thus far has gone through this process. It certianly might not be so for current emerging economies or developing countries though.

 

[Cyan]

Health-care town hall attendees moving on to Copenhagen?

Dr. Schneider, an outspoken proponent of climate legislation, was announcing his latest book, "Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate , " when an unidentified man jumped on stage and began to intensely interrogate Schneider. The man became angry after Schneider addressed the leak email controversy from The University of East Anglia's world renowned Climate Research Unit. He repeatedly shouted, "do you approve of deleting data, Dr. Schneider? Do you approve of deleting data?" The man then accused the professor of attempting to censor the press. (Read Dr. Schneider's blog for HuffPost Green)

Professor Schneider, was shaking visibly after the confrontation, but said--repeatedly--he did not agree with deleting data.

I guess this is the kind of thing that happens when you don't know shit but think you do.

Unfortunate. Dr. Schneider's a really nice man.

 

[Chrono]

You're a dipshit. Don't you know the effects of China's one child policy? Girls being abandoned/killed/aborted because they can't provide as much to their parents as boys in a society with hasn't reached gender equality, leading to a horrible boy:girl ratio in China?

That doesn't say anything about a one child policy, just Chinese society. Not that India wouldn't end up with the same consquences, probalby worse actually.

And you don't need a government policy limiting number of children to stabilize a population. Education and robust family planning programs could get some good results.

On another note, posting those consequences would have made a great post in a recent thread that had a debate on the moral superiority of Asians for taking care of their elders compared to others (like westerners) that throw them in nursing home liquidation cells.

 

[bjaelke]

EU nations commit $3.6 billion to climate fund
By AOIFE WHITE (AP) – 11 minutes ago
BRUSSELS — EU leaders agreed Friday to commit euro2.4 billion ($3.6 billion) a year until 2012 to help poorer countries combat global warming, as they sought to rescue their image as climate change innovators and bolster talks in Copenhagen.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy says the offer "puts Europe in a leadership role in Copenhagen," where international negotiators are seeking a long-term way to slow the warming of the planet.

All 27 members of the European Union will commit money to a short-term fund for poorer countries, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said after two days of difficult talks at a summit in Brussels. His country holds the rotating EU presidency.

The leaders failed Thursday to come up with a firm figure for the fund, an embarrassing setback for a bloc that was long at the forefront of the fight against global warming. Smaller eastern EU states were reluctant to donate as they struggle with rising government debt and high unemployment in the wake of the financial crisis.

Yet on Friday, EU leaders reached a final figure of $3.6 billion a year for the next three years, with Britain, France and Germany each contributing about 20 percent. Britain is pushing to raise the figure higher at the Copenhagen talks.

Donations by some EU countries are thought to be only a token to reach a unanimous agreement.

The climate money is meant to go toward a global $10 billion annual fund for short-term help to poor countries, particularly in Africa, adapt to the effects of global warming before a new climate treaty being negotiated in Copenhagen comes into force in 2012.

Critics noted, however, the $10 billion-a-year aid pales in comparison to the huge stimulus packages and bank bailouts paid by many governments in the wake of the global financial meltdown. Financier George Soros, speaking Thursday in Copenhagen, dismissed the $10 billion figure as inadequate for the scope of change that poor countries need to enact.
The EU leaders also pledged to reduce their emissions by 30 percent of 1990 levels by 2020 — but are still demanding that other leading polluters make comparable commitments first.

EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso called the pledge "conditional."
"We will see if there is a move on the part of the other developed countries during the Copenhagen summit," Reinfeldt said, noting in particular the United States and Canada.
Two years ago, the EU was ahead of the pack when it pledged to cut 20 percent of emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 and to increase that to 30 percent if other big polluters made similar promises. Japan and Russia have now outpaced Europe with 25 percent cuts. The U.S. is promising a 3 percent reduction from 1990 levels.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the Copenhagen talks, which end Dec. 18, should pave the way to an ambitious and legally binding global treaty within six months.
"There are few moments in history when nations are summoned to common decisions that will reshape the lives of men and women potentially for generations to come," Brown said.
The climate change money would help poorer countries build coastal protection, modify or shift crops threatened by drought, build water supplies and irrigation systems, preserve forests, improve health care to deal with diseases spread by warming, and move from fossil fuel to low-carbon energy systems such as solar and wind power.

Should probably bold it all or none at all cause it's all very interesting.

 

[mrklaw]

carbon trading can't work. We need to cut back overall global emissions. You can't do that by trading your emissions with other countries who don't already emit much. You're still increasing overall global amounts compared to 1990 or whatever your random measuring stick chooses.

Also, its ridiculous to expect people to lower their living standards. Society is more mobile due to the car, which means jobs are mobile and people follow the jobs. Cities are not built for walking anymore, they rely on cars a lot of the time, or public transport which still needs to be powered. Computers and other electronics are becoming massively prevalent compared to even 1990.

I also think its crazy for government (maybe this is just the UK) to be pounding individuals on tiny little things that don't make much impact in the wider scheme of things. Yes, we shoudl be using less electricity so energy saving bulbs etc - all good. But to a limit.

It requires massive investment in centralised power generation. Either move to non-carbon (renewable, nuclear, I don't care) or clean the carbon/lock it away before it gets into the atmosphere.

I also don't understand why everyone is so scared. Why aren't governments jumping on this as an opportunity? This is a disruptive phase, and your country could end up a world leader economically if you invest in these industries.

 

[Chrono]

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/greenpeace_air_pollution?size=_original
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/greenpeace_excessive_exploitation?size=_original

The greatest thing that could happen for climate change is for these dumb, self-righteous hypocrites to just STFU.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Doesn't France have some nuclear plants that even powers parts of Germany and a few other countries?

 

[ToxicAdam]

COPENHAGEN -(Dow Jones)- Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said he is " shocked" about remarks by the U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern that the U.S. wouldn't provide money to help China face the challenges of climate change.

Todd Stern "lacked common sense when he made these comments," He Yafei said during a press conference on Friday, the fifth day of negotiations in Copenhagen. He said industrialized countries have a responsibility to provide financing and technology to limit the effects of global warming and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions in developing nations.

The $10 billion a year the U.N. has said is necessary in the next three years wouldn't be enough, he also said.

..

 

[Fjolle]

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/greenpeace_air_pollution?size=_original
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/greenpeace_excessive_exploitation?size=_original

The greatest thing that could happen for climate change is for these dumb, self-righteous hypocrites to just STFU.

Actually according to the chairwoman of the sexworkers the only one to contact them about free sex was a guy from greenpeace :lol

Doesn't France have some nuclear plants that even powers parts of Germany and a few other countries?

Yes. They have loads. Germany has some too, but it seems like they are being phased out.

 

[Chrono]

..

He's just having fun.

Actually according to the chairwoman of the sexworkers the only one to contact them about free sex was a guy from greenpeace :lol

I have no idea how that's relevant to what I posted but it's awesome. :lol

 

[Zaptruder]

Can't play it. The player says "Not available in your area"



Who the hell are these experts to say "their fair share"? Earth will do just fine with or without us.

Fair share in the sense that if everyone lived like you the world would have enough resources to support that level of lifestyle.

More than your fair share means that if everyone lived like you, the world would not have enough to support it.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Yet on Friday, EU leaders reached a final figure of $3.6 billion a year for the next three years, with Britain, France and Germany each contributing about 20 percent. Britain is pushing to raise the figure higher at the Copenhagen talks.

Ohh fuck off brown, he just can't help pissing money down the drain this twonk.

 

[Fjolle]

This is getting ridiculous. The convention center has a capacity of 15.000 people, but UN has given out 45.000 access cards, so every day ~30.000 people are standing around outsite the convention center with no way of getting inside :lol

 

[fse]

The short of it is, developing countries wants free money and to pollute more than rich countries. Put differently, rich countries should retard their growth to help out the poor countries.

Rich countries are unwilling to do so.

Summit = failure.


I'm by no means a climate skeptic, but this UN driven summit is deeply flawed. It should fail, nor should developing countries feel entitled to pollute and get transfer payments to do so.

It's climate denialist, get it right. :lol

 

[Ripclawe]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...=Feed:+reuters/topNews+(News+/+US+/+Top+News)

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - China has told participants in the U.N. climate change talks that it sees no possibility of achieving an operational accord this week, an official involved in the Copenhagen talks said on Thursday.

Green Business

Dozens of heads of state are descending on the Danish capital to address the December 7-18 conference, and had hoped to sign on Friday a new pact to tackle global warming.

The official, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters the Chinese had instead suggested issuing "a short political declaration of some sort," but it was not clear what that would say.

 

[avatar299]

So we waste time, money and resources to appease enviromentalists and ultimately nothing is done. What a suprise.

We would be smarter to stop this international nonsense and just let private actors work it out. If people care about being green they will support energy saving initiatives with their own money. To the layman all these plans sound like politicians trying to tax people with little intent to pay them back.

 

[NotWii]

Interesting documentary by Sir David Attenborough on the population problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IciyvHST4tI

 

[Dooraven]

This conference will be a failure due to the constant bickering between the two sides unfortunately. But at least we have some good news

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601833.html

U.S., 20 other nations team to research greenhouse gas emissions from farms

The United States will join 20 other countries in a "research alliance" to better understand -- and prevent -- greenhouse-gas emissions from farms, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced Wednesday.

Vilsack, in Copenhagen for the United Nations-sponsored global climate talks, said the Agriculture Department will increase its spending on farm-emissions research by $90 million over four years, to a total of $130 million.

The research, Vilsack said, will be shared with the other countries in the alliance.

Farm-related greenhouse-gas emissions are produced by the burning of crop residues, methane released from decaying manure and the digestive tracts of cattle, and gases emanating from fertilized soil. Together, agricultural sources account for about 6 percent of all U.S. emissions and 14 percent of emissions worldwide, U.S. figures show.

The department said the research money would be used to find new ways of tending fields and treating animal manure, to reduce their emissions.

Other countries involved in the research alliance are Australia, Britain, Canada, Colombia, Chile, Denmark, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay and Vietnam, a news release said.

The statement came a day after the Agriculture Department announced an agreement with an association of dairy farmers intended to create a 25 percent reduction in emissions from dairy farms by 2020. The department said the agreement would involve efforts to increase the use of manure "digesters," which use the methane produced by decaying waste to generate electricity.

Nothing major but at least its a start.

 

[Forsete]

So now its a confirmed failure thanks to China, arab states and to a lesser part US of A. Great.

Can we eject these nations into space?