#Hopenhagen turning into Nopenhagen
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/
Walkout_in_Copenhagen_heightens_fea_12142009.html
The UN climate summit hit major turbulence Monday when developing nations
walked out of key negotiations and China accused the West of trickery, as
the spectre of failure loomed heavily over Copenhagen.
As campaigners warned that negotiators had five days to avert climate
chaos, ministers acknowledged they had to start making progress before
the arrival of 120 heads of state for the summit's climax on Friday.
Sources said the developing countries walked out of working groups at the
start of the second week of negotiations here, angered that the
conference was weakening in support for the Kyoto Protocol, the core
emissions-curbing treaty. Related article: Rudd fears climate deal failure
"They have walked out, I am advised, of the working groups," one Western
minister told AFP on condition of anonymity.
"This is salvageable. It depends if people want to be constructive."
The move was unleashed by African countries, with the support of the G77
group of developing countries.
They refused to continue negotiations unless talks on a second commitment
period to the Kyoto Protocol were given priority over broader discussions
on a "long-term vision" for cooperative action on climate change.
The Kyoto Protocol ties the rich countries -- but not developing
countries -- that have ratified it to binding emissions curbs.
It does not include the United States, which says the Protocol is unfair
as the binding targets do not apply to developing giants that are already
huge emitters of greenhouse gases.
"Africa has pulled the emergency cord to avoid a train crash at the end
of the week," said Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam
International. Related article: China might not take funds
The walkout delivered another blow to the summit which has already been
marred by spats between China and the United States.
A top Western negotiator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said a
round-table session of around 50 environment ministers Sunday had been
soured by "growing tensions between the Americans and Chinese," saying
delegates had merely repeated their previous stances rather than giving
ground.
"At the back of everyone's mind is the fear of a repeat of the awful
scenario in The Hague," she told AFP, referring to a climate conference
in 2000 on completing the rulebook for the Kyoto Protocol that broke up
angrily without agreement.
In an apparent concession, China said it might not take a share of any
Western funding for emerging nations to fight climate change.
But in a pointer to the tensions backstage, Vice Foreign Minister He
Yafei said China would not be the fall guy if there were a fiasco.
"I know people will say if there is no deal that China is to blame. This
is a trick played by the developed countries. They have to look at their
own position and can't use China as an excuse," he told the Financial
Times.
Britain's climate minister, Ed Miliband, urged negotiators to work faster
to break the deadlock.
"Leaders are practically on their way ... Leaders always have a very
important role in this. But frankly it's also up to negotiators and
ministers not to leave everything up to the leaders, but to get our act
together," he said.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, whose country is the industrialised
world's biggest per-capita polluter, fretted at the possibility of
failure without compromise all round.
"There's a big risk that we will have conflicting views between developed
and developing countries," Rudd said in Australia. "And there is always a
risk of failure here."
Campaigners were even blunter, with Greenpeace saying the summit had five
days "to avert climate chaos" and that emissions targets so far offered
by Western leaders such as US President Barack Obama amounted to
"peanuts".
The gathering's daunting goal is to tame greenhouse gases -- the
invisible by-product derived mainly from the burning of coal, oil and gas
that traps the Sun's heat and warms the atmosphere.
Scientists say that without dramatic action within the next decade, Earth
will be on course for warming that will inflict drought, flood, storms
and rising sea levels, translating into hunger and misery for many
millions.
The stakes were underlined when a new UN report said that some 58 million
people have been affected by 245 natural calamities so far this year,
more than 90 percent of them weather events amplified by climate change.
And a study from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN), an intergovernmental group, said climate change threatens the
survival of dozens of animal species from the emperor penguin to
Australian koalas.
If all goes well, the conference will agree an outline deal of national
pledges to curb carbon emissions and set up a mechanism to provide
billions of dollars in help for poor countries in the firing line of
climate change.
--
Slavery: The belief that people can be property
Corporatism: The belief that property can be people.
David Hartung
> Walkout in Copenhagen heightens fears of failure
>
> http://rawstory.com/news/afp/
> Walkout_in_Copenhagen_heightens_fea_12142009.html
>
> The UN climate summit hit major turbulence Monday when developing nations
> walked out of key negotiations and China accused the West of trickery, as
> the spectre of failure loomed heavily over Copenhagen.
China has absolutely no credibility.
What level of cuts have they offered to make?
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Why are you bothering to ask if you aren't going to believe their
answer anyway?
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
>The devil's always in the details ...
>
>Though a little bribe money might help
>things along :-)
It may be too late now. A couple of developed countries (and I
suspect the US and Canada) tried to slip a version of the agreement
through that basically put the burden on developing countries (US had
to cut emissions by 8% by 2020, developing countries by 30%) and not
surprisingly, that turned out to be a deal killer.
David Hartung
ask yourself this, who has the cleaner industrial base?
pyjamarama
Maybe they were turned off by all the fraud, deceit and manipulated
data on the part of the Climate Evangelicals?
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Western Europe, Japan. As far as CO2 emissions go, the US and Canada are
among the worst in the world on a per capita basis. Only the Emirates
are worse.
David Hartung
By per capita, do yo mean per person?
I was actually speaking of actual emissions. The USA puts out a lot of
carbon, but we also produce more than any other nation on the Globe. Our
facilities and vehicles are among the cleanest in the world, we simply
have more of them. The last time I checked, China was among the worlds
worst polluters, with the filthiest plants, and the worst environmental
records.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> 5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:50:26 -0600, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>> 5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:11:04 -0500, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The devil's always in the details ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Though a little bribe money might help things along :-)
>>>> It may be too late now. A couple of developed countries (and I
>>>> suspect the US and Canada) tried to slip a version of the agreement
>>>> through that basically put the burden on developing countries (US had
>>>> to cut emissions by 8% by 2020, developing countries by 30%) and not
>>>> surprisingly, that turned out to be a deal killer.
>>> ask yourself this, who has the cleaner industrial base?
>>
>> Western Europe, Japan. As far as CO2 emissions go, the US and Canada
>> are among the worst in the world on a per capita basis. Only the
>> Emirates are worse.
>
> By per capita, do yo mean per person?
Yup/
>
> I was actually speaking of actual emissions. The USA puts out a lot of
> carbon, but we also produce more than any other nation on the Globe. Our
> facilities and vehicles are among the cleanest in the world, we simply
> have more of them. The last time I checked, China was among the worlds
> worst polluters, with the filthiest plants, and the worst environmental
> records.
Quite so, and China is under enormous pressure both from in their own
country and from the rest of the world, to clean up its act.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> You can't really "pressure" a country you owe billions or trillions
> to, now can you ? :-)
Most of the world doesn't owe China trillions, or even billions, and when
it comes to lectures on global warming, America is something of a joke
anyway.
>
> So China gets to do whatever it wants - and will.
>
And they claim to be committing to cutting emissions by 40%. Of course,
they don't want to have to demonstrate it, which makes the claim suspect,
but it's a good indication that the pressure is having an effect.
> I'll have to agree with the previous poster and say that when it
> comes to efficient translation of energy into useful product, the
> USA, along with the euros, are MUCH better than China and India.
> Those countries put a lot more CO2 into the air to build any
> equalivalent product. Their power-plants and industrial furnaces are
> kinda 1950s tech and blow most of their energy up the smokestack.
And yes the US has the third highest per capita CO2 emissions rate in the
world.
>
> Compare a Chinese-made 5 horsepower electric motor to a nice US-made
> GE motor of the same power and you'll see the Chinese one uses more
> raw materials - iron/copper and the coal required to refine them -
> and uses more eletricity to produce that five horsepower.
>
And yet, despite that, US CO2 emissions are over five times as high per
capita than are China's. Imagine that.
> So, from a 'scientific' perspective, it's better to favor
> euroamerican manufacturing than 2nd/3rd-world manufacturers. Get the
> most out of every gram of CO2 produced. Of course from a *political*
> perspective, such a policy is designed to maintain the status-quo,
> making the rich richer while keeping the poor dependent. Both truths
> are valid ones. Both are of relatively equal importance.
I strongly favor making Western technology available to the rest of the
world.
David Hartung
> I strongly favor making Western technology available to the rest of the
> world.
You mean that it isn't?
Or are you advocating the idea of stealing the technology from those who
have it and giving it to those who do not?
Phlip
>>> world.
>> You mean that it isn't?
>>
>> Or are you advocating the idea of stealing the technology from those who
>> have it and giving it to those who do not?
I thought the third-worlders (and the poseurs, like China) were the ones adept
at circumventing intellectual property law...
Not Sure
wrote:
> Walkout in Copenhagen heightens fears of failure
Those emails couldn't have come at a better time, huh? Continue
sobbing, liar :)
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
I'm talking about sharing as much of it was possible, and selling the
rest.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> Of course he is ... he's a mini-Marxist. He figures
> that if everybody is living an equally cold grey hateful
> existence then they'll all be happy. Failing that, the
> evil, dreadful 'west' should live the cold grey hateful
> existence so the poor oppressed brown peoples of the
> world can party (between genocides).
Oh, look, the little libertarian puke is starting to panic now that
people have seen through his feed-the-rich scams.
liberal
wrote:
Not hard to do, as China has 900 million people living on essentially
animal power, not industrial power. It's like spreading the earnings
of the industrialzed 300,000,000 over the full 1.3+ billion Chinese.
liberal
> that if everybody is living an equally cold grey hateful
> existence then they'll all be happy. Failing that, the
> evil, dreadful 'west' should live the cold grey hateful
> existence so the poor oppressed brown peoples of the
> world can party (between genocides).
Duh....more stupidity. If China is endangering US agriculture with its
CO2 emissions, it pays in the long run to give them the technology.
Kinda like arming our WW2 allies who couldn't manufacture enough arms
for themselves.
David Hartung
China could have much cleaner industry than they have, if they chose to
do so. It does not requires US technology.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Well, they plan to be building a new nuclear power plant a week by
2012. Given that in the winter months we're downwind of them, it
might be a good idea to send nuclear engineers over there to made sure
the plants are safe.
Phlip
> 2012. Given that in the winter months we're downwind of them, it
> might be a good idea to send nuclear engineers over there to made sure
> the plants are safe.
Same with Iran, and anyone else who wants to nuke-up.
That genie ain't going back into its bottle!
David Hartung
If they can afford to build the plants, they can affords to pay for
technology.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
<d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How many trained people do they have, do you think.
Remember, cupcakes; we're downwind.
David Hartung
Bryan, think for a minute. The technology and materials to build a
nuclear power plant are not cheap. If they can afford that much, they
can afford to pay to do it correctly. If they won't do it without our
money, they will not do it with our money. To give them technology and
expertise would be absolutely foolish.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
<d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The problem isn't money: the problem is trained personnel. China's
gonna need help there. We can send trained people from the West, but
their project is going to add more plants in five years than they
world has added in the past 40.
David Hartung
If they wish to pay the bill, fine, if not, they don't get the people.
Perhaps the USA needs to move to nuclear power?
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
<d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No need. We'll get plenty of nuclear elements after one or two of the
Chinese plants melt down.