The Copenhagen Climate Summit

[Den_muggle]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

This didn't answer my question... (To my knowledge, no monies went to either country)

To repeat: Do you (or any other naysayer) know why they (Australia and New Zealand) want an agreement? And if so, please elucidate.

Or perhaps you were trying to state that you don't know why?

That being the case...Kiribati Cries out for Help

In June 2008, the Kiribati president Anote Tong said that the country has reached "the point of no return"; he added: "To plan for the day when you no longer have a country is indeed painful but I think we have to do that.

But you're correct. It's not about altruism. It's about what to do with almost 100 million displaced people in that entire zone in the coming century.
But again, we have already seen this in Alaska where eskimo villages have to move because they're going underwater... Which leads me to my prior comment. If you don't want to believe it despite the evidence, then you won't be convinced regardless of debate. Or even the amount of dead bodies washing up on shore.

There's a difference between believing the globe is warming and believing man is causing it or can stop it. (I'm still not sure about the warming since one group says it is and another says it's been cooling in the last few years and hyping "global warming" for many years then changing it to "global climate change" smacks of redefining the problem to be undisprovable.) Even if that is proven beyond a doubt, we'd still have a debate. There have been many ice ages and warming periods way before man industrialized and started burning fossil fuels.

So don't fool yourself into thinking that those of us who don't want cap and trade don't believe things are changing--that's kind of what the earth does--just that the changes are natural occurrences caused by nature and the sun that man can't affect. Global heating/cooling is not the same as localized acid rain or smog (which is obviously man-made and needs to be cleaned up by man).

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by Den_muggle

There's a difference between believing the globe is warming and believing man is causing it or can stop it. (I'm still not sure about the warming since one group says it is and another says it's been cooling in the last few years and hyping "global warming" for many years then changing it to "global climate change" smacks of redefining the problem to be undisprovable.) Even if that is proven beyond a doubt, we'd still have a debate. There have been many ice ages and warming periods way before man industrialized and started burning fossil fuels.

So screw the villagers anyway? Is that what you're saying?

Lets rearrange furniture on the Titanic.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

This didn't answer my question... (To my knowledge, no monies went to either country)

To repeat: Do you (or any other naysayer) know why they (Australia and New Zealand) want an agreement? And if so, please elucidate.

Or perhaps you were trying to state that you don't know why?

I have no background on what agreement you are talking about. If you are refering to an international agreement, I can think of more than a few financial and resource reasons why they would want the world to be engaged in the effort. Please elaborate so that I can answer that question.

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

But you're correct. It's not about altruism. It's about what to do with almost 100 million displaced people in that entire zone in the coming century.

That disaster scenario has what to do with anything I have said? I live beliw sea level between the Atlantic ocean and the Chesapeake Bay. Flooding from rising water is a very dire threat to my peninsula, more so than many other places on earth and isn't far from my mind in any of this. I am unclear what your point in this comment is.

I am certain regardless of the vaildity of the science that no actions taken thus far, or even those proposed have any chance at an impact and the majority are more politically and financially motivated than any real attempt to fend off a coming catastrope. In addition, I think there is too much fear mongering and not enough level discord to attempt to find a workable effort. Of course that is all predicated on the notion that any effort of man would be significant enough to make a difference of that kind.

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

But again, we have already seen this in Alaska where eskimo villages have to move because they're going underwater... Which leads me to my prior comment. If you don't want to believe it despite the evidence, then you won't be convinced regardless of debate.

Yes, because that hasn't occured cyclicly for thousands of years. I mean as this is a new and unique event, we must both believe that dire consequences are imminent and that man is the largest factor in that. We must also believe the economic, er, uh, environmental accords that give outs, delays and outright exemptions to large industrial epicenters is the path to safety, right?

I am pretty sure you don't even know what I believe or think in general on this topic as I have been pretty focused on one singular and overtly disturbing aspect while not addressing at any length the other aspects. Your assumption to know what I think is part of the reason so many are put off by the "true believers" on this subject. There is quite a bit of self-righteous attitude and outright arrogance.

I am singularly angered by the fact that as an environmental systems engineer, I work with climate, both internal and external, and my primary focus is efficency and energy conservation. Given this, the assumed belief I hold is even more demeaning and frankly uncalled for.

This science is nothing but a windfall for my entire profession and a source of advancement that would otherwise be decades away, something I must admit motivates me. Oportunities to redesign and improve systems is a rewarding and desirable persuit I am more capable of following under the new attitude. I distrust the methods and oportunism that is threatening to make this a tool, though. It makes every aspect suspect IMO, and as I said before, the more economic and political the proposed solutions get, the less I can believe that anyone with their hands out could be that worried or be that convinced.

If that hasn't been clear enough, hopefully now it is. I am a skeptic, not just in this arena, but in most. I am cynical about motive and direction when huge monetary sums and influence and power are comodities in play. It would be foolish not to be reserved in any such circumstance as the temptations are numerous and available. When I see the profiteers stop expending energy like small countries and I see limitation universally enforced, then I might be less skeptical of what is happening.

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

Or even the amount of dead bodies washing up on shore.

This is the kind of rhetoric from "true believers" that makes me want to throw something. As if I don't care about my fellow man. As if people getting flooded out doesn't bother me. I am willing to bet that I could put my humanitarian efforts against most anyone on these threads with great confidence. I have done more than talk in rhetoric and accuse callousness. I have fed the hungry, immunized the poor and helped treat the ill who would otherwise have died. I have risked my life in that persuit on more than one occaision, so please in future try to refrain from self-serving, self-righteous and undeserved comments that would in any way insinuate that human life isn't a priority to me personally. It is demeaning, degrading and downright offensive along with being inappropriate and frankly rude.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by Youdan

Carbon prices fall http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8425293.stm

Who is allocating these carbon credits? Who collects the fines? who set the targets? Who are getting these allocation how much to each nation base on what formula? How many credits are in circulation? Under Koyto only 37 nations have limits.
I think this is the real story of Copenhagen Summit.

that is $5.5 trillion over the next 11 years.

I'm not sure about answers to your questions, but there are only a few firms that package and market carbon credits. The owners of those firms, the most well know of which is Al Gore, have made literally billions in the past several years. They have a vested interest in ensuring that carbon credits and offsets are mandated in any sort of environmental legislation because those mandates will make them even richer.

Still no targets for the developing nation but I would guess they get alot of the carbon credits to sell on the open market. The envromentalist just want the developed nations to lower their standard of living to that of Mumbai slum.

It certainly seems that way.

[flimseycauldron]

So, my two cents. I am always reminded of my mother when I was little and she told me to clean my room and make my bed. I said to her "Why? It's just going to get dirty/messed up again." Her answer was, "that is very true, but do you really want to live that way?"

Whether one believes in global warming (I do) or not, I have to wonder why people choose to live this way? Don't people realize by cleaning up the things that do directly impact health (think red tides, ocean pollution, overfishing) that they will also be cleaning up the environment. What a great byproduct!

There are obvious effects of man's influence in the weather and atmosphere in general. The debate around carbon emissions via fossil fuels is neither here nor there, really, when you realize it is only one of the things that change climate. For instance, deforestation of the worlds rainforests also have a direct impact. The US, Japan,and UK among others have pledged billions at te summit to reverse deforestation.

In other words being a global warming skeptic does not mean that efforts outside of carbon emmissoins cannot be helpful. When every litle bit counts why not all work together?

[Chris]

The extreme rhetoric on both sides isn't helpful. I don't think many skeptics want to leave villages that are in danger of being flooded out / etc high and dry, and I doubt that many who believe climate change is real want everyone to live in a slum or to have forced population control, etc.

Regarding the "rebranding" as global climate change, it's as much a recognition of the complexity of the problem as it is anything else. It's easier to say "global climate change" rather than to say "global warming with ocean acidification, polar migration, precipitation changes and ocean current change". Global climate change is a better catch-all that encompasses more of the problem than simply "global warming".

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by Chris

The extreme rhetoric on both sides isn't helpful. I don't think many skeptics want to leave villages that are in danger of being flooded out / etc high and dry, and I doubt that many who believe climate change is real want everyone to live in a slum or to have forced population control, etc.

I agree. I think the bulk of the problems come from oportunism being unchecked and resources being so extensive and readily diverted. There is dire prospects from both sides, and far too many people who have almost made this a religion. It isn't uncommon for man to do more harm than good in persuit of "improving the environment" or "undoing the damage", especially when alterior motives are mixed with calls for urgent action. When that prospect is coupled with Chicken Littles on both sides accusing people of not caring, we are almost certain to fail.

Originally Posted by Chris

Regarding the "rebranding" as global climate change, it's as much a recognition of the complexity of the problem as it is anything else. It's easier to say "global climate change" rather than to say "global warming with ocean acidification, polar migration, precipitation changes and ocean current change". Global climate change is a better catch-all that encompasses more of the problem than simply "global warming".

Catch phrases aside, the issue of exageration and hyperbole polarizes people quite a bit. A lot is at stake and unless a proposed course actually addresses climate change without coupling it with economic politics and wealth redistribution plans or some type of monetary compensation plan, it is difficult to see this as a viable justification for anything. If the "true believers" really believe their rhetoric, why do they insist on using the issue for economic and political leverage? If the skeptics really don't believe, how could they justify total inaction when there are undeniable positives to conservation and environmental regulation regardless of MMGW? The agendas are too diluted, IMO.

Is there any definitive science that indicates the impact of different courses of action by man? Is that research complete? Is there any prediction with support in that arena?

[Den_muggle]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

So screw the villagers anyway? Is that what you're saying?

Lets rearrange furniture on the Titanic.

Convenient that you left out the last part of my post to get in that insult. Reposting and asking for an apology.

So don't fool yourself into thinking that those of us who don't want cap and trade don't believe things are changing--that's kind of what the earth does--just that the changes are natural occurrences caused by nature and the sun that man can't affect. Global heating/cooling is not the same as localized acid rain or smog (which is obviously man-made and needs to be cleaned up by man).

As you can see, I did say that what can be cleaned up by man, should be. What man caused, he should clean up. I just don't think CO2 levels are that much affected or can be that much affected by man.

Don't say I don't care and want anyone "screwed" to use your coarse terminology. I made that clear and if you don't want to see it, fine.

This is why I don't come here often. I don't need to get insulted and called the names I get called here. Don't expect any more responses for awhile.

Season of caring.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!

[Chris]

MNF - I've worked very hard to try to make sure it remains civil in here in spite of the obvious disagreements we have that will likely never be resolved. If you look at the posts you've been responding to, it should be apparent that they do care about the people, and their doubt rests with the science and the evidence for the science. Den's request for an apology isn't a bad idea, since I think you put words in her mouth.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

So, my two cents. I am always reminded of my mother when I was little and she told me to clean my room and make my bed. I said to her "Why? It's just going to get dirty/messed up again." Her answer was, "that is very true, but do you really want to live that way?"

Whether one believes in global warming (I do) or not, I have to wonder why people choose to live this way? Don't people realize by cleaning up the things that do directly impact health (think red tides, ocean pollution, overfishing) that they will also be cleaning up the environment. What a great byproduct!

I totally agree. I'm an environmentalist in that I respect the environment and do my best to use only what I think I need (or really really want). I try not to use products with excessive packaging (I know - it's a pet peeve of mine and No - I will not stop prattling on about it - I mean how many freaking boxes do plastic bags full of stuff really need???). I support protecting real wetlands because destroying them results in larger, deeper, and more frequent floods and real wetlands act as scrubbers filtering out contaminants.

There are obvious effects of man's influence in the weather and atmosphere in general. The debate around carbon emissions via fossil fuels is neither here nor there, really, when you realize it is only one of the things that change climate.

To me, the science on that isn't necessarily settled and forcing massive new mandates which curtail investment and dictate how we can live our lives based on unsettled science isn't necessarily how I'd advocate for increased investment in "green energy". I'd try to encourage investment in green energy because we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels from a security standpoint. As long as US reserves of oil and natural gas are off limits from development then we are dependent on murders and despots for oil and I'd prefer not to be dependent on them.

I will note that I support opening US reserves in ANWR and elsewhere to oil and gas development for environmental, economic and security reasons. For security, see above about the murderers and despots. For economic reasons, just remember what happened to our economy when we were hit with $4 a gallon gas. For environmental reasons, just look at US environmental regulations versus those in Brazil and the Middle East. Form a global perspective, getting oil and gas from the US is cleaner than getting it from Brazil or the Middle East, especially as what is extracted in the US will likely be used in the US and the distance the oil or gas needs to be shipped will be reduced.

For instance, deforestation of the worlds rainforests also have a direct impact. The US, Japan,and UK among others have pledged billions at te summit to reverse deforestation.

I support the efforts to curtail deforestation. Yet again the rule of unintended consequences is one of the primary reasons deforestation is happening. Increased use of palm oil and increased demand for corn products has results in increased cutting of tropical rain forests. Demand for corn products has gone up due to mandates on ethanol in gas.

In other words being a global warming skeptic does not mean that efforts outside of carbon emmissoins cannot be helpful. When every litle bit counts why not all work together?

I'm not sure working together is possible when each special interest has, well, special interests that are paramount to them. China and India want to continue developing without the need to implement tough environmental standards because that brings jobs to their economies. The US and Europe want a level playing field where every party agrees to play by the same rules so that their economies aren't destroyed. Africa just wants us to get the heck out and let them solve their own problems without setting all sorts well intentioned but poorly thought out rules that harm Africans.

[Lunatic]

If my words have been seen as an insult to anyone on this apologize, period. My comparisions have been to point out how dire the situation is. None are meant as personal insults.

The one thing that strikes me about both sides of this debate is how much of this is driven by fear. Fear of the financial cost, fear of what will happen, fear of conspiracy, fear that the other side is just plain stupid or too attached to their comforts, too dishonest or whatever.

It's also shown what people fear on a larger level. For example, do you fear our big government or do you fear corporate power and look at government as a potential ally against those who would pollute us to death?

Perhaps one of the most frightening things how we've been scared into inaction. Things will change and they must change, it for us to decide. But if we approached this from a standpoint of what is possible and what we can do about it, it's more likely that we'd get a livable result, which is what we need when all is said and done.

It might help if people put their fears aside.

All the Best,

Lunatic

[Youdan]

Well I think the comments here are civil compared to some of the speeches at Copenhegn. By these so called leaders of their countries that blame their own mismanagement of their economies on what they think made western scociety sucsessfull. Laying on the guilt for being developed nations. Aid money has been flowing into these developing countries for years and they are still crying poor.

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

I totally agree. I'm an environmentalist in that I respect the environment and do my best to use only what I think I need (or really really want). I try not to use products with excessive packaging (I know - it's a pet peeve of mine and No - I will not stop prattling on about it - I mean how many freaking boxes do plastic bags full of stuff really need???).

OMG. Especially at Christmas and kids toys!

Originally Posted by monster_mom

I support protecting real wetlands because destroying them results in larger, deeper, and more frequent floods and real wetlands act as scrubbers filtering out contaminants.

Does anyone know the analogy that the fluttering of butterfly wings effects air currents halfway around the world? You are absolutely right in that wetlands act as scrubbers. And that they do effect floods. If you think of it in terms of finances they reduce the needs for taxpayer funded dams, levees and channels leaving more room in the budget too.

Originally Posted by monster_mom

To me, the science on that isn't necessarily settled and forcing massive new mandates which curtail investment and dictate how we can live our lives based on unsettled science isn't necessarily how I'd advocate for increased investment in "green energy". I'd try to encourage investment in green energy because we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels from a security standpoint. As long as US reserves of oil and natural gas are off limits from development then we are dependent on murders and despots for oil and I'd prefer not to be dependent on them.

And that is fine. What your reasons for supporting green energy are and mine may be different but if we work toward the same goal good things happen. I always think of liberal/independant/conservative viewpoints as a sort of marriage. Nothing really works without the other viewpoint. We'd all like to live in a vacuum and assume our viewpoint can fix the worlds ills but it doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by monster_mom

I will note that I support opening US reserves in ANWR and elsewhere to oil and gas development for environmental, economic and security reasons. For security, see above about the murderers and despots.

On the other hand that opens up corruption right here in the US. We may not have murderous despots here but we have our fair share of the unscrupulous and more special interests.

Originally Posted by monster_mom

For economic reasons, just remember what happened to our economy when we were hit with $4 a gallon gas.

The stimulus promised to fund green technology yet very little has actually made it there, nay is still unspent, and slated other projects I call that a big fail that curtails our economy.

Originally Posted by monster_mom

Form a global perspective, getting oil and gas from the US is cleaner than getting it from Brazil or the Middle East, especially as what is extracted in the US will likely be used in the US and the distance the oil or gas needs to be shipped will be reduced.

We may need to agree to disagree...

Originally Posted by monster_mom

I support the efforts to curtail deforestation. Yet again the rule of unintended consequences is one of the primary reasons deforestation is happening. Increased use of palm oil and increased demand for corn products has results in increased cutting of tropical rain forests. Demand for corn products has gone up due to mandates on ethanol in gas.

Don't we pay farmers not to cultivate their fields? Shouldn't we stop those subsidies?

Originally Posted by monster_mom

I'm not sure working together is possible when each special interest has, well, special interests that are paramount to them. China and India want to continue developing without the need to implement tough environmental standards because that brings jobs to their economies. The US and Europe want a level playing field where every party agrees to play by the same rules so that their economies aren't destroyed. Africa just wants us to get the heck out and let them solve their own problems without setting all sorts well intentioned but poorly thought out rules that harm Africans.

ITA.

Originally Posted by Lunatic

Perhaps one of the most frightening things how we've been scared into inaction. Things will change and they must change, it for us to decide. But if we approached this from a standpoint of what is possible and what we can do about it, it's more likely that we'd get a livable result, which is what we need when all is said and done.

It might help if people put their fears aside.

This is so true. People always look for hard evidence but the truly successful dare to dream. I was hoping the summit would be a bit more dreamy...