Is Copenhagen a Lost Cause?

I am not very optimistic about the chances of a legally binding treaty coming out of Copenhagen in December. The Earth Negotiations Bulletin reported that some delegates at climate change talks last week in Barcelona were “contemplating the increasingly clear high-level messages that a legally binding agreement at COP 15 will not be possible.” The Chair at B Barcelona, John Ashe, from Antigua and Barbuda, said that progress was “less than desirable.”

Even if a legally binding agreement is not reached, a politically binding one may be possible. A politically binding agreement would give developed countries all the key elements of a legally binding treaty such as specific emission reduction targets and funding for developing countries.

The Guardian reported that a British government official said a politically binding agreement “would be substantive. It would set timelines, and provide the figures by which rich countries would reduce emissions, as well as the money that would be made available to developing countries to adapt to climate change.” A legally binding agreement, she said, “could take six months, up to a year, but we would want it to be [signed] as soon as possible.”

UN Secretary General visiting U.S.

Today UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited Washington to talk to congressional leaders and government officials about Copenhagen. Ban ‘s climate adviser Janos Pasztor said, “He will discuss how governments around the world are approaching the climate negotiations and what these governments expect in terms of the role of the United States.”

“The continuing and extraordinary engagement by world leaders on the climate change issue suggests that a deal will emerge in Copenhagen that will form the basis of a treaty,” said Pasztor.

Pasztor added, “It’s not a question of whether or not we’re going to have a deal, it’s question of how we’re going to make sure that we get a good deal in Copenhagen. And the secretary-general is convinced that it is possible and therefore it will happen.”

Step up the pressure

If you have not signed the Care2 petition, Step UP On Climate Change, Obama, please do so. Let your voice be heard. While you are at it, sign the Greenpeace petition, President Obama: It’s Time to Sign.

Read more: copenhagen, treaty

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Lilith G.

11:13AM PST on Dec 1, 2009

Thanks for the info.

send a green star

Tom G.

2:08AM PST on Nov 30, 2009

So, Kenneth L. where do the AGU stand now that is it proven that temperatures have fallen for the last 10 years?
Or that the "rising sea levels" were concocted science as proven by the email correspondence hackers found?
I'm with Richard L. on this one.
Read the text of the Copenhagen treaty to glean an insight into the true motives behind the plays.

Craig C.

11:04PM PST on Nov 17, 2009

So we should listen to what the UN says? WHY? If they really were concerned why so little troops in Afgan? How about any african nation to restore peace? You put such high hopes on something that is more corrupt then what we are seeing with our Congress. Really how many nations belong, are they in Iran? Getting back to the point we have pollution but not warming do your homework people. Coldest summer in vegas for quite some time have lived here for 38yrs.

Richard L.

4:32PM PST on Nov 17, 2009

One final comment Ken, if you still think this is simply and ideological divide issue of Left vs Right, read the 4 pieces by Alexander Cockburn on this question, who agrees with me here. He may be a worthy adversary covering up Rightwing conspiracies but I'd much rather have him as an ally on the side of objective science, than an adversary. Even the Heartland Institute has some good scientific analysis from very good scientests. (Where else could they go?) Read "Climate Change Reconsidered". My views here are abbreviated but you should follow up on them on the internet. It's clear to me we're being stooged. As a Conspiracy ("Theorist") Factualist, I'm quite familiar with game here, thus my earlier references. Learn and be part of the solution. Stand up for science and the truth no matter what. ("--though the heavens fall") But first do you're own research.

1:53PM PST on Nov 17, 2009

Kenneth, You place too much faith in an entity that exhibits a corrupted scientific beauocracy most notable in their complete corruption of the peer review process. This is now controled mostly through the U.N., not a scientific body.

Kenneth L.

8:09AM PST on Nov 16, 2009

Well, thanks for your opinions Richard.
As for me, I would agree more with the AGU, the American Geophysical Union, the largest organization of scientists in the world, with 50,000 members and 135 countries who stated in 2003 that global warming is real and human-assisted, and re-affirmed this statement in 2007.

4:58PM PST on Nov 15, 2009

To try and finish up: As for other real influences on our weather, little is mentioned of the effects of solar wind on the cosmic rays that create cloud cover which cools the Earth. This effect has been well proven and is certainly beyond our control and probably our predictions. (Remember if the conveniently ignored Sun, our star, burps the wrong way we're all finished.) Beside ignoring all these and some other factors, my larger concern is that we have politicized and made our science a subjective non-science. Emotionalism and vitriol have replaced objective reasoning using well established factual science. As they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would hope Gore really has at least good intentions, even if leading us astray, but his real political record doesn't inspire much more confidence than his VP running mate Lieberman now does. The other problem here is this issue we can do little or nothing about serves as a distraction from very serious political and basic human problems that we might otherwise be able to better effect. Our house is being burned to the ground by Fascist firebugs and we're worried about our roof leaking! (or the Titanic analogy) This is meant to be read in context with the whole so you might want to start with my first offering here to best understand my perspective. Also, remember, the best way to disprove a theory is to try and find what is in error. That can only be done by examining the expert critics views first.

4:38PM PST on Nov 15, 2009

To continue (see previous) I of course failed to mention the big 100,000+ Solar/Earth glaciation cycle but that history is very revealing relative to the GW scientific "newspeak". As fpr the idea that large institutions and groups cannot be influenced, controled, and even silenced by various career, monetary, and peer pressures, that's just another cover up canard promoted by our Establishment media. The facts prove the opposite in major conspiracy after conspiracy. (Try "JFK, Conspiracy of Silence" for starters. then examine how it's done in the media, read "Into the Buzzsaw") (out of time. To be continued.)

8:24AM PST on Nov 15, 2009

Richard L.

You're "...not a Liberal groupthink conformist, especially to Establishment media propaganda or pseudo science."

Well I guess that includes all the thousands of scientists who say that global warming is real and human-assisted. You've certainly got their number!
LOL!

(now don't tell me, anyone of those scientists are 'doing it for the money' or ruled by 'the new world order' elitists. Or some other devious reason? Please explain).

5:53PM PST on Nov 14, 2009

Apparently went over the limit and lost have my argument, but to try and continue, warming is not a threat to life on Earth unlike cooling. Life has always florished with warm periods and died off in cold ones. We are now 500 years past due for a glaciation period. That should be more of our immediate concern. In fact your time scales seem to be completely inappropriate, except to serve your anthropogenic greenhouse effect agendas. It speaks to egocentrism, and emotional agendas rather than good science. The thermohaline ocean circulation takes almost 1,000 years (800) and has direct impact on our weather. Subtract 800 from 2000 and you're right back at the beginning of the Mideval warming period. The implications should be obvious. There are also many other Sun/Earth realated cycles rarely mentioned such as the 11 year Sunspot cycles, the 24th being about 3 years past due (we had the Little ice age the last time thant happened!), and others of 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000, all having serious impacts on Earth temperatures. (out of time)