Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (1 Viewer)

[sam04u]

Firstly, holy alliteration....

Link:
$11bn climate aid package 'insignificant' | News.com.au

It's being covered pretty much everywhere essentially more restrictions would be imposed on "developed nations" as opposed to "developing nations", with less oversight on the emissions of the developing nations. Surprisingly China would be considered a developing nation (despite the fact that it is one of the biggest carbon emitters).

So... things are going not so well and then smack-bang the "Danish Text" is leaked.

... the agreement suggests allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tons of carbon per person, while limiting poor countries to just 1.44 tons per person.

The G77 spokesman walks out of the hour long conference and says "screw you guys I'm going home".

It was suggested that world leaders amongst the "developed nations" have been having super secret discussions and working to hash out a second agreement??


Thoughts? comments?

 

[spartan31234]

I knew from the start Copenhagen would be likely to fail and the chance of a decent agreement coming out of it is low.

This is a global issue it is impossible for any progress to be made if everyone act in their national interest.



It is ridiculous to attempt to classify china as a developed country, who ever did it is an idiot as they created major divisions. Personally i reckon based on this political system (global non unified) it is best to spend money on developing technology like nuclear fusion, Hydrogen ICE's, Hydrogen fuel cells for a hydrogen economy. ( which is ultimately where we are going)

The problem is carbon reduction through carbon tax and ETS only works if the whole world is joining in equally thus is'nt very effective. ( and by the looks of Copenhagen...)

It is thus better to invest money on new technology, then based on what you can do with that technology make targets for you own country. You could also spread this technology to the developing world along with trade incentives and other aid.
If you are going to make targets for guidence, make these targets based on new technologies that you can develop in the future.

Reduction through technological change works weather or not there is a global agreement as you only implement the tec when it is economically viable. This also means you must stop subsiding old tec and if new tec arises else where ie hydrogen car it must be imported with a 0 import tax, even it damages the Australian car industry.

It is impossible to limit global warming with ETS. Seriously what's ETS going to do, all it is a unavoidable tax. If company wants to be environmentally friendly in Australia what can you do... reduce your production to 0? Build your own wind power planets making your company broke?
With today's technology you will never reduce emissions, without damaging your economy. ( Where Nuclear power is new tec relative to Australia )

Other countries will surely implement new technology, nuclear power, better solar power (but this will never replace the nuclear option), and eventually nuclear fusion. It is mainly new tec that will allow us lower emissions not trading, or through politics.

Mean while our governments subsidising coal power plant, funding research in "clean coal" doing everything it can to make it difficult for new technology to rise. It is obvious why... it because we are major exporter of coal, why would we ever contribute to its demise. Personally i want to see to coal industry DIE.

defining new tec as nuclear solar everything thats not from the 18th century to early 19th century ie coal

 

[sam04u]

I'm surprised this hasn't generated much interest... despite it being one of the most important events in recent times.

 

[JonathanM]

I'm surprised this hasn't generated much interest... despite it being one of the most important events in recent times.

And one of the most predictable? I think that's why. We knew all this nonsense would happen.

 

[spartan31234]

I'm surprised this hasn't generated much interest... despite it being one of the most important events in recent times.

lol i expected strong criticism off china and other countries.. Well then i guess most BOS users are smarter than the general public.

Seriously if Copenhagen crashes and burns, its not the end of the world

 

[dc1337]

Most economies are too scared of ruining their economy so they are not going to committ to a great reduction in carbon emissions.

 

[SylviaB]

yeah most important events that will achieve nothing

 

[loquasagacious]

I'm surprised this hasn't generated much interest... despite it being one of the most important events in recent times.

I think it is failing to generate interest because it is predictable and also it is 'old news'.

 

[Planck]

Who didn't expect this to become a clusterfuck?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I'm surprised this hasn't generated much interest... despite it being one of the most important events in recent times.

Climate change is getting boring.

We need something new to be afraid of.

 

[absorber]

Seems to me like in the past decade international relations between developed and developing countries has worsened more and more due to China and India's increasingly influence on the world economically and politically. While it's sad that people don't care, it's also pretty sad that all the Western governments can think of is themselves; also exhibited in the failure of the WTO's Doha round.

 

[murphyad]

it's also pretty sad that all the Western governments can think of is themselves

If they did not, their constituencies would probably vote those governments out of office.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Who didn't expect this to become a clusterfuck?

The threat of global warming seems to have been hijacked by politicians these days.

 

[spartan31234]

Climate change is getting boring.

We need something new to be afraid of.

I KNOW

we have to get afraid of catastrophic asteroid impacts. Did you know some most asteroids impact the earth at around 15 - 19 km per second!

A 100 m asteroid travelling at this speed can have an impact energy inexcess of a 150 mega tones. That's 3 times larger than the largest Thermonuclear device ever created ( The tazar bomba )

Read up on the tunguska event ( largest asteroid impact recorded) will put things into perspective

At extremely high speed asteroids tend to exploded inside the troposphere - the most dense part of the atmosphere. This is possibly more destructive as distributes the energy in a shock wave towards the ground more evenly, rather than wasting it on digging a big hole.

Currently USA has a program to look for asteroids NEO, there still is not enough monitoring, and there are currently no planes available to deal with a large asteroid. Note we can't just nuke asteroids as nukes are pretty harmless in space and comparatively weak compared to the energy in a large asteroid.

 

[loquasagacious]

The threat of global warming seems to have been hijacked by politicians these days.

The tragedy of Copenhagen is that the impact of any agreement on the world's poor has largely been lost among the self-indulgent circus caused by rich country green activists who'd rather see themselves on television back home.

http://www. theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/its-the-poor-who-will-pay-for-copenhagens-circus/story-e6frg6zo-1225809976343

 

[Planck]

have put into technology transfer negotiating texts the scrapping of intellectual property rights necessary to attract private investment in the development of climate-friendly technologies that are needed to cut emissions.

I think that is absofuckinglutely wonderful as it is going to drive the costs of these technologies through the floor.

Remove every possible barrier to having these technologies spread as far and wide as possible. Everything touched by government investment should be open to the public, source and hardware wise.

 

[loquasagacious]

have put into technology transfer negotiating texts the scrapping of intellectual property rights necessary to attract private investment in the development of climate-friendly technologies that are needed to cut emissions.

I think that is absofuckinglutely wonderful as it is going to drive the costs of these technologies through the floor.

Remove every possible barrier to having these technologies spread as far and wide as possible. Everything touched by government investment should be open to the public, source and hardware wise.

Different things are different.

 

[Planck]

Technology transfer is enabled by government investment. All of this stuff has government dollars touching it.

 

[spartan31234]

have put into technology transfer negotiating texts the scrapping of intellectual property rights necessary to attract private investment in the development of climate-friendly technologies that are needed to cut emissions.

I think that is absofuckinglutely wonderful as it is going to drive the costs of these technologies through the floor.

Remove every possible barrier to having these technologies spread as far and wide as possible. Everything touched by government investment should be open to the public, source and hardware wise.

Hey i did not say remove intellectual property rights, several governments can buy the rights then give it away for free.
( if some tec was developed by a private company)

I also propose that all countries cannot should have 0 import tax on hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen ICE cars.

Developed countries should stop subsidising fuel (not immediately as but rapidly), over time to encourage the hydrogen based energy system.

Zero subsidy on fuel when there is a hydrogen cars around.

Invest heveily in multinational research projects in CERN and cooperation between research companies. I am pretty sure it is the governments that will make the first fusion power plant no private companies.

these measures are simple and can be taken with or without climate change and have little to do with trade and thus do not require the cooperation of other countries, where ETS does.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

it's quite hot today