6 replies to this topic

[kbbbb]

As was probably predictable by the way negotiations generally occur between nations, the Copenhagen Climate summit didn't come out with many strong agreements on action.

Much of it was the poorer (and more vunerable) countries pointing fingers, or, begging the developed ones for higher targets.


What I'm interested in is what do people think was achieved by it?
What should have been achieved?
Did the big polluters (biggest being US/China) give too little?
Or is climate change a myth?


Personally, i'm not surprised things happened the way they did. Nobody wants to give over anything to each other, unless they were forced to, and unless things become dire enough, there's no impetus to do so. Australia, as a small population but big per capita poluter, has domestic political problems in terms of putting in place a solution- it's an issue that has destabalised the local Opposition party and now they won't help pass the targets the government wishes to impliment. Also, Australia's targets weren't that high, and a lot of what is being said from both sides is hypocritical- given the political philisophy of the opposition, and that it supports deregulation, giving massive wads of cash to the big polluters- coal fired power stations- and mining companies- is a joke. There should be NO subsidies to them, give that money to clean power generation (particually solar) and let coal wither and die. And Nuclear is a viable option too given Australia can mine it's own uranium.
If climate change is a myth, why is Australia having strings of 40oc+ days for the first time in recorded history? Why are there serious water supply problems and a lack of rainfall? All the scientific fact points to Global Warming, and anything contradictory is minute in comparison.

[mabuhay]

the earth goes through cycles and our emissions are only speeding it up. heat is always followed by an ice age and that shouldn't be our main concern. plus, a large volcano could erupt sometime and start a mini ice age, like the one that caused the irish potato famine, which would pretty much break our climate even after the mini ice age. the summit was just smaller countries guilt tripping the stronger ones into giving more aid to help develop their nation. it's not like the smaller countries are getting greedy or anything, it's just that issues like famine, poverty, and disease don't get as much attention as problemas that are on the global scale. i just hope the aid given would be put to good use unlike the relief fund sent to american samoa after the tsunami.


will edit later. it's almost 5 am and i wanted to get some thoughts down before i forget them.

[Noitidart]

I haven't heard about this summit what's it about? Who all is involved?

[Sweeney]

This is why there should be some measure of control of governmental policies in the hands of scientists, not politicians.

[vendetta.inc]

This is why there should be some measure of control of governmental policies in the hands of scientists, not politicians.

This is so true.

[Morrigan]

What I'm interested in is what do people think was achieved by it?
Besides politicians flying out on private jets and renting tons of limos? Not a whole hell of anything.

What should have been achieved?
For one, a legally binding treaty.

Did the big polluters (biggest being US/China) give too little?
Considering the US and China are responsible for 40% of the world's pollution, yes. The US cultivates an environment (no pun intended) of allowing big business free reign to profit at the expense of others. Just look at the mortgage crisis, Enron, Tyco, etc. The US also faces is domestic pressure from conservatives who view global warming as a hoax (see Mitch McConnell). It's then no surprise that conservatives and big business go hand in hand.

I think China is hiding behind their "developing nation" status to allow more emissions. When China states they're fighting against developed nations for the benefit of all G77 members, they're not acknowledging that the goals of, say, Malawi, are vastly different from their goals. Of course, China is looking out for Sudan due to the amount of resources they pour into that country, but that's a whole different debate. Also, I'd enjoy seeing a report from China on how higher emission will produced better living standards for all their citizens. I highly doubt the poorest people in rural China will ever reap rewards from allowing China to send more pollutants into the air. Will they benefit the the ethnic groups that China is constantly oppressing? I think not.

Or is climate change a myth?
When people say that, I want to smack them upside the head with my science textbook.

[Kuraz]

I have this topic debated during lessons.
The climate summit is to discuss the right to emit CO2.
The fact is, iif you want to develop, you have to emit CO2. The more you emit, it is likely that you will have more resource to develop (coz you can save money on development). This is the basic assertion.
And the summit hopes to lower the TOTAL amount of CO2 emission.

China is still a developing country, and as you know, mamny ppl are still poor. In this sense, China has to put economic development at 1st place rather than conservation. Therefore she insisted on asking US and other developed countries to cut down emisson in order to meet the demand for herself; or to offer capital for to improve the industrial facilities.

On the other hand, US puts emphasis on equality, that is, if US were to cut emisson, all other countries should do the same.

Back to the time of industrial revolution, CO2 emission by the nowadays-developed-countries has done great damage to the environment. At that time ppl have no sense for environmental protection.
However, can we blame the present-day-China for doing the same thing these developed countries had done a few centuries ago? I doubt that.

I just think developed countries cannot blame a country who is not far from the starting line. I think better cooperation among ALL countries is needed. Financial aid from these developed countries is likely to lower the emission, so why don't do so?

Edited by Giuseppe di Stefano, 27 December 2009 - 11:01 AM.