• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Obama riding in on a unicorn may not save Copenhagen summitt

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
The current talks are heading for defeat. Developing nations want to regress tp Kyoto. Obama has promised to be there for the final day of negotiations, just like he promised to be there for the final day of Olympic Games presentations. We saw how well that turned out...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8418008.stm
Sarkozy backs calls to keep Kyoto
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has backed calls by developing nations to keep the Kyoto Protocol, which only requires rich nations to cut emissions.

Speaking in Copenhagen, he broke away from the EU position of favouring a new deal that saw all nations commit to measures to curb climate change.

Elsewhere, the US and China are at loggerheads over binding targets.

With one day remaining, observers say the climate summit is unlikely to deliver a meaningful deal.

The Danish presidency of the climate summit in Copenhagen has sought to play down expectations of a comprehensive deal emerging from the meeting.

The hosts had to drop plans to propose new draft texts on Thursday after opposition from many developing nations, which saw the talks grind to a halt on Wednesday.

Officials said progress could be made, but an international agreement may have to wait until a 2010 meeting in Mexico.

In his address to delegates, Mr Nicolas Sarkozy called on nations to "stop posturing".

"A failure in Copenhagen would a catastrophe for each and everyone of us," he said. "If we keep on heading where we're going we are heading for failure."

"So people want to keep Kyoto, OK let's keep Kyoto. But let us agree on an overall political umbrella," he stated.

The French president went on to urge ministers and leaders to adopt a full climate treaty in June 2010.

"Let's give ourselves six months after the Copenhagen conference to transform political commitments into a legal text."

Money on offer

Eariler, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the meeting her country was prepared to work towards mobilising $100bn a year for developing countries.

She told delegates: "In the context of a strong accord in which all major economies pledge meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to those actions, the US is prepared to work with other countries towards a goal of mobilising $100bn a year to address the needs of developing countries."

She made it clear - as did Japan on Wednesday when announcing a specific figure for assistance - that the money was contingent on reaching a global deal here that met its criteria.

BBC environment correspondent Richard Black said developing countries are likely to point out that there is no figure for what the US is prepared to provide itself, either from public or private finance.

The sum is also less than the amount that UN agencies such as the World Bank and International Energy Agency calculates is necessary to help mitigation and adaptation in the developing world.

But transparency is emerging as a major sticking point for the US. It wants some developing countries to open their emissions controls to scrutiny.

China and India say they are willing to take voluntary measures to slow their emissions, but they are reluctant to accept tight international oversight.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration believed there was still a chance of deal, but China needed to give ground on the US demand for transparency. He told Reuters news agency that if reports were true that China was balking at a climate deal, the US hoped it would reconsider.

There has been no immediate response from the Chinese delegation.

New alliance?

Addressing the summit on Thursday, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he feared "a triumph of form over substance" at the outcome of the UN climate summit.

In his speech, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, meanwhile, urged the summit to "summon up the greatest level of ambition".

"The success of our endeavours depends on us forging a new alliance," he told delegates.

He added: "In these few days in Copenhagen which will be blessed or blamed for generations to come, we cannot permit the politics of narrow self-interest to prevent a policy for human survival."

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN's climate body, told reporters that negotiators would consider two negotiating texts; one looking at further emission cuts by developed nations (except the US) by 2020, and another that looks at committing all nations to curbing climate change.

Mr de Boer added that the texts would be considered by two working groups, which were expected to report back to the main conference on Thursday evening.

Saleemul Huq, senior fellow in climate change at the International Institute for Environment and Development, told BBC News: "The negotiation process is in a high state of confusion."

"On the other hand, heads of state are arriving and talking to each other, and within hours every important decision-maker on the planet will be in the same town at the same time.

"If they can't do it, no-one can - and I think that they will."

India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh said a "blame game" had already begun because of the slow progress towards a deal.

Containing emissions to a level associated with a temperature rise of no more than 2C is the stated aim of the big nations here.

As things are going they will miss that target by a considerable margin, our correspondent says.

The poorest and most vulnerable nations say emissions should be contained to a level associated with a temperature rise of 1 or 1.5C.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
1
0
He shouldn't even be going there with the Danish police state and rabid European protesters all frothing at the mouth to decapitate him.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
I should be doing a better job keeping up with this, but from what I have seen it looks like our 'good' friends from China need a swift kick in the ass (maybe more than one).



-
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
100 billion for developing nations. Just add it onto our bill to China.

This is more less a transfer of wealth seminar anyways.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
5
76
I like how the countries of Iran, Venezuela, etc have figured out how to handle pollution , make the USA pay for it.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
I like how the countries of Iran, Venezuela, etc have figured out how to handle pollution , make the USA pay for it.
Our outsourcing to create cheap shit for our consumption has caused most of the pollution in the developing countries. That's just the way it works.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
5
76
Our outsourcing to create cheap shit for our consumption has caused most of the pollution in the developing countries. That's just the way it works.
BS
We are responsible for THEIR choice to use the manufacturing methods that caused pollution ? They CHOSE those methods , we didn't force them to do anything. It wasn't the US that did it to them, it was their GREED.
 

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,366
740
126
His honey moon with EU was over long back... there is no Unicorn. He still tried to go down on them but they are just not interested anymore
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Helping the developing nations develop clean power is a great idea.

Why? Their infrastructure is not as entrenched as ours is. They already need to add power plants to generate electricity. So instead of allowing gas/oil/coal, we should be pushing nuclear/wind/solar. In fact, these countries can serve as a test-bed for how to implement green power worldwide.

Secondly, China has to be counted as a nearly developed country right now. They already output as much pollution (or more) than the US. Any deal has to include China.

Finally, the US needs to approve new nuclear power plants in our country. There's just no excuse. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest and most efficient methods to generate electricity. The waste issue is a non-starter; coal power plants (which is the other alternative) put out far more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants. On top of that, coal nuclear waste goes straight into the atmosphere and is dispersed around the area, while nuclear waste is confined to concrete casks in a very small, very regulated area. It's a no-brainer. If I was Obama, I'd immediately make available 50 nuclear power plant permits for 2010-2020, and then 100 more for 2020-2030.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
helping the developing nations develop clean power is a great idea.

Why? Their infrastructure is not as entrenched as ours is. They already need to add power plants to generate electricity. So instead of allowing gas/oil/coal, we should be pushing nuclear/wind/solar. In fact, these countries can serve as a test-bed for how to implement green power worldwide.

Secondly, china has to be counted as a nearly developed country right now. They already output as much pollution (or more) than the us. Any deal has to include china.

Finally, the us needs to approve new nuclear power plants in our country. There's just no excuse. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest and most efficient methods to generate electricity. The waste issue is a non-starter; coal power plants (which is the other alternative) put out far more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants. On top of that, coal nuclear waste goes straight into the atmosphere and is dispersed around the area, while nuclear waste is confined to concrete casks in a very small, very regulated area. It's a no-brainer. If i was obama, i'd immediately make available 50 nuclear power plant permits for 2010-2020, and then 100 more for 2020-2030.
qft.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
638
126
Helping the developing nations develop clean power is a great idea.

Why? Their infrastructure is not as entrenched as ours is. They already need to add power plants to generate electricity. So instead of allowing gas/oil/coal, we should be pushing nuclear/wind/solar. In fact, these countries can serve as a test-bed for how to implement green power worldwide.
Let's do this in a capitalistic fashion. Let the corporations and their knowledgeable employees help these countries achieve these goals. The companies will make money (and pay taxes), the employees will make money (and pay taxes) and there's a very good chance employment will need to be increased. There undoubtedly will be locals hired to achieve these goals which is of course another win. The planet wins too. If subsidies of some form are needed, that can be discussed and dealt with.

Handing over money with few checks and balances, which is at the heart of the Climate Summit, is borderline insane. Let's see if the leaders of the Summit are behind a proposal such as this. Let's see what their true intentions are.

The people of this country are as a whole reasonable. The people of the world too for that matter. Present them with a well thought out argument that makes both intellectual and financial sense and their support will be behind it.

It should come as no shock that people such as George Soros, who lust for power and total control over the world, wish to cram farces such as the Copenhagen Summit down the throats of the people who inhabit this planet. However, they continue to underestimate the intelligence of its citizens.

The jig is up.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
I'm solidly behind both Omar and Boomerang. China is the world's #1 producer of CO2, and I think India is third, yet they get a pass and the USA, good ol' #2, pays for everything? Not a chance. I'm all for modest amounts of money to help the poor countries develop cheap, clean, sustainable power and industry, but this is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme. I mean, really, Venezuela, one of the world's big oil producers, should get money from us to help them cope with global warming which supposedly comes from using the oil they sell? Who the hell comes up with this crap?

The new Green is the old Red.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
BS
We are responsible for THEIR choice to use the manufacturing methods that caused pollution ? They CHOSE those methods , we didn't force them to do anything. It wasn't the US that did it to them, it was their GREED.
Yeah but we are greedy, too. We can point fingers and they can point fingers but China is dumping mercury into rivers and sh*ting in the sky because if they don't they'll have to raise the prices on our cheap crap that we seem so much to love. So basically they could fix this themselves and raise their prices (so we end up paying more) or we can give them the money directly to stop destroying the environment (and it costs us more). We, the West, will pay one way or the other. And the reason is simply because we can and they can't. We have enough spare money to buy a lot of garbage and fuel our profligacy. A place like China doesn't where people are still in terrible conditions in huge numbers.

So IF we can conclude that we have to do something meaningful and major we should probably just go ahead and stop trying to get it on the cheap, which is why a place like China is cranking out all that crap to begin with, because we gave them just enough money to make it but not enough to make it safely.

It's like my garbage pickup. If I want to pay $9/month for garbage pickup but at the same time don't want them dumping my trash into a river and they are saying well that's fine but it will cost $15/month for a proper landfill, ultimately the money has to come from somewhere.

I don't think China should have money given to it, but if it does make significant changes we must realize that prices WILL go up.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
Yeah but we are greedy, too. We can point fingers and they can point fingers but China is dumping mercury into rivers and sh*ting in the sky because if they don't they'll have to raise the prices on our cheap crap that we seem so much to love. So basically they could fix this themselves and raise their prices (so we end up paying more) or we can give them the money directly to stop destroying the environment (and it costs us more). We, the West, will pay one way or the other. And the reason is simply because we can and they can't. We have enough spare money to buy a lot of garbage and fuel our profligacy. A place like China doesn't where people are still in terrible conditions in huge numbers.

So IF we can conclude that we have to do something meaningful and major we should probably just go ahead and stop trying to get it on the cheap, which is why a place like China is cranking out all that crap to begin with, because we gave them just enough money to make it but not enough to make it safely.

It's like my garbage pickup. If I want to pay $9/month for garbage pickup but at the same time don't want them dumping my trash into a river and they are saying well that's fine but it will cost $15/month for a proper landfill, ultimately the money has to come from somewhere.

I don't think China should have money given to it, but if it does make significant changes we must realize that prices WILL go up.
Free market. If China had a representative government the people would not put up with such a poor environmental record. Hence, those factories would've gone somewhere else or we would be charged higher prices. Either way, the consumer should pay for this by choice, not by force via our government.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
I should be doing a better job keeping up with this, but from what I have seen it looks like our 'good' friends from China need a swift kick in the ass (maybe more than one).



-
Aren't you in favor of Obamacare? If so you should be kissing, not kicking, their asses.

On second thought, I think I read that they haven't been buying many of our bonds anyway, in that case wear steal toes.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Our outsourcing to create cheap shit for our consumption has caused most of the pollution in the developing countries. That's just the way it works.
Agreed. We should immediately place huge "climate" tariffs on all of the goods that come from those countries. Their economy might tank and people might starve from the loss of income but at least they won't be forced to pollute for the US.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Agreed. We should immediately place huge "climate" tariffs on all of the goods that come from those countries. Their economy might tank and people might starve from the loss of income but at least they won't be forced to pollute for the US.
Heh heh, I like that. No, no, we're not punishing you, we're protecting you!
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Our outsourcing to create cheap shit for our consumption has caused most of the pollution in the developing countries. That's just the way it works.
Goddamn you're smoking the same Hopium that Autism is arent you?

You really think our outsourcing to other countries to have cheap stuff is to be blamed on us? Hmmm, how about the countries that accepted out business with open arms and no EPA laws? No no, cant blame them.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Yeah but we are greedy, too. We can point fingers and they can point fingers but China is dumping mercury into rivers and sh*ting in the sky because if they don't they'll have to raise the prices on our cheap crap that we seem so much to love. So basically they could fix this themselves and raise their prices (so we end up paying more) or we can give them the money directly to stop destroying the environment (and it costs us more). We, the West, will pay one way or the other. And the reason is simply because we can and they can't. We have enough spare money to buy a lot of garbage and fuel our profligacy. A place like China doesn't where people are still in terrible conditions in huge numbers.

So IF we can conclude that we have to do something meaningful and major we should probably just go ahead and stop trying to get it on the cheap, which is why a place like China is cranking out all that crap to begin with, because we gave them just enough money to make it but not enough to make it safely.

It's like my garbage pickup. If I want to pay $9/month for garbage pickup but at the same time don't want them dumping my trash into a river and they are saying well that's fine but it will cost $15/month for a proper landfill, ultimately the money has to come from somewhere.

I don't think China should have money given to it, but if it does make significant changes we must realize that prices WILL go up.
Funny how we are broke as shit and borrowing money from China yet somehow WE can pay and THEY can't... Anything we eventually pay will be with borrowed money some of which will most likely come from China so China is going to pay the bill regardless so why not let them pay directly and cut out the added cost of interest payments?
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
BS
We are responsible for THEIR choice to use the manufacturing methods that caused pollution ? They CHOSE those methods , we didn't force them to do anything. It wasn't the US that did it to them, it was their GREED.
We had a choice. We choose profit over environment.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Goddamn you're smoking the same Hopium that Autism is arent you?

You really think our outsourcing to other countries to have cheap stuff is to be blamed on us? Hmmm, how about the countries that accepted out business with open arms and no EPA laws? No no, cant blame them.
I am just trying to determine if our Government (we) really care about the climate.

If they (we) do, why do they (we) allow imports from countries that we are talking about?
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
What we really need is for Obama to fly in on a military jet, wearing a custom jump suit, with a huge sign reading "Mission Accomplished". Only then will righties be happy. :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY