Inamorato wrote: 
Sounds like Pascal's wager to me

I have no problem being more efficient, cleaning up the environment, etc.

I do have a problem with corruption and theft in the name of doing so.

If you were in charge, how would you handle the situation?

Wouldn't it make sense to make changes with the least amount of harm? (philosophically speaking)

Cut waste and redirect resources in a intelligent manner in line with the objective?

Of course you/we would.

Now what do we see happening?

And why would we choose to put incompetent people in charge?

Are we crazy?

Good one 

As usual, Thomas Friedman is right on the mark in his most recent column.

Going Cheney on Climate

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Excerpt:

 (Full piece)

 Zep wrote: 
Totally

 Welly wrote: 
This is politics, and a particularly unwieldy variety at that: international politics.  Reaching consensus policy is ugly. It's like making sausage: no one wants to see it being done.  But there it is, and stakeholders have to get in and scrap. Meanwhile, observers seem to be expecting roses and butterflies, with smiles all around, attendant to an organised process. All of these conventions go down like this, especially with so many delegates. 

Forget about the rival texts.  Many of them are trial balloons. Forget the markups; quibbles can be sustantive - e.g., percent of GHGs - or trivial - e.g., comma or semi-colon.  It is still too early to call Copenhagen "shambles." There will be a lot of backroom deals made for support.  In a way, it's like a political nomination convention, with dozens of "candidates."  China is trying to broker a deal, and can likely deliver a huge bloc.  

Gwynne Dyer: Real world politics at Copenhagen

Copenhagen is turning into exactly the sort of shambles everybody feared it would be. The only official text still has almost 2,000 square brackets indicating points of disagreement, although there is less than two weeks to go. And now all the rival, unofficial texts are starting to emerge.

The first to be leaked was a Danish proposal that was backed by a number of other industrialised countries. It would simply scrap the Kyoto protocol, the only legally binding treaty in existence that makes countries reduce emissions, and ditch the measures it contains on financial assistance and technology transfer to poor countries. A new treaty would be constructed on a green-field site, with everything up for grabs.

The developing countries, needless to say, were furious—but in the next few days the BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) will release its own proposed text. The least developed countries, the African bloc and the overall G77/China grouping are also expected to present their own texts, as are the small island states.

The last group, unsurprisingly, is threatening to veto any outcome that does not create a legally binding treaty, because it contains a number of small island countries that are likely to disappear entirely if the sea level rises even a metre. Yet it is very hard to believe that a binding treaty can be negotiated in the next seven or eight days—the conference ends on December 18—and in the end the island states will probably be bribed and bullied into accepting something less.

One hundred and ten heads of state will show up for the final couple of days, so SOMETHING will have to emerge that can be represented as a success. But it is likely to be merely a ringing statement of principles that steers around all the unresolved disputes, and then everyone will go home leaving the job half-done.

But cheer up. “Last chances” are rarely what they seem. The job of removing all the square brackets from the text will probably be resumed early next year, with the goal of bringing something closer to a final draft back to another Conference of the Parties as soon as possible. (This is COP 15, and COP 16 is already scheduled for Mexico City next summer).

So what does this process remind you of? If it were all happening within one country, and the blocs of states manoeuvring at Copenhagen were just local interest groups defending their turf, then you would recognise it instantly. It is the normal political process we are all familiar with, transposed to the global scale. And that is new.

It is hard to celebrate a process as clumsy, and occasionally as ugly, as the horse-trading and arm-twisting going on at Copenhagen, but that is how human politics works. We may all recognise that there is a global emergency, but every government still has its own interests to protect. Nevertheless, we have come a long way.

Seventy-five years ago there were only about fifty independent countries in the world, and more than half of the human race lived in somebody else’s empire. The one existing international organisation with any pretensions to global authority, the League of Nations, had collapsed, and we were entering the worst war in the history of mankind.

Forty years ago, there was a new, more ambitious global organisation, the United Nations, created mainly to prevent more such wars, and in particular a nuclear war. There were a hundred independent countries, many of them dictatorships, but they did represent the interests of their people better than the empires. The world was divided ideologically between East and West and economically between North and South, but the realisation was dawning that in some sense we were all in the same boat—and in the end we did avoid nuclear war.

Now there are 192 governments at the Copenhagen conference, most of them democratic, and they KNOW that we are all in the same boat. That’s why they are there. So now, for the first time in history, we have real global politics. It is as messy and incoherent as politics at any other level, but it is better than what we had before.

There are those on the right who think that climate change is a left-wing plot to impose a world government on everybody, but nothing of the sort is remotely likely. Those who built the first atomic bombs were not plotting to create the United Nations, nor did the scientists who first detected global warming have the Copenhagen conference as their ultimate goal.

We are all just dealing as best we can with threats that require a global response. We bring our old political habits with us, because there is no better model available. And yes, if we succeed, the world will be more politically integrated than ever before. Not because it is desirable—on that there are many possible views—but because it is necessary.

Published in the Georgia Straight

 steeler wrote: 
China's alignment reflects both economics and global politics.  By being a developing country, their GHG emissions caps will not be as low as they would be in Europe, Japan, or the US, so they can continue to burn lots of coal.  Their stance permits them to wield a lot of power in the league of developing nations, and effectively act as leader and spokesperson for over half of the world's population.  This in turn gives them entry into locking up contracts with Nigeria, for example, for oil trade. 

 Beaker wrote: 

I thought Rupert Murdoch was paying you to keep tabs on him, so I haven't been watching. Did he get away?

 Zep wrote: 

Thanks, Zep!  

I'm glad U.S. is there, making its views known.  I disagree with those, like Palin (article posted earlier in this thread), who insist that we should boycott the conference. What would that do?  Smacks of, if you don't play the game the way I want you to play it, I'm going to take my ball and go home.

I did not know that U.S. and China emit 40 percent of global greenhouse gasses. Interesting to see how China tries to align itself with the developing countries.   As Edie said yesterday, a lot of this is about being good stewards of the planet.  On this issue, U.S. and China have an obligation to lead.

 

Some more conference updates...

WSJ: All States Have Climate Role, U.S. Negotiator Says
The U.S. pressed major developing countries, and especially China, to commit to do their part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in view of a global agreement to fight climate change and limit global warming, in the third day of negotiations in Copenhagen. "There is no way to solve this problem by giving developing countries a pass," U.S. Chief Negotiator Todd Stern said during a press conference. "Virtually all of the growth in emissions going forward (...) will be coming from developing countries," of which about 50% from China alone, Mr. Stern said.

Xinhua: China criticizes rich nations' inaction on global warming
China on Wednesday criticized the lack of action by developed nations in fulfilling their commitments on carbon emissions reduction and financial support to developing nations in coping with climate change. "You will find a huge gap if you make a comparison between their pledges and the actions they have so far taken," Yu Qingtai, China's special representative in the UN climate talks, said at a press conference during the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

Reuters: China urges U.S. to increase Copenhagen offer
China urged President Barack Obama to increase a U.S. offer to cut carbon emissions but its top climate envoy indicated willingness on Wednesday to compromise at a U.N. conference in Copenhagen.

Xie Zhenhua said that China wanted to play a constructive role at the December 7-18 climate talks, where a successful outcome largely depends on agreement between the United States and China which together emit 40 percent of global greenhouse gases.

NPR: What Copenhagen Climate Treaty Might Look Like
There are so many issues on the table at the Copenhagen U.N. climate conference that politicians from all the major players have already declared there is no hope of reaching a binding legal agreement. But progress is still possible. Participants speak of reaching a "political agreement." Exactly what that would be remains undefined, but it would represent some form of commitment to address global warming that goes beyond mere rhetoric — yet falls short of a legally binding treaty

 Zep wrote: 

 "Agenda-driven science."

Is that anything like Intelligent Design?

 Zep wrote:
 
Olive oil, mustard, liberally sprinkle on 'brisket rub' and rub in well. Smoke for twelve hours over indirect heat at 250 F. Slice thin and serve.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
As Trekhead might say, she could use a little seasoning. 
 

 Zep wrote: 

Are you trying to tell me that Sarah Palin is not as qualified as climate scientist to offer opinions on the subject?? Well, alright then.

 
Nuff said.
 

Random posts and cites this morning.....

From the Beeb

Developing Countries Split on CO2
A major split between developing countries emerged on the third morning of UN climate talks here. Small island states and poor African nations vulnerable to climate impacts laid out demands for a legally-binding deal tougher than the Kyoto Protocol. This was opposed by richer developing states such as China, which fear tougher action would curb their growth.

This decade 'warmest on record'
The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization. Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record. Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years. The US space agency Nasa suggests that a new global temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

Bangladesh seeks 15% of any UN climate fund
Bangladesh says it will ask for at least 15% of any money which rich countries pledge to help developing nations cope with climate change.

Copenhagen summit welcomes US emissions curbs
UN and EU officials have welcomed the US declaration that greenhouse gases are threatening to human health. An EU spokesman said the announcement showed "a degree of resolve" on the part of President Barack Obama to address climate change. The US move came as delegates from 192 countries got down to work at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

The arguments made by climate change sceptics
At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, 192 governments are aiming for a new global agreement to constrain greenhouse gas emissions and curb human-induced climate change. But some commentators are unconvinced that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of modern-day warming. Or they say the world is not actually getting warmer - or that a new treaty would hurt economic growth and well-being. So what are their arguments, and how are they countered by scientists who assert that greenhouse gases, produced by human activity, are the cause of modern-day climate change?

Financial Times

Whispers of dissent at sceptics summit
It was a ragtag group of mostly ageing male academics and politicians, no more than 100 in total, crammed into a small meeting room in central Copenhagen – a far cry from the 15,000-strong United Nations climate change summit taking place on the other side of the Danish capital. But the global warming sceptics holding their rival conference in the city insisted the momentum was shifting in their direction after the leaked “climategate” emails exposed questionable practices among some of the world’s leading climate scientists.

Micro-tax call to support poor nations
France is pressing for a modified Tobin tax – a micro-payment on financial transactions – to be included in any agreement at the Copenhagen conference as a means to help the developing world tackle climate change. Bernard Kouchner, French foreign minister, made a brief round-trip visit to New York on Monday to enlist Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general, in support of the French initiative at Copenhagen and of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s separate proposal for a new World Environment Organisation. Mr Kouchner said a “contribution” of 0.005 per cent on all financial transactions could amount to billions of dollars a year for the developing world. This would fill the gap caused by lack of donor funds to meet agreed goals to eradicate poverty in the developing world.

Hot air? Claims put to the test
Claim “Cap-and-trade schemes are a terrible idea ... A carbon tax, which is simple and honest, is a much easier task.” James Hansen, Nasa climate scientist. FT view Mr Hansen is a distinguished scientist, who has probably done more than any American apart from Al Gore to make the case for action against man-made climate change. But he is no politician and no economist. It would be politically impossible to reach a deal in Copenhagen that raised the price of carbon and financed mitigation work in the developing world solely through a carbon tax. Many economists say a market mechanism is needed to set a price for carbon while enforcing a fall in emissions.

American Society for International Law

State of Play: Changing Climate at Copenhagen (pdf)
Behind the current drama of climate change politics, international and domestic law play a key role, both facilitating and inhibiting progress on the Bali Action Plan (BAP). The BAP is the roadmap to negotiations that calls for parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, the Convention) to agree on .... (more)

 

Once upon a time, I was a climate-change skeptic. I'm not one anymore. The evidence is in the ice.
—James Balog.       Link to CNN

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I was thinking of cracking water to create a storage medium for later use.  Once produced the solar cells input is sunlight, that's free. Yes there is a large production cost, but with scale and experience we can reduce that. And the carbon emission of the running system is 0.

Again, I'm for a lot of sources. I don't think there is one solution. It's not the thermodynamics so much as the economics. We wage war to protect oil interests, we give away massive tracts of land (above and below water) to the oil companies. Why is it so unfair for us to help get the solar/wind/tidal/geothermal industries up to speed? Nothing short of ground fairy dust or cold fusion is going to instantly solve the massive problem so let's start chipping away at it. I'm ready for my bite of elephant, I wish the cooks would stop arguing about how to get it delivered to the restaurant.