China wrecked the Copenhagen deal

[classicman]

I think its premature to judge whether Copenhagen was positive or negative. However others who were there and in differing capacities some leaders others not felt that it was a failure.
Fact - 160 nations merely "took note" of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty. Most of them because they felt the political need to do so. They couldn't come out of there with nothing. They needed a showpiece, something no matter how meaningless to say " Look what we did". In reality, it is worth little more than the paper they wasted to place their signatures upon. Most of the countries didn't sign because they realized it was too weak and little more than a political declaration meant to conceal the failure of the conference.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Thursday that he is dissatisfied with the results of the recent climate change conference in Copenhagen. "It was a lot of hot air. Unfortunately, no agreement was reached," The fact is that it did fail, and miserably.

Only several countries (30 out of 190) signed the agreement. Most analysts outside the US say the Copenhagen talks have failed.

Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, "But of course, this was mainly about other countries being unwilling, especially the United States and China."

Many countries feel that it did not go far enough and it contained no mechanisms to make it binding.
Also, developing nations have plenty of experience in unfulfilled promises and funding commitments. Many of these have openly rejected the treaty and fired angry accusations at the major industrialized powers, which would be primarily responsible for what some have described as a horrific form of genocide.

The Swedish EU presidency, which is in its final days, has blasted the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, as a "disaster."
No treaty materialized at Copenhagen, where some leaders managed to only "take note" of an accord that communicates the desire to limit the temperature increase to 3.6 degrees F but spells out no concrete targets

The biggest step Copenhagen could have taken to stimulate the green economy would have been to send a strong signal that the price of carbon dioxide pollution will rise.
But the deal that emerged in the early hours of Saturday included no national carbon dioxide caps. It laid down an ambition to keep global temperature rise to within 2C - and even then they won't be legally binding.
"Copenhagen was a big setback for investors who wanted clear and credible policy signals," says Nick Robins from HSBC.

It was denounced as an 'abject failure' by some, while Kumi Naidoo, the new head of Greenpeace International, declared that, except for the science, 'everything else is a fraud'. Indeed, the draft deal, is no way close to what is necessary to save the planet from the onslaughts of climate change in the not-so-distant future.

Bill McKibben, the environmental writer who organized the largest worldwide climate demonstration in history last fall, assessed COP15 this way: It was a train wreck, but a fascinating one, revealing an enormous amount about the structure of the globe."
Obama offered no bold new ideas, no surprises that might have changed the outcome of the conference. For many, the postmortem will conclude that the president has not yet lived up to his earlier promises that the United States will lead the world on climate action, and he undermined the international respect for America he so carefully rebuilt during his first year in office.

These are just a few of the opinions of people who were there and who are far more knowledgeable than us.
The more I read about the world view outside of the US, the more I see that this was nothing short of a failure.

Originally Posted by classicman

I think its premature to judge whether Copenhagen was positive or negative. However others who were there and in differing capacities some leaders others not felt that it was a failure.
Fact - 160 nations merely "took note" of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty. Most of them because they felt the political need to do so. They couldn't come out of there with nothing. They needed a showpiece, something no matter how meaningless to say " Look what we did". In reality, it is worth little more than the paper they wasted to place their signatures upon. Most of the countries didn't sign because they realized it was too weak and little more than a political declaration meant to conceal the failure of the conference.


Only several countries (30 out of 190) signed the agreement. Most analysts outside the US say the Copenhagen talks have failed.


These are just a few of the opinions of people who were there and who are far more knowledgeable than us.
The more I read about the world view outside of the US, the more I see that this was nothing short of a failure.

What happpend to:

I always provide the link to the entire article for those who wish to read it..

Where's the link?

SO most countries didnt like or sign the final accord, which btw, was not a treaty, but a framework for the developed countries....and the hard core singled-minded environmentalists didnt like it.

The fact is that the countries that matter...the ones that will be most accountable...did sign the accord. I dont particular care, nor does it matter, if Mauritius or Granada or even Sweden and dozens of other countries didnt sign it.

And IMO, your characterization of Obama "acting as though he could walk in and schmooze and all will be well" was Limbaughish and partisan.

But you're not partisan. You just knew what Obama was thinking and how he intended to act going into the conference.

added:
From your first line "I think its premature to judge whether Copenhagen was positive or negative..."
To your last line "......the more I see that this was nothing short of a failure."

Now that is Classic!

[classicman]

Long reply lost - I'll try again...

Originally Posted by Redux

What happpend to:

I always provide the link to the entire article for those who wish to read it..

Where's the link?

I guess you're right - I looked at a few opinions that were readily available differently than articles or op-ed pieces. If you really want I'll try to find them all for you.

SO most countries didnt like or sign the final accord, which btw, was not a treaty, but a framework for the developed countries....and the hard core singled-minded environmentalists didnt like it.

Is that how it was sold by this admin prior to the summit?

I dont particular care, nor does it matter, if Mauritius or Granada or even Sweden and dozens of other countries didnt sign it.

So you are being selective in which countries matter and which don't. Tell me how do you determine which are on your list and which aren't?

And IMO, your characterization of Obama "acting as though he could walk in and schmooze and all will be well" was Limbaughish and partisan.

Thats the stock response to anything that disagrees with your opinion. I'll say this though, I guarantee that you listen to Limbaugh more than I.

But you're not partisan.

I agree

added:
From your first line "I think its premature to judge whether Copenhagen was positive or negative..."
To your last line "......the more I see that this was nothing short of a failure."

I started a post and then did some more reading/research - intentionally getting away from the inherently biased media here and looked for the opinions of those who were involved.

I'm not sure what your problem is. All the name calling and personal attacks? Our opinions differ. So what? I have not called you names or any of the other childish attacks as you have. I'm certainly not going to convince you of anything, and apparently the inverse is also true. Agreeing to disagree might be a better, more civil way to go.

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm not sure what your problem is...

I dont have a problem. I've never denied that I come at most issues from a partisan perspective.

And I also cite non-partisan documents as opposed to partisan opinion columns.

You, sir, are the one with the problem, or in denial, if you believe that all of your Democratic/Obama bashing is non-partisan.

Or in other words, you, sir, are full of shit!

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Where's the link?

I'll just go with this link.

Additionally, here is the agenda prior to the conference...

The UN climate change conference in Copenhagen has one critical goal: a global treaty to help cut carbon emissions to levels that will prevent dangerous rises in global temperatures and catastrophic climate change.

FAIL - FACT: Only 30 out of 190 countries signed and some critical players refused.

That deal must set goals for cutting global CO2 emissions: some say a 50 percent reduction by 2050 is enough to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, others argue 80 percent is necessary.

FAIL

Politicians must also decide from when emissions cuts will be measured: will it be 1990 as under the Kyoto Protocol, or later? The “baseline year” will impact massively on the cuts individual countries have to make.

FAIL
Link
Despite widely held expectations that the Copenhagen summit would produce a legally binding treaty, the conference was plagued by negotiating deadlock and the "Copenhagen Accord" is not legally enforceable.

George Monbiot blamed the failure of the conference to achieve a binding deal on the United States Senate and Barack Obama. By negotiating the Copenhagen Accord with only a select group of nations most of the UN member states were excluded. If poorer nations did not sign the Accord then they would be unable to access funds from richer nations to help them adapt to climate change. He noted how the British and American governments have both blamed China for the failure of the talks but said that Obama placed China in "an impossible position" - "He demanded concessions while offering nothing."

(Use same link as above.)
Yet another non-partisan perspective from someone who was there and its a safe bet, is infinitely more knowledgeable on the topic than any poster here.

Originally Posted by classicman

I'll just go with this link.

Additionally, here is the agenda prior to the conference...

FAIL - FACT: Only 30 out of 190 countries signed and some critical players refused.

FAIL

FAIL
Link
Despite widely held expectations that the Copenhagen summit would produce a legally binding treaty, the conference was plagued by negotiating deadlock and the "Copenhagen Accord" is not legally enforceable.

(Use same link as above.)
Yet another non-partisan perspective from someone who was there and its a safe bet, is infinitely more knowledgeable on the topic than any poster here.

Thanks for the grades, Prof. Classic.

You get an A in cutting and pasting.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Thanks for the grades, Prof. Classic.
You get an A in cutting and pasting.

Wait what? YOU asked for the links - I provided one all inclusive and you're still being condescending?
Yeh and I'm the one in denial



Oh, and Fuck you Merc.

[TheMercenary]

China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

China wants the world to change at it's expense. Which is why the fantasy of 'cap & trade' is a total farce.

[TheMercenary]

Well one thing is for sure, who ever dreamed up Cap & Trade was full of it.

And the Chinese didn't think much of Obama's plan or the Copenhagen pan handling.

Imagine that.

[classicman]

Thank you again for admitting your partisan stance and a few more derogatory attacks.

[TheMercenary]

Yea but can he do Power Point!?!

[spudcon]

You guys should stop arguing and be glad China scuttled Copenhagen. I'm going to Walmart to buy some worthless Chinese junk with my worthless American dollars.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Traitor.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by spudcon

You guys should stop arguing and be glad China scuttled Copenhagen. I'm going to Walmart to buy some worthless Chinese junk with my worthless American dollars.

[aliasyzy]

I feel interesting that an American has the audacity to blame China for Copenhagen.

It's a common sense in the world that US is the first to blame for the global warming, and it's still US who jeopardized the Kyoto Protocol. If not for the interference of US, the earth will never be the way it is now in terms of global warming.



the data of these two charts are from World Resources Institute
now is 2010, but it won't change a lot on the shape of these two charts.



Do US people have the right to emit more CO2 than other people in the world? (five times CO2 emission per person compared to China! )

It's true that China emits more and more CO2 and it's becoming the biggest emission source, but it's simply because China produce a lot of goods for the world. And if it's not China, there will be other contries to do the same as long as there are demands.
China emits CO2 since it's the factory for the developed countries. It earns a little money and takes the price of worsening environment. (lower part of the value chain) . Intriguingly, US, who earns the big money and don't have to be the big factory, emits as much CO2 as China. Why? What for? Maybe you guys could tell me.

Let's see what's said in copenhagen by US chief negotiator Stern.

“We absolutely recognize our historic role in putting emissions in the atmosphere up there that are there now,” Mr. Stern said sternly, “but the sense of guilt or culpability or reparations, I just categorically reject that.”

“We are certainly not going to become part of the Kyoto Protocol, so that’s not on the table,” Mr. Stern said at his news conference on Wednesday. “If you mean basically taking the Kyoto Protocol and putting a new title on it, we’re not going to do that either.”

Who wrecked the Copenhagen deal? Use your brain instead of swallow those propaganda and prejudices!