Good Riddance to Copenhagen

[Bugs]

Sharon Begley

Good Riddance to Copenhagen

Can we now try climate talks that actually have a chance of working?

Dec 18, 2009

"That sound you'll hear in 2010 is a can being kicked down the road. Again. In the wake of the failure of the international negotiations in Copenhagen to reach a legally binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, you'll hear a lot of talk about how the world has two good chances in the new year to achieve what it failed to do at Copenhagen. Don't believe it." .... http://www.newsweek.com/id/227515

The supporters are obviously looking for a silver lining. In my view, there's every reason to clean up our worst blights, which have gotten a decade long reprieve because 'global warming' sucked all the oxygen out of the room, and other issues of conservation suffered in neglect. If we are wise, we will start doing something about our biggest blights, often coal-fired electricity plants which are publicly owned and regulated.

There are 'issues of the commons' to discuss with international players, besides the air. The oceans, certainly. So there is reason for international cooperation.

But creating cash flows to foreign countries to atone for 'climate debt', something given a monetary value purely on the basis of social policy ... that's the kind of thing that happens when countries have been conquored by a tyrant.

[Moonbox]

Good riddance to Copenhagen indeed. It was obvious from the beginning that nothing was going to happen. Half the countries that DID say they'd agree to a legally binding treaty did so knowing that the US and many others wouldn't sign it.

It was an absolute joke of a treaty proposal.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Moonbox

[wyly]

Good riddance to Copenhagen indeed. It was obvious from the beginning that nothing was going to happen. Half the countries that DID say they'd agree to a legally binding treaty did so knowing that the US and many others wouldn't sign it.

It was an absolute joke of a treaty proposal.

it only delays the inevitable, not a single government disputes AGW or CC, they all know there must be a change and an agreement reached...

[bush_cheney2004]

it only delays the inevitable, not a single government disputes AGW or CC, they all know there must be a change and an agreement reached...

Not a good month for your team.....best to re-group and tighten up on the CC conspiracy.

[Riverwind]

it only delays the inevitable, not a single government disputes AGW or CC, they all know there must be a change and an agreement reached.

Actually, I see no evidence that governments outside of the EU think it is anything more than a scam. Sure China and India say the right words but their actions make it clear: they do not think it is real crisis.

[William Ashley]

Sharon Begley

Good Riddance to Copenhagen

Can we now try climate talks that actually have a chance of working?

Dec 18, 2009

"That sound you'll hear in 2010 is a can being kicked down the road. Again. In the wake of the failure of the international negotiations in Copenhagen to reach a legally binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, you'll hear a lot of talk about how the world has two good chances in the new year to achieve what it failed to do at Copenhagen. Don't believe it." .... http://www.newsweek.com/id/227515

The supporters are obviously looking for a silver lining. In my view, there's every reason to clean up our worst blights, which have gotten a decade long reprieve because 'global warming' sucked all the oxygen out of the room, and other issues of conservation suffered in neglect. If we are wise, we will start doing something about our biggest blights, often coal-fired electricity plants which are publicly owned and regulated.

There are 'issues of the commons' to discuss with international players, besides the air. The oceans, certainly. So there is reason for international cooperation.

But creating cash flows to foreign countries to atone for 'climate debt', something given a monetary value purely on the basis of social policy ... that's the kind of thing that happens when countries have been conquored by a tyrant.

I think the positive outcome was not the world leaders or potential agreements or harm reduction posibilities to the third world, but the real positive outcome was that awareness was raised, in the media, in the worlds leadership, and the proactive force of protests and organization, fresh blood and the like was enacted and spread.

Of course sadly some people may go to jail, some of the most fanatical environmentalists. None the less the nay saying of the reality of global warming is increasingly being left to the insane and creationists.

The fact this summit expired is the real problem, it should be kept going actively with representatives to day and night work on the worlds greatest issue since the atom bomb.

[Moonbox]

The fact this summit expired is the real problem, it should be kept going actively with representatives to day and night work on the worlds greatest issue since the atom bomb.

I'm sorry...I have to ....

There will NEVER be a climate change agreement until ALL the important industrialized nations of the world agree to be bound by the same terms.

The Copenhagen Treaty was ludicrous. It was about as palatable as what I left in the toilet this morning. The whole thing was a farce.

I'm not against a climate treaty but if they're going to do it then China, Pakistan, India and the rest of the develloping world has to also agree to be bound to it otherwise it's pointless. Without that all you'll see is more jobs leaving North America, going to Asia and NO net reductions in carbon would be realized.

The important leaders of the world (Obama included) have no intention in signing lopsided idiocy like what was tabled at Copenhagen and EVERYONE with even a PINCH of brains knew. The EU knew it, which gave them a free ticket to act like they cared and so they could agree to sign a treaty that would never actually be ratified.

This is all smoke and mirrors and I'm suprised by how many people are falling for it.

[Keepitsimple]

Actually, I see no evidence that governments outside of the EU think it is anything more than a scam. Sure China and India say the right words but their actions make it clear: they do not think it is real crisis.

It's not surprising that the EU is clinging to something like Copenhagen. They bought in early to the AGW hype and implemented the fiasco called Cap and Trade. The political leaders, probably knowing that the gig is up, nonetheless have to slowly desensitize the issue. So in that respect, Copenhagen provides them some cover. It will likely take leadership changes to finally start to drive a stake through the heart of AGW alarmism.....new leaders who will run AGAINST Cap and Trade, bring things back to "normal" and bring environmentalism back into proper focus - a pragmatic approach to clean water, clean air, research in renewable energy, and nature conservancy.

[William Ashley]

Hmm, well I don't think it is that simple. The issue is that those countries, and they arn't more or less important than other parts of the world, are the problem, and they would rather destroy the world, than generate less wealth. Fact is they are insane, selfish bastards, and they could care less about it and would rather live in ingorance and self gratification than think about how their actions effect other people.

Edited December 24, 2009 by William Ashley

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Another monumental waste of money. Real money at that, is as in tax dollars, spent around the world to wine and dine the leaders and their attending staff. This was a long way from a successful effort at international cooperation. It was a meeting of cowards and fools, predators and victims.

[Michael Hardner]

Keep It Simple:

It's not surprising that the EU is clinging to something like Copenhagen. They bought in early to the AGW hype and implemented the fiasco called Cap and Trade. The political leaders, probably knowing that the gig is up, nonetheless have to slowly desensitize the issue. So in that respect, Copenhagen provides them some cover. It will likely take leadership changes to finally start to drive a stake through the heart of AGW alarmism.....new leaders who will run AGAINST Cap and Trade, bring things back to "normal" and bring environmentalism back into proper focus - a pragmatic approach to clean water, clean air, research in renewable energy, and nature conservancy.

And if it's not 'cap and trade', then what will it be ? The answer is: mandatory emission limits that will offer less choices to business.

[edited to add reference to the post I'm commenting on]

Edited December 26, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[Riverwind]

And if it's not 'cap and trade', then what will it be ? The answer is: mandatory emission limits that will offer less choices to business.

The government does not have a magic wand that it can use to create economic, emission free technology simply because it wants them. For that reason any policy that imposes emission limits will fail unless the cost and technology required to meet those limits is well understood in advance. If that means we can't possible meet arbitrary time limits set by scientist/activists then so be it. We don't have a choice. Edited December 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

The government does not have a magic wand that it can use to create economic, emission free technology simply because it wants them. For that reason any policy that imposes emission limits will fail unless the cost and technology required to meet those limits is well understood in advance. If that means we can't possible meet arbitrary time limits set by scientist/activists then so be it. We don't have a choice.

That's a different question.

I'm always wondering about those who specifically come out against 'cap and trade'. It seems to me that to say so, is to ask for mandatory limits instead. If one was against all environmental legislation then why wouldn't they just say so, rather than singling out 'cap and trade'.

[Riverwind]

I'm always wondering about those who specifically come out against 'cap and trade'.

Cap and trade is what is on the table in legislatures so that is what people talk about. The only place where arbitrary emission limits without trading come up is with the EPA in the US and every agrees it is the dumbest way to do it but the democrats see threatening to shoot themselves in the foot as negotiating strategy. Edited December 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's a different question.

I'm always wondering about those who specifically come out against 'cap and trade'. It seems to me that to say so, is to ask for mandatory limits instead. If one was against all environmental legislation then why wouldn't they just say so, rather than singling out 'cap and trade'.

Cap and trade is a fool's ploy that will result in a net transfer of wealth out of the country. Any sane environmentalist would be seeking to deal with their own little corner of the world first. To do that means serious emissions controls and immense fines. That would hurt business to be sure, in the short term anyway. In the long term it would force business to go "green" for productive efforts here in Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

Cap and trade is what is on the table in legislatures so that is what people talk about. The only place where arbitrary emission limits without trading come up is with the EPA in the US and every agrees it is the dumbest way to do it but the democrats see threatening to shoot themselves in the foot as negotiating strategy.

Ok, so I guess you're saying these posters aren't really against 'cap and trade' then... but the whole enchilada. I thought so.

[Michael Hardner]

Cap and trade is a fool's ploy that will result in a net transfer of wealth out of the country. Any sane environmentalist would be seeking to deal with their own little corner of the world first. To do that means serious emissions controls and immense fines. That would hurt business to be sure, in the short term anyway. In the long term it would force business to go "green" for productive efforts here in Canada.

Ok, well I can tell from your post that you favour hard caps instead of cap and trade. I just question why some posters who appear to be against environmentalism across the board specifically attack 'cap and trade' as though it's less favourable to business than hard caps.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ok, well I can tell from your post that you favour hard caps instead of cap and trade. I just question why some posters who appear to be against environmentalism across the board specifically attack 'cap and trade' as though it's less favourable to business than hard caps.

Because they are fools.

[Michael Hardner]

Because they are fools.

Sometimes the obvious answer isn't the correct one, so you should always ask.

[Riverwind]

Ok, so I guess you're saying these posters aren't really against 'cap and trade' then... but the whole enchilada. I thought so.

Ah no. You don't know what people think of different policies unless they specifically talk about it. Speculating in the way you do is simply an ad hominum attack.

For myself, I would support any emission reduction plan that 1) was likely to achieve the stated goal and 2) is economically and technologically achievable. Unfortunately, no one has proposed a plan that meets those requirements.

[Michael Hardner]

Ah no. You don't know what people think of different policies unless they specifically talk about it. Speculating in the way you do is simply an ad hominum attack.

For myself, I would support any emission reduction plan that 1) was likely to achieve the stated goal and 2) is economically and technologically achievable. Unfortunately, no one has proposed a plan that meets those requirements.

Great, except I wasn't interested in your views on cap and trade, I was specifically commenting and asking about posters like KeepItSimple who has specifically spoken against cap and trade on this thread. So, I don't want to speculate on their rationale, but I want to understand it - if they have one.

[Bugs]

That's a different question.

I'm always wondering about those who specifically come out against 'cap and trade'. It seems to me that to say so, is to ask for mandatory limits instead. If one was against all environmental legislation then why wouldn't they just say so, rather than singling out 'cap and trade'.

This is a false alternative based on the notion that global warming, as outlined by Al Gore, and his backup at the CRU of East Anglia University, is an actual threat. What if the greater threat is that to our national treasuries, coming from International Treaties that essentially put us under the supervision of the UN?

Mr. Harder, with all respect, I think your focus is on the debate rather than the actions. This 'global warming' fiasco has virtually taken the role of public opinion out of the picture, so far as every environmental issue is concerned.

The air in my city is variously estimated to kill between 1600 and 4000 a year! On a bright, clear day, you can hold your hand out, and the shadow, three or four feet below, is fuzzy -- that's how much junk there is in the air. Thousands of vehicles spew out a mix of far more noxious stuff that CO2, never mind all the other pollutants. The response: They persecute cigarette smokers! Believe me, the ambient air in Toronto is as bad as any Bingo Hall for pollution.

"What can we do?" you might ask. "Sorry, we can't look at that, we're too involved in fighting global warming ..." sez the biggest liar in Canadian politics, Dalton McGuinty. "We've made curly light-bulbs compulsory."

Just down the road maybe 100 km is Nanicoke, the biggest environmental blight in the country. It belches out bewildering amounts of CO2, but it also belches out all kind of other stuff as well. Dalton's been promising to close the place since before he got elected.

My reading of the situation? I think environmentalism has zero credibility. They are the last people who should be setting environmental priorities. The government is useless. The biggest blights in the country are publicly owned or regulated monopolies. The plain truth of socialist solutions is that the state cannot regulate itself effectively. They'll clean up the mess in Sudbury because that's private, but they avert their eyes when it comes to taking on Ontario Hydro. It's just the way it is.

[Michael Hardner]

This is a false alternative based on the notion that global warming, as outlined by Al Gore, and his backup at the CRU of East Anglia University, is an actual threat. What if the greater threat is that to our national treasuries, coming from International Treaties that essentially put us under the supervision of the UN?

Then why single out one of the alternatives ?

Mr. Harder, with all respect, I think your focus is on the debate rather than the actions. This 'global warming' fiasco has virtually taken the role of public opinion out of the picture, so far as every environmental issue is concerned.

The debate is more important than the underlying issue at this time because we can't even agree on a process to resolve our collective unanswered questions.

Even your terminology in that last excerpt shows that we're hopelessly mired in debate about debate. For example, you refer to this global warming fiasco, but are you referring to warming, the debate, both or maybe neither ?

My reading of the situation? I think environmentalism has zero credibility. They are the last people who should be setting environmental priorities. The government is useless. The biggest blights in the country are publicly owned or regulated monopolies. The plain truth of socialist solutions is that the state cannot regulate itself effectively. They'll clean up the mess in Sudbury because that's private, but they avert their eyes when it comes to taking on Ontario Hydro. It's just the way it is.

Ok, well, do you have anything to offer ? If not, then back to the debate about the debate, hm ?

Edited December 26, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[Keepitsimple]

Great, except I wasn't interested in your views on cap and trade, I was specifically commenting and asking about posters like KeepItSimple who has specifically spoken against cap and trade on this thread. So, I don't want to speculate on their rationale, but I want to understand it - if they have one.

Firstoff, I am in the skeptic camp in that I believe that humans can exacerbate climate change but not to the degree that the alarmists would have us believe.....I'm of the opinion that 4 or 5 years more of objective and open scientific debate, free of the IPCC bias, would provide a platform for policy - if one is actually required. If we get to that point - and one way or the other, it looks like we will, I'd be more open to hard caps with incremental penalties. Cap and Trade just leaves itself open to greed and abuse - as clearly has happened in Europe where it's a complete fiasco. Leave the Banks and trading firms out of it. Don't let a rich company simply buy a credit from somebody else and keep emitting. As industry in Canada has said - just tell us the rules and give us a chance to plan for it.

The "greed" factor is raising its head in Canada already. Quebec and BC don't want to "shoulder" and more of the emission cuts than any other province. Why? Because Cap and Trade will have their companies sitting with a whole bunch of credits because they run their businesses mostly with Hydro......and they can sell them to dirty provinces. So not only do they benefit from Alberta and Saskatchewan's largesse in Federal transfers....but they take more money because why? Because of geography......but boys, we'll all in Canada - one country - we row the boat together.

[Michael Hardner]

Firstoff, I am in the skeptic camp in that I believe that humans can exacerbate climate change but not to the degree that the alarmists would have us believe.....I'm of the opinion that 4 or 5 years more of objective and open scientific debate, free of the IPCC bias, would provide a platform for policy - if one is actually required. If we get to that point - and one way or the other, it looks like we will, I'd be more open to hard caps with incremental penalties. Cap and Trade just leaves itself open to greed and abuse - as clearly has happened in Europe where it's a complete fiasco. Leave the Banks and trading firms out of it. Don't let a rich company simply buy a credit from somebody else and keep emitting. As industry in Canada has said - just tell us the rules and give us a chance to plan for it.

"Objective and open scientific debate" happens in the papers, and you have something like 3 or 4 scientists who quibble on certain aspects of AGW but none that reject the theory outright.

Thanks for clarifying your position on cap and trade, though. What you said here does make sense to me now. You believe in addressing the problem IF it's a problem. I like the intelligence of a cap and trade system, however I want the US to administer it, period.

The "greed" factor is raising its head in Canada already. Quebec and BC don't want to "shoulder" and more of the emission cuts than any other province. Why? Because Cap and Trade will have their companies sitting with a whole bunch of credits because they run their businesses mostly with Hydro......and they can sell them to dirty provinces. So not only do they benefit from Alberta and Saskatchewan's largesse in Federal transfers....but they take more money because why? Because of geography......but boys, we'll all in Canada - one country - we row the boat together.

We don't row the boat together, as much as we'd like to, or there wouldn't be a giant regional party from Quebec holding the balance of power from time to time. And if we can't row together, then how can the UN be expected to, obviously...