Warsaw Climate Conference - 132 Countries Walk Out

[Keepitsimple]

It's about the money. It will always be about the money. It's been a few days but I haven't seen anything about this in the mainstream media.

Representatives of most of the world's poor countries have walked out of increasingly fractious climate negotiations after the EU, Australia the US and other developed countries insisted that the question of who should pay compensation for extreme climate events be discussed only after 2015.

Link: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/climate-talks-walk-out-compensation-un-warsaw

[DogOnPorch]

Meh...the failure of antibiotics is going to wipe us out first.

[ReeferMadness]

It's about the money. It will always be about the money. It's been a few days but I haven't seen anything about this in the mainstream media.

Link: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/climate-talks-walk-out-compensation-un-warsaw

and it's always been about the money. Most things are mostly about the money.

[waldo]

It's about the money. It will always be about the money. It's been a few days but I haven't seen anything about this in the mainstream media.

you should actually follow the COP sessions if you're going to presume to pass assessment/judgement... the adaptation & mitigation process/fund has been in formative development since as far back as COP15/2009. This was just another facet of the negotiations; in this particular case resulting in a compromise sub-agreement titled the, "Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts"... baby steps toward the 2020 timeline to establish funding commitments/mechanisms.

[bush_cheney2004]

The COP sessions were/are ultimately about the money. It is always about the money.

[-1=e^ipi]

The idea of getting all nations to agree to a climate deal, when the majority of world leaders do not understand science (or worse, believe in creation myths & religion) seems far fetched.

If the only countries were Canada, the US, EU, Japan, Korea, Australia and other developed countries an agreement could be attainable. The Europeans, for example, sincerely want to address the issue of climate change.

The problem is the other countries.

Climate alarmists have convinced poor low lying & island nations that if we don't stop emissions now, their countries will be under water in a few decades. This obviously doesn't help.

The arab league and many muslim countries believe in creation myths and religious fundamentalism, so deals based on science with these countries is unlikely. Furthermore, many oil exporting countries want compensation from other countries for reductions in CO2 emissions.

Most remaining developing countries see global warming primarily as a way to grab money from rich coutries, or for the ruling class to line their pockets.

Then you have countries like China who will try to prevent any discussion of developing countries from reducing their emissions because climate change is supposedly the 'historical fault of developed countries' so they only want developed countries to reduce emissions. But this is only a cover up. Really the chinese are more interested in maintaining the communist party in power, so they do not want any reductions in GDP growth which could threaten their hold on power.

[waldo]

If the only countries were Canada, the US, EU, Japan, Korea, Australia and other developed countries an agreement could be attainable. The Europeans, for example, sincerely want to address the issue of climate change.

The problem is the other countries.

perhaps you might offer examples of just how you interpret Canada, the Canada of Harper Conservatives, as you say, "sincerely wanting to address the issue of climate change"... waiting!

separate from any UNFCCC level agreement, unlike Canada, the U.S. has been reducing its emissions directly through national initiatives and indirectly because of its significant recent shift to gas. In any case, for the U.S., these reductions are not to the level required. At the agreement level it is difficult to envision the current divided U.S. Congress (and the denier element within the GOP/TeaParty) ever ratifying any agreement that U.S. negotiators might sign.

Most remaining developing countries see global warming primarily as a way to grab money from rich coutries, or for the ruling class to line their pockets.

among your stated personal opinions concerning the response of "poor low lying & island nations; the arab league and many muslim countries", this money grab comment of yours actually warrants a response. Clearly you're another guy who doesn't understand/follow the COP treaty process. If you did, you would realize there are stringent audit measures/mechanisms put in place to ensure against your go-to premise of, "money grabbing developing countries".

Then you have countries like China who will try to prevent any discussion of developing countries from reducing their emissions because climate change is supposedly the 'historical fault of developed countries' so they only want developed countries to reduce emissions. But this is only a cover up. Really the chinese are more interested in maintaining the communist party in power, so they do not want any reductions in GDP growth which could threaten their hold on power.

no - prior to the recent COP, China had shifted to agree to work towards binding reduction commitment targets. The outcome from the recent Warsaw COP sees China/India, in negotiation mode, looking to emphasize the historical attribution of the early/initial accumulations of atmospheric CO2. From a Chinese perspective I expect they would be looking to negotiate their binding reduction commitment level structuring some historical accumulations factor... something that might speak to, for example, distinctions outlined in this graphic:

[-1=e^ipi]

perhaps you might offer examples of just how you interpret Canada, the Canada of Harper Conservatives, as you say, "sincerely wanting to address the issue of climate change"... waiting!

Oh look, you straw man my position yet again! Read what I wrote again:

If the only countries were Canada, the US, EU, Japan, Korea, Australia and other developed countries an agreement could be attainable. The Europeans, for example, sincerely want to address the issue of climate change

I guess Canada must be part of Europe then.

prior to the recent COP, China had shifted to agree to work towards binding reduction commitment targets. The outcome from the recent Warsaw COP sees China/India, in negotiation mode, looking to emphasize the historical attribution of the early/initial accumulations of atmospheric CO2. From a Chinese perspective I expect they would be looking to negotiate their binding reduction commitment level structuring some historical accumulations factor... something that might speak to, for example, distinctions outlined in this graphic

The primary thing the Chinese government is interested in is keeping the communist party in power, so what they say they want to do and their true intentions do not exactly match.

That aside, the whole 'developed countries should reduce their emissions the most for historical reasons' is silly. For one, you cannot change the past and it is better to concentrate on the future. Secondly, I don't see any reason why people in developed countries today should be punished for things that their parents or grandparents did, especially when the parents and grandparents did not know about the environmental impacts of what they were doing. But if you do want to go with the whole 'sins of the forefathers' argument, then maybe developing countries should be paying developed countries for the technologies they benefit from that were primarily developed in developed countries.

Edited December 2, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

Oh look, you straw man my position yet again! Read what I wrote again:

I guess Canada must be part of Europe then.

no - the implication in your wording and sentence form structure is clear. I realize it's difficult for you, for anyone, to attempt to validate any examples of Harper Conservatives/Canada, "sincerely wanting to address the issue of climate change". You're just miffed cause you were called on it. I mean, c'mon, if your actual premise is that Harper Conservatives are doing diddly squat to, "address the issue of climate change", then why would you elevate them/Canada into your lil' group of eager-beavers to come up with an agreement. Apparently, you don't actually know the history of Canada's sorry "participation" within recent COP treaty conferences.

That aside, the whole 'developed countries should reduce their emissions the most for historical reasons' is silly. For one, you cannot change the past and it is better to concentrate on the future.

c'mon sciencey guy! It's all about the accumulations, right? Apparently, you favour ignoring the past accumulations of industrialized countries that kick-started the problem.

[Bonam]

c'mon sciencey guy! It's all about the accumulations, right? Apparently, you favour ignoring the past accumulations of industrialized countries that kick-started the problem.

See this is the whole problem, there is a difference between science and policy. Clearly, what matters in terms of effects on environment is how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere, that is, the "historical accumulation" that you speak of. On the other hand, what matters for going forward is how much more CO2 is added to the atmosphere.

When it comes to policy... one can seek a punitive policy, punishing advanced nations for past emissions, a large chunk of which were before global warming was even on the radar as a possible issue. But, seeking such a policy makes consensus on what to do much more difficult. Why would the world's most powerful nations agree to punish themselves? Much like the tone of your posts, such an approach creates additional conflict and hostility, reducing the chances of achieving a meaningful agreement.

In regards to compensation for damage from extreme weather effects that allegedly result from climate change... seriously, advanced nations already contribute vast amounts of aid and help when such disasters befall developing nations. They do this willingly and voluntarily, and their people often feel good about doing so. Trying to switch this to some kind of entitlement/punishment, rather than voluntary aid, will only reduce how willingly it is given and make people resentful, eventually undermining political support for such aid.

Science is one thing, policy and diplomacy another. You might be good at finding references to science papers, but you have a lot to learn about the rest of the process.

[socialist]

See this is the whole problem, there is a difference between science and policy. Clearly, what matters in terms of effects on environment is how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere, that is, the "historical accumulation" that you speak of. On the other hand, what matters for going forward is how much more CO2 is added to the atmosphere.

When it comes to policy... one can seek a punitive policy, punishing advanced nations for past emissions, a large chunk of which were before global warming was even on the radar as a possible issue. But, seeking such a policy makes consensus on what to do much more difficult. Why would the world's most powerful nations agree to punish themselves? Much like the tone of your posts, such an approach creates additional conflict and hostility, reducing the chances of achieving a meaningful agreement.

In regards to compensation for damage from extreme weather effects that allegedly result from climate change... seriously, advanced nations already contribute vast amounts of aid and help when such disasters befall developing nations. They do this willingly and voluntarily, and their people often feel good about doing so. Trying to switch this to some kind of entitlement/punishment, rather than voluntary aid, will only reduce how willingly it is given and make people resentful, eventually undermining political support for such aid.

Science is one thing, policy and diplomacy another. You might be good at finding references to science papers, but you have a lot to learn about the rest of the process.

I thought real progress was made at the Copenhagen summit 4 years ago. We Wanted A Real Deal back then. We should feel gulity for the planet we are leaving future generations.

[Guest]

I've already spoken to my children. They agree with me.

[socialist]

I've already spoken to my children. They agree with me.

Do you recycle? Do you plant trees? Do you walk and ride a bicycle often? DO you keep your AC and hydro down?

If you do these, then your kids should thank you.

[Guest]

Strangely enough, I tick all your boxes. I don't even have an AC.

I won't buy curly light bulbs, though.

[-1=e^ipi]

I won't buy curly light bulbs, though.

To be honest though, incandescent bulbs are less efficient because they give off heat. In the winter, when you heat your home, this reduces your heating bill. Florescent light bulbs also contain mercury vapour, so you need to be careful of how you dispose of them.

[waldo]

See this is the whole problem, there is a difference between science and policy. Clearly, what matters in terms of effects on environment is how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere, that is, the "historical accumulation" that you speak of. On the other hand, what matters for going forward is how much more CO2 is added to the atmosphere.

When it comes to policy... one can seek a punitive policy, punishing advanced nations for past emissions, a large chunk of which were before global warming was even on the radar as a possible issue. But, seeking such a policy makes consensus on what to do much more difficult. Why would the world's most powerful nations agree to punish themselves?

given the CO2 residence time, much/most of that historical accumulation still resides in the atmosphere. If you look at the atmospheric accumulation 'bucket' (past and projections), one could turn your "punitive/punishing" emphasis around and suggest policy that ignores past accumulations is favouring those long established industrialized nations that have contributed most to the current 'bucket' level. Interesting that your wording equates high emitting developed nations to powerful nations... in any case, following your lead/words, "Why would the world's most powerful nations agree to punish developing nations for their lower historical emission accumulations?"

In regards to compensation for damage from extreme weather effects that allegedly result from climate change... seriously, advanced nations already contribute vast amounts of aid and help when such disasters befall developing nations. They do this willingly and voluntarily, and their people often feel good about doing so. Trying to switch this to some kind of entitlement/punishment, rather than voluntary aid, will only reduce how willingly it is given and make people resentful, eventually undermining political support for such aid.

again, with your "entitlement/punishment" theme! Your wording is a bit convoluted as it's unclear when you're speaking directly to government level provided aid and when you're speaking to "individual people level provided aid". In any case, the previously described Warsaw mechanism repeatedly speaks to, "addressing loss and damage associated with impacts of climate change, including extreme events and slow onset events, in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change". An agreement that structures per nation contribution requirements, doesn't preclude any nation from assigning their willing/voluntary contributions back into meeting a formal contribution requirement... perhaps the final agreement structure/mechanisms will formally accommodate your very concern.

Science is one thing, policy and diplomacy another. You might be good at finding references to science papers, but you have a lot to learn about the rest of the process.

notwithstanding the veracity of your expressed opinion, the lack of diplomacy within your wording is noted!

[Keepitsimple]

See this is the whole problem, there is a difference between science and policy. Clearly, what matters in terms of effects on environment is how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere, that is, the "historical accumulation" that you speak of. On the other hand, what matters for going forward is how much more CO2 is added to the atmosphere.

When it comes to policy... one can seek a punitive policy, punishing advanced nations for past emissions, a large chunk of which were before global warming was even on the radar as a possible issue. But, seeking such a policy makes consensus on what to do much more difficult. Why would the world's most powerful nations agree to punish themselves? Much like the tone of your posts, such an approach creates additional conflict and hostility, reducing the chances of achieving a meaningful agreement.

In regards to compensation for damage from extreme weather effects that allegedly result from climate change... seriously, advanced nations already contribute vast amounts of aid and help when such disasters befall developing nations. They do this willingly and voluntarily, and their people often feel good about doing so. Trying to switch this to some kind of entitlement/punishment, rather than voluntary aid, will only reduce how willingly it is given and make people resentful, eventually undermining political support for such aid.

Science is one thing, policy and diplomacy another. You might be good at finding references to science papers, but you have a lot to learn about the rest of the process.

Both good points - at the human level, no one wants to be punished for being successful - regardless of the spin that might be put on "successful"......and if so-called Climate Change Disasters end up being subsidized by rich countries - on top of foreign aid......you can certainly bet that charitable donations to relief funds will dry up.

As I said at the outset - it's about the money...it's always been about the money....and it always will be about the money. Meanwhile, gee, it got cold pretty early this year.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[GostHacked]

To be honest though, incandescent bulbs are less efficient because they give off heat. In the winter, when you heat your home, this reduces your heating bill. Florescent light bulbs also contain mercury vapour, so you need to be careful of how you dispose of them.

Sorry for laughing, but you are still wasting electricity to light the bulb for 'heat'. We have developed these things called furnaces that has the ability to heat a home.

But I don't like the new bulbs as they do contain toxic materials. Who would think that tossing out a light bulb would be considered hazardous waste.

[Wilber]

I use CFL's in some places but have switched to LED's in many others. More expensive but they work just like an incandescent. Instant warm up and dimmable.

Incandescent bulbs are around 90% efficient when it comes to heating but suck when it comes to producing light, so it would depend on what you use for home heating as to whether they make sense from that standpoint.

You don't toss out any kind of florescent bub, Stores like Home Depot have drop offs for them so they can be properly disposed of.

[waldo]

no - prior to the recent COP, China had shifted to agree to work towards binding reduction commitment targets. The outcome from the recent Warsaw COP sees China/India, in negotiation mode, looking to emphasize the historical attribution of the early/initial accumulations of atmospheric CO2. From a Chinese perspective I expect they would be looking to negotiate their binding reduction commitment level structuring some historical accumulations factor... something that might speak to, for example, distinctions outlined in this graphic:

given the CO2 residence time, much/most of that historical accumulation still resides in the atmosphere. If you look at the atmospheric accumulation 'bucket' (past and projections), one could turn your "punitive/punishing" emphasis around and suggest policy that ignores past accumulations is favouring those long established industrialized nations that have contributed most to the current 'bucket' level. Interesting that your wording equates high emitting developed nations to powerful nations... in any case, following your lead/words, "Why would the world's most powerful nations agree to punish developing nations for their lower historical emission accumulations?"

speaking of that fossil-fuel sourced, historical (1751-2012) CO2 atmospheric emissions "accumulations bucket"... percentage assignment of emissions contribution by a country/grouping of "high(er) emitters":

.

[TimG]

Developed nations should only pay for 'historical emissions' after developing nations pay for all of the intellectual property created by developed nations over the centuries that they now freely use.

After all the "historical emissions" were required to produce this IP so it would be grossly unfair for developing nations to benefit from this IP if they expect compensation for "historical emissions".

Edited December 4, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

Developed nations should only pay for 'historical emissions' after developing nations pay for all of the intellectual property created by developed nations over the centuries that they now freely use.

After all the "historical emissions" were required to produce this IP so it would be grossly unfair for developing nations to benefit from this IP if they expect compensation for "historical emissions".

pay for all... ALL... the intellectual property? Not just for technologies that would assist developing countries in adapting to and/or attempting to avert the effects of climate change? Not just that... but ALL technologies... over the centuries? That's mighty big of you!

Edited December 4, 2013 by waldo

[Bonam]

Paying for historical emissions is a complete non-starter in any of these discussions. It's a game of recriminations and money, and has nothing to do with actually curbing future emissions. Regardless of how much money someone pays for past historical emissions, the resultant CO2 is still in the air. The money would be better spent on figuring ways to reduce future emissions or adapt to the results of climate change, or even on other unrelated initiatives, rather than being paid as compensation.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Bonam

[Wilber]

Paying for historical emissions is a complete non-starter in any of these discussions. It's a game of recriminations and money, and has nothing to do with actually curbing future emissions. Regardless of how much money someone pays for past historical emissions, the resultant CO2 is still in the air. The money would be better spent on figuring ways to reduce future emissions or adapt to the results of climate change, or even on other unrelated initiatives, rather than being paid as compensation.

Completely agree.

[TimG]

The money would be better spent on figuring ways to reduce future emissions or adapt to the results of climate change, or even on other unrelated initiatives, rather than being paid as compensation.

That is why I think that the people at these climate conferences don't really believe (at least sub-consciously) that CO2 is a serious problem and they only see the fear of as it a means to implement their pet wealth redistribution policies.

The only alarmists that have any sincerity are those which support nuclear power.

Edited December 4, 2013 by TimG