Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Copenhagen: a non-negotiable deadline

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 09:23 PM
Original message
Copenhagen: a non-negotiable deadline
Barack Obama and other leaders have confirmed what has been likely for some time – that there won't be a legally binding deal coming from next month's Copenhagen climate change summit. Instead, and as many insiders have been saying for months, the talks will need to continue into 2010, with a deal hopefully thrashed out during the course of next year. More time might help politicians come up with a workable solution, but time is not on our side.

While politics is sometimes about compromise and being flexible, unfortunately it is not possible to negotiate with nature. The longer the world delays in putting in place the aggressive emissions reductions needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change, the more risk we are placing before our children and grandchildren. The science tells us that to have a reasonable chance of keeping global average temperature increase below 2C (compared with the pre-industrial average), humankind will need to begin a global cut in emissions within the next five years or so. That will require planning and clear strategies to change energy and land use patterns.

The reasons the world has thus far been unable to do this are familiar enough. Present patterns of economic growth rely on vast quantities of cheap fossil energy, and while countries are not prepared to look at different economic strategies, solving the global climate challenge is virtually impossible. In the west we have become accustomed to ever-increasing levels of material consumption – and developing countries wish to have that too. The result is massive and increasing pressure on natural resources, land and water. And then there is the matter of global inequality and how it will be possible to cut poverty while reducing emissions and to put in place strategies that will enable countries to adapt to what are now already inevitable climate change impacts. Who will pay for that, and how, remains unresolved.

These are really big issues, but leaders need to face them and others with a renewed sense of urgency. Perhaps a wartime analogy is apposite. At the start of the second world war, the US and Britain demonstrated a remarkable ability to rise to a grave challenge. Public support for action was galvanised, and new technologies were deployed on a vast scale in a short time. Both of these things happened, in part through clear and inspirational political leadership. And perhaps this is what the world needs now – some leaders who are prepared to speak of the threat as it really is, and to inspire societies to rise to it with an appropriate response. If we don't get that in 2009, we will certainly need it during 2010.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/15/copenhagen-world-leaders-climate-change
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why would any country sign a "legally binding" agreement to act in what might not be its best...
... interests? Let's say that the US could agree to something today without it being painful. Tomorrow, we find out that we need to bring five new coal plants online to gear up for an unanticipated need or to compensate for some bullshit in the ME or VZ. Why would we limit ourselves?

And what exactly are we getting in return? A contract is where I agree to do something for consideration. What is the consideration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSPS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Um, you don't "negotiate" with nature.
The effects of climate change are coming whether you "decide to negotiate" or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. But you make a "legally binding deal" with nature?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-16-09 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Humanity has always had a binding deal with nature
That binding deal being that we depend upon natural ecosystems for the means by which we survive and sustain ourselves, with the caveat that we do not push those ecosystems past their breaking point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Of Course Not
One acts for the best.

Who writes the rules? What is the best?

Does America want a replay of the Korean War? Hordes and hordes of people invading?

But then again, it may all be a liberal conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. There are sure a lot of non-beleivers out there and given the economy
people would rather have jobs that assurances about global warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-15-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. There is a lot of sketicism about global warming and whether places like China
and India are going to keep their word. The former is madness, the latter may have serious merit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-16-09 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Not really
China and India are both in the same situation we are - they face a looming calamity that must be addressed. The jobs argument you raised is also silly since the provision of our energy with renewable sources shift money from paying for fuel to hiring more people domestically (that would be for all countries) per unit of energy consumed while reducing dramatically the overall long-term costs associated with energy production.

If you investigate China particularly you'll see that they have a massive focus on the technologies that underpin dealing with climate change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-16-09 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. It's a multi-player Prisoner's Dilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Without a general (i.e. global) shift in attitude, game theory says we're hooped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC