News & Politics - COP 15 has started

strawberrypie · 12-07-2009, 10:35 AM

I hope it's okay that I started this thread.

Quote:

192 nations at UN climate conference in Copenhagen

The largest and most important UN climate change conference in history opened Monday, with diplomats from 192 nations warned that this could be the best, last chance for a deal to protect the world from calamitous global warming.
AP/Nanet Poulsen 07/12/2009 12:05

The conference, the climax of two years of contentious negotiations, convened in an upbeat mood after a series of promises by rich and emerging economies to curb their greenhouse gases, but with major issues yet to be resolved.

Conference president Connie Hedegaard said the key to an agreement is finding a way to raise and channel public and private financing to poor countries for years to come to help them fight the effects of climate change.

Hedegaard — Denmark's former climate minister — said if governments miss their chance at the Copenhagen summit, a better opportunity may never come.

"This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we got a new and better one. If ever," she said in prepared remarks.

Denmark's prime minister said 110 heads of state and government will attend the final days of the two-week conference. President Barack Obama's decision to attend the end of the conference, not the middle, was taken as a signal that an agreement was getting closer.

At stake is a deal that aims to wean the world away from fossil fuels and other pollutants to greener sources of energy, and to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars from rich to poor countries every year over decades to help them adapt to climate change.

Scientists say without such an agreement, the Earth will face the consequences of ever-rising temperatures, leading to the extinction of plant and animal species, the flooding of coastal cities — about half of humanity lives with 100 miles (160 kilometers) of a coastline — more extreme weather events, drought and the spread of diseases.

Negotiations have dragged on for two years, only recently showing signs of breakthroughs with new commitments from The United States, China and India to control greenhouse gas emissions.

The first week of the conference will be focused on refining a complex text of a draft treaty. But major decisions will await the arrival next week of environment ministers and the heads of state in the final days of the conference, which is due to end Dec. 18.

Source

In case someone doesn't know it, COP15 is the United Nations Climate Change Conference that will last until December 18th. Over 190 world leaders are attending. Even though it's not likely that an "ideal" deal will be made, it's a highly important opportunity to make progress on the subject, especially in political and legal terms. You can read more about it and keep updated here. That website also has a live and on-demand webcast of all official meetings and press conferences. You can also follow them on twitter here.

**sunnykerr** · 12-07-2009, 08:46 PM

Yup, over 190 world leaders are attending. And, last I checked, Stephen Harper wasn't one of them. I am awash in shame.

strawberrypie · 12-08-2009, 04:03 PM

Media coverage here has been so scarce that I can't even tell if our president is going. Probably not.

Quote:

“Danish text” raises furore
Morten Andersen
08/12/2009 21:25

According to The Guardian, developing countries “react furiously” after a draft text allegedly written by the UN conference’s host country was leaked Tuesday.

For more than a week a rumour has circulated that Denmark, host of the ongoing UN conference on climate change, has drawn up a compromise text. On the afternoon of the conference’s second day, The Guardian published what it claimed to be this text. The British newspaper also claims to have read “a confidential analysis of the text by developing countries” which “shows deep unease”.

“You need to listen to all countries. That’s what democracy is about, and that’s what you have been cheering in Denmark. What your Prime Minister (Lars Løkke Rasmussen) does is contrary to the spirit of the developing aid, which Denmark has provided for Africa through many years,” Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping (photo above), chair of the Group of 77, mostly consisting of developing countries, tells Danish daily Politiken.

The draft on The Guardian’s website is headlined “The Copenhagen Agreement under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change”. It gives 2020 as the year in which global emissions should peak, while “acknowledging that developed countries collectively have peaked and that the timeframe will be longer for developing countries.” The text specifies that emissions from developed nations should be reduced by 80 percent by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. It also proposes for an interim reduction target for developed countries by 2020 to be set – meeting a key demand from developing countries. However, so far the figure is just given as “X” – meaning it will not be stated before the high level negotiations next week.

A critical issue in the UN negotiations has been whether or not certain developing countries should undertake commitments. Under the present agreement, The Kyoto Protocol, all developing countries are exempted from obligations, but industrialized countries have stressed that this is not feasible in the future. On this issue, the “Danish text” says that “developing countries, except the least developed which may contribute at their own discretion, commit to nationally appropriate mitigation actions.” These commitments are suggested to be given as a percentage – to be negotiated next week – which should be achieved by 2020. However, the percentage should not be compared to present levels, rather to a business-as-usual scenario.

According to The Guardian’s sources, developing countries are infelicitous about the new proposed division between the “least developed” and other developing nations. Another point of concern is the draft’s suggestion to transfer more control over the enforcement of the Copenhagen agreement from the UN administration – playing an absolute key role in the Kyoto Protocol – to the World Bank. This move would indirectly shift more control over to the industrialized world.

According to Danish daily Berlingske, the leak of the draft at this early stage of the conference is seen as unfortunate by European negotiators:

“It is incredibly inappropriate to have this document circulating on paper at this point. It should not have come out until next week,” an unnamed source in the delegation of a European country tells Berlingske.

According to Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, a press release from the Danish Climate Ministry denies that the text published by The Guardian is an official Danish proposal for a compromise text.

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer comments in a press release: "This was an informal paper ahead of the conference given to a number of people for the purposes of consultations. The only formal texts in the UN process are the ones tabled by the Chairs of this Copenhagen conference at the behest of the Parties."

Source

**sunnykerr** · 12-08-2009, 06:42 PM

There's also been renewed efforts in the United States (particularly, but probably not exclusively) to deny that global warming is indeed happening. Apparently some scientific e-mails (as in, between fellow scientists) have been leaked and they reveal that the science being climate change is not actual science.

Of course, I haven't heard the names of these scientists. And there's plenty out there who have been arguing against climate change for a long time now. So, who knows.

More to the point perhaps, I would recommend that anyone who wants to rush to the conclusion that climate change isn't real visit either the Great North or Antartica. Icebergs are melting all over the place, winters are shortening, animals are disappearing left and right because of it, the very composition of the waters is changing as a result of the melting ice.

I willing admit that I don't understand science very much. But I do know that, 20 short years ago, winter started in October up here. Well, today is December 8 and there's barely a centimetre of snow on the ground.

strawberrypie · 12-08-2009, 07:38 PM

Quote:

they reveal that the science being climate change is not actual science.

No. The e-mails apparently show that those particular scientists were not happy with the people that deny climate change (which is understandable, IMO). There were also some quotes that taken out of context seemed to imply that they forced some of the data, but it has since been said that the interpretation of those quotes wasn't accurate.

This is an interesting article explaining the whole thing:

ClimateGate: The 6 Most Dubious Claims About The Supposed "Global Warming Hoax"

We're talking about a subject that has been studied and researched by hundreds of independent scientists. Even if those particular researchers (the ones that wrote the e-mails) did something wrong, there's a lot more evidence to back up the theory that climate change is real. No self respecting scientist would deny it with all the existing evidence.

There's an important difference to be made here. One thing is a skeptic, someone who needs evidence to believe in things. People that are "against" climate change are not skeptics, because they don't want evidence. They're denialists, they're simply saying it's not true but they're not backing up their opinions with anything solid.

I think it's a matter of people not really understanding how science works. In science nobody "believes" anything. I don't "believe" in climate change. Science is not about believing things. Science is about researching things through the scientific method until you find strong evidence that a hypothesis is more likely accurate, and then offering all your research to peer review. That is what science is about. Peer review meaning other scientists that understand how the scientific method works, not people that have nothing better to do than to dispute something without evidence. When scientists say something it's because they know it to be the most accurate explanation of a given problem.

In every day conversations, a "theory" is something that's questionable. Something we're not sure of. This is the main problem with getting people to understand science, because scientific theories are elaborated through the process I explained above, and there is a consensus in the scientific community that something referred to as a "theory" is the most accurate and real explanation as far as research has gone up until that point.

Let's not forget that climate change has serious implications for a lot of industries and a lot of powerful people who in the end do not wish to lose any money. I wouldn't be surprised if they were involved in the e-mail hacking.

Sorry for the rant, it was definitely not directed at you. Just needed to get that off my chest.

If climate change was a "scam" or a "hoax" we would've heard of the evidence by now.

vc318 · 12-08-2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberrypie (View Post)

Media coverage here has been so scarce that I can't even tell if our president is going. Probably not.

He's always talking about making the world "greener" so I would hope that he attends. This is great news but it's true - it's just talks and nothing more.

strawberrypie · 12-09-2009, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vc318 (View Post)

He's always talking about making the world "greener" so I would hope that he attends. This is great news but it's true - it's just talks and nothing more.

Sorry for the confusion, who are you referring to?

In any case, I found out today that our president is attending after all, along with some ministers. So, good news.

The list of participants is now online (in three parts) if anyone wants to see it:

Advanced Search Documents

**TheAngel** · 12-09-2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

There's also been renewed efforts in the United States (particularly, but probably not exclusively) to deny that global warming is indeed happening. Apparently some scientific e-mails (as in, between fellow scientists) have been leaked and they reveal that the science being climate change is not actual science.

Of course, I haven't heard the names of these scientists. And there's plenty out there who have been arguing against climate change for a long time now. So, who knows.

More to the point perhaps, I would recommend that anyone who wants to rush to the conclusion that climate change isn't real visit either the Great North or Antartica. Icebergs are melting all over the place, winters are shortening, animals are disappearing left and right because of it, the very composition of the waters is changing as a result of the melting ice.

I willing admit that I don't understand science very much. But I do know that, 20 short years ago, winter started in October up here. Well, today is December 8 and there's barely a centimetre of snow on the ground.

Well, given that throughout history, long before humans had anything to do with it, the Earth's temperature has changed, I don't totally buy it. A lot of global warming is based upon computer "projections" which are based upon a lot of assumptions as to what could possibly happen if trends continue, but that's if trends continue as they currently are and there's really no proof that global warming is a human created phenomenon. After all, the Earth heated up at the end of the last ice age, before greenhouse gases and the like. That being said, I think it's important to reuse resources, reduce pollution simply because of the danger to individuals, and look at renewable fuel resources.

vc318 · 12-09-2009, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberrypie (View Post)

Sorry for the confusion, who are you referring to?

In any case, I found out today that our president is attending after all, along with some ministers. So, good news.

Yes, I meant Mr. Obama but I'm glad to hear that he's attending. Sorry about that.

**sunnykerr** · 12-10-2009, 05:56 PM

Well, I believe in global warming. Like I said, I see evidence of it every day. Now, is it a normal occurance? Maybe, what do I know?

But, considering we know how harmful we are to the environment, what with toxic emissions and rubbish dumping and deforesting and oil spills and everything else, I really don't see how it's just happening naturally, like it would if we weren't there.

So, considering the survival of the human race may depend on it... I don't know, I kinda feel responsible for doing my bit, too.

**TheAngel** · 12-10-2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

Well, I believe in global warming. Like I said, I see evidence of it every day. Now, is it a normal occurance? Maybe, what do I know?

But, considering we know how harmful we are to the environment, what with toxic emissions and rubbish dumping and deforesting and oil spills and everything else, I really don't see how it's just happening naturally, like it would if we weren't there.

So, considering the survival of the human race may depend on it... I don't know, I kinda feel responsible for doing my bit, too.

But what about natural pollution, like volcanic eruptions and erosion and the like. Environmental changes happen on a regular basis and many of them have nothing to do with humans. I agree, we need to do things, but I feel that it should be more focused upon resource conservation, and not putting billions of dollars into things that are actually totally unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

strawberrypie · 12-10-2009, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post)

things that are actually totally unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

What are you basing this on?

**TheAngel** · 12-11-2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberrypie (View Post)

What are you basing this on?

Well, for example, energy saving light bulbs contain mercury. So, we might be saving some electricity, but unless everyone using these light bulbs disposes of them in a proper manner, than the amount of mercury in landfills increases, leaching into ground water, rivers, lakes, streams, creating a hazardous environment for people and animals. There's also the fact that if a bulb breaks in a home, the amount of mercury released could be potentially dangerous for humans and animals if the waste isn't disposed of properly, including ventilating the area and turning off central heating and air conditioning. And, since normal light bulbs aren't being sold in stores, but none of the light bulbs come with information about being disposed of properly, I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that are disposing of them the same way they did with normal light bulbs fifteen years ago.
Of course, people are arguing that there's significantly less mercury in a bulb than there is in a thermometer or in batteries or the like, which is true, but there are other issues. For example, how many people currently own mercury thermometers? I know I don't. And mercury free thermometers are easy to get and only cost $7.00 at the local Walgreens. It takes 150,000 CFL bulbs to equal one pound of mercury. From where I'm sitting, I can count 15 light bulbs in my house, and there are more than 300 million people in the US. There's been a lot of people pointing out that in smaller towns, recycling programs for these bulbs aren't available, that smaller towns can't buy the necessary equipment to dispose of these bulbs, and that people are simply throwing them away in landfills, where, as I said before, they break and then mercury leaches into ground water sources. The argument originally was that CFL's released less mercury than older bulbs did because power plants released mercury into the environment and because CFL's use less energy, but, in a world that is in the process of switching to cleaner power options, not CFL's could become the number one cause of mercury pollution in the US.

strawberrypie · 12-11-2009, 08:16 PM

I haven't read any scientific publications on mercury so it wouldn't be serious of me to comment too much on the subject. But I do know about landfills:

Quote:

people are simply throwing them away in landfills, where, as I said before, they break and then mercury leaches into ground water sources

If the landfills are built and managed properly (yes, I know that's not the case in many cities), lixiviates should be reduced to a minimum. And there's so much more potentially leaching from landfills, not just mercury.

Also, there are plenty of other things people can do to use less energy besides using energy saving light bulbs.

But the issue here is much, much broader than that.

In the grand scheme of things, climate change can potentially devastate coastal cities, where are all those people going to live? A big part of human population lives in coastal cities. This could result in environmental refugees and an increase in poverty.

Agriculture would be severely affected too. If regional climates change, some crops won't grow in certain areas any more; which means problems for people (we need food) and for biodiversity (more land will be needed and therefore natural and/or semi-natural areas will be converted for agriculture use).

Biodiversity would be affected too. Species are adapted fundamentally to two physical factors: temperature and humidity. If regional climates change, species distribution will change. Some will survive. Others won't find a suitable habitat because the areas that they need were long converted into crops, pastures, cities, etc. Also, because of the change in species distribution, protected areas will no longer protect all the species that they were designed to protect.

I was going to say that I think this is a situation where the precautionary principle should be used. But that doesn't even apply here, since in this situation, there is scientific consensus.

The biggest problems are that people will have to start changing their lifestyle (who wants to do that, right), and that there are some powerful people that don't want to lose any money in the process.

**TheAngel** · 12-11-2009, 09:35 PM

Of course, when the land bridge between Alaska and Russia was covered up by ocean waters, that was also due to melting ice and increasing sea levels. So it stands to reason that all of these changes are cyclical and that, at that time, human's had nothing to do with the changes that took place. I see no evidence that climate change is being impacted by humans. Is the temperature getting warmer, yes, but we've been releasing less emissions into the atmosphere for thousands of years, never in such mass, but still, enough to do damage and, there's also the inverse argument. If Global Warming is actually man made, we've increased greenhouse gases, and the hole in the ozone layer so much, that there should be more climate change. After all, the temperature has only gone up around 1 degree Celsius in, I believe, the last thirty years or so. And yet, millions of years ago, there's evidence that the earth was actually hotter than it is now, long before man existed. You ought to read this article. It's really interesting and addresses some of the skepticism from an academic point of view and not an extremist, you tree huggers suck, kind of thing. But, and I agree, I don't trust data put into a computer model that has been programed to produce a certain type of result. And that's what global warming is all based upon at this point. As soon as more concrete evidence is found, I'll jump on board the train, but I'm a natural skeptic, and there just isn't enough evidence for me.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > COP 15 has started