Expect Copenhagen Happy-Talk; Expect US To Promise Reductions Of 4% (F-O-U-R) Over 1990 By 2020

[hatrack]

EDIT

First number to know: 350. It's what scientists have been saying for two years is the maximum amount of carbon dioxide we can safely have in the atmosphere, measured in parts per million. Those scientists have been joined by an unprecedented outpouring from civil society: in late October, activists put on what CNN called "the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history," with 5,200 demonstrations in 181 countries, all rallying around that number. Three thousand vigils last weekend across the planet spelled out the number in candles. Thousands of churches rang their bells 350 times on Sunday, and yesterday the World Parliament of Religions, meeting in Melbourne and representing the "largest interreligious gathering on earth" sent an emergency 350 declaration here to Copenhagen.

The second number: 100. That's (roughly) how many countries are backing a 350 target here at Copenhagen. That's more than half the nations in attendance – unfortunately, they're the small, poor ones. But it's amazing to see them, in the face of enormous pressure, keeping the idea of real action alive. Yesterday Mohamed Nasheed, president of the Maldives, spoke to a roaring crowd of thousands: "We know what the laws of physics say: the most important number in the world is 350."

The third number: 4%. That's how much the US is offering to cut its emissions from their 1990 levels by 2020. Scientists tell us that the developed world would need to reduce by at least 40% to get us back on a 350 track, so the American offer is exactly an order or magnitude off. And they're not alone. All the rich countries, not to mention China, are looking to do as little as possible and still escape here with some kind of agreement they can hide behind.

The fourth number – and the most important one. When the folks at Climate Interactive plug in every promise made at these talks (the American offer on the table, the Chinese promise to reduce "energy intensity", the EU pledges, and so on) their software tells them almost instantly how much carbon they would eventually produce. When they hit the button last night, the program showed that by 2100 the world's CO2 concentrations (currently 390) would be – drumroll please – 770. That is, we would live in hell, or at least a place with a similar temperature. So that's the scorecard. You may hear a lot of happy talk from world leaders over the next few days as they "reach a historic agreement". But that's how it all adds up.

EDIT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/dec/15/bill-mckibben

[phantom power]

1. 770.

[Birthmark]

2. I guess we can hope for low climate sensitivity

I have two hunches about that, though: 1)that's our only real hope; 2)it's not very likely.

But, hey, we can probably make oodles of money between now and then!

[Nihil]

3. My hope (and yes, it is a genuine one) ...

... is that it happens *much* faster than expected (2010 would be good)
so that the catastrophic effects impact even those who are very old today
as this is the ONLY way that the people that actively work against
environmentalists will ever understand what we've being saying & doing.

I have to admit that the continued barrage of well-funded and well-marketed
denial does get to me at times as I can see how the pissing about will
benefit "the pissers" and just push the punishment out by a generation.
Those people simply do not care - they are literally only in it for the
profit that they themselves will make (to hoard or consume).

I'm *SO* tempted to say "Fuck it - I'm only going to spend my time/money/energy
on preparing *my* family & *my* friends for the coming upheaval and let the rest
of the world go screw themselves". I don't mean that I'll turn into a denier
or join the herd of uber-consumers - was never really a part of that lifestyle
in the first place. I'll still keep doing what I'm doing (and, when asked,
explain *why*) but I will stop trying to convince other people to do the right
thing and just let them fucking die in their own shit.

The only thing that stops me is that I still feel I have to fight
on behalf of the children born in the last decade or so who are - through
absolutely no fault of their own - going to inherit this crock of shite
that previous generations have been so assiduously preparing.

:rant:

[Birthmark]

6. This is pretty much where I'm at:

I'm *SO* tempted to say "Fuck it - I'm only going to spend my time/money/energy on preparing *my* family & *my* friends for the coming upheaval and let the rest of the world go screw themselves".

I have succumbed to the temptation and currently am doing just that. For personal reasons it is what makes the most sense for my family and me. I'll help what survivors I can, if I'm still alive when the SHtF --and leave exhortations to my descendants to do the same.

[wuvuj]

4. The fascist US would rather...

...continue funding it's military and keep Wall St exploiting labor and resources around the globe...than to save it for future generations. And there is ALWAYS money to be made and power to be grabbed from disasters?

I'd have to say....I TOLD YOU SO.

[bhikkhu]

5. I don't expect much either

Most of what I hear is "positive thinking" using green technology toward the overall goal of stimulating economic growth. That's what's been bred into most of the people alive in wealthier nations, and that's what they are really looking for.

Economic growth, of course, being the expansion of the same industrialism that got us here to begin with. If you look at CO2 emission numbers, about the only dips you ever see over the years correspond to recessions.