The Copenhagen Sham

[marmar]

from the Guardian UK:




Leaked UN report shows cuts offered at Copenhagen would lead to 3C rise
UN secretariat initial draft shows gap of up to 4.2 gigatonnes of CO2 between present pledges and cuts required to limit rise to 2C


The emissions cuts offered so far at the Copenhagen climate change summit would still lead to global temperatures rising by an average of 3C, according to a confidential UN analysis obtained by the Guardian.

With the talks entering the final 24 hours on a knife-edge, the emergence of the document seriously undermines the statements by governments that they are aiming to limit emissions to a level ensuring no more than a 2C temperature rise over the next century, and indicates that the last day of negotiations will be extremely challenging.

A rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger, according to the Stern economic review of climate change for the UK government – as well as leaving up to 50% of species facing extinction. Even a rise of 2C would lead to a sharp decline in tropical crop yields, more flooding and droughts.

Tonight hopes of the summit producing a deal were rising after the US, the world's biggest historical polluter, moved to save the talks from collapse.

The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, committed the US to backing a $100bn-a-year global climate fund from 2020 to shield poor countries from the ravages of global warming. Barack Obama is expected to offer even more cash when he flies in tomorrow. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/un-leaked-report-copenhagen-3c

[SOCALS]

1. This summit is turning into a very expensive

fiasco. And I still can't get over the fact that some of these people had to fly in on private jets. I will listen to their preaching after I made the same carbon footprint as their private jet trip

[Subdivisions]

2. Turning? It's been a fiasco since day one. G77 (representing

some 130 nations) walked out the other day. The police are stifling protests. And the whole head of the thing resigned a couple of days ago. And the U.S. contribution is equal to 4% when adjusted for 1990 carbon dioxide levels. For some reason the U.S. is promising 17% of 2005 levels instead the of the 1990 levels everyone else is expected to go by. Also, the larger countries are pressuring the developing countries to reduce more than they (the larger countries) are willing to reduce.

It is a sham.


Edited to add: Welcome to DU, SOCALS! :hi:

[G_j]

3. complete sham

FAIL

[inna]

7. wow. thanks for this post.

i haven't been following.

[certainot]

4. you sound like limbaugh

yeah they should all walk, that would make an impression and give them something to think about all those months of walking.

[SOCALS]

6. The problem is

that they want us to cut electricity and gas usage and criticize our nation for using too much energy, while being the worst culprits! If the Pareto principle holds, 20% of population use 80% of all energy here in US

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. But the Pareto 'principle' doesn't hold

Here's the CBO estimate of where the CO2 usage is in US households, on which they based how cap-and-trade would affect household costs:

Lowest Quintile 11
Second Quintile 14
Middle Quintile 17
Fourth Quintile 21
Highest Quintile 36
All Households 100

http://www.eenews.net/public/25/11434/features/documents/2009/06/22/document_daily_01.pdf (see Table 2, at the end)

So, the top 20% use 36% of the fossil fuel. If everyone used the same as the middle quintile, that would cut US emissions to 85% of the current value; if everyone used the same as the lowest quintile, it'd cut it to 55%.

The 'Danish draft' at Copenhagen talked about cutting developed world usage to 80% of its current value (and the US uses more per capita than the rest of the developed world already); and that was rejected by developing world countries as not being enough, because they'd still have to use less. Everyone has to cut down, even the poor in the United States.

[SOCALS]

10. Well, when it comes to saving energy,

I am doing my part because my utulities bills total maybe $40 a month.

As for those who took jets to fly to Copenhagen, the hypocrisy could do worse damage to the cause than Laimbaugh and Hannity combined.

[certainot]

9. you're using the denialists talking point

about gore taking a jet to get the peace prize etc., it's really not part of the issue if you associate it with the individual participants. it's be great if they could all figure out a way to make a statement but it's not the issue- getting something from it is important.

the hypocrisy kings like limbaugh and hannity can take irrational absolutist positions and bloviate all day long with that talking point, but it's a distraction IMO.

[Rebubula]

13. Awesome!!!!

Someone points out the obvious hypocrisy involved and you accuse them of being like Limbaugh.

I can support efforts to combat climate change AND still point out the fallacy of people that are leading the charge.

But feel free to continue to employ such immature and stifling tactics instead of reasoned discourse....lol...sort of like Limbaugh.

[certainot]

19. socals had 50 posts in the midst of climate-gate trolling and uses limbaugh talking point

i see no problem with that comment at that point.

i also understand that limbaugh and sons have been so completely ignored by liberals while destroying them in so many ways that is is normal to see his/their talking points in use by liberals who may have no clue that they are repeating heritage foundation talking points.

[spanone]

17. i guess you wanted these people to walk to the conference....bullshit

[Llewlladdwr]

18. Or maybe...

they could have done this all via video, IM and chatrooms? You know, maybe using that internet thingy we keep hearing about?

Right-wing talking point or not, "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis" is starting to have a certain resonance...

[RufusTFirefly]

5. Of course, it's a sham

But, who cares?
Most Americans aren't paying attention at all.
Among those who are, an alarming number believes that it's the notion of global warming that's a sham.
That leaves the rest of us. But we don't control any major networks (thank you, Amy!), so our voices are silenced.

[EFerrari]

12. Amy has been awesome, hasn't she?

I learned a lot from her in the last two weeks.

[RufusTFirefly]

14. Indeed. I've got a love/hate thing with DN

I'm so grateful for its presence (and Amy is so nice and genuine in person, too), but at the end of some broadcasts I'm so disgusted that I can hardly see straight.

[TiberiusGracchus]

11. It's over, China and India just walked out....Obama should've focused on wrangling conservadems

Breaking news:

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_breaking-news-india-china-walk-out-of-climate-summit-report_1324981

[BB1]

15. Such a sham(e)...

For what it's worth; here in Europe the media takes it all very serious. Local governments like the Dutch, Belgians and Germans think we will all die out by 2100 if we don't cut emissions right now.
Sometimes in the same newsreports about the Copenhagen Sham, there is news on the latest erupting volcano, which emits more CO2 in a week than complete countries in a year.

BTW, a sham doesn't sound like the right word. I prefer SCAM, because somebody is going to pay the reduction in CO2. It's not going to be cheap, and apparently some major companies are going to cash in on it. Goldman, for instance. The name of the bank alone needs to ring alarmbells all over the place.

[SOCALS]

16. I agree with your point regarding Goldman Sachs.

If it really was about saving the planet, they would just buy some land in South America and plant a million or 10 million trees on it, instead of setting up these carbon offset exchanges for the enrichment of the few. I hope more Americans will wake up and realize they should not blindly trust whatever the government proposes, even if it is a Democratic government