Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: TechMan on December 08, 2009, 02:22:12 PM
-
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/12/08/the-danish-text-disrupts-copenhagen-what-you-need-to-know.aspx
Full Post
Posted Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:33 PM
The ‘Danish Text’ Disrupts Copenhagen: What You Need to Know
Daniel Stone
You might call it a modest setback to the climate talks. Or you might call it the puncturing of a lung in Copenhagen that has left negotiations wheezing on the floor.
On day two of the two-week conference, attention focused late in the day on what’s been dubbed the Danish Text, a document devised by several parties—including Denmark, the U.K., and the U.S.—that would hand most regulatory control to rich nations and would replace the U.N. as arbiter of global cuts with the World Bank’s more financially minded eye. Small players at the table, specifically the developing nations that have sought to pin large countries to the mat on making cuts, interpret the Danish proposal as a deeply troubling attempt by the biggest emitters to maintain control over their emissions…and the rest of the world's.
The proposal (document here) is essentially a reversal of the main principle of the Kyoto Protocol, which provided that large countries make sweeping steps to curb their emissions, but excludes smaller countries that may be limited in doing so. In an about-face, the Danish document proposes that future negotiations would take place on larger countries’ political and economic turf. But to the developing countries, the most infuriating component of the proposal comes down to numbers. Under the plan, by 2050 poor countries would have to limit per capita emissions at 1.44 tons, while rich countries would be given extra leeway at 2.67 tons per person.
Drafters of the text maintain that the proposal wasn't intended to be released until more countries could offer amendments and sign on, and that the leaked draft is far from final. But that reasoning isn't seeming to resonate in Copenhagen at the moment. Poor countries see the draft as a way the wool was almost pulled over their eyes. And even stateside, climate watchers have labeled the secret nature of the proposal "despicable," dishonest, and unfair.
Whether the negotiations can recover is an open question. Considering the urgent demands of curbing emissions is not going away, it’s likely they will. But the biggest difference now is the hefty amount of humility larger countries will need to exhibit in order to bring everyone back to the table. With the risk of the breakdown of the talks being blamed on them, there’s certainly extra incentive for the parties at the center of the document to get things back on track.
UPDATE: Briefing reporters Tuesday evening in Copenhagen, U.S. delegate Jonathan Pershing played down the implications of the document. "There is no single Danish text, there are many Danish texts." He went on, "If there was no Danish text, I would be appalled" since "[the delegates'] job is to bring something to the table."
Other source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
This is very interesting. I do like the UPDATE: from the US delegate "There is no single Danish text, there are many Danish texts." Classic double speak.
-
I'm rather surprised to see this type of development with a Lib Prez and a Lib Congress.
Should be pretty easy to bowl over the leading Western nations with America "assuming the position" and following Obama's lead. I wonder who grew a spine? Sarkozy?
-
I don't really understand.
I've gone and checked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Here's the UN's official list of countries by CO2 emission per capita.
The USA emits 19.1 tons per capita, as of 2007. China is at 4.6, as of 2007.
150 out of 210 nations, as of 2006, are over the 1.4 tons/capita limit.
So someone help me here: How can America, over a course of 40 years, drop their CO2 consumption by almost 85% ? How do they expect Equatorial Guinea to drop their CO2 consumption from 8.8 tons per capita to 1.44? And most interestingly, how can they do it without a massive drop in everybody's quality of life?
There could, I suppose, be a way – if the government mandated the construction of massive amounts of nuclear power plants and electric cars to run on their juice, as well as massive (probably state-sponsored) deployment of real (not snake-oil) biofuels. But nuclear power plants are not workable politically. So how can it be done WITHOUT reducing everybody's consumption and life quality?
-
The USA emits 19.1 tons per capita, as of 2007.
19.1 tons of awesome. I rock. Sorry Micro. :P
-
So how can it be done WITHOUT reducing everybody's consumption and life quality?
Only the commoners need to be reined in.
-
I just love it when thieves knife each other. Kyoto was the wet dream of undeveloped countries because it held out hope for free money all around. Now when pens were poised above the paper to make it happen, the countries paying the future bills says, "Hold on for a moment". Suddenly those paying the bill want control and the undeveloped countries take the back seat.
Hopefully this by itself will scuttle any agreement.
-
how can they do it without a massive drop in everybody's quality of life?
What makes you think they care about your quality of life?
-
For the elites the Third World's population is nuisance stock, people of no e who happen to occupy territory actually or potentially resource-rich.
-
The stated goal is to reduce per capita carbon emissions to 1915 levels by the year 2050. However the projected population growth by 2050 would require per capita emissions to be at 1875 levels.
Get out your horse and buggy, and get used to shoveling manure (even more than you've already become accustomed to).
-
What makes you think they care about your quality of life?
Do you think they can cut people's consumption levels THIS much without millions of people being enraged?
-
Do you think they can cut people's consumption levels THIS much without millions billions of people being enraged eradicated?
:mad:
-
Do you think they can cut people's consumption levels THIS much without millions of people being enraged?
I think their lust of power has so distorted their vision they simply do not see the building storm.
-
I think their lust of power has so distorted their vision they simply do not see the building storm.
+1
-
I think their lust of power has so distorted their vision they simply do not see the building storm.
No, it's not a lust for power. It's foolish idealism.
They are CERTAIN that we can make clean power and that it is only the oil companies and other EVIL corporations stopping the development.
Once they FORCE people to use clean power, it will all finally get made! You see, it's actually for our own benefit.
Yes, maybe it will cause a little bit of pain during that short period from EVIL DIRTY fossil fuels to when we get clean, pure wind and solar power, but it's for our own good.
These people are delusional. DANGEROUSLY delusional. And we handed them nearly absolute power in this country.
-
Uh. We can make clean power. Just not wind or solar.
-
Uh. We can make clean power. Just not wind or solar.
Yes we can. But it's nasty Nuclear or AWFUL AWFUL natural gas (more fossil fuels!). That's why I didn't mention them- they aren't part of the delusion. (They are SURE wind and solar are the REAL answers.)
-
There is also the rub that none of this will accomplish anything with regard to global warming so they can continue to use the "crisis" for decades and invent new ways to squeeze the peasants.
-
No, it's not a lust for power. It's foolish idealism.
They are CERTAIN that we can make clean power and that it is only the oil companies and other EVIL corporations stopping the development.
Once they FORCE people to use clean power, it will all finally get made! You see, it's actually for our own benefit.
Yes, maybe it will cause a little bit of pain during that short period from EVIL DIRTY fossil fuels to when we get clean, pure wind and solar power, but it's for our own good.
These people are delusional. DANGEROUSLY delusional. And we handed them nearly absolute power in this country.
whoa, dude. you mean they're livein' in the cheap remake of the day the earth stood still? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970416/) [tinfoil] [popcorn]
-
Lust for power is just that, be it utopian or dystopian.
Perhaps the world elites, with their obsession with controlling migration patterns, just envision all of the Third World moving to the First World. It will be wonderful, they think, for the welfare-providing class, and, of course, the rich can always use more cheap servants.
To me all of this leads to an ugly amalgam of tyranny and anarchy unless it's derailed PDQ.
-
how can they do it without a massive drop in everybody's quality of life?
Not "everybody" - just 98 percent :mad:
-
Do you think they can cut people's consumption levels THIS much without millions of people being enraged?
When people suffer they'll simply blame it on their political opposition and use it as justification for more of the same policies.
-
When people suffer they'll simply blame it on their political opposition and use it as justification for more of the same policies.
It's all because of the Eastasians.
-
I think I'll get Mad Max and re-run it. Maybe pick up some tips...
The elites are foolish if they really think they are going to have garden parties while 98 per cent of the world lives in darkness. We're in a different reality now. They are extremely vulnerable, and only good faith has kept them whole so far.