Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
New Round of Climate Talks Open with Big Agenda, Small Hopes
BONN, Germany: If the devil is in the details, climate change negotiators are about to enter purgatory.
On Monday, some 2,000 delegates from 162 countries and dozens of specialist agencies open a two-week conference, the first to get into the nuts and bolts of a new global warming agreement meant to take effect after 2012.
The meeting builds on a landmark accord reached last December on the Indonesian island of Bali which, for the first time, held out the promise that the United States, China and India will join a coordinated effort to control carbon emissions blamed for the unnatural heating of the Earth.
The Bali conference agreed to conclude a new climate change treaty by December 2009. Another conference four months later in Bangkok adopted a negotiating timetable.
In Bonn, "the real work is now only beginning," says Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate change official.
Scientists say the world's carbon emissions must peak within the next 10 to 15 years and then fall by half by mid-century to avoid potentially catastrophic changes in weather patterns, a rise in sea levels that would threaten coastal cities and the mass extinction of plants and animals.
The new climate change pact will succeed the first phase of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which requires 37 industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
The United States is the only industrialized nation not to have ratified Kyoto. Negotiators hope Washington's consent to the Bali "action plan" marked the end of its hostility toward working with other countries to contain global warming.
"Their attitude, their activity, has changed very much in the recent year. It's really a big change," said Andrej Kranjc of Slovenia, the head of the European Union delegation.
Still, the U.S. administration of George W. Bush rejects specific and mandatory targets to reduce emissions over the next dozen years. And countries like India and China question why they should accept limits on their development without commitments from the U.S. — the world's largest per-capita polluter by far.
Delegates say such major decisions must wait for the new U.S. administration next January.
"It's unlikely we are going to make lot of progress this year because we need strong signals from the U.S., and that's not going happen until the election," said Ian Fry, the delegate from the tiny Pacific nation of Tuvalu.
But time is pressing.
The basic outline of the post-Kyoto agreement should be ready by next summer to prepare for the critical December conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, where the new pact should be adopted, de Boer says.
That allows negotiators just six months after the next U.S. president takes office to negotiate a complex, multifaceted and hugely expensive treaty.
"Everyone refers to the U.S. as the elephant in the room," said Angela Anderson, the director of the Global Warming Campaign for the Pew Environment Group. She said the presidential candidates already should be formulating policies and making them part of their campaigns.
"The new administration will have a challenge, but perhaps a welcome challenge. They can mend the U.S. reputation abroad by engaging constructively in the climate talks," she said.
Delegates in Bonn will begin work on how to help developing countries adapt to anticipated changes in their climate, on transferring new technologies to help them avoid hefty carbon emissions as they expand their economies, and on how to raise the trillions of dollars required over the next decades to curb climate change.
Each objective faces a multitude of obstacles.
Governments cannot commit to transferring technologies that belong to private companies, which are protected by intellectual property rights, for example. Small countries need satellite monitoring, especially of deforestation, which they cannot afford without help. The costs of installing carbon-storage facilities on power stations, once it becomes technically feasible, will be out of reach to all but the richest.
Proposed "adaptation funds" for developing countries are plagued by questions of how money will be generated, who will control it and how it will be allocated.
Some countries favor a levy on airplane tickets and maritime transport, to be deposited in a special account earmarked for developing countries.
No one expects answers by the end of the Bonn conference,
De Boer said in an earlier interview he hoped the meeting would "take things to the next level," with the discussions crystalizing ideas and leading governments to submit written proposals for the Copenhagen accord.
"We don't expect a breakthrough (in Bonn), of course. We have a long road ahead of us," said Kranjc, the EU chief delegate. He cautions against trying to move too fast. "Things are not ripe."
© 2008 The Associated Press.

21 Comments so far
Show Alltoo bad we won't get that new administration.
/attack iran by august
//invoke nspd 51
///cancel elections "to protect america" (because elections help the terrorists)
-heckuvajob
Bush and Cheney are humans--humans get tired. There is no way they are going to stay around.
Corporations will have someone else with a friendly PR face to take over for them.
If governments wanted to deal with climate change they would just have to bar all US airplanes from entering their airspace, declare a state of emergency. Boycott US products(the government not the people).
If enough countries did that the US would fall into line.
But climate change just isnt a big deal to governments just like meat eating isnt a big deal to human rights activists who claim they are concerned about water shortages and wasting resources that could help the poor.
If Bush wants a legacy, here's his chance, since nothing else appears to be working for him.
as long as the biggest polluting countries in the world continue and don't sign very little will happen. Lines on a map don't stop pollution
KELMER:
countries are already not buying American, look at the trade deficit with Canada, China and other parts of the world.
Ban air traffic, Having spent time in CUBA where there is now contrails overhead it is nice to see a blue sky when there is no clouds. Cancer rates are low as well ???
They can talk until their brains run out of their ears, nothing helpful is going to be accomplished with their "important" meetings no matter if the United States ever agrees with them or not. There is only one sentence of true importance in this article and that is.
"But time is pressing".
Talk of the year 2012 and fifty years down the road are idiotic and show that these 2,000 delegates don't have a clue of what they are yakking about, it's all bullshit.
If the entire world's nations don't start reducing Co2 right now, we humans won't be here fifty years from now, maybe not by 2012. It's crunch time as far as our atmosphere is concerned and indeed ___(time is pressing.)
America will be back on 01-20-09 with a real leader who will lead the world on this and a host of other issues. His name is Barack Obama. And, no I don't believe in fairy tales. In a fairy tale it wouldn't have taken 40 years for our next Bobby Kennedy.
I must remember that most of the world's countries, even the dictatorships, will have sent somewhat sincere delegates to a climate change conference. They're not all like the U.S.
Hopefully they won't be afraid of discussing the runaway arctic methane scenarios. Runaway methane may not be "proved" but there was evidence of a 27 megaton increase in methane in the earth's atmosphere last year, as well as evidence of excess methane in the air over Siberia.
The big issue is carbon. Countries must agree by treaty to have common harsh tariffs against carbon scofflaws. If you ruin somebody else's sky, you should pay for it. From there, countries can influence the energy choices of their own companies and citizens, who by and large will then cut their carbon footprints.
Hopefully ameliorations of the global warming disaster such as the protection of species from extinction, enhanced protection of polar ice and putting more cirrus clouds up in the arctic will be discussed too.
"Scientists say the world's carbon emissions must peak within the next 10 to 15 years and then fall by half by mid-century to avoid potentially catastrophic changes in weather patterns, a rise in sea levels that would threaten coastal cities and the mass extinction of plants and animals."
I guess the accelerating loss of the Arctic summer ice, the coming demise of the Polar Bear, the fires destroying our dying forests around the world, and the increasing water shortages are all just "bean bag".
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org
Sandy.....
pass that stuff around you are smoking.
AMERICA LEAD THE WORLD, ha ha ha
Europe China, Canada and so many other countries have passed the US in health, medicine, auto efficiency, ( they sell full electric cars in Europe) The list is long. America has lost its edge and if the world goes away from the US buck as the bench mark for oil America will be toast as then the playing field is level. It is nice to dream, OB maybe not the answer don't want to go silly.
sandyk77 What makes you think the Wall St. funded Obama will bite the hand that feeds him? I was drinking the Obama koolaid myself a couple weeks ago but the more I research the more bitter the koolaid comes. I may still vote for Obama but not with any great hope but solely to stop senile McCaniac from starting a nuclear war with Iran.
http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html
Mrraven500,and Clinton,s major funding is from Military, and Pharmaceutical companies. Will she stop the war and get everyone health care? Lets go back to talking about the health of the planet because if it does not exist, it doesn't really matter about anything else.
"Delegates in Bonn will begin work on how to help developing countries adapt to anticipated changes in their climate, on transferring new technologies to help them avoid hefty carbon emissions as they expand their economies, and on how to raise the trillions of dollars required over the next decades to curb climate change..........
........Small countries need satellite monitoring, especially of deforestation, which they cannot afford without help. The costs of installing carbon-storage facilities on power stations, once it becomes technically feasible, will be out of reach to all but the richest.
Proposed "adaptation funds" for developing countries are plagued by questions of how money will be generated, who will control it and how it will be allocated.
Some countries favor a levy on airplane tickets and maritime transport, to be deposited in a special account earmarked for developing countries."
Please tell me people can see though this. The UN has done nothing but destroy small developing countries while pretending to "help". They saddle them with debt with all kinds of strings attached to let the multi-national cartels loot the local economy. This is nothing but a plan to tax the rich countries to ensure interest is paid on 3rd world debt to allow them to get loans to consume the energy they need to develop, and which will be increasingly more expensive as a result of their proposed policies, even if oil does come down in price.
The only people winning here are the international bankers and multi-national corporations.
The fact that David Rockefeller George Bush and McCain have shown signs of joining the Global Warming Bunnies is ominous. Humans that refuse to use the brains between their ears are no better than beasts. Cattle at least give us steaks in return for the food they consume. Unless ET likes human burgers, might as well cull the herd.
As for the global coming from CO2 produced from buring oil, 31,000 scientists say its not true.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html
CO2 is food for our crops that we eat, and it's increase has improved crop yields 15% since 1950 allowing us to feed the world.
I do not deny there is global warming. There is global warming, just as in the late 60's and 70's there was global cooling. How long this will last, nobody can say for sure. Is it man made?. Perhaps, in part. But if it is, I would argue that the culprit is water. Human activity certainly releases a lot of water into the air, and water accounts for most of the greenhouse effect.
But here is the thing. The UN Malthusians know we need to use energy to grow more food for an increasing population, and that increasing CO2 helps crops grow and increases precipitation. By restricting energy consumption and limiting CO2 emissions, this will lead to lower living standards and less food, all of which are conducive to depopulation.
Look at it this way, assuming Mother Earth is seeking to accomodate her childrens growth, perhaps she regulates the temperature to make it a little warmer, more humid and give us more water, and increases CO2 to give our plants and crops more food. The Malthusians say we are like a virus giving Mother Earth a fever, and we must reduce the viral load, and a carbon tax will do that.
As for the science that supports CO2 as the main driver? Me thinks the IPCC forgets the basic laws of Thermodynamics and Physics in service to their Malthusian masters.
First of all, hot air rises. Last time I was on a plane it was -60 deg C at 30,000 ft (outside of course). IR is absorbed by CO2 and H20 in the lower troposphere near the surface. This heats the air, which then rises, transferring heat upwards by convection.
The Malthusian Global Warming Bunnies would like you to believe that the IR is then released in all directions, including down. Back transfer of IR on average is not possible, because heat transfer of the emmitter can only be in a direction where the absorber is colder. With increasing altitude, the temperature declines due to the declining pressure, 0.7 to 1.0 deg C every 100 meters. That means the direction is up. I don't live at 30,000 ft. The way I see it, if it gets a bit warmer up there, who cares.
CO2 makes up only 0.038% in the atmosphere. It accounts for only 4-8% of the entire green house effect (without any greenhouse gasses, the earth would be -18 deg C.), most of that occuring within 10 meters of the surface. Water and clouds account for virtually all the rest. Again, the warmer air as a result of the absorbed IR moves up. Heat transfer from IR warming is directed up.
Second of all, the atmosphere holds 100 times less heat than the oceans heat capacity, and CO2 in air holds 250,000 times less heat. The oceans act as sink and absorbs heat. While the upper surface of the oceans may rise during atmospheric warming that manifests itself as higher surface temperatures, the deep cold sea will be able to absorb that extra heat via conduction and convection.
But thats only my opinion. What I find most objectionable is those who talk with a certainty that CO2 is behind all of global warming and predict a disaster that is not supported by facts. Facts being good data and laws of physics and science. There are theories, and assumptions made to fill the holes due to lack of data, and depending on which assumptions and theories are adopted for the models, wildly differing projections are obtained.
Should we monitor CO2?. Absolutely. But we should not rush to judgement and deprive people of food and energy until the science can offer a greater certainty and a consensus of the scientists is reached. And eliminating the conflict of interest where politics seems to be influencing the debate.
For the record I'm not a Malthusian at all. MiMi above may label me with derision as a "Global Warming Bunny". Hop Hop Hop.
~MiMiCcS~ You want to know something? The reason I post so frequently on this site is because of people like you. Thankfully this thread will get little attention, because it isn't about Hillary/Obama or Nader.
The reason I say thankfully, is because few will likely read your impressive sounding comments, which I personally believe are very harmful for all. I do not know your motive for writing such denying comments here.
The figure of 31,000 scientists who deny global warming is caused by humanity is highly questionable, for who are those scientists? How many are atmospheric scientists, how many are geologists who have spent their entire adult lives studying the planet and the issue?
The world's LEADING climate experts on the "Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" say emphatically that man made activity IS responsible for most of the observed global warming by 90%.
That is a strong consensus that the comments you posted here are wrong. It has been well proven that excess Co2 in our atmosphere has risen dramaticlly, starting from the time of the industrial revolution when humans began to burn large quantities of coal and fossil fuels. Co2 does not evaporate, we could be breathing Co2 this very minute that was emitted by Henry Ford's first automobile so plant life does not eat ALL of the Co2 present in the atmophere.
Certainly Co2 is a necessity in the atmosphere and no one should deny that. How much Co2 is the question. You also say heat rises and that's a proven scientific fact. Heat is not escaping as it should from our upper atmophere due to the Greenhouse effect of excess Co2 in the atmoshere.
You stated that Co2 is only 0.038% of our atmosphere. That may be so, but that figure rose .06% in 2007 and what is even more troubling is methane rose .05% in 2007. Methane is 23% more potent as a Greenhouse gas than Co2 is.
I find it very difficult to believe that any can deny, that within the past four years the glaciers all around the world have begun to thaw at alarming rates and many have just disappeared. Then too both the Arctic and Anarctic are thawing at alarming rates as is Greenland.
There are several billion people who are not among the 31,000 scientists who can see that happening with their own eyes. One does not need to be a scientist to see and understand the obvious.
If the current global warming is not caused by humanity, what is the reason? It is not sunbeams, for at Earth's present rotational location in the Milky Way, we should be in a cooling period.
The current global warming IS indeed man-made and that fact has been well proven that it is. Unless we act very soon to stop burning coal for starters, we will run out of time to prevent the Arctic's methane gas from blooming out and triggering global warming like few have ever imagined.
Here are two links. The first is a three minute read was published about five years ago and the author is well qualified to write it. I personally will not argue with him, as I am not a geologist or a scientist.
The second link is current and it is also a three minute read. It substanciates what the first author warned us of five years ago. We are running out of time.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/09/26
Those are only two of hundreds of articles and papers on the subject. One can Google Arctic Methane gas and there they are, free for the reading. Some are global warming denyers articles. __ Beware.
turnoffyourteevee
Ack never ASSume I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter I wouldn't even consider voting for her for county dog catcher. I am a HARD leftist and see both parties as sock puppets.
MiMiCcS stop reading corporate funded conspiracy crap. There is a broad global consensus of climate scientists published in peer reviewed journals that global climate change (with ocean currents it's more complicated than just warming) is very real and human caused.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
The only dissenters are corporate funded in the same way that a few token scientists were persuaded with corporate money to falsify the relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer to confuse the issue as long as possible and delay action.
Kem thanks for defending common sense and rationality! I didn't see your post before basically posting the same thing. I agree that calling out irrationality is VERY important, it's why I give New Agers grief as well.
The number of intelligent comments here on this important issue is so impressive it is mind boggling.
The U.S. based Global Domination Group made up of leaders from government, business, and the military have no interest in mitigating the climate crisis, but instead, choose to exploit world resources in an effort to effectuate corporate dominion over nation states. Their goals and climate resolution are exclusionary. America is not the problem, American economic elites are the problem. Their blind greed will likely result in self destruction. Our goal is to survive their orgy of destruction. Your doing a heckava job Georgie.
I find it amazing how some of you feel completely qualified to act as the ultimate arbitrator in evaluating scientific research.
Also, corporate conspiracy?
All the corporate machinery some of you seem to dislike so much is gearing up big time to reap big profits from the "fight against global warming."
It will be poetic justice I think for some of you, ten years from now:
1) NYMEX setting up for carbon credit trading. What does that mean? That means community based alternative energy projects will be more hassle than its worth, and that 20 years from now, alternative energy production will be centralized, and under overall corporate control.
2) Countries are setting up laws for carbon tax system, to guess what - well, not just to put a nominal tax on heavy output of greenhouse gases, but to control the alternative energy market - to get government laws in place to make sure Farmer Jones can't just throw up a windmill and make his own power.
3) the way carbon taxes are being set up in the USA is to make sure large corporations have a major advantage over any small producer.
4) mega projects for carbon sinking - these are becoming the holy grail for companies like Haliburton, etc... Big government cash handouts. Being paid to build some big installation and there is no way to prove it works or not.
the climate debate allways reminds me of the smoking debate that happened over a decade or two the big tobbaco companys presenting one set of scientific evidence and the health comunity presenting another...it's annoying that we even contemplate for a second that big buisness has "our" best interests at heart when there is absoloutely no scientific evidence that that is in fact true LOL..ahem..some-one please do a study.. might help us in the long term..
the issue is in the end that if big buisness doesn't (an assumption) have "our" best interests at heart then whose interests do they have at heart...
heck this is the basic concept of the ecological debate...in that we are all in this situation together...now the impact may weigh heavier on the poorest societys and countrys AT FIRST...but very quickly there-after the entire world population will be hit..how hard is the only real debate left...
so...whose interests do the big guys have at heart...?
maybe they have some long term view on the situation...but what it boils down to in the end is that unless they accept that they may have to live in an impoverished world....the world will simply prove it to them once and for all
but this demands respect for the ecological system...this is alien to them
perhaps they are so entrenched in this mind set that they perhaps believe they can hold the world to ransom....and expect the world to pay..