Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Durban Climate Deal Struck after Tense All-Night Session
Talks came close to collapse when India insisted on concessions for developing countries, forcing 3am 'huddle to save the planet'
DURBAN - A new global climate deal has been struck after being brought back from the brink of disaster by three powerful women politicians in a 20-minute "huddle to save the planet".
Greenpeace’s Kumi Naidoo with activists who occupied the convention center. (Photograph: Shayne Robinson/Greenpeace) A major crisis had been provoked after 3am on Sunday morning when the EU clashed furiously with China and India over the legal form of a potential new treaty. The EU plan to bind all countries to cuts was close to collapse after India inserted the words "legal outcome" at the last minute into the negotiating text.
EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard, backed by UK energy secretary Chris Huhne, said it would have made the EU plan legally meaningless and would have forced the EU to walk away, effectively collapsing the negotiations.
With ministers exhausted after nearly six days and three nights of intense discussions, Hedegaard told the 194 countries in Durban: "We need clarity. We need to commit. The EU has shown patience for many years. We are almost ready to be alone in a second commitment period [to the Kyoto protocol].
"We don't ask too much of the world that after this second period all countries will be legally bound. Let's try and have a protocol by 2018."
The Indian environment minister, Jayanthi Natarajan, responded fiercely that developing countries were being asked to sign up to the deal before they knew what was in the proposed treaty, and whether it would be fair to poor nations.
"Am I to write a blank check and sign away the livelihoods and sustainability of 1.2 billion Indians, without even knowing what the EU roadmap contains?
"I wonder if this is an agenda to shift the blame on to countries who are not responsible [for climate change]. I am told that India will be blamed. Please don't hold us hostage. We will give up the principle of equity."
China's chief negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, lambasted the EU in a passionate speech, saying: "Who gives you the right to tell us what to do?"
With tempers rising and the talks minutes from being abandoned, the chair, South African foreign minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, ordered China, India, the US, Britain, France, Sweden, Gambia, Brazil and Poland to meet in a small group or "huddle".
Surrounded by a crowd of nearly 100 delegates on the floor of the hall, they talked quietly among themselves to try to reach a new form of words acceptable to all.
But it was Brazil's chief negotiator, lawyer Luis Figueres, who came up with the compromise, proposing to substitute "an agreed outcome with legal force" for "legal outcome". This, said an EU lawyer, was much stronger, effectively meaning "a legally binding agreement".
"Yes, yes," cheered the crowd of onlookers around the politicians, and the talks were back on track.
Two hours later the 16-day talks were effectively over, with a commitment by all countries to accept binding emission cuts by 2020. As part of the package of measures agreed, a new climate fund will be set up, carbon markets will be expanded and countries will be able to earn money by protecting forests.
Chris Huhne hailed the conclusion of the talks as "a triumph of European co-operation".
"We have taken a significant step forward. This will give business confidence and stop us locking in a whole generation of high-carbon technology," he said.
But Martin Khor, director of the intergovernmental South Center in Geneva, said poor countries would be obliged to cut emissions proportionally more than the rich. "It's like the starving will be made to give up half their small amount of food but the rich just a bit," he said.
Green groups said the ambition shown by countries to reduce emissions was paltry. "Negotiators have sent a clear message to the world's hungry: let them eat carbon," said Celine Charveriat, director of campaigns and advocacy for Oxfam.
"Governments must immediately turn their attention to raising the ambition of their emissions cuts targets and filling the Green Climate Fund. Unless countries ratchet up their emissions cuts urgently we could still be in store for a 10-year timeout on the action we need to stay under two degrees [of temperature increase]."
Greenpeace International director Kumi Naidoo said: "The chance of averting catastrophic climate change is slipping through our hands with every passing year that nations fail to agree on a rescue plan for the planet."
"This will force governments to admit their current pledges to cut emissions are not enough to achieve 2C rise and will have to be strengthened," said Michael Jacobs, of the Grantham climate research institute of climate change.
Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International, said: "Delaying real action till 2020 is a crime of global proportions.
"This means the world is on track to a 4C temperature rise, a death sentence for Africa, small island states and the poor and vulnerable worldwide. The richest 1% of the world have decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice the 99%."
83 Comments so far
Show AllMore of the same; stall, delay, distract, divert attention from the present and real dilemma. Our polar caps melt and our sea's acidify and keep rising, but we cave in to the big corporations who run the show and who see only profit,not a planet in crisis. Why even bother having these damn "Climate Summits"?
For the Greenpeace T-shirts.
"I went to Kyoto/ Copenhagen/ Durban, and all I got was hot air."
and
"Greenpeace: A wholly owned subdivision of OmniGlobalMegaCorp. Helping you feel good about destroying the planet."
I agree with you haleatus. The conference is predetermined beforehand by the Big Three to kick the can down the road without any resolution other than using the media to disseminate their impotent rhetoric. Much has been said about the young woman who spoke at this conference.
________________________________________________________________
Compare her words against this other young woman who spoke at the first major eco conference in Rio in 1992: and after you watch it in juxtaposition to the other young woman, then tell me what has changed? These conferences are nothing more than a public demonstration in futility.
___________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM5XYFYhLx0
_______________________________________________________________
And this is the same girl today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbbSDmjBWi4&feature=related
It all comes down to the basics: Overpopulation and extreme wealth/power concentration, things forbidden to talk about in the halls of power.
AGW at this moment clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with overpopulation. Stop with this crap already. Seriously.
Seriously? Population has nothing to do with it?
Amazing...
It's only amazing to your kind, who prefers to place the blame on everyone else but their own fucked up, wasteful and destructive way of life. And no, AGW doesn't have much to do with overpopulation. It is overwhelmingly caused by the wasteful rich countries, whose people use an order of magnitude more resources than most of the world. Even if you killed off everyone in the world but the rich West, we would still be fucking up the world. It would change basically nothing wrt AGW.
Fool, of course population size, energy and the vast wealth and power generated for the few, through its consumption, have no correlation to the near runaway, death dealing chemical alteration of the atmosphere and oceans. Pthh!
The global South has pushed forward to get this planet off the track to jumping off the cff the cliff like lemmings.
The global South has pushed forward to get this planet off the track to jumping off the cff the cliff like lemmings.
Most of AGW can be attributed to about a billion or so people - a lot of them, like Europeans, in non-overpopulated countries, some with declining populations. Despite your smartass comment, the driving force behind most of our current ecological problems is not overpopulation, but waste/overconsumption of a very limited part of the population of the world. And of course this limited population, with the same economical organisation, would be able to destroy the earth in itself. Again, I'm not saying that overpopulation can never be a problem - just that at this moment in time, it is not the source of the shit we're in.
Of course it's convenient for relatively rich assholes like us to pretend that it's a problem of "humanity", that "everyone's in it together", that it's because "there's too many of us" (although quite often, "us" only refers to people with different skin colour who live on the other side of the world) or whatever. But that's just a standard and transparent form of rationalisation, nothing else: if you're fucking up shit and profiting from that, pretending that some "bigger power" (like "human nature" or "human genes") makes you do it and that everyone would do the same in your place helps keep up the status quo.
So, let's see: the deforestation of marginal forests for firewood, habitat destruction with attendant extinctions, irrigation of marginal lands, groundwater pollution, and overgrazing of grasslands have nothing to do with population size. If we just stop driving our goddam SUVs, all of that will stop. Don't think so.
Yeah, I accept developed countries use more energy than developing nations and that cutbacks in consumption will have a bigger impact in America than in Zambia, but overpopulation brings about all kinds of problems besides greenhouse gases. Where do you think all those exploited miners in Africa come from if not from families with eight or ten kids? A smaller population would insure that people are not sacrificed in extracting minerals the world depends on, that the wastes produced from industrial society do not flow from discarded technology into the bodies of poor people as they extract heavy metals in seeping landfills.
I know I'll be burned as a racist for saying these things, but I am used to that. The failures of the human species are many and overconsumption may be chief among them. But ignorance and screwed-up values that treasure large families (especially of sons) come right after. We should be offering family planning services to all who want them, the programs carried out by officials from every nation suffering from overpopulation. That would be as ecologically sound as getting Americans to bicycle to work or insulate their attics.
"So, let's see: the deforestation of marginal forests for firewood, habitat destruction with attendant extinctions, irrigation of marginal lands, groundwater pollution, and overgrazing of grasslands have nothing to do with population size. "
A very significant portion of these things are driven not by population pressure in itself, but from destruction of traditional subsistence oriented economic systems - in order to satisfy the wants of the rich West. This mainly includes taking away the best land and best sources of water for production for export - and then of course blaming people who want to survive for doing everything they can. Most of the destruction right now is in fact driven by our waste, no fucking question about it.
"If we just stop driving our goddam SUVs, all of that will stop. Don't think so."
Not eating as much beef and other luxury foods would help also, but there are loads of ways in which our consumption drives waste in all parts of the world. Westerners do a lot more fucked up shit than just driving SUVs, which is why we use orders of magnitude more resources than others. And frankly, rich Westerners proscribing what to do with a third world family while a single one of them is actually wasting an order of magnitude more resources than the entire family in question is just a bit too fucking much. It is way too fucked up a proposition for anyone to accept it - unless you support it with violence, of course. Not a single person in the world would take this crap seriously - it would mean "give up kids so that I can keep driving my SUV". Without showing goodwill, you can only force this on people. Which is of course pretty much inevitable afaics :-/
"We should be offering family planning services to all who want them, the programs carried out by officials from every nation suffering from overpopulation. "
I agree with this, but the problem is that family planning services in themselves won't really mean much :-/ You can either force people to not have children (which is a direct intrusion into the most private area of life that is pretty dangerous and requires way too much low-level centralised control which of course will inevitably be abused) or, better, create a world where people don't have this much incentive for creating a growing family. That would first require a more equitable global distribution of resources. Which requires first and foremost that we stop wasting. It would be nice if just family planning services, without any forceful intrusion into private life, were enough.
"That would be as ecologically sound as getting Americans to bicycle to work or insulate their attics."
Ugh. People not driving SUVs is giving up a fucking luxury. Not being born, not living, is not giving up some luxury, it's not living. Not really a symmetric situation. Not that I think multiplying is the ultimate goal of existence, but it's certainly a better goal than just wasting shit, and the idea that someone should not be born because you want to keep eating hamburgers is a bit too fucked up.
My impression is that large families produce workers far beyond what the land can support so that, except for the first-born son, most siblings head for the city. It is the excess labor that makes exploitation possible, both in the country and in the city. Within the next twenty years China will not have excess labor and you can expect living conditions will gradually improve as workers get paid more and as they can begin to consume what their own factories can produce.
At the same time, Africa will be ripe for exploitation since large family size will produce an army of workers ready to do anything for a dollar--getting hazardous stuff out of outworn technology, raising crops loaded with chemicals, pumping out aquifers, fishing out lakes and rivers, and cutting down forests. When resources are scarce in comparison to population size, people will do anything to survive--including destroying natural ecosystems.
Exploitation involves two factors: a population that desires to exploit others and a population that is susceptible to exploitation. It takes both. I am just saying that a lower population make exploitation impossible.
And who decides Atomsk? You?
You're using a computer which uses oil, and truly, people died so you can do this.
And this idea that some people over here are using stuff that some people over there are not is increasingly false. Which country does not drive cars? Which country does not have hamburgers? A few I'm sure, but not many.
So yeah, population is the damn problem. It's the fundamental problem. And just because some damn heterosexuals are too lazy to put on a damn condom we continue to have this problem.
Drosera, thanks for saying what needs to be said.
Are the "developed", northern-hemisphere countries disproportionately responsible for global warming? Absolutely. But anyone who has lived & worked in the developing world is painfully aware of the pressures that exponential population growth in those countries puts on local forests, fisheries, fertile soils, endangered species, and fresh water.
This is not speculation or "political perspective", this is simple observation. One wonders whether Atomsk has ever spent more than a couple of weeks outside of North America. I've spent considerable time in around 30 countries on this planet -- several in which I lived for several months or years -- and I can't name a single one in which population pressures AREN"T resulting in obvious and demoralizing impacts on the local natural environment. People need resources to live, and putting 7 billion people on the planet -- more than TWICE the number that was in existence when I was born a mere fifty-some years ago -- DOES have an impact. To deny that is to be part of the problem.
So I'm counting on Atomsk to explain to the burgeoning middle classes in Brazil, China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Mexico, Thailand, etc. why they can't have automobiles, air conditioners, and refrigerators like all those people in the "First World". ("Can't they see they're only buying into the fucked-up western capitalist consumer paradigm?" Well, maybe, but good luck with that argument in the BRIC countries, Atomsk.) Then, and only then, we can focus on blaming everything on the First World alone. In the meantime ... we all share in the population problem.
With the US and Canada openly stating they will not agree to any binding or meaningful cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, this entire exercise was just more Corporate and Political greenwashing.
"This means the world is on track to a 4C temperature rise, a death sentence for Africa, small island states and the poor and vulnerable worldwide. The richest 1% of the world have decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice the 99%."
A 4 degrees C global temperature increase is now seen as wildly optimistic by climatologists. So the now completely compromised and useless Greenpeace and other 'feel good' environmental organizations making statements of 'we really tried, but gosh darn it, these wealthy Elite really know how to play mean' are worth less than nothing.
If "The richest 1% of the world have decided... to sacrifice the 99%.", then I argue that it is completely reasonable to use ANY means to defend ourselves from these violent psychopaths.
I guess when your being murdered accurate pyschological terminology is moot but anyway as we hashed out before here on CD, "sociopaths" is correct ( even though some may also be pyschopaths). Thanks.
Sometimes I feel that the entirety of Western History and colonialism is a cyclic, generational, nightmarish Sysyphean effort to rescue ourselves from the sociopaths.
We have tried revolution, which they co-opt with enthusiasm: we have tried democracy, but they just saved up their pennies and bought it away from us.
There must be some way to really save ourselves from these guys. Any ideas, because I'm not having much luck.
"The richest 1% of the world have decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice the 99%." Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. We have a lot of dead weight in the 99% and that is what is really holding us down.
Like I have posted before, the 1% will not care about climate change until it is too late and touches them personally. They literally have a death grip on the planet.
That is exactly correct ~Paul Revere~... How to educate the 1% on the turth is the Key.
But greed has always overcomes truth until it is too late... A runaway,, totally out of control global warming (cannot) be reversed... We don't have until 2020 to attempt to correct it....Sadly this climate conference was another bad joke.
They are termed "Climate Talks" and that is correct... They talk.
You can 'educate the 1%' all you want.
It still won't make a difference. They will continue the rape of the planet until there is nothing left. Their desires are insatiable and inexhaustible. They won't give up a damn thing unless they are FORCED to do so by circumstance.
Until the crisis impacts them in a negative manner, they honestly don't give a rat's ass.
Well ~Galenwainwright~ what I mean by (educating) them, is to insure they are educated to the point where they (fully understand) that they and their family members asses are in the same boat as a Hatian living in a cardboard box or an Amarican living under a bridge.
That they are educated to the point where they fully understand that they won't survive the dire effects of runaway global warming either... Okay?
I don't believe they presently understand that fact.. So I agreed with Paul Revere.
The 1% are already highly educated. It's the 99% who need to learn a few lessons.
The first one being stop supporting the 1%. The second: Hurry!!
Climate Action Tracker is an environmental monitoring collaboration which issued a warning last Tuesday that current pledges are on the path to 690 ppm CO2 and 3.5°C of (fast feedback) global warming by 2100.
This morning Climate Action Tracker reports that the deal in Durban has essentially no effect on the trajectory of carbon emissions:
As the agreements in Durban do not propose additional action before 2020 the risk of exceeding 2°C remains very high. Action to implement the Durban Agreements will need to be quick to increase emission mitigation and hence have a chance at reaching this goal. Catching up on postponed action is costly and the technological and economic options required to do so are largely untested - or unknown. The Climate Action Tracker estimates that global mean warming would reach about 3.5°C by 2100 with the reduction proposals currently on the table.
After Durban: Risk of delay in raising ambition lowers chances for 2°C, while heading for 3.5°C
Scientific analysis suggests that 2°C of global warming risks destabilizing ice sheets and methane hydrates. The negotiators in Durban agreed to someday agree on a course leading to about 4°C by 2100. The Center for American Progress aims to tout Durban as a constructive accomplishment for Obama, so now CAP's Andrew Light and John Podesta are full of effusive praise for US negotiators:
[Podesta]: I want to congratulate Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change, and his team on a successful outcome at Durban and applaud the strong interagency process that the administration employed to shape this agreement.
Corporate media outlets are also singing the praises of Durban. But I see no reason to join the chorus. The scientist at CAP, Joe Romm, could not be restrained from pointing out the obvious - that we're going nowhere quickly:
Recent science suggests that if you go substantially above the 2C target (450 ppm), it becomes increasingly hard to stop at some intermediate level of warming, like 3.5C (600 ppm of CO2) because of the carbon-cycle feedbacks. And you probably lose the Greenland ice sheet, albeit over a long time. And you likely turn large parts of the arable and habited land of the world — including the U.S. Southwest — into dust-bowls, with devastating consequences for our ability to feed 9 billion people by midcentury.
2C or not 2C: That Is the Question About the Durban Deal
In the eyes of the 1% Africa is dead already or can't die fast enough. That continent has been used as resource quarry as the humanity is discarded like fodder for the fire of White European and now Asian Masters Profit.
These talks are just a puppet show much like Obamas "progressive"Presidency just another brand sold to you with lies like any other consumer good to make you think you purchased something of substance and value which will do what it says.
There's one way to get the 1%s attention a general strike. Full on all across the boards. STOP! Stop working. Stop buying. STOP.
Occupy the machine! and throw a fat wrench into it. Hell, throw millions of wrenches into it.
Why should the 1% do anything if you are not willing to?
OCCUPY THE MACHINE!
Why should the 1% do anything if you are not willing to?"
Well the 99% is willing to work for the 1% without a blip of argument. That's how.
The "99%" that is demonstrating is 1% of the real 99% if that. There are two 1% groups on opposite sides of a rope tugging and the 98% in the middle aren't even watching the tug of war, they're shopping on line for a new Nintendo. Nothing will happen. Nothing at all. In fact the teaparty is still in Congress sitting on bills and judicial appointments and the Occupy people are doing what? Planning their spring protests? Nice. Useful.
Too much high-sounding rhetoric from Utopians
There is recognition here of an immense problem, rooted in thousands of years of hierarchy.
These people are doing the best they can, and though much much more needs to be done, and yesterday, this is, like Jack said: "As good as it gets," for now.
What's the pop of the US - 360 million?
How many are behaving responsibly - in any sphere of their lives?
Success is not possible, it is not even conceivable, while the people sleep, until we all realize that justice is paramount, that we are not cogs in a machine, but people whose feelings dictate right and wrong, not the bottom line.
Manysummits
=========
Thank you.
Justice is paramount. That's fairly easy to keep in mind.
We are indeed not cogs in a machine. Where is it written that we are required to act as if we are? Nowhere, that's where.
capitalize: (v)
take advantage ofmake the most ofget the most out ofbenefit from
exploit--thesaursus: english (u.s.)
economics began many, many centuries ago as the science for natural resource management. what happened with that, huh? one biggie pointed out by ezeflyer, 7,000,000,000 human beings. according to the center for biological diversity, eight million other species also call earth home. had humans not exploited Nature, judging "good and evil" from insipient meme subjective interests but instead appreciated and maintained the curiosity to continuously gain knowledge and understanding of how the cosmos works, we would not need this discussion. one dark and stormy night homo habilis grabbed his lady by the hair and pulled her into the "safety" of the cave. eyes wide with fear they watched as lightening flashed and torrential rains created gushing rivers along the very paths they had climbed. from somewhere behind an owl hooted as a bat fluttered overhead, "what unseen dangers threaten even this safe place? where to run when Nature confounds us at every turn?"
homo sapiens decided to build a better, safer cave as a fortress against the hateful whims of Nature's wrath. at first our foreparents intended to manage those vital resources for themselves and posterity, but for the sake of expediency resources went to stopgap measures exploiting Nature in exchange for creature comforts yet unrealised. taking such pride in this high-tech cave of human construct, never wishing to acknowledge in false presumption of superiority that every advancement comes from lessons of how things work from Nature's tutelage.
A new global climate deal has been struckany "legally-binding deal" which excludes the laws of Nature is but a fool's contract, full of pomp and circumstance, sound and fury, signifying nada!
"The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"
Mother Nature will rock you!
How do we free people to their lives? Most indigenous peoples had much less stuff, much more sharing, and far more time spent developing personal and communal soul. We are born into a world that has work-for-money waiting open-mouthed for us, like a slavering lake of starved aligators. Getting money fills our time and often leaves us exhausted with everything else - family, friends, spirit, the powers and ancestors - shoved into side corners and perophery. I live in an impoverished area where people increasingly spend their time scrambling for just enough money to buy one cheap pair of shoes for each child, and cheap food, and a tarp for the leaky roof. It can be very hard to see larger issues when you are living and dying such an ugly weary spiritless life.
For Paul Revere and Galen- I found this on Amy Goodman's Dem Now Site
"While (NO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS) no members of the U.S. Congress (let me repeat that...NO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS) attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma recorded a video message that was aired at a press conference of climate change deniers here at the summit on Wednesday. "Tossing out any remote possibility of a U.N. global warming treaty is one of the most important things we can do for the economy," Sen. Inhofe said. "I’m making this announcement from Washington, D.C., where I am confident that the only person left talking about global warming is me. The message from the Washington to the U.N. delegates in South Africa is this, this week, could not be any clearer: you are being ignored."
Dear God in Heaven.
You didn't publish the entire quote from Inhofe....
“The message from Washington to the U.N. delegates in South Africa this week could not be any clearer: You are being ignored. And you are being ignored by your biggest allies in the United States: President Obama and the Democratic leadership in the Senate.”
The entire process is a non-event in the US. No one here cares enough to elect people that will fight for the climate. Inhofe is right, Durban was totally ignored by all the leadership and most of all by Obama.
Change, Believe, Hope... Clean Coal, and Close Gitmo............Believe ? Vote Fraud, write it in.
Did anyone at the summit agree to get themselves spayed or neutered?
No?
Well then that says a lot.
We are NOT the 99 percent. We are the one hundred percent. We live on a planet with finite resources.
Breaking news has it that the rethugs have agreed to extend the Payroll Tax cuts and the dems have agreed to approve the XL pipeline in return.
The good cop/ bad cop scam wins again.
>>"With ministers exhausted after nearly six days and three nights of intense discussions, Hedegaard told the 194 countries in Durban:
"We need clarity. We need to commit. The EU has shown patience for many years. We are almost ready to be alone in a second commitment period [to the Kyoto protocol]."<<
Yes, but Connie Hedegaard still did NOT have the guts to name the biggest criminal by name for refusing to agree to ANY cuts so far. What a pathetic position to be in, knowing the truth and not being able to speak it? And worse, being forced to spread the blame all around, though some of this blame does need to be spread? Here's part of an earlier comment I wrote about Hedegaard and the Danish government's role in sabotaging the outcome at Copenhagen in 2009:
***********************************************************
...the name Connie Hedegaard reminded me of the despicable position taken by the western countries during the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit (COP-15). Hedegaard was very much involved in that fiasco, though she might have been part of the camp demanding some real action to reduce GHG emissions, to come up with a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. She actually had to resign from her position as president of the COP-15 (the climate change conference at Copenhagen), letting the prime minister of Denmark, Rasmussen , take over. The lame excuse she gave at that time was that with so many heads of state attending the conference, it was best that Denmark was represented by their prime minister.
But by this time, the sabotage was complete. And she knew it. She was, after all, Denmark's "Minister for Climate and Energy" at that time and her right-hand man, Thomas Becker, who was until then the lead negotiator on emission reduction talks, was forced to resign after some conveniently cooked-up scandals over restaurant bills! Thomas Becker was instrumental in getting the COP-15 conference to Copenhagen in the first place, and was pushing for some substantial emission reduction targets to replace the Kyoto agreement, which runs out in 2012. Hedegaard called it "purely an administrative matter".
"Kyoto" was only a modest first step, but the criminals have made sure that even that would not be adhered to by some of the biggest polluters, and most certainly, there would not be any more commitments that are of a binding nature. It was around this time that the so-called "climate-gate" was all over the media and provided a convenient excuse for some of the pretend liberals (not to mention the rabid right-wing) in USA, Canada, Britain, etc., to call it all a big conspiracy by those evil scientists! So, no, I don't think Connie Hedegaard "believes in the US Government" as she must have seen the criminality from the inside.
Denmark has been in the pockets of the empire for some time now and has been a useful minion, such as being a part of the "coalition" in Afghanistan. Denmark's shame reached a peak (IMO) during the Copenhagen summit as it allowed the climate criminals sabotage the outcome and even went along with it, without siding with the developing and poorer nations who were crying foul.
... Some of the European countries may be lesser criminals, but by repeatedly siding with the biggest criminals when it counts, they lose whatever respect they might have once had.
***********************************************************
The Guardian story I linked above mentions this: "Hedegaard has been criticised by African nations for favouring rich nations in the negotiations."
Connie Hedegaard may be committed to seeing real action on climate change. But she has been too pliant and too accommodative in the past, to not take on the biggest climate criminals, especially when her own country, Denmark, had the opportunity to seal the deal on some major action. She did not have the guts to name names back then. And she still doesn't seem to, unfortunately. After all, Obama was in Australia (another climate criminal) just days before the Durban meeting was to start, to tell the Australians that the empire would be expanding even more, and some Australians seemed happy at the prospect of more "jobs" and were thrilled to be considered by the emperor as "important.
It seems like the saboteurs have not completely killed off the outcome from the Durban meeting , as they did at Copenhagen in 2009. Obviously the warnings from the scientists is hard to ignore even by the biggest criminals and so they must have called off their attack dogs. However, what seems to be happening is a deliberate media campaign that DOWNPLAYS the refusal of certain western nations to take even modest first steps, and instead, focuses public attention a bit too much on the emerging "competitors" of these western nations. Oh, and in the process, the EU ends up looking respectable and responsible, even though they do NOT have the guts to name the biggest criminal on this matter.
It is time for ALL countries to do everything in their power to cut carbon emissions by massive amounts. This would require ALL countries to give up, boycott and ban all non-essential consumption and indulgence with a huge carbon footprint. And it so happens that there is a lot more of this "non-essential consumption and indulgence with a huge carbon footprint" in rich countries. That is one of the things that has not been named and shamed so far.
From the Foreword by environmental economist Herman Daly, in the 2010 collection of essays by Wendell Berry:
"What Matters? Economics for a Renewed Commonwealth"
"Oikonomia [from the Greek Aristotle] is the science of efficiently producing, distributing, and maintaining concrete use values for the household and community over the long run.
Chrematistics [Aristotle also] is the art of maximizing the accumulation by individuals of arbitrary exchange value in the form of money in the short run.
Although our word "economics" is derived from oikonomia, its present meaning is much closer to chrematistics."
-------------
Alcyon, a 'country' or 'nation state', like a 'corporation', is a disembodied creation of mankind.
I suggest that only individuals with the life force within can make change happen.
Our institutions, and that includes nation states, corporations, NGO's etc, are but reflections of the myriad faces of mankind.
"Get it done" applies with most force to the individual citizen - indeed, without the citizenry on board, the rest is a form of empty rhetoric.
Change - and the institutions will follow.
Mike
======
I agree, Michael Desautels. It is time to get specific. Once again, I'm going to cross-post my reply on another thread, as it relates to your point that only individuals with the life force within can make change happen.
********************************************************
Yes, ..., I agree that "We need immediate action to prevent a runaway global warming and we are very short of time." So you do all YOU can do and I will do all **I** can do. And this "all I can do" also includes talking to the people I know and that I come across. Do you have a better idea?
Do you know the carbon footprint of a cheeseburger? Of an escalator running in a mall? Rows and rows of freezers left open at supermarkets for the "convenience" of unthinking morons? Of an SUV driven 100 miles? Of an RV driven for just a few days? Do you know the carbon footprint of a Disney World? Disneyland? Do you know the carbon footprint of Las Vegas? Do you know the carbon footprint of a patio heater? Do you know the carbon footprint of regular meat consumption? Do you know the carbon footprint of the Houston Astrodome for operating just 4 hours? Do you know the carbon footprint of an ice rink? Do you know how many ice rinks there are in the USA and Canada and how much energy is required to operate them, even when it is damn hot outside, just so people can play or watch the stupid game ice hockey? Do you know how much fuel is burned for mowing lawns in houses and golf courses? Can you deny that these are all part of the American way of life that is threatening the whole world?
Forget coal burning increasing worldwide. The USA gets about 45% of its electricity from coal power plants. Have you understood the implications of shutting down all of it immediately? Why should China shut down its coal power plants BEFORE the USA has even agreed to doing its part? It is suicidal, I know. But WHO made it so?
Do you know how much gasoline it takes to produce 1 ton of CO2? Let me tell you, ... : it takes only about 112 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 ton of CO2.
Do you know how long it takes for a tree to absorb 1 ton of CO2? Let me tell you again: for a freshly planted tree, from 25 years up to a 100 years, depending on the tree and the location. For a tree that is already about 25 years old, more than 5 years - again for some types of trees only. How many trees have been cut down in the Amazon region just so people can eat beef? Who is most responsible for literally cutting down nature's means of maintaining the atmospheric carbon balance?
Have YOU done anything to really look at these numbers, ... ? Have YOU done anything to stop them? Boycott them? Tell others to stop and boycott them? Or ban them? Have YOU done any of these? For your information, I know what these numbers mean. I have stopped these (or never consumed much of any of these to begin with) and I have been actively telling people that I know and that I come across about the need to stop using or consuming these, for years and years. I tell people, especially youngsters, when I get the chance, about what's involved in their consumption. That is why I understand the need for a legally binding international treaty. I do not have the power to change the behavior of the BIGGEST CRIMINAL NATION on my own. So I look for an international treaty. But what can I do if the BIGGEST CRIMINAL NATION refuses to face up to its responsibility and refuses to reduce its crime rate? And this criminal nation is actually made of individuals who are part of the ongoing destruction. So, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, ... , to stop this insanity?
~Alycon~ you wrote,,,("Forget coal burning increasing worldwide. The USA gets about 45% of its electricity from coal power plants. Have you understood the implications of shutting down all of it immediately?").. End quote.
You could not be more wrong to say forget about incresing world wide coal burning... Forget about it? Not I... If we only stopped burning coal to develop electrical power, there would be no runaway global warming.
And no; we can not shut down all of the 1,200+ coal fired power plants "immediately"... We could, but that would cause a bloody revolution.
We could have a massive effort, a massive program to develop geothemal, solar and tidal power and have the coal fired plants shut down within a five year time period and then start on the nukers and the other fossil fuel power plants.
That type of a massive program should have begun by 2004, but it wasn't .. It will not be done, because our leaders are not strong enough or smart enough to enact such a world life saving program and take the lead on how to save the planet.
As Lee Iacocca wrote in his book, "Where Have All The Leaders Gone"... We don't have any (*leaders*), we have corrupted lapdogs for big business, the coal, oil, the military hardware and chemical manufacturers, the Koch bros' and GE, Boeing, Lockheed, and the nuclear industry, etc, etc.
So we WILL have (*runaway*) global warming with no turning back and no way to reverse it and it will begin (*before*) 2020, long before 2100, because there will be no massive effort initiated to stop burning coal, develop affordable clean energy and still have our electrical power and not pollute the atmosphere and oceans.
So I am not gong to forget it, because it hurts... We have children and grandchildren and they are not guilty of what our lapdog leaders have done and not done... No children of the world deserve what we have given them.. A dead world spinning...Yes, a soon to be dead world... By 2020 or sooner, when runaway GW begins,, it will be the beginning of the end and the crying and wailing will be heard around the world.
WayneWR, I had meant to say, "Forget coal burning increasing worldwide for a moment. The USA gets about 45% of its electricity from coal power plants....". My point was, these need to be shut down too. And all of this power generation capacity cannot be replaced with renewable energy in a short enough period - a fact that many people here have not recognized explicitly. And that leaves the ONLY option of massive, massive cutting back on energy use. ALL non-essential energy use should be taxed like crazy, frowned upon, or banned outright! Personally I consider the question "Who defines what is non-essential?" as childish. Most of the things I have listed in my above rant can be considered non-essential, and the actual list would be very long, indeed. WayneWR, I have been convinced for a long time that this is the ONLY way we could possibly avert disaster: that is by simply cutting out non-essential, frivolous, wasteful energy use, especially if this cutting out of waste is NOT going to kill us or harm us.
I did not have children.
Did you?
Well ~Alycon~, this is one issue where you and I disagree.. We both agree that unless drastic measures are soon taken, (*runaway*) global warming will occur.
When runaway GW will occur is a matter of varied scientist's opinions but it will occur sometime between now and 2100... At the rate the Arctic methane is releasing and will accelerate in releasing as the Arctic continues to rapidly warm up, it is most likely going to occur soon, perhaps within ten years or less.
Runaway GW is it, the ball game will be over,, because there will be no fixing it… So that should be the most important issue on the table. It honestly should be compared to a massive asteroid on a collision course to hit Earth and cause a mass extinction of life once again... Either will result in the same thing,,, so runaway GW should be considered to be just as deadly serious.
Now if a massive asteroid was on a sure fire collusion course with Earth does anyone believe it would be ignored? I sure do not, world governments would get together and have their best scientific minds try to find a method to divert the asteroid. I hope. they would any way. They would.
So here we have a like issue, runaway GW is going to at first cause GW to become so severe life on Earth will become unbearable. Then finally a mass extinction of life once again.... That isn't hype or overstating the case,, it is how it is.
We could stop burning coal in the United states within a four to five year time period and not disrupt the power…. If it were one coal fired power plant, we would build a solar or geothermal or a tidal power plant, fire it up and connect it to the power grid which is already in place and shut down that one coal fired power plant… Done.
It isn’t just one coal fired power plant though, it’s over 1,200 and we have to build 1,200+ clean energy power plants having the same or better output. and shut the 1,200+ coal fired power plants down.
That would require a nation wide massive effort,, like a war time effort a war without building cannons and bombers, guns and rockets.
That is quite possible.. We have the technology to build the clean energy plants and it has been well proven they work very well... We have the man power, especially with millions out of work at the present time... We have the money to do it... Just take 20% of the money we are spending on military hardware and we'd have more than enough money... I mean one B-2 bomber is a national treasure in terms of cost.
During WW2 we did things here in the United States that were truly unbelievable in a years time and over a four year time period absolutely incredible things... Building 1,200 clean energy power plants is really rather minor in comparison, but still would be a massive program.
We could and we should lead the world with truly clean energy and set the standard. We either stop burning coal within the next five to ten years or our ass is grass and the grim reaper will be the releasing Arctic's methane. And I believe five to six years is closer to the time runaway GW will begin... Once it begins hang it up Alycon and get ready for a rough ride, a very, very rough, unbelievable rough ride.
So that is it…. Our 536 DC elected have to either believe it and accept it and start a massive nation wide effort to replace the coal burners, or deny it and ignore it.
Again, it's an incoming asteroid the size of Vermont and it's going to hit... So we'd better at the bare-ass minimum try to divert it.
>>WayneWR: "That is one issue where you and I disagree ~Alycon~. ... That is quite possible.. We have the technology to build the clean energy plants ... During WW2 we did things here in the United States that were truly unbelieveable in a years time and over a four year time period absolutly incredible things... Building 1,200 clean enegy power plants is really rather minor in comparrison, but still would be a massive program."<<
It looks like, WayneWR, you want to have your cake and eat it too. I suppose that is your point of disagreement with me. Whereas I say the ONLY option is to shutdown, boycott or ban a lot of wasteful activities, you are saying, it may be possible to replace all this electricity from coal power plants with "clean energy". I am sorry, but I have little doubt that you are wrong on this, and BIG TIME, too!
I have not heard ONE scientist who has claimed that all the current electricity generation, or even most of it, that comes from coal power plants can be replaced with clean energy sources, let alone in a short enough period of time. There are real limitations in terms of material and energy requirements to manufacture all of these.
And don't forget, that the whole world would want some of these. Once again, I notice in your post a mindset that is typically American - a mindset that does not fundamentally question the sustainability of the current level of consumption. It is mind-boggling.
For now, let me just refer you to a book called "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air" by David MacKay. You can download the entire PDF file for free at the site too. One of the things you would see there is that the author converts all energy requirements to a common unit, "kWh" for ease of comparison, including the energy needed for driving, if it were to be done using an electric vehicle instead of a gasoline-burning car. On that basis, here are a couple of quotes from the book:
[Quote]"The solar power capacity required to deliver this 50 kWh per day per person in the UK is more than 100 times all the photovoltaics in the whole world."
"Let’s compare this estimate of British wind potential with current installed wind power worldwide. The windmills that would be required to provide the UK with 20 kWh/d per person amount to 50 times the entire wind hardware of Denmark; 7 times all the wind farms of Germany; and double the entire fleet of all wind turbines in the world."
"To create 48 kWh per day of offshore wind per person in the UK would require 60 million tons of concrete and steel – one ton per person. Annual world steel production is about 1200million tons, which is 0.2 tons per person in the world. During the second world war, American shipyards built 2751 Liberty ships, each containing 7000 tons of steel – that’s a total of 19 million tons of steel, or 0.1 tons per American. So the building of 60 million tons of wind turbines is not off the scale of achievability; but don’t kid yourself into thinking that it’s easy. Making this many windmills is as
big a feat as building the Liberty ships." [End quote]
Don't forget that it is not just the westerners who would want some of these technologies. If all the countries in the world were to switch to renewable energy on a massive scale, as they should, the world would soon run into all kinds of material and resource limitations. The only sane option then, as it is now, would be to cut back on demand. This is the difference between "supply side management" and "demand side management".
Those who have not looked at the numbers adequately often (naively) imagine that supply side management, that is, switching to renewable energy in a big way, is possible, so that much of the current consumption can be powered by renewables, and that the main problem is a lack of political will. But reality points to the need for drastic cuts in demand.
Just today I found a comment from another CD poster "avileeg". He (she?) has referred me to a source on the emissions associated with livestock raising. The report (PDF file) is called "Livestock and Climate Change"<<
Here's the relevant excerpt from that report:
>>"Livestock’s Long Shadow, the widely-cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), estimates that 7,516 million metric tons per year of CO2 equivalents (CO2e), or 18 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions, are attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, horses, pigs, and poultry. That amount would easily qualify livestock for a hard look indeed in the
search for ways to address climate change. But our analysis shows that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32,564million tons of CO2e per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions.
This is a strong claim that requires strong evidence, so we will thoroughly review the direct and indirect sources of GHG emissions from livestock. ... "<<
So if people are REALLY serious (and not just pretend-serious), they have to consider demand reduction. And they must consider giving up meat and dairy. There is a very real chance to move away from the brink of disaster and towards safety and sustainability. But it would require people to face reality squarely and honestly. And urgently.
"demand reduction" - Not at all easy with our capitalist system. There would have to be a central government that would provide the public transport that would replace the private cars. It would not be just the 1% who wont, the upper middle class would be much worse off. It can all be done, but this is politically impossible with the current form of government where politicians are owned by the corporations that fund them. In other words, we would have to look like 1970's Russia before we could actually do this stuff. There is no way in the world we even look like being that sort of "REALLY SERIOUS".
OK, leave out public transport for the moment. What about the other indulgences such as watching commercial sporting events, going to amusement parks and such? That part is entirely up to the individuals and the families to make that choice. And for many people, even giving up meat and dairy is within their power. Yes, it would require some researching and getting used to a "new" kind of diet - but entirely within reach of most people. And has almost nothing to do with "the current form of government". If people still won't do it, therein lies the problem. But some would still insist "change the system first". And so the charade continues.
Alcyon,
Thanks much for the link to Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air.
It bothers me when people say that we can maintain exactly the same lifestyle, that all we need is a painless transition to sustainable energy sources. Unless one considers nuclear energy a sustainable energy source, this bromide does not hold up. Our whole way of life needs to be re-engineered, in my view. So it's great to see David McKay's thoughts in this vein.
I also really appreciate the Livestock and Climate Change report, which puts meat-consumption in perspective better than anything else I've seen.
Well ~Alycn~, I still very strongly disagree with you.... For starters you say we don't have the material... Wrong... During WW 2 we built many thousands of huge ships... We built thousands of tanks adn cannons, we built over 50,000 military aircraft.
We constructed hundreds of military bases and airfields in a (years time), we built the Manhattan project. We ran a 40 inch pipeline from Texas to New Jersey in a year, We built the Alcon Highway in a year,, we had the B-29 program,, which was the most expensive and largest single project ever at that time.
We manufactured more than 650,000 military vehicles and landing craft. We fed the Russians and supplied them with aircraft and munitions... Stalin stated that without the food we supplied they could not have defeated the Germans army on their front... We fed the brits, and transported billions of tons of equipment to England for the D Day invasion.
We fought a word wide war on four separate continents... We clothed,, housed and fed several million military personnel and those are jsut some of the things we accomplished to prevent being ruled by Germany and Japan,,, and in addition,,, our economy boomed.
Building 1,200 clean energy power plants and replacing 1,200 coal fired plants is a cake walk in comparison to what we did during WW 2... It would lead the way for all other nations to follow, China, South Africa, Europe, India and Japan, etc. and it must be done within the next ten years if we have any hope of averting (*runaway*) global warming. I fail to see why you don't understand what runaway global warming means.
A very few of your proposals are fine, we must do all possible to reduce Co2 emissions. except your suggestion would have to be a world wide effort and overall it is actually quite far fetched and delusional..
In addition; your strange ideas would not reduce burning coal... And any Co2 reductions would not be enough or soon enough to prevent runaway global warming... It would also primarily be a (voluntary) program world wide, not government sponsered programs... It would not work ~Alycon~.
And by imposing huge taxes on fossil fuel use would only hurt the poor and middle classes, not the one percenters and it would be another strong step to having a world wide depression.
Runaway global warming will be "irreversable".. What is your definition of the word "irreversable"?
You know what ~Alycon~? __ The way You and ~Aleph Null~ argue agaist replacing coal fired power plants, sounds like ones who are secret shills for the coal industry.
You sure do give strong arguments against developing clean energy,, especially doing it soon enough to prevent runaway GW.... It's how YOU sound ~Alycon~, not attacking you and ~ Aleph Null~, or accusing you of such... What you propose is worthless (talk), not atction... My suggestions are credible and it could and must be done and done very soon.
Now there is a perfect example of disagreeing and I stand by my suggestions, you can do as you please... Don't be surprised when runaway GW begins in a few more years,,, because no one is going to do anything at all to prevent it.
Oh boy! Lots of misrepresentations of what I actually said, lots of assumptions and projections, and some that look like outright falsehoods in this post. I don't know where to start my reply, and don't know even IF I should reply. Anyway, I'll see if I should reply more at a later time, WayneWR. For now, I'll just remind you that it's NOT just the USA that would want to build all these renewable energy systems. All countries would, and should, want to build them, AND QUICKLY!
For someone who keeps harping about the Arctic methane, YOU should know what "QUICKLY" means, WayneWR. To me, it looks like we could quickly give up non-essential consumption as we make the transition to a clean energy, sustainable system. Whereas YOU, despite your pretensions of being worried about the Arctic methane, still cannot bring yourself to admit that the American way of life is killing the planet. And you don't want to admit that others too would want some of what the Americans have.
You make this preposterous claim that I have argued "agaist replacing coal fired power plants"? And Aleph Null too? Come on WayneWR, that's a needless low to stoop to, to make whatever point you are trying to make. My entire rationale for "demand reduction" is based on shutting down the coal power plants at the earliest! If done immediately (which I support), it would leave a hole of about 45% in the USA's electricity generation capacity. So the question becomes how to manage without this 45% capacity. Some of it can be replaced with renewable energy, but it's not clear how much and how fast. That is why I insist that people should start giving up, boycotting and consider banning certain energy-guzzlers that are not necessary for a decent, healthy life.
You say, "your strange ideas would not reduce burning coal." By "strange ideas", I take it that you are referring to my call for demand reduction, that is, drastically reduced consumption of energy for frivolous, non-essential purposes. Yup! My guess was right: you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to pretty much maintain the current level of consumption, thinking that it can all be powered by renewable energy, ignoring completely about what would happen if the Chinese and the Indians also want some of this lifestyle. You don't like numbers very much, do you, WayneWR?