Son of Kyoto: Copenhagen
Fri, 2008-08-29 22:27
#1
M. Spector
Son of Kyoto: Copenhagen
Fri, 2009-08-21 19:26
#2
M. Spector
Mark the month: December, 2009. And the place: Copenhagen, capital of liberal, sophisticated, happy Denmark. And the significance, which cannot be overestimated. For it is then and there that [url=http://en.cop15.dk/]the UN will negotiate the successor to the Kyoto Protocols, to be installed in 2012.[/url] Given the ever-diminishing window between the uneasy present and the likely appearance of runaway climate change once positive feedback loops check in, it may well be that the outcome of the meetings in Copenhagen will seal the fate of civilization. It is not too often one gets to say something like that.
Capital is already preparing. Something called the [url=http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/]"Copenhagen Climate Council"[/url] sprang into being in May 2007. Its mission:
>>presenting positive, achievable and innovative solutions to climate change, as well as assessing] what will be required to make a new global treaty effective. The Council will seek to promote constructive dialogue between government and business, so that when the world's political leaders and negotiators meet in Copenhagen in 2009, they will do so armed with the very best arguments for [b]establishing a global treaty that can be supported by global business.[/b] What is needed to succeed is to involve global businesses in the greatest innovation project on climate ever.<<
Good old capital, ever upbeat and optimistic. In a statement which could have come from Al Gore, we learn that "tackling climate change also has the potential to create huge opportunities for innovation and economic growth." Isn't it nice to know that huge opportunities are in the offing?
Global civil society is also gearing up, looking ahead to [b]this year's December meetings in Poznan, Poland,[/b] as a prelude to Copenhagen in '09. The [url=http://www.globalclimatecampaign.org/]Global Climate Campaign[/url] can point to some 90 countries where people are organizing from below against the menace of climate change. This is a very good, indeed, necessary thing. It is heartening to see people coming together in so many places to express a new awareness. But the awareness scarcely begins to extend into the realization that [b]capital accumulation is driving climate change; that capital controls the state, transnational organizations like the UN, and the production of ideology; and that, therefore, the existing climate protocols, as well as those likely to be developed in Poznan and Copenhagen, are recipes for doom.[/b] It is not reassuring to see on the Global Climate Campaign website a banner montage which includes an image of an activist holding aloft a sign on which appears the words, "Make Kyoto Strong," because the stronger accords like Kyoto are, the weaker will be our ecosphere, and the more threatened the firmament of life.
Source: All Aboard for Copenhagen! by Joel Kovel: [i]Capitalism, Nature, Socialism[/i] June 1, 2008 (not available free online)
Fri, 2009-08-21 19:33
#3
M. Spector
The disappointing results of negotiations in Bonn last week are indication that [b]industrialised countries are unwilling to make substantial contributions to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.[/b]They failed once again to meet the expectations formulated in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In a report in February 2007, the IPCC called for reductions of up to 40 percent up to 2020. Without substantial reductions, it warned, the average earth temperature would rise by more than two degrees Celsius by 2050.
Two degrees is considered the most that earth can tolerate if it is to maintain its ecological equilibrium. A temperature rise beyond this point, the IPCC said, would lead to environmental catastrophes from severe droughts to further melting of glaciers and rise in sea level, and stronger and more frequent cyclones and hurricanes.
The industrialised nations - other than the U.S. - responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change, proposed reduction by 16 to 24 percent by 2020 relative to 1990 levels.
The U.S., the largest polluting country per capita by far, did not commit itself even to this. The total reductions offered by industrialised nations add up to far less if U.S. emissions are taken into account.
"If we count the U.S. emissions, then the reductions proposed in Bonn by industrialised nations fall to 10 to 15 percent," Martin Kaiser, climate change expert with the environmental organisation Greenpeace told IPS.
[b]
"If we continue at this rate we're not going to make it,"[/b] Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which hosted the meeting in Bonn, told a news conference after the closing of the negotiations. Some 2,000 delegates from 192 nations took part in the Bonn talks.
[url=http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48107]IPS, Aug. 17/09[/url]
Fri, 2009-08-21 19:35
#4
M. Spector
On the [b]30th November 2009[/b], world leaders will come to [b]Copenhagen[/b] for the [b]UN Climate Conference[/b] (COP15). This will be the [b]most important summit on climate change ever to have taken place,[/b] and it will determine how the countries of the world are going to respond to the climate threat. The decisions taken there will define the future for all the people of the world. The previous meetings give no indication that this meeting will produce anything more than empty rhetoric and a green washed blueprint for business-as-usual.
There is an alternative to the current course and it's not some far-off dream. If we put reason before profit, we can live amazing lives without destroying our planet. But this will not happen by itself. We have to take direct action, both against the root causes of climate change and to help create a new, just and joyous world in the shell of the old. And so, we call on all responsible people of the planet to take direct action against the root causes of climate change during the COP15 summit in Copenhagen 2009. - [url=http://links.org.au/node/487]Source[/url][/quote]
Fri, 2009-08-21 19:46
#5
M. Spector
November 30, 2009 [url=http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/]Mobilize for Climate Justice![/url]
Fri, 2009-08-21 22:30
#6
One certainly hopes that kobenhavn will succeed where its parent failed. I am not sure if we should count on global business to play a positive role. It is difficult to see them settling on cutting back consumption, the main driving force of climate change.
When I read about the warming of the Oceans, it gives little hope that we will make it. The cuts that we need now, makes Kyoto look like kids play. Business got us into this mess, and we would be fools to think they will get us out of this.
Sat, 2009-08-22 01:18
#7
M. Spector
It is difficult to see them settling on cutting back consumption, the main driving force of climate change.
The main driving force of climate change is production, not consumption. In any event, simply "cutting back" either production or consumption is not the answer. We need a thoroughgoing sea-change in the way production is organized and controlled. And it's a change that capitalism is both unwilling and unable to make.
Sat, 2009-08-22 14:07
#8
I am not sure if we get far argueing about production or consumption, they are very much connected. If we would not consume the fossil fuels there would be no need to dig them up. Capitalism possibly could work, but they would have to do a serious revamping of their cost accounting, sothat social and environmental costs are included, which is unlikely to happen. So I agree a new aproach would have a better chanche.
Sat, 2009-08-22 23:12
#9
M. Spector
I am not sure if we get far argueing about production or consumption, they are very much connected. If we would not consume the fossil fuels there would be no need to dig them up.
I just think you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. You seem to think that consumption drives production, whereas I say vice versa.
I don't hear a lot of consumers demanding that more fossil fuels be dug up. I do hear a lot of industrialists calling for ever greater amounts of fossil fuels to be extracted from the earth and turned into profits for themselves.
Sun, 2009-08-23 23:55
#10
M. Spector,
No need to look through a telescope to see the dependancy of producer and consumer on each other. As a small farmer I certainly would not be planting a crop, if I was not reasonably sure that the product would be consumed. Maybe consumers are not asking for more fossil fuel to be dug up, because they are used to having it available, the oil industry made sure of that. But if the Middle East went on an oil production strike I suspect the consumers will be ringing the ears off the shovel operators at the tarsands to work overtime.
Maybe to slow down both production and consumption in relative harmony, we need to ban all advertizing, it seems to be one of the drivers of the production/consumption spiral.
Mon, 2009-08-24 11:58
#11
M. Spector
As a small farmer I certainly would not be planting a crop, if I was not reasonably sure that the product would be consumed.
Do you consult with consumers as to what crops they would like you to plant and how many? Or do you make that decision? Would you knowingly plant a crop that consumers wanted even if you couldn't make money from it? Do consumers tell you what kind of pesticide to use and how much? Do consumers supervise your land use to ensure that the soil does not become depleted and the water polluted?
No, you as the producer make all those decisions. If your economic activity contributes to global warming, it's not the fault of the consumers. (It may not be your fault either.)
Maybe consumers are not asking for more fossil fuel to be dug up, because they are used to having it available, the oil industry made sure of that.
Um, yes, the oil industry being the producers. If there hadn't been fossil fuels on earth, the capitalists would still be out slaughtering whales for oil, telling anyone who objects that "consumers are demanding it".
Consumer demand is limited by what is available. The producers decide what is available.
But if the Middle East went on an oil production strike I suspect the consumers will be ringing the ears off the shovel operators at the tarsands to work overtime.
Um, no, that would be the oil companies again.
Consumers do not decide how goods are to be produced in a sustainable and planet-friendly way. Most consumers in the world are living at or below subsistence levels anyway, and have no real choice as to what and how much they are going to consume.
Capitalism was an unsustainable economic system long before the advent of the advertising industry.
Mon, 2009-08-24 14:02
#12
Here's a cool site that lets people use social media tools to add their voice to the campaign. http://www.timeforclimatejustice.org/
If you're on facebook or have a blog or twitter account or something, think of adding some of the stuff to it.
Mon, 2009-08-24 17:53
#13
As a small farmer I certainly would not be planting a crop, if I was not reasonably sure that the product would be consumed.
Do you consult with consumers as to what crops they would like you to plant and how many? Or do you make that decision? Would you knowingly plant a crop that consumers wanted even if you couldn't make money from it? Do consumers tell you what kind of pesticide to use and how much? Do consumers supervise your land use to ensure that the soil does not become depleted and the water polluted?
No, you as the producer make all those decisions. If your economic activity contributes to global warming, it's not the fault of the consumers. (It may not be your fault either.)
Maybe consumers are not asking for more fossil fuel to be dug up, because they are used to having it available, the oil industry made sure of that.Um, yes, the oil industry being the producers. If there hadn't been fossil fuels on earth, the capitalists would still be out slaughtering whales for oil, telling anyone who objects that "consumers are demanding it".
Consumer demand is limited by what is available. The producers decide what is available.
But if the Middle East went on an oil production strike I suspect the consumers will be ringing the ears off the shovel operators at the tarsands to work overtime.Um, no, that would be the oil companies again.
Consumers do not decide how goods are to be produced in a sustainable and planet-friendly way. Most consumers in the world are living at or below subsistence levels anyway, and have no real choice as to what and how much they are going to consume.
Capitalism was an unsustainable economic system long before the advent of the advertising industry.
All people in the world are consumers, no matter what level they consume at. We are also all producers, even if all we produce is waste. As there are more and people, it is ridiculous to say that consumption has no impact on production. And industial capitalism does not predate advertising, although it can be said that the advertising industry was an outgrowth of capitalism.
Mon, 2009-08-24 20:58
#14
M. Spector
All people in the world are consumers, no matter what level they consume at. We are also all producers, even if all we produce is waste.
So in your view there is really no distinction at all between producers and consumers. So much for any kind of class analysis of society and the economy.
As there are more and people, it is ridiculous to say that consumption has no impact on production.
And I never said that. I said that the problem of climate change is the result of the capitalist mode of production.
People who want to shield capitalism from criticism in this regard scramble to find other "causes" - like consumption - i.e. blame the working class for consuming too much, while the poor capitalists are forced against their will to pillage the earth in order to satisfy the raging appetites of the lower classes.
And industial capitalism does not predate advertising, although it can be said that the advertising industry was an outgrowth of capitalism.
Your point being that the advertising industry is the cause of runaway climate change?
Mon, 2009-08-24 21:59
#15
All people in the world are consumers, no matter what level they consume at. We are also all producers, even if all we produce is waste.
So in your view there is really no distinction at all between producers and consumers. So much for any kind of class analysis of society and the economy.
There are large producers and small producers and large consumers and small consumers. Any analysis that doesn't take into account the fact that the rich consume far more than the poor is incomplete. The rich set trends in consumption as well as own the means of production.
As there are more and people, it is ridiculous to say that consumption has no impact on production.And I never said that. I said that the problem of climate change is the result of the capitalist mode of production.
People who want to shield capitalism from criticism in this regard scramble to find other "causes" - like consumption - i.e. blame the working class for consuming too much, while the poor capitalists are forced against their will to pillage the earth in order to satisfy the raging appetites of the lower classes.
Who says it's the working class that consumes too much? The rich consume too much, much of the rest of the planet wants to emulate those richer than they are and the "poor" capitalists recognize that they can make scads money from all this. And it's not the capitalist mode of production so much as the industrial model of production.
And industial capitalism does not predate advertising, although it can be said that the advertising industry was an outgrowth of capitalism.Your point being that the advertising industry is the cause of runaway climate change?
It's part of the cause of overconsumption. And climate change isn't runaway yet.
Mon, 2009-08-24 22:30
#16
M. Spector
There are large producers and small producers and large consumers and small consumers. Any analysis that doesn't take into account the fact that the rich consume far more than the poor is incomplete. The rich set trends in consumption as well as own the means of production.
That's not what you were saying. You were saying everybody is a producer and everybody is a consumer - a pile of economic nonsense.
The rich consume more per capita than the poor. That doesn't prove that consumption is "the main driving force of climate change", which is the comment of Bubbles to which I addressed my remarks.
Who says it's the working class that consumes too much?
Trust me, there are plenty of people who think that we can solve climate change by getting everyone to use CFL's and re-use plastic grocery bags.
The rich consume too much, much of the rest of the planet wants to emulate those richer than they are and the "poor" capitalists recognize that they can make scads money from all this.
The rest of the planet wants to have a secure supply of food and drinking water, a house to live in and a bed to sleep in. For millions, apparently, that's too much to ask.
And it's not the capitalist mode of production so much as the industrial model of production.
I disagree.
I agree with [url=http://www.ecosocialistnetwork.org/Docs/Tanurro-UpsallaTalk.pdf]Daniel Tanuro[/url]:
To address the environmental crisis both realistically and humanely, it is absolutely necessary to understand the specific social and historical characteristics of the capitalist environmental crisis, and to understand the differences between capitalism and previous modes of production.Pre-capitalist modes of production produced use-values, quantitatively limited by human needs. Labour productivity was low, and growth occurred very slowly. Social crises involved shortages of use-values.
Capitalism produces exchange-values, not use-values as such. Its only limit, as Marx said, is capital itself. Over-production and over-consumption [b](the first conditioning the second)[/b] are inherent in this highly productive system, which is based on ever more profit and ever more growth to produce profit. Social crises involve overproduction of commodities - that is, of exchange-values.
These basic differences shape very important distinctions between present and past ecological crises.
Previous ecological crises, in so-called primitive societies for instance, mainly involved low production communities looting natural resources as a response to food shortages caused by droughts, flooding, or wars.
Capitalism also loots nature, but in a very different way: capitalist looting aims to obtain and sell exchange values, not to satisfy needs, so it causes more environmental degradation than previous societies.
But an even more important difference - a qualitative one - is that capitalist ecological crises mainly proceed from overproduction and the [b]resulting[/b] overconsumption. Not only does capitalism use more resources, it does so by developing environmentally dangerous technologies. Each capitalist tries to get surplus profit, also called technological rent, by replacing human labour with machines, chemicals, etc., to improve productivity. Among other problems, this race for more productivity, this permanent revolution in production, leads to the development and use of new technologies like nuclear power, new molecules like DDT or PCB, and even new genetically modified organisms.
Climate change must be seen within that framework.
And climate change isn't runaway yet.
We've got it under control, have we? Who knew?
Mon, 2009-08-24 23:34
#17
M. Spector,
Ofcourse I have to consider the wishes of my customers. There are many items that I could produce more efficiently then the items I produce now, but what would be the point to produce them if there are no consumers. For example : duck eggs. Ducks are a hardy easy to keep bird, they don't stray far, stay together, find food where none seems to be, and lay big strong eggs. But none of my customers want them. So I keep chickens, eventhough they are more demanding on my time and the environment in my opinion.
Most of my customers are also friends, who share their knowledge and experiences quite freely. Often a good scource of information.
What are your hopes with respect to Copenhagen?
Mon, 2009-08-24 23:50
#18
M. Spector
I don't have much hope for Copenhagen. The best that could happen is that the US and Canada could be shamed into agreeing to emission reduction targets that would comply with even the relatively conservative and optimistic reduction scenarios called for by the IPCC. If that happens I'll eat my shirt.
Tue, 2009-08-25 00:58
#19
And climate change isn't runaway yet.
We've got it under control, have we? Who knew?
[/quote]
Not really worth replying to, but it is neither runaway yet nor under control.
Fri, 2009-08-28 14:41
#20
Anyone got any figures on the importance of things environmental out there from a recent poll?
Last I heard the environmental issues loom large enough to surprise some pollsters, given the economic climate. This is going to be crucial, along with their knowledge of the urgency of action.
Mon, 2009-08-31 10:41
#21
M. Spector
Scientists led by a former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are warning that the UN negotiations aimed at tackling climate change are based on [b]substantial underestimates of what it will cost to adapt[/b] to its impacts.The [b]real costs of adaptation are likely to be 2-3 times greater than estimates[/b] made by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), say Professor Martin Parry and colleagues in a new report published by the International Institute for Environment and Development and the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London.
The report adds that costs will be even more when the full range of climate impacts on human activities is considered.
[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=1080]Read more...[/url]
Tue, 2009-09-01 22:48
#22
M. Spector
[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=1082]A Call to Climate Action[/url]
August 31, 2009
The following call to climate action was developed last Fall during a meeting of nearly 100 activists from organizations around the world who came together in Copenhagen, Denmark to discuss [b]a mobilization on climate change to coincide with the 2009 UN climate conference that begins in Copenhagen on November 30, 2009.[/b]
----
We stand at a crossroads. The facts are clear. Global climate change, caused by human activities, is happening, threatening the lives and livelihoods of billions of people and the existence of millions of species. Social movements, environmental groups, and scientists from all over the world are calling for urgent and radical action on climate change.
[b]On the 30th of November, 2009 the governments of the world will come to Copenhagen for the fifteenth UN Climate Conference[/b] (COP-15). This will be [b]the biggest summit on climate change ever[/b] to have taken place. Yet, previous meetings have produced nothing more than business as usual.
There are alternatives to the current course that is emphasizing false solutions such as market-based approaches and agrofuels. If we put humanity before profit and solidarity above competition we can live amazing lives without destroying our planet. We need to leave fossil fuels in the ground. Instead we must invest in community-controlled renewable energy. We must stop over-production for over-consumption. All should have equal access to the global commons through community control and sovereignty over energy, forests, land and water. And of course we must acknowledge the historical responsibility of the global elite and rich Global North for causing this crisis. Equity between North and South is essential.
Climate change is already impacting people, particularly women, indigenous and forest-dependent peoples, small farmers, marginalized communities and impoverished neighborhoods who are also calling for action on climate- and social justice. This call was taken up by activists and organizations from 21 countries that came together in Copenhagen over the weekend of 13-14 September, 2008 to begin discussions for a mobilization in Copenhagen during the UN's 2009 climate conference.
[b]The 30th of November, 2009 is also the tenth anniversary of the World Trade Organization (WTO) shutdown in Seattle[/b], which shows the power of globally coordinated social movements.
We call on all peoples around the planet to mobilize and take action against the root causes of climate change and the key agents responsible both in Copenhagen and around the world. This mobilization begins now, until the COP-15 summit, and beyond. The mobilizations in Copenhagen and around the world are still in the planning stages. [b]We have time to collectively decide what these mobilizations will look like, and to begin to visualize what our future can be. Get involved![/b]
We encourage everyone to start mobilizing today in your own neighborhoods and communities. It is time to take the power back. The power is in our hands. Hope is not just a feeling, it is also about taking action.
To get involved in this ongoing and open process, sign up to this email list: climateaction[at]klimax2009.org
Tue, 2009-09-01 23:21
#23
Sven
I don't have much hope for Copenhagen. The best that could happen is that the US and Canada could be shamed into agreeing to emission reduction targets that would comply with even the relatively conservative and optimistic reduction scenarios called for by the IPCC. If that happens I'll eat my shirt.
You have no danger of eating shirt anytime soon.
This was the third-coldest summer on record in Minnesota and the predictions that I've read are that this winter will be "bitterly cold" between the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachian mountains. Couple that with the economy in the shitter and you'll find no appetite or interest, politically, in the U.S. for adding energy taxes to fight global warming.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Wed, 2009-09-02 01:56
#24
I don't have much hope for Copenhagen. The best that could happen is that the US and Canada could be shamed into agreeing to emission reduction targets that would comply with even the relatively conservative and optimistic reduction scenarios called for by the IPCC. If that happens I'll eat my shirt.
You have no danger of eating shirt anytime soon.
This was the third-coldest summer on record in Minnesota and the predictions that I've read are that this winter will be "bitterly cold" between the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachian mountains. Couple that with the economy in the shitter and you'll find no appetite or interest, politically, in the U.S. for adding energy taxes to fight global warming.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
It's an El Nino year. It will more likely be a milder than average winter. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/fxus05.html. We are experiencing near record warmth in Edmonton at the moment.
There is a much greater appetite for renewable energy, conservation, and other sustainable infrastructure spending. Not that I have much hope for Copenhagen either.
Wed, 2009-09-02 02:13
#25
Eh! The USA is already paying a huge energy tax. What do you think the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are about? Is that not a cost very much linked to energy consumption? Getting out of those wars and sighning on to Copenhagen will save you a bundle in the short run and even more in the long run.
Hopefully we will get a bitter cold winter, putting a check on the pinebeetle's progress and slowing down the melting of the permafrost and glaciers would be a big plus.
Thu, 2009-09-03 01:40
#26
M. Spector
A new movie is launching in the United States Sep. 21 -- about six weeks before the [b]Copenhagen[/b] negotiations -- with the aim of raising pressure on the Obama administration and its allies worldwide. The filmmakers want world leaders to take an aggressive approach to stemming greenhouse gas emissions and help poorer countries deal with the inevitable impacts of climate change.
"The Age of Stupid" follows the lives of six people -- an Indian businessman, a Nigerian medical student/fisherwoman, a Shell employee in the United States, an Iraqi refugee family, a British windfarm developer, and an 81-year-old French mountain guide -- who are living with or trying to mitigate the effects of climate change.
The movie launched earlier this year to serious praise in the UK, Australia, and several other countries.
The UK's Guardian newspaper called it "the first successful dramatization of climate change to reach the big screen," and the American actor Ed Begley, Jr. said: "'The Age Of Stupid' is the most powerful, well-researched, and emotional film that I have seen in recent memory."
The former president of the global environmental organization Friends of the Earth, Tony Juniper, hopes the film will spur political action. "This wonderful film is like a bucket of cold water," he said. "I hope it wakes people from their slumber and helps galvanize real pressure on politicians to come up with an effective deal at the [b]Copenhagen[/b] climate change summit."
Judging by the response of the UK secretary of state for energy and climate change, Ed Miliband -- who will be at the summit representing the United States' closest ally -- it just might.
Said Miliband: "I thought 'The Age of Stupid' was an incredibly powerful account of the effects of climate change, the urgency of climate change, and the reasons we must act as quickly as possible."
But Obama administration officials have not yet indicated what tack they will take in [b]Copenhagen[/b] -- or if they've seen the movie.
[url=http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/09/02-6]Source[/url]
Fri, 2009-09-04 14:40
#27
In advance of Copenhagen Ban Ki Moon, the UN Sec. Gen, has finally come out with a bold statement on global warming: "Our foot is stuck on the accellerator and we are headed towards and abyss".
The light came on for the UN Chief when he went to the Arctic this summer. He saw that the warming Arctic is also causing feedback as the sunlight is absorbed where it used to be reflected and that the tundra is starting to give up it's methane. Ahhh, so, he gets it!!
Ban Ki Moon told a meeting of some 150 governments on Thursday [Sept. 3rd/'09] that "time is running out for a new climate deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions."
Also encouraging is that I did not see one denialist posting in this thread; very unusual... did the denial industry give up??
However, India and China are refusing to do anything that would hinder their drive towards catching up with the developed world economically. What China and India are ignoring is that climate change will destroy all hopes of their continued economic development.
Also, the British and Americans are still refusing to commit to major cuts in emissions "if India and China won't commit".
So we have this childish crybaby mentality with the four nations that are most needed to take the lead on emissions reductions.
That, plus the fact that there is allready enough CO2 in the air to cause runaway cascade effects ["feedback"].
Our world leader's foresight, even on their favorite issue, the economy, was shown to be lacking as they ignored the signs of the pending mortgage crisis; with global warming they need to be looking even further into the future. I suppose there is still some hope to rescue the world from the worst of climate changes if serious commitments are made at Copenhagen, but it does appear that they are still playing their childish games.
Bank Ki Moon article:
Thu, 2009-09-10 11:21
#28
M. Spector
Here's a fairly simple choice: the global North would pay the hard-hit global South to deal with the climate crisis, either through the complicated, corrupt, controversial ''Clean Development Mechanism' (CDM), whose projects have plenty of damaging sideeffects to communities, or instead pay through other mechanisms that must provide financing quickly, transparently and decisively to achieve genuine income compensation plus renewable energy to the masses.The Copenhagen climate summit in December is all about the former choice, because the power bloc in Europe and the US have put carbon trading at the core of their emissions reduction strategy, while the two largest emitters of carbon in the Third World, China and India, are the main beneficiaries of CDM financing.
What that means is that [b]problems caused when Al Gore's US delegation brought pro-corporate compromises to Kyoto in 1997[/b] - promising a US sign-on to Kyoto (hah, what a lie) in exchange for carbon trading - [b]are going to now amplify, and haunt us for a very long time, unless serious reforms are achieved in Copenhagen.
They won't be, and nor will any substantive agreement emerge,[/b] hinted the new UN Development Programme director and New Zealand's neoliberal former prime minister Helen Clark this week: ''The success of the Copenhagen summit on climate change in December will not depend on a final international deal being sealed there.''
In other words, [b]prepare for a stalemate by a coalition of selfish, fossil-fuel addicted powers.[/b] Terribly weak targets may get a mention (or even no mention, as last time at Bali), but market mechanisms will be invoked as the ''solution'' so as to appease polluting capitalists and the governments under their thumb, especially US President Barack Obama's.
In contrast, there are attractive, simple mechanisms for financing Africa's survival, including the militant ''ecological debt'' (or ''climate reparations'') demands now being made by environmental leaders of the African Union (AU), as well as Jubilee Africa's request to just remove the damn boot from Africa's financial neck by canceling ongoing debt repayments.
[url=http://links.org.au/node/1233]read more...[/url]
Thu, 2009-09-10 17:45
#29
Actually, the US did sign Kyoto, so it wasn't technically a lie (however he must have known that it had zero chance of being ratified).
Wed, 2009-09-16 20:50
#30
M. Spector
A network of radical green groups is planning to disrupt the international climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December by invading the conference centre and occupying it for a day, it has emerged.The anti-globalisation group [b]Climate Justice Action[/b] has said it hopes to mobilise up to 15,000 protesters to storm the climate summit, and a large carbon dioxide emitter nearby, while negotiators try to thrash out a replacement for the Kyoto protocol.
"We want to take over the summit space to set the global agenda away from false, market-based solutions, towards an agenda of social justice," said Tadzio Müller, a 32-year-old German activist who is part of the group organising the protest. "Real emission cuts will not be achieved by initiatives like carbon trading...It is (the pursuit of) economic growth that is driving us into climate chaos."
But other green groups have condemned the plan. [b]WWF[/b] said the action would be "counter-productive". It is "very concerned" that the proposed protest will put off its own supporters.
"If you want to help fight against climate change, you don't storm the building," said Rasmus Helveg Petersen from WWF Denmark. "I don't see the point of this protest."
"We are afraid it might affect our ability to mobilise people during the conference. If there is a sense that there could be violence, people will stay at home."
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/21/copenhagen-climate-sum..., July 21, 2009[/url]
Tue, 2009-09-22 19:43
#31
Tim Flannery of Weather Makers fame told a CBC interviewer today that he hopes for concensus among the developed nations on a goal of carbon emissions 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. And I believe he mentioned a hoped for goal for China, India of a flattening out of emissions at some point beyond that. Did not catch the year.
It is always good to hear this scientist weigh in with hope in the face of the morbid speculations from the scientific illiterati. The kids need hope not speculative lectures about the failed human experiment.
Tue, 2009-09-22 20:22
#32
M. Spector
Um, yeah, this would be the same Flannery who less than [url=http://news.cleartheair.org.hk/2008/10/31/scientist-warns-emissions-trad... year ago[/url] was not so hopeful:
Dr Flannery told an international carbon market conference on the Gold Coast yesterday that emissions trading schemes alone could not save the planet in time.The 2007 Australian of the Year said he had a "sense of foreboding" about what lay ahead if more was not done to tackle climate change.
"I suspect that within the next decade, we are likely to see some dramatic climate shift a bit like we've seen in our financial systems over the last few months," he told the Carbon Market Expo Australasia conference.
"It will be swift and it will have many unintended consequences. The problem is a lot closer than we imagined."
Dr Flannery said the catastrophe could be a large-scale methane release which would cook the planet or major ice sheet destabilisation.
Sorry if that scares the "kids".
Tue, 2009-09-22 20:39
#33
No you aren't MS.
Tue, 2009-09-22 20:46
#34
M. Spector
That's right, George. I'm just a nasty old scaremonger needlessly bringing up uncomfortable truths in order to make people feel bad.
At least, it's easier to keep telling yourself that than to actually confront the problem.
Tue, 2009-09-22 20:55
#35
You lecturing me on how to "confront the problem" MS ? Your ego is larger than your pessimistic stance.
"Sorry if that scares the 'kids' " is just a shitty, off the cuff remark like all those prefaced by "sorry".
Tue, 2009-09-22 21:35
#36
M. Spector
Well, I guess personal attacks always serve well when one has no real response to another's position.
And my remark was not off the cuff, but in direct response to your shitty, off the cuff remark about "The kids need hope not speculative lectures..."
Tue, 2009-09-22 22:19
#37
That's exactly what they need, MS. My daughter, a mother, rounded up a few people for a phone-in to the local MP on Monday, urging action as we approach Copenhagen. I would not exhibit your "position" to mothers or kids.
And when you can do this (following a statement about Flannery on Copenhagen):
"Um, yeah, this would be the same Flannery who less than a year ago was not so hopeful:"
Just what IS your bloody "Position"?
Wed, 2009-09-23 18:04
#38
M. Spector
My bloody position, as folks know who have followed my many posts in the environmental justice forum, is that Kyoto was inadequate to stop climate change, and that Copenhagen is unlikely to be any better.
In the great public policy battle between global economic growth and global climate change, the G20 is going for growth. And if growth trumps climate at the G20, that spells the end of any hope of a major climate agreement in Copenhagen in December.
What you call "morbid speculations" are rapidly becoming reality. If even Corcoran can recognize that the G20 is not going to help solve the climate problem, it's starting to look like no-brainer territory. Why would anyone have more faith in them than he does?
My bloody position is that capitalism is incapable of solving the crisis because of its built-in need for constant growth, its externalization of costs, its continuing imperative to consume the natural resources of the commons, and its natural, chronic tendency to overproduction and waste. I also bloody well know that nuclear power and carbon trading are not going to save us.
As an alternative I advocate socialism. Only when production is for human need, not profit, and only when the iron hand of the marketplace is removed and replaced by a planned economy, and only when innovative means of production are devised in harmony with nature, can we begin to hope for the survival of the human species on earth.
So you see I place little faith in the [b]hopes[/b] of Tim Flannery, especially when divorced from the painful [b]facts[/b] that Flannery himself recognizes very well.
I won't ask you what your bloody position is, because I already know.
Wed, 2009-09-23 18:21
#39
An update on highest per capita co2 polluters: Australia is number 1:
http://www.maplecroft.com/news/australia_overtakes_usa_as_top_polluter_09.php
Thu, 2009-09-24 05:08
#40
I'm sure you are right. Climate Wars on top of Lovelock's science does not leave any room for doubt.
But sell that one to the kids, or their parents.
Any ideas? I am pushing for more reading. Education. Reality in political confrontation. Letters to the editor.
"Socialism" is of course the only way, but Flannery knows correctives won't sell under that brave banner. So we wheedle our way to corrective action, we hope in time. And in the process, we try to build hope. The endless recitation of climate failures just leads to a search for the highest bridge to jump from. Try delineating strategy and tactics, starting with the upcoming federal election. Editorials and editorial cartoons already show Harper in a "me too" position after Obama's plea for time to pass a bill of uncertain environmental value in the U.S. Senate - in 2010,..maybe.
Steve and his Tar Patch defenders should be tarred and feathered with bitumen and dead duck pluckings. It would be a start on turning around Canadian attitudes.
Thu, 2009-09-24 14:05
#41
The past 10 years of no global warming may make a binding agreement at Copenhagen more difficult than Kyto. Also, many people fear that it will be a political agreement, not a binding agreement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=climate&st=cse
Thu, 2009-09-24 20:18
#42
The people of the Arctic know what is happening, jacki-mo. The rise in temperature in the western Arctic in particular is much higher. Wish we could explain their concerns about a changing way of life to the political centres of the south. For sure, we should be listening and attempt to assuage the worst effects by helping with adaptation.
Tue, 2009-10-06 15:39
#43
M. Spector
The US and other developed countries are attempting to "fundamentally sabotage" the Kyoto protocol and all-important international negotiations over its next phase, according to coordinated statements by China and 130 developing countries at UN climate talks in Bangkok today [Oct. 5].As 180 countries started a second week of talks, the developing countries showed their deep frustration at the slow pace of the negotiations on a global climate deal, which are planned to be concluded in two months' time in Copenhagen.
"The reason why we are not making progress is the lack of political will by Annex 1 [industrialised] countries. [b]There is a concerted effort to fundamentally sabotage the Kyoto protocol[/b]," said ambassador Yu Qingtai, China's special representative on climate talks. "We now hear statements that would lead to the termination of the protocol. They are introducing new rules, new formats. That's not the way to conduct negotiations," said Yu.
Yu's was echoed by Lumumba Di-Aping, Sudanese chair of the G77, the UN's largest intergovernmental organisation of developing states which represents 130 countries at the talks. "Feelings are running high in the G77. [b]It is clear now that the rich countries want a deal outside the Kyoto agreement. It would be based on a total rejection of their historical responsibilities.[/b] This is an alarming development. The intention of developed countries is clearly to kill the protocol," he said.
The angry statements follow a revelation by Barack Obama's energy adviser, Carol Browner, that she did not expect the US Senate to vote on its crucial global warming bill before the Copenhagen talks. That will severely limit Obama's room for manoeuvre at the summit and is the first time the White House has made such an admission.
The G77 plus China group is incensed that [b]rich countries appear to be seeking to establish a new agreement that would force developing countries to cut emissions, but allow rich countries to do little.[/b]
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/05/climate-change-kyoto]The Guardian[/url]
Fri, 2009-10-09 11:39
#44
M. Spector
Today marked one of the final days of the Bangkok UN Climate Negotiations. With the end of this intersessional in sight, the International Youth Delegation (IYD) has officially declared "No Confidence" in the road to Copenhagen.With youth delegates from over 30 countries engaging in the Bangkok process, the IYD cited pathetically weak targets from the North, alarm that a second commitment period in the Kyoto Protocol will not be secured, and a lack of guarantees for protection of Indigenous peoples' rights and interests, in its Declaration. The current text of the draft climate deal is so weak and so full of "false solutions" (measures like offsetting that actually make the problem worse) it is unacceptable....
[URL=http://understory.ran.org/tag/bangkok-climate-negotiations/]Understory[/...
Fri, 2009-10-09 17:31
#45
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today - and were sustained at those levels - global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.
It's as though the fire alarm's ringing but nobody has woken up.
Fri, 2009-10-09 19:21
#46
I understand the world gets an opportunity to learn this sort of thing on Oct. 24th....and the magic number for that day is 350.
"DAY OF ACTION. On 24 October (International Day of Climate Change), local actions in more than 128 countries will be held to highlight the number 350, "as in 350 parts per million, the level scientists have identified as the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere."
Fri, 2009-10-09 19:23
#47
http://www.physorg.com/news174247209.html
I found another unreassuring bit of new paleoclimatological research today.
What emerges from these results is that the Greenhouse pole-to-equator sea surface temperature gradient was close to non-existent. After the warmest phase (about 50 million years ago), the world gradually cooled down to an 'Icehouse' state, like today. Along with this cooling, the temperature gradient turned more and more into its present day shape.
The interest to society is evident: the fossil Greenhouse world is generally considered to be a potential analogue for future climates. "The fossil Greenhouse world of 50 Million years ago is generally considered analogous to future climates", says Peter Bijl, paleo-climatologist at Utrecht University. "These field data imply that polar temperatures can be much higher than the IPCC computer models predict for a high-CO2 world. In turn, climate change can be even more severe than the worst case scenario's of the IPCC."
Fri, 2009-10-23 21:51
#48
M. Spector
[url=http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=2620]U.S. more complacent about climate change[/url]
65 percent of the [U.S.] public believes that warming constitutes either a "very serious" (35 percent) or "somewhat serious" (30 percent) problem, [b]down from 79 percent in July 2006 and from 73 percent just 18 months ago.[/b]The survey also recorded a sharp drop in the percentage of the public that believes that "there is solid evidence the Earth is warming" - down from 71 percent in April, 2008, to 57 percent - and in the percentage that believes global warming is caused primarily by human activity - from 47 percent to 36 percent over the same period.
Mon, 2009-10-26 00:41
#49
M. Spector
President Obama will almost certainly not travel to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December and may instead use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to set out US environmental goals, [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6888165.ece]The Times[/url] has learnt.
With healthcare reform clogging his domestic agenda and [b]no prospect of a comprehensive climate treaty in Copenhagen[/b], Mr Obama may disappoint campaigners and foreign leaders, including Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, who have urged him to attend to boost the hopes of a breakthrough.
Tue, 2009-10-27 11:22
#50
The UN is signalling that nothing of substance will be accomplished in Copenhagen: http://tinyurl.com/yj33llw
Tue, 2009-10-27 11:46
#51
M. Spector
You know Copenhagen's in trouble when the UN Secretary-General says, "I'm very encouraged by the strong commitment by the Obama administration."