| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Copenhagen, a failure?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Copenhagen, a failure?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Copenhagen, a failure?
    Posted: 21 Dec 2009 at 08:05
It seems that not so very much will come out from the climate meeting in Copenhagen. As one could suspect the leaders find it difficult to unite in some action that will actually do some difference for environment and climate. And as usual so will the rich remain rich (and do what they want) and the poor will remain poor, getting some handouts from the rich to do their dirty work.

What do you think, is Copenhagen a failure or a success, or something inbetween?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2009 at 08:32
A waste of time and money.  It emitted far more carbon than it was ever going to be worth.  1200 Limos imported from Sweden and Germany for the occasion. 


Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2009 at 09:29
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

A waste of time and money.  It emitted far more carbon than it was ever going to be worth.  1200 Limos imported from Sweden and Germany for the occasion. 




Yep, have to agree on this.

The reality is that no government is going to do anything until the very last minute, and as we all know, that will be too late. It'll be a story to tell our grandkids though ("Yeah, I know we knew we were f**ked, but we were too busy watching crap on TV and following the pathetic lives of celebrities to give a sh*t")
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2009 at 11:25
It was just a media stunt to being with, and it succeeded in being a media stunt, so in that sense it is successful.
What on earth anyone hopes to achieve in 12 days with what? 192 countries? I don't know. That's only 1.5 hours per country. Having a summit this big is pointless. It all needs to be arranged in advance, and if you do that what's the point in having the summit?
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2009 at 17:32
What should replace such inefficient meetings, especially if this and other global problems become even more serious? Should there instead be a group of countries making an agreement and then using pressure towards the rest? (What I mean by "pressure": talking end of free trade agreements. Limiting im and exports, kredits, investments. Food, oil, technology as "assets for negotiation" - "trade wars").
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2009 at 18:54
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

What should replace such inefficient meetings, especially if this and other global problems become even more serious? Should there instead be a group of countries making an agreement and then using pressure towards the rest? (What I mean by "pressure": talking end of free trade agreements. Limiting im and exports, kredits, investments. Food, oil, technology as "assets for negotiation" - "trade wars").

I don't mean don't negotiate, I mean what do we need to meet for? Can't we arrange everything through ordinary diplomatic and UN channels?
On this subject it makes more sense to form blocks and negotiate from them. Though I think this has happened somewhat.

Although to be perfectly honest, I think the only people with the size, money, and government control to do this is the China Communist Party. If China goes Green, the rest of the world will follow.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2009 at 19:04

I agree with Zagros and other above. What is the use of making a new deal when the previous one was flushed down the toilet the minute after it was signed.

What would have been more productive is the establish funds and lay out emergency plans for those countries that will suffer from climate change. Its better to prepare now for a thing that will come in 20 or 30 years than be stunned by it.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2009 at 19:40
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

What should replace such inefficient meetings, especially if this and other global problems become even more serious? Should there instead be a group of countries making an agreement and then using pressure towards the rest? (What I mean by "pressure": talking end of free trade agreements. Limiting im and exports, kredits, investments. Food, oil, technology as "assets for negotiation" - "trade wars").

I don't mean don't negotiate, I mean what do we need to meet for? Can't we arrange everything through ordinary diplomatic and UN channels?
On this subject it makes more sense to form blocks and negotiate from them. Though I think this has happened somewhat.

Although to be perfectly honest, I think the only people with the size, money, and government control to do this is the China Communist Party. If China goes Green, the rest of the world will follow.
I agree it seems that this sort of meetings seems to give little result, and it is only to some degree the "host" are to be blamed(perhaps it is mainly the participants). The "groups of contry" apprach may have its weaknesses too, not only in the case of climate, but in other cases were all the world is involved. A group of countries may loose motivation to do anything, if important other parties act as "freeriders" -at least in the long run. So if this "group" may impose sanctions on others they may  be less at a disatvantage. In short i imagine some important players - it could be EU, US, China, Russia, Japan deciding to do something about this issue or other global issues. Then they could have sanctions as one option toward the others for motivation. Anyway it seems not unlikely disagreements will lead to restrictions and some degree of break with freetrade agreements. And perhaps that could even be for the good?
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Dec 2009 at 21:45
Everyone likes "good theatre" but the box office for summit melodrama has hit a new nadir...pretty soon the prols will guess that these little gatherings are nothing more than all-expenses paid junkets for the pols and their sycophants. For goodness skaes, they are still dancing around nuclear disarmament 50 years on!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Dec 2009 at 16:26
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


I agree it seems that this sort of meetings seems to give little result, and it is only to some degree the "host" are to be blamed(perhaps it is mainly the participants).

I don't see why the host deserves any blame. They just provide the facilities. From the host countries PoV these things are great in stimulating business and tourism profits. Just from a getting things done perspective they don't seem so useful anymore.
Quote In short i imagine some important players - it could be EU, US, China, Russia, Japan deciding to do something about this issue or other global issues.

I actually think, like all other technologies, there is a big advantage of going first as long as you can create an economy of scale by doing so, or one will emerge from it. For example, South Korea and Japan can 'go it alone' on communications tech because they know that lots of countries will follow their lead and buy products and expertise from them. With renewable tech, as long as the country that 'goes it alone' is of a reasonable size, I think they too will get significant benefit from doing so as other countries catch up, or say, buy hydrogen from them.
I think that the US, EU, or PRC could easily go it alone and take the market with it if they desired. If they did it togther then that's as good as the whole world doing so anyway. They won't need sanctions or punishments on countries that are reluctant. The whole idea of waiting for the developing world to come to the party is stupid (or perhaps intentionaly stalling), if developing countries had a habit of investing in cutting edge infrastructure they wouldn't be developing!

If present behaviour continues, with the big 3 just doing enough to keep the populace in line, then there could be significant profit in small countries providing tech to these countries. For example, they may not be willing to spend on upgrading their power plants, but they may be willing to buy supplemental power. Or, for a real example, China buys Australian coal because its cleaner than Chinese coal. They not willing to stop burning coal, but are willing to spend on a marginal improvement to appease the masses.

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 23 Dec 2009 at 16:28
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Dec 2009 at 20:36
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


I agree it seems that this sort of meetings seems to give little result, and it is only to some degree the "host" are to be blamed(perhaps it is mainly the participants).

I don't see why the host deserves any blame. They just provide the facilities. From the host countries PoV these things are great in stimulating business and tourism profits. Just from a getting things done perspective they don't seem so useful anymore.
Quote In short i imagine some important players - it could be EU, US, China, Russia, Japan deciding to do something about this issue or other global issues.

I actually think, like all other technologies, there is a big advantage of going first as long as you can create an economy of scale by doing so, or one will emerge from it. For example, South Korea and Japan can 'go it alone' on communications tech because they know that lots of countries will follow their lead and buy products and expertise from them. With renewable tech, as long as the country that 'goes it alone' is of a reasonable size, I think they too will get significant benefit from doing so as other countries catch up, or say, buy hydrogen from them.
I think that the US, EU, or PRC could easily go it alone and take the market with it if they desired. If they did it togther then that's as good as the whole world doing so anyway. They won't need sanctions or punishments on countries that are reluctant. The whole idea of waiting for the developing world to come to the party is stupid (or perhaps intentionaly stalling), if developing countries had a habit of investing in cutting edge infrastructure they wouldn't be developing!

If present behaviour continues, with the big 3 just doing enough to keep the populace in line, then there could be significant profit in small countries providing tech to these countries. For example, they may not be willing to spend on upgrading their power plants, but they may be willing to buy supplemental power. Or, for a real example, China buys Australian coal because its cleaner than Chinese coal. They not willing to stop burning coal, but are willing to spend on a marginal improvement to appease the masses.
There is some very real differences in point of view here, and I must say I think mine differs much from many other participants in this debate. A difference not necessarily about the "moral/ethical" aspect as about the view of "reality". In short: technological meassures and scientific research may be good, and even necessary but cannot in any way stand alone as solution, neither in the more specific "climate-case" nor socalled "man/environment problems" in a broader sense. The chinese and indians and other asiatic people are so populous, so fast growing production (and as the other side of coin as destructive of natural environment) it is a global problem. Their own territories may not at all have the necessary ressources, so they either has to become very efficient consumers (efficient at exploiting and getting most out of limited ressources) or depend on the rest of the planet (they would rather need a multitude of planets!) And in addition share the "burdens" with the rest. Not that europeans and N.americans have been a bit better, but at least we are much less numerous and are in a fortunate position of having more area and probably ressources.
Therefore it may be against the long term interest of nearly all including themselves if they - or we - can follow the most "easy" way. Therefore an attack on international economy and trade on short term will be best in the longer run (the counter argument may be "we are all dead in the long run").
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Dec 2009 at 20:25
I think there is too much cycnism in this thread. The intention was good, many people/leaders believe we need to change but the summit was badly organised and China came in and spoiled the negotiations at all levels.

The west has the technology and the resources to change itself but has nothing left in its pocket to pay for everyone else. The developing world want us to pay for their 'bill' since we already made out carbon hit and got rich in the process (understandable but wishful thinking after the GFC) ...in the end it was not going to be, as the developings world leader - China didn't want anything to stop its economical ascent. They simply will not accept  transparent measures/hurdles, being such an opaque country.


Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Dec 2009 at 03:23

At the very least the Copenhagen conference exposed how out of touch some individuals, organizations and governments truly are on climate change. 

I think less and less Canadians are going to be willing to re-elect our current government if it keeps sticking its collective head in the sand on such an important issue. Accually it went even further than that and behind the scenes tried to disrupt any agreement being made.
we have a blind date with destiny..and it looks like she's ordered the lobster
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.