China wrecked the Copenhagen deal

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

An eyewitness account of the negotiations you can read here.

And the why, which is speculation on the writer's part, but makes sense to me.

All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Walmart is not your friend, folks. :headshake

Another article:

During the frantic final two days of negotiations at Copenhagen over the weekend, U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set a clever trap for Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. Having just announced that the United States would establish and contribute to a $100 billion international fund by 2020 to help poor countries cope with the challenge of climate change, Clinton added a nonnegotiable proviso: All other major nations would first be required to commit their emissions reduction to a binding agreement and submit these reductions to "transparent verification." This condition was publicly reaffirmed by Obama, who argued that any agreement without verification would be "empty words on a page."

Everyone in the room knew that "all other major nations" primarily meant China. From the beginning, China has steadfastly refused to place its commitments within a binding framework or accept outside monitoring and verification of its progress toward any promised targets. But the eleventh-hour U.S. proposal immediately isolated China. The onus was now on Beijing to agree to standards of "transparent verification." If it did not, poorer countries standing to benefit from the fund would blame China for breaking the deal. Clinton's proposal had cunningly undermined Beijing's leadership over the developing bloc of countries.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/21/how_china_stiffed_the_world_in_copenhagen

So China is the bad guy - ok, I'm comfortable with that. Where I get lost is why refusing to be held accountable to a binding agreement with outside powers is a bad thing. Seems to me the US would be better off if we weren't so busy promising everything to everybody.

In the article I posted it seems that the author is really using the title as a catch to get across the point that China's proclaimed GDP growth rates are outright lies, how they are taking "illegal" advantage of the carbon credit system, and how China's economy is so decentralized that they would not be able to live up to an agreement even if they wanted too.

A binding agreement would ideally show, more than what is currently believe, of how China is taking advantage of the environmental issue for personal benefit.

The Indian environment minister made a speech in Parliament taking credit for sinking the conference, saying that it was a joint effort between India, China, Brazil and South Africa.

The Europeans are blaming China and the USA.

IMHO, blaming one country over another is generally an expression of the blamer's idea of how the agreement should have gone. It's the developing countries' fault for refusing to cap at current levels! No, it's the developed countries' fault for refusing to link emissions directly to population rather than current pollution....

Personally, I blame New Zealand. No reason; it's just something I like to do.

China has a long history of not really caring for human life in any serious way as a government. There are plenty of excess bodies there, and they could lose 50% of their population to pollution and global warming and still be overpopulated. Therefore, expecting them to change *anything* that might reduce their runaway growth and profits ain't gonna happen. Cheap and plentiful labor and energy, all controlled by a totalitarian government equals lots and lots of money in the right pockets.

If we want China to curb their emissions, someone's going to have to conquer them to get it.

lookout123;620171 wrote:

So China is the bad guy - ok, I'm comfortable with that. Where I get lost is why refusing to be held accountable to a binding agreement with outside powers is a bad thing. Seems to me the US would be better off if we weren't so busy promising everything to everybody.

Because China is not only polluting its own air and water, but also the air and water of nations that neighbor it. All that gunk they're putting into the air does not just all drop out when it hits China's border.

I understand that. I just don't get why some of you are surprised that a nation would refuse to participate in something they perceive not to be in their best interests.

Who is surprised?

Obama apparently. He acted as though he would walk in there shmooze a bit and all would be well.:headshake

Reality says he got his handed to him. err. . . our asses?

classicman;620943 wrote:

Obama apparently. He acted as though he would walk in there shmooze a bit and all would be well.:headshake

Reality says he got his handed to him. err. . . our asses?

Not a partisan reaction?

Bullshit, asshole.

There were no expectations of coming out of this with a formal agreement.

The hope was for a framework and the one that resulted was less than hoped, but better than none at all.

And again more name calling. What came out of there was the reality that China isn't going to do shit if they don't want to. No matter how long and sweet a speech Obama gives, they don't care. No gain, no change.

classicman;620950 wrote:

And again more name calling. What came out of there was the reality that China isn't going to do shit if they don't want to. No matter how long and sweet a speech Obama gives, they don't care. No gain, no change.

What came out of Copenhagen was a new framework for cooperation for reducing C02 emissions....that is a fact.

You can ignore it and take partisan shots, but that doesnt change the facts.

I'm not partisan, and I say nothing of any substance whatsoever came out of Copenhagen. Zip. I'm one of those guys who thinks that Rush and his accomplices figure that the rich will have enough money to protect themselves from any ramifications of global warming, and they will deny it's existence until such time as it is undeniable, and then they will turn and blame the other side for it existing.

That said, nothing but binding agreements with consequences for noncompliance will change *anything* about global warming. Frameworks are not useful in any real world way. I do not blame Obama or any other single party, I simply state that nothing useful happened.

On the positive side we do have the acceptance of a 2C limit for temperature increase, and reference to the scientific basis for doing so. This indicates that science has finally had an influence on negotiators defining what would represent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

Elspode;620960 wrote:

....

That said, nothing but binding agreements with consequences for noncompliance will change *anything* about global warming. Frameworks are not useful in any real world way. I do not blame Obama or any other single party, I simply state that nothing useful happened.

I agree it will take a binding agreement...but you build a binding agreement on a framework that all parties can agree to..and that is what came out of Copenhagen.

And the framework sets both global and national long-emission reduction goals along with providing an independent verification process, both of which are new and, IMO, helpful first steps. It also includes short-term financial pledges to help developing nations....and far more from the EU and Japan than the US.

But my point was the CLassic's post about "Obama acting as those he could walk in and schmooze and all will be well" was typical partisan bullshit right out of Limbaugh. If he said that Obama did not come away with a strong binding treaty, I would have agreed.

Oh...I forgot. Classic is not partisan.

I think its premature to judge whether Copenhagen was positive or negative. However others who were there and in differing capacities some leaders others not felt that it was a failure.
Fact - 160 nations merely "took note" of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty. Most of them because they felt the political need to do so. They couldn't come out of there with nothing. They needed a showpiece, something no matter how meaningless to say " Look what we did". In reality, it is worth little more than the paper they wasted to place their signatures upon. Most of the countries didn't sign because they realized it was too weak and little more than a political declaration meant to conceal the failure of the conference.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Thursday that he is dissatisfied with the results of the recent climate change conference in Copenhagen. "It was a lot of hot air. Unfortunately, no agreement was reached," The fact is that it did fail, and miserably.

Only several countries (30 out of 190) signed the agreement. Most analysts outside the US say the Copenhagen talks have failed.

Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, "But of course, this was mainly about other countries being unwilling, especially the United States and China."

Many countries feel that it did not go far enough and it contained no mechanisms to make it binding.
Also, developing nations have plenty of experience in unfulfilled promises and funding commitments. Many of these have openly rejected the treaty and fired angry accusations at the major industrialized powers, which would be primarily responsible for what some have described as a horrific form of genocide.

The Swedish EU presidency, which is in its final days, has blasted the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, as a "disaster."
No treaty materialized at Copenhagen, where some leaders managed to only "take note" of an accord that communicates the desire to limit the temperature increase to 3.6 degrees F but spells out no concrete targets

The biggest step Copenhagen could have taken to stimulate the green economy would have been to send a strong signal that the price of carbon dioxide pollution will rise.
But the deal that emerged in the early hours of Saturday included no national carbon dioxide caps. It laid down an ambition to keep global temperature rise to within 2C - and even then they won't be legally binding.
"Copenhagen was a big setback for investors who wanted clear and credible policy signals," says Nick Robins from HSBC.

It was denounced as an 'abject failure' by some, while Kumi Naidoo, the new head of Greenpeace International, declared that, except for the science, 'everything else is a fraud'. Indeed, the draft deal, is no way close to what is necessary to save the planet from the onslaughts of climate change in the not-so-distant future.

Bill McKibben, the environmental writer who organized the largest worldwide climate demonstration in history last fall, assessed COP15 this way: It was a train wreck, but a fascinating one, revealing an enormous amount about the structure of the globe."
Obama offered no bold new ideas, no surprises that might have changed the outcome of the conference. For many, the postmortem will conclude that the president has not yet lived up to his earlier promises that the United States will lead the world on climate action, and he undermined the international respect for America he so carefully rebuilt during his first year in office.

These are just a few of the opinions of people who were there and who are far more knowledgeable than us.
The more I read about the world view outside of the US, the more I see that this was nothing short of a failure.

classicman;620984 wrote:

I think its premature to judge whether Copenhagen was positive or negative. However others who were there and in differing capacities some leaders others not felt that it was a failure.
Fact - 160 nations merely "took note" of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty. Most of them because they felt the political need to do so. They couldn't come out of there with nothing. They needed a showpiece, something no matter how meaningless to say " Look what we did". In reality, it is worth little more than the paper they wasted to place their signatures upon. Most of the countries didn't sign because they realized it was too weak and little more than a political declaration meant to conceal the failure of the conference.


Only several countries (30 out of 190) signed the agreement. Most analysts outside the US say the Copenhagen talks have failed.


These are just a few of the opinions of people who were there and who are far more knowledgeable than us.
The more I read about the world view outside of the US, the more I see that this was nothing short of a failure.

What happpend to:
[INDENT]I always provide the link to the entire article for those who wish to read it..[/INDENT]

Where's the link?

SO most countries didnt like or sign the final accord, which btw, was not a treaty, but a framework for the developed countries....and the hard core singled-minded environmentalists didnt like it.

The fact is that the countries that matter...the ones that will be most accountable...did sign the accord. I dont particular care, nor does it matter, if Mauritius or Granada or even Sweden and dozens of other countries didnt sign it.

And IMO, your characterization of Obama "acting as though he could walk in and schmooze and all will be well" was Limbaughish and partisan.

But you're not partisan. You just knew what Obama was thinking and how he intended to act going into the conference.

added:
From your first line "I think its premature to judge whether Copenhagen was positive or negative..."
To your last line "......the more I see that this was nothing short of a failure."

Now that is Classic!

China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

China wants the world to change at it's expense. Which is why the fantasy of 'cap & trade' is a total farce.

Long reply lost - I'll try again...

Redux;621000 wrote:

What happpend to:
[INDENT]I always provide the link to the entire article for those who wish to read it..[/INDENT]
Where's the link?

I guess you're right - I looked at a few opinions that were readily available differently than articles or op-ed pieces. If you really want I'll try to find them all for you.

SO most countries didnt like or sign the final accord, which btw, was not a treaty, but a framework for the developed countries....and the hard core singled-minded environmentalists didnt like it.

Is that how it was sold by this admin prior to the summit?

I dont particular care, nor does it matter, if Mauritius or Granada or even Sweden and dozens of other countries didnt sign it.

So you are being selective in which countries matter and which don't. Tell me how do you determine which are on your list and which aren't?

And IMO, your characterization of Obama "acting as though he could walk in and schmooze and all will be well" was Limbaughish and partisan.

Thats the stock response to anything that disagrees with your opinion. I'll say this though, I guarantee that you listen to Limbaugh more than I.

But you're not partisan.

I agree

added:
From your first line "I think its premature to judge whether Copenhagen was positive or negative..."
To your last line "......the more I see that this was nothing short of a failure."

I started a post and then did some more reading/research - intentionally getting away from the inherently biased media here and looked for the opinions of those who were involved.

I'm not sure what your problem is. All the name calling and personal attacks? Our opinions differ. So what? I have not called you names or any of the other childish attacks as you have. I'm certainly not going to convince you of anything, and apparently the inverse is also true. Agreeing to disagree might be a better, more civil way to go.

classicman;621020 wrote:

I'm not sure what your problem is...

I dont have a problem. I've never denied that I come at most issues from a partisan perspective.

And I also cite non-partisan documents as opposed to partisan opinion columns.

You, sir, are the one with the problem, or in denial, if you believe that all of your Democratic/Obama bashing is non-partisan.

Or in other words, you, sir, are full of shit!

Well one thing is for sure, who ever dreamed up Cap & Trade was full of it.

And the Chinese didn't think much of Obama's plan or the Copenhagen pan handling.

Imagine that.

Thank you again for admitting your partisan stance and a few more derogatory attacks.

Redux;621000 wrote:

Where's the link?

I'll just go with this link.

Additionally, here is the agenda prior to the conference...

The UN climate change conference in Copenhagen has one critical goal: a global treaty to help cut carbon emissions to levels that will prevent dangerous rises in global temperatures and catastrophic climate change.

FAIL - FACT: Only 30 out of 190 countries signed and some critical players refused.

That deal must set goals for cutting global CO2 emissions: some say a 50 percent reduction by 2050 is enough to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, others argue 80 percent is necessary.

FAIL

Politicians must also decide from when emissions cuts will be measured: will it be 1990 as under the Kyoto Protocol, or later? The “baseline year” will impact massively on the cuts individual countries have to make.

FAIL
Link
Despite widely held expectations that the Copenhagen summit would produce a legally binding treaty, the conference was plagued by negotiating deadlock and the "Copenhagen Accord" is not legally enforceable.

[COLOR="Blue"]George Monbiot[/COLOR] blamed the failure of the conference to achieve a binding deal on the United States Senate and Barack Obama. By negotiating the Copenhagen Accord with only a select group of nations most of the UN member states were excluded. If poorer nations did not sign the Accord then they would be unable to access funds from richer nations to help them adapt to climate change. He noted how the British and American governments have both blamed China for the failure of the talks but said that Obama placed China in "an impossible position" - "He demanded concessions while offering nothing."

(Use same link as above.)
Yet another non-partisan perspective from someone who was there and its a safe bet, is infinitely more knowledgeable on the topic than any poster here.

classicman;621179 wrote:

I'll just go with this link.

Additionally, here is the agenda prior to the conference...

FAIL - FACT: Only 30 out of 190 countries signed and some critical players refused.

FAIL

FAIL
Link
Despite widely held expectations that the Copenhagen summit would produce a legally binding treaty, the conference was plagued by negotiating deadlock and the "Copenhagen Accord" is not legally enforceable.

(Use same link as above.)
Yet another non-partisan perspective from someone who was there and its a safe bet, is infinitely more knowledgeable on the topic than any poster here.

Thanks for the grades, Prof. Classic.

You get an A in cutting and pasting.

Yea but can he do Power Point!?! :D

Redux;621196 wrote:

Thanks for the grades, Prof. Classic.
You get an A in cutting and pasting.

Wait what? YOU asked for the links - I provided one all inclusive and you're still being condescending?
Yeh and I'm the one in denial :headshake



Oh, and Fuck you Merc.

classicman;621216 wrote:

Oh, and Fuck you Merc.

Well can you!?!?!

[COLOR="White"]Joking dude, relax.[/COLOR]

Elspode;620728 wrote:

If we want China to curb their emissions, someone's going to have to conquer them to get it.

No, just stop buying their crap. Easier said than done, but the more people do it, the easier it'll get, because other suppliers will step up.

Redux;620952 wrote:

What came out of Copenhagen was a new framework for cooperation for reducing C02 emissions....that is a fact.

Redux;620975 wrote:

I agree it will take a binding agreement...but you build a binding agreement on a framework that all parties can agree to..and that is what came out of Copenhagen.
And the framework sets both global and national long-emission reduction goals along with providing an independent verification process, both of which are new and, IMO, helpful first steps. It also includes short-term financial pledges to help developing nations....and far more from the EU and Japan than the US.

Redux;621000 wrote:

SO most countries didnt like or sign the final accord, which btw, was not a treaty, but a framework for the developed countries....and the hard core singled-minded environmentalists didnt like it.

Get real, there is no framework when most of the countries didn't agree. If you think China will ever agree to independent verification you're dreaming. Did you forget about the Australians that were imprisoned for violation of State Mining & Industrial Secrets for trying to merge with a Chinese company?

You guys should stop arguing and be glad China scuttled Copenhagen. I'm going to Walmart to buy some worthless Chinese junk with my worthless American dollars.

Traitor.

spudcon;621268 wrote:

You guys should stop arguing and be glad China scuttled Copenhagen. I'm going to Walmart to buy some worthless Chinese junk with my worthless American dollars.

:lol:

I feel interesting that an American has the audacity to blame China for Copenhagen. :eyebrow:

It's a common sense in the world that US is the first to blame for the global warming, and it's still US who jeopardized the Kyoto Protocol. If not for the interference of US, the earth will never be the way it is now in terms of global warming. :headshake



the data of these two charts are from World Resources Institute
now is 2010, but it won't change a lot on the shape of these two charts.



Do US people have the right to emit more CO2 than other people in the world? (five times CO2 emission per person compared to China! :eek:)

It's true that China emits more and more CO2 and it's becoming the biggest emission source, but it's simply because China produce a lot of goods for the world. And if it's not China, there will be other contries to do the same as long as there are demands.
China emits CO2 since it's the factory for the developed countries. It earns a little money and takes the price of worsening environment. (lower part of the value chain) . Intriguingly, US, who earns the big money and don't have to be the big factory, emits as much CO2 as China. Why? What for? Maybe you guys could tell me. :(

Let's see what's said in copenhagen by US chief negotiator Stern.

“We absolutely recognize our historic role in putting emissions in the atmosphere up there that are there now,” Mr. Stern said sternly, “but the sense of guilt or culpability or reparations, I just categorically reject that.”

“We are certainly not going to become part of the Kyoto Protocol, so that’s not on the table,” Mr. Stern said at his news conference on Wednesday. “If you mean basically taking the Kyoto Protocol and putting a new title on it, we’re not going to do that either.” :yelgreedy

Who wrecked the Copenhagen deal? Use your brain instead of swallow those propaganda and prejudices!

aliasyzy;625587 wrote:

the data of these two charts are from World Resources Institute
now is 2010, but it won't change a lot on the shape of these two charts.

It will change them both significantly. China has passed the US in total emissions. Not that the US has anything to brag about.

glatt;625600 wrote:

It will change them both significantly. China has passed the US in total emissions. Not that the US has anything to brag about.

for the first chart, it won't change significantly, because the stock is too large for the new increase to change it.

for the second chart, in the link you give, US 18.67 ton per capita, China 4.57 ton per capita (less than 1/4 of US), still doesn't change significantly

Interesting that aussies burn more per capita at 18.74 tons...

aliasyzy;625602 wrote:

for the first chart, it won't change significantly, because the stock is too large for the new increase to change it.

for the second chart, in the link you give, US 18.67 ton per capita, China 4.57 ton per capita (less than 1/4 of US), still doesn't change significantly

Oh, I apologize. I didn't see that the 1st chart covered the last century. I thought is was a picture in time of 2005. Yeah you're right. Nothing we do will change history. Pretty pointless chart, that first one. If you are trying to make the US look bad and guilty of something, maybe you should post a chart of emissions since the global warming theory has become accepted by mainstream science in the last decade or so. Looking at the last 105 years is just asinine.

Bullshit, the past has nothing to do with it. The US along with the other big countries tried to actually do something about it, China refused, flat out refused, to try and fix the problem.

aliasyzy;625587 wrote:

It's a common sense in the world that US is the first to blame for the global warming,

Oh Please, The US is the first to be blamed for all the ills of the world. We do more for every other nation on this planet - bar none. And we get a lot of shit for it. I'd be interested to know what would happen if we just said "Fuck you" to all these countries that need us to finance just about everything. I wonder...

Do the Chinese have the right to ship their polluted and poisonous products all over the world?

A little money? Are you kidding me? You talk about biased sources - Whew. Look at your own. Seems to me you're an apologist for China.

[QUOTE]Who wrecked the Copenhagen deal? Use your brain instead of swallow those propaganda and prejudices!

There are a lot more sources who blame China than the US.

I think it may be you who is swallowing a great deal of propaganda.

glatt;625606 wrote:

Oh, I apologize. I didn't see that the 1st chart covered the last century. I thought is was a picture in time of 2005. Yeah you're right. Nothing we do will change history. Pretty pointless chart, that first one. If you are trying to make the US look bad and guilty of something, maybe you should post a chart of emissions since the global warming theory has become accepted by mainstream science in the last decade or so. Looking at the last 105 years is just asinine.

Is it meaningless to look at the past? After US emitting such a huge amount of CO2 on its way to become a superpower, you think it's fair to tell other countries we will start over and you are not allowed to emit CO2 while at the same time itself remains the first place in terms of emission per capita?

Well, is emitting huge amounts a bad idea or isn't it?

You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor.

xoxoxoBruce;625607 wrote:

Bullshit, the past has nothing to do with it. The US along with the other big countries tried to actually do something about it, China refused, flat out refused, to try and fix the problem.

Really? That's just your side of the story to keep you feel good about yourself.

Please tell me why US won't accept kyoto protocal?

What have US done? don't tell me that empty promise of 100 billion thing. Hillary just said that "the United States will help raise $100 billion" Where will this $100 billion come from, how much will US pay? not a word has been said! Do you think US could afford $100 billion on the ground that obama has already been busy with all the empty promises he made before?

aliasyzy;625620 wrote:

[the USA] remains the first place in terms of emission per capita

Wrong. According to the info at Wikipedia, Australia is in 1st place per capita. Jinx pointed that out a couple posts above this one. And China is in first place overall.

Shawnee123;625624 wrote:

You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor.

Haggis

classicman;625612 wrote:

[QUOTE=aliasyzy;625587]

There are a lot more sources who blame China than the US.

I think it may be you who is swallowing a great deal of propaganda.

It's simply because US is No.1 in propaganda/PR as well as in its military power. And people always tend to say and believe what benefits them most.

I have to go to sleep, it's midnight in China. Good day.

BTW: Chinese Government propagandas but it's very poor at this sophisticated skill, so i don't think i will swallow any of it.

yeah, but when it comes to dangerous metals in children's toys, YOU GUYS ARE DA MAN! Woot woot!

Shawnee123;625624 wrote:

You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor.

then American people could be a role-model for other developed and developing countries first and lower your material life quality to 1/2 or even less?

Shawnee123;625635 wrote:

yeah, but when it comes to dangerous metals in children's toys, YOU GUYS ARE DA MAN! Woot woot!

don't be happy too soon.:cool: I just don't have time to answer each and every of these nonsense. maybe weekend.

gotta go to sleep, bye

Ok, Goodnight my Chinese Emma.

Maybe they'll start manufacturing senses of humor.

China took a primary role in scuttling Copenhagen, but one can hardly blame them. It was going to be scuttled somewhere. China is simply the party with the most to lose at this moment in time, and the most willing to take a hard stance.

We notice that Communism is a source of pollution. In the 80s, the worst-polluted rivers of the world were to be found in eastern Europe. Today, they are all found in eastern China. India is the exception to this rule, but of course India has its own societal problems.

aliasyzy;625632 wrote:

BTW: Chinese Government propagandas but it's very poor at this sophisticated skill, so i don't think i will swallow any of it.

You don't have to swallow, you've been steeped in it every day of your life.

This is what you get for shopping at walmart, people. :eyebrow:

aliasyzy;625636 wrote:

then American people could be a role-model for other developed and developing countries first and lower your material life quality to 1/2 or even less?

Yea but then China would go bankrupt. So would Walmart.

xoxoxoBruce;625801 wrote:

You don't have to swallow, you've been steeped in it every day of your life.

This is what you get for shopping at walmart, people. :eyebrow:

Could you do something decent except these little tricks to support your statement that America helps a lot in Copenhagen and China wrecked it.

I used to think that Americans have a more open view than people in other countries. I was wrong, at least partially. But it's your business after all. Just stay in your hallucination as long as you are satisfied.


Why Copenhagen didn't work out? You guys can find your answers in this post. None of you is willing to face the core of the problem. You keep blaming others for irrelevent minor things in order to cover up your unwillingness to really do something.

aliasyzy;625911 wrote:

Why Copenhagen didn't work out? You guys can find your answers in this post. None of you is willing to face the core of the problem. You keep blaming others for irrelevent minor things in order to cover up your unwillingness to really do something.

IRONY ALARM! IRONY ALARM!

For almost all of the major and upcoming economic powers, it is not in their perceived best interest to limit their fossil fuel use. That means, every major and upcoming economic power will blame others and try to avoid attention to their own faults. Both China and the US do this along with many other countries.

It is obvious that China, along with other countries, wrecked any hopes of getting something meaningful done in Copenhagen. The US has ruined past attempts and I don't believe by any means that they are fully committed to anything binding. I may be wrong but that is my personal thoughts.

But either way, climate change is an issue about power. Whichever country is the most dependent on fossil fuels and has the most political influence will ruin any attempts at binding agreements. In the past it was the US, now, the torch is being passed over to China.

Stop with the common sense PH - What the heck is wrong with you. C'mon its all Bush's fault and by extension America.

classicman;625978 wrote:

Stop with the common sense PH - What the heck is wrong with you. C'mon its all Bush's fault and by extension America.

Its not all Bush's fault.....just some of it.

But the US Supreme Court smacked him down in 2007 when it ruled the Bush EPA improperly applied the Clean Air Act when it purposefully refused to implement the intent of the law and even went further to prevent states from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

sighhhhhhhhhh

classicman;626288 wrote:

sighhhhhhhhhh

Wouldnt be necessary if you didnt raise the "blame it on Bush" bullshit.

piercehawkeye45;625948 wrote:

IRONY ALARM! IRONY ALARM!

For almost all of the major and upcoming economic powers,
it is not in their perceived best interest to limit their fossil fuel use.
That means, every major and upcoming economic power will blame
others and try to avoid attention to their own faults.
Both China and the US do this along with many other countries.
<snip>
But either way, climate change is an issue about power.
Whichever country is the most dependent on fossil fuels and has the
most political influence will ruin any attempts at binding agreements.
In the past it was the US, now, the torch is being passed over to China.

This seems an appropriate place to insert this link to some light, but important,
reading and pictures about a tiny little place where world events is playing out.
K Street in DC is in the middle of a long, drawn out, law suit over this area.

It is a long, "coffee table" sort of article about a small group of Fillipino soldiers
living on a grounded, derelict ship ostensibly keeping China at bay.
If/when China makes their move, the first response will be:

":help: :help: :help: :help: We Surrender :help: :help: :help: :help:"


NY Times
10/27/13
By Jeff Himmelman
Photographs and video by Ashley Gilbertson
Produced by Mike Bostock, Clinton Cargill, Shan Carter,
Nancy Donaldson, Tom Giratikanon, Xaquín G.V.,
Steve Maing and Derek Watkins

A Game of Shark
And Minnow

That's eerie, I just finished reading that article not 2 minutes ago.

The presentation is phenomenal. It really nicely integrates short looped video, still photographs, and stellar writing. I knew nothing about the region or its politics before I started reading, and now feel much more informed than I did an hour ago.

Usually in order to read any dense geopolitical analysis I need a vested interest; apparently, flashy graphics will work in a pinch.