Comments on: Will Copenhagen lead to a deal? Global environmental challenges Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:14:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: sufi Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:21:41 +0000 World community must come to an agreement for a legally binding target for limiting emissions in COP15. It is only for few major polluters our planet is in danger. It is already late.We can not argue with nature , will climate.The damage we have done is almost irreversible. World can not support billions of climate refugees if we do not act and act positively now.

By: Anon86 Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:56:02 +0000 Not that it matters.

It is unlikely that we will agree to cut emissions by 50% (not just emission growth) in the next fifty years.

And even if we do this will only reduce climate change by fifty percent. And this will only happen at the point when we cut emissions by 50%.

And that assumes no growth in emissions (meaning low economic growth) and massive growth in green energy (meaning high energy costs).

Plus there is the obvious issue that for an agreement to be legally binding, it needs to be legally enforcable. Something I doubt will be possible. If China, India or America decide to stop complying, what will the world do? Embargo them and cause another global recession?

Sooner or later people are going to realise we need to stop trying to prevent climate change. Face facts. Climate change has already happened. Now we should be getting ready to live in the post climate change world.

By: ben_00 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:07:01 +0000 Agreement is definitely attainable. But the question is what sort of agreement. In Bali the world agreed (no thanks to a last minute U-turn by the United States) to agreeing to a legally binding treaty in Copenhagen, but I don’t think we’ll be getting it in Copenhagen. The world is still divided on core issues of equity, where the attribute of blame and hence how much emissions to cut by whom is still unresolved. Not to mention the technological issues and adaptation issues involved. We’ll see a global agreement, and the world leaders will hail it as a great step towards dealing with the climate change problem, but the impact of such an agreement will be minimal when compared to what the individual countries are already commiting themselves to do.

By: PhilGrimm Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:06:46 +0000 The political manuvering necessary to even have the conference will insure that there will be some agreement at the ending of the conference. But the content of the agreement, how binding the agreement will be, and the focus of the agenda as we move away from Copenhagen are not going to be what the organizers hope/want/expect.

The scope of disingenuous behavior amongst the supposedly objective scientific community,as revealed by the Climategate emails, is going to serve as a poisoned arrow into the political process.

Certain unsavory behaviors are acceptable from politicians and other even more devious behaviors are acceptable by activists; but scientists are held to more stringent ethical behaviors. When boundaries of behavior are violated, then all becomes suspect. When a person, or a class of person’s integity becomes suspect, then no potitical action based upon that ingerity is certain.

By: Fishrl Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:11:07 +0000 I would love to see something substantive come out of Copenhagen, but opponents of carbon legislation, particularly in the U.S., pose a real threat to the process. Armed with talking points carefully cherry-picked from the stolen CRU emails, they’re howling like a pack of rabid wolves. God help us all if they succeed in derailing this.

Remember that the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the League of Nations – a failure that may have led to WWII. Do not count on our politicians to act in the best interests of the world.