Comments on: Can emissions be tackled without Copenhagen deal? http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/27/can-emissions-be-tackled-without-copenhagen-deal/ Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:37:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Jeong Chun phuoc http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/27/can-emissions-be-tackled-without-copenhagen-deal/comment-page-1/#comment-8822 Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:51:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3936#comment-8822 ” Malaysia must take initiative to re-define Climate Change Roadmap at the upcoming Copenhagen Conference 2009″The article “Dark Cloud over Climate Talks” by martin Khor (The Star, 12.10.2009) painted a rather dark pessimistic color to the mood at the recently concluded Climate talks in Bangkok, Thailand.Developed nations perceived abandonment of their current commitment under Phase One of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) is a clear indication that there is a need for a more conducive approach in addressing climate change specifically relating to greenhouse gas emissions(GGE) dilemma.This perception must not be viewed with pessimism or seen as a negative change of attitude by developed countries. Developing countries are also part of the problematic GGE equation apart from the Kyoto Protocol’s perceived rigid implementation platform.There is no denying that the Kyoto Protocol imposed binding obligations upon developed bloc. However, corresponding non-commitment/inactions by developing countries are also a collective issue.All signatories to the KP must therefore take the cue that if co-operation cannot be effected under the current KP, there is an urgent need to modify the ‘mitigation commitments’ by developed countries vis-vis the ‘mitigation actions’ on the part of developing countries. Such modification can be perceived as fair as it takes into view national interests and acceptable GGE achievement.What is of crucial importance is the underlying commitment by all members towards total, if not gradual reduction, of GGE emissions on a global scale so that 2nd Phase of the KP can be initiated without major glitch in 2013.Malaysia as a developing country, having achieved several milestones in its effort to implement GGE objectives, must therefore take the initiative to promote, re-ignite and re-define those ‘commitments’ in a form that are mutually acceptable to both developed and developing countries within the KP framework which is in fact, open to international modification and national interests alignment.

]]>
By: Jeong Chun phuoc http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/27/can-emissions-be-tackled-without-copenhagen-deal/comment-page-1/#comment-8821 Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:48:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3936#comment-8821 “Develop Islamic Environmental Framework in Climate Change Control”It is hope that the organisers and countries representatives (particularly from muslim bloc) at the upcoming Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Dec 2009 will take cognisance of the Syariah provisions relating to the protection, conservation and protection of the environment-which is unlikely- given the stalemate at the recent Bangkok Climate Proceedings 2009.The appropriate platform would be for OIC to table it within OIC Region for implementation within Islamic countries realm. Western Europe, US and developed bloc will not be able to understand the implication of Islamic environmental protection requirement within the context of the Syariah.However, if properly executed, it may be a viable alternative/solution that may be adopted at the forthcoming Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Dec 2009 (see introduction speech by Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen(COP 15), at http://unfccc.int/2860.php).

]]>
By: Jeong Chun phuoc http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/27/can-emissions-be-tackled-without-copenhagen-deal/comment-page-1/#comment-8550 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:44:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3936#comment-8550 “A Holistic Deal for Everyone at Copenhagen”The Kyoto Protocol is history now, but it helped raised global attention on the need to focus real commitments to a level where both parties ie developed bloc and the developing countries can co-exist to tackle climate change, GHCs etc.A real deal, if any at the upcoming Copenhagen is a deal where everyone is able to work at a comfortable environment that ensure compliance with both domestic ie -political- reality and international obligations.If a holistic deal cannot be achieved, it is time for all representatives to take a break and catch the movie 2012 and have a good laugh together………………..Jeong Chun phuocLecturer-in-Law[Strategic Environmenting]

]]>
By: SHANNON http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/27/can-emissions-be-tackled-without-copenhagen-deal/comment-page-1/#comment-8073 Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:04:35 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3936#comment-8073 Just because you can observe climate change doesn’t mean it is driven by human activity. What DRIVES climate, co2 or solar activity?For those who make the “obvious” claim regarding global warming, isn’t it also obvious that when the sun is on the other side of the earth that you experience cooling? Yet still you insist that the warming and cooling trends you observe are driven by humans and co2 (which you breathe out, perhaps you should die)?”Mike doesn’t seem to read the scientific literature or understand that a broad consensus within the scientific community has occurred about 5 years ago”You must be referring to the IPCC, most of which are not climatologists, but various other types of bureaucrats and scientists.I’m sorry, why can’t solar activity explain glacier activity?Why does it have to be anthropogenic and why must we pay taxes on someone else’s profits for still another’s profit?

]]>
By: Benny Acosta http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/27/can-emissions-be-tackled-without-copenhagen-deal/comment-page-1/#comment-8071 Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:46:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3936#comment-8071 Climate change is happening. This is an indisputable fact. The only reason the facts seem obscured is because there are many people with a vested interests (who stand to profit), in keeping the global warming issue on the back burner.In the 70’s a whole in the ozone layer was discovered. This ozone hole was attributed to CFC’s. CFCs combine with ozone to create O2, and release chlorine gas which destroys even more ozone.In the 70’s the hole was barely noticeable. Now that barely noticeable hole covers the ENTIRE CONTINENT of Antarctica. So asking if this is really happening is a moot point.Even if we as human beings only contributed to a small fraction of the problem, it still doesn’t change the fact that we are now living in it. And as human beings we have the responsibility of doing what ever we can to make things right.But this whole sorry attitude on the part of die hard profiteers will get us no where. We are facing a very serious problem where we live. We have no other planets to run to. So we would do well to put our heads together to find a solution that will allow us to continue on.

]]>
By: JEONG cHUN PHUOC http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/27/can-emissions-be-tackled-without-copenhagen-deal/comment-page-1/#comment-8067 Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:24:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3936#comment-8067 “Limited Compulsory Licensing as an Solution to Patented Green Technologies”The article “Hot Debate Over Technology Issues” by Martin Khor (The Star newspaper, Malaysia–26th Oct 2009 at page N43) raised a crucial discussion concerning the issue of patented green/climate-friendly technologies.Several notable leaders have raised pertinent concerns over the barriers posed by patented green technologies which should not be subjected to criticism in the first place because the whole objective of the patent system is to provide incentive towards wealth & knowledge creation in the area of sciences & technologies as guaranteed under the TRIPS Agreement i.e. Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.The proposal that patented green technologies be exempted from patent protection is tempting but legally destructive in the long-term period as this run counter to private R&D market demand which calls for strict adherence to full patent protection granted under the respective national patent law.Further proposal that such patented green technologies be considered as ‘global public goods’(GPGs) is also an anti-thesis to the objectives of a global patent system even for green technology. If accepted at all, the other equally problematic issue is in identifying what constitutes GPGs taking into view the fact that there is currently no global consensus pertaining to the characterization and scope of such GPGs even within developed bloc.Another issue raised by proponents for relaxation of patented green technologies is the possible use of Compulsory Licensing(CL) under the patent law in the respective country by the government. If this issue is raised at the upcoming Copenhagen Conference (Dec 2009), which is highly possible, the counter-argument is that such patented GPGs can only be acquired by the government if it can proved that the patented GPGs in question has not been made available to the public at a fair price and that there is a national emergency that necessitate such compulsory acquisition, which is an onerous burden indeed notwithstanding such allowance under national patent law.Although limited compulsory licensing is possible, it is not to be considered as an effective solution at all due to equal legal protection granted to patent rights holder during the CL period.These are amongst the contentious issues that must be resolved if there is to be any real progress towards a more sustainable agreement in carbon reduction and global climate salvation.………………………… …..Jeong Chun Phuoc*Lecturer-in-LawJeongphu@yahoo.com

]]>
By: Casper http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/27/can-emissions-be-tackled-without-copenhagen-deal/comment-page-1/#comment-8046 Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:51:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3936#comment-8046 One should not confuse the existence of global warming as to weather (sic) it is induced by modern society as to whether we can actually survive in this mess much longer:- Let’s take greenhouse emissions out of the picture, but let’s not forget interactions and interdependencies.That would leave land and water masses. Land has become toxic through human intervention, the worst the persistent attempt by scientists to blow the Earth to pieces with massive bombs. Water has become toxic through human intervention, the worst, if all else fails, let’s dump it in the water. We are in for a big hiding, one of these days we will have to live off preserved preservatives.Anubis, an intra-galactic explosion destroyed most species +- 450 million years ago. Mike, the Tower of Babel is somehow still standing in Iraq. I don’t care about rising sea levels as I live 2000 meters above sea level and enjoy massive electric storms.We lack a grand unified environmental formula to concurrently model air, land and water contaminators i.s.o. faffing around with this atmospheric accounting and arguments. Brian, you might be right and wrong at the same time, maybe we should give it all a total miss and redirect alternative energy dreams to cancer research. Boy, are we in need of that.

]]>
By: Stuart http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/27/can-emissions-be-tackled-without-copenhagen-deal/comment-page-1/#comment-8045 Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:39:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3936#comment-8045 Obviously, Mike doesn’t seem to read the scientific literature or understand that a broad consensus within the scientific community has occurred about 5 years ago and it is only in the popular media, which plays largely to scientific illiteracy among the general public where there is any controversy with regard to global warming. He simply chooses to remain in denial and expects to continue to further confuse the already confused.Just as Mike doesn’t understand the evidence that has led to a firm consensus in the scientific community that global warming IS occurring (and much more rapidly than scientists had predicted earlier), he also can’t explain where all the glaciers have gone. However, with the next decade, now that permanent ice is a thing of the past, when the consequences of methane venting in the high arctic and shifts in ocean circulation become more pronounced even the slow will have finally caught on that that the world is warming and warming quickly.

]]>
By: beverley dana http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/27/can-emissions-be-tackled-without-copenhagen-deal/comment-page-1/#comment-8036 Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:07:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3936#comment-8036 If you do believe global warming is not happening, just look around you, in US especially. our winters have definitely become warmer gradually over the past 20 years. North and South poles are melting and on and on and on. the evidence is clealy visible. What is not, is the impact on the human race.

]]>
By: beverley dana http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/27/can-emissions-be-tackled-without-copenhagen-deal/comment-page-1/#comment-8035 Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:05:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=3936#comment-8035 If you do not believe global warming is not happening, just look around you, in US especially. our winters have definitely become warmer gradually over the past 20 years. North and South poles are melting and on and on and on. the evidence is clealy visible. What is not, is the impact on the human race.

]]>