You are on page 1of 10

Copenhagen climate summit undone by 'arrogance

By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News

The "disappointing" outcome of December's climate summit was largely down to "arrogance" on the part of rich countries, according to Lord Stern. The economist told BBC News that the US and EU nations had not understood well enough the concerns of poorer nations. But, he said, the summit had led to a number of countries outlining what they were prepared to do to curb emissions. Seventy-three countries have now signed up to the non-binding Copenhagen Accord, the summit's outcome document. The weak nature of the document led many to condemn the summit as a failure; but Lord Stern said that view was mistaken. "The fact of Copenhagen and the setting of the deadline two years previously at Bali did concentrate minds, and it did lead... to quite specific plans from countries that hadn't set them out before," he said. "So this process has itself been a key part of countries stating what their intentions on emissions reductions are - countries that had not stated them before, including China and the US. "So that was a product of the UNFCCC (UN climate convention) process that we should respect." The former World Bank chief economist and author of the influential 2006 review into the economics of climate change was speaking to BBC News following a lecture at the London School of Economics (LSE), where he now chairs the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. During the lecture, he compared the atmosphere at the Copenhagen summit to student politics in the 1960s - "chaotic, wearing, tiring, disappointing" - and said it was one in which countries had little room for real negotiating. However, he said, it was vital to stick with the UN process, whatever its frustrations. Twin tracks Having failed to agree a treaty to supplant or supplement the Kyoto Protocol, and having failed to
Still real, still a problem Gro Harlem Brundtland UN special envoy on climate change
ago The reality is dif ferent from half a year

Western nations failed to understand how China works, says Lord Stern

"The developing world needs to see clear signals to have something in their hands at Cancun. "[There was] less arrogance than in previous years ." he said. She also acknowledged that the talks had proved much more problematical than some governments particularly in the EU . But the immediate objective. with some of the important discussions taking place outside the UNFCCC umbrella.suggested there would now be a twin-track approach. The EU limited its room for manoeuvre. Speaking in Brussels during a meeting with EU leaders." Lord Stern agreed that what he described as the "disappointing" outcome of the Copenhagen talks was largely down to rich nations' failure to understand developing world positions and concerns. he said. I think. If that money did not start to move fairly quickly. because too many of the leading political figures wanted to demonstrate that they were leading.but [there was] still arrogance and it could have been much better handled by the rich countries. not only in the broad framework of UN negotiations but also more directly and pragmatically. "The reality is different from half a year ago." she said. Brass from pockets The most concrete part of the Copenhagen Accord is an agreement that richer countries should raise funds to help poorer nations adapt to climate impacts and "green" their economies. moved beyond the G8 world to the G20 world where more countries are involved . he suggested. Mexico's environment secretary Juan Rafael Elvira endorsed the point.set a timetable for agreeing such a treaty. The Mexican coastal city will host this year's UNFCCC summit. he said. Lord Stern is a member of the group set up by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to advise on how to raise $100bn (£66bn) per year by 2020 using various "innovative mechanisms" that could include taxes on international aviation and banking transactions.we have. was to enact the short -term promise of providing $30bn over the period 2010-12 from the public purses of western nations. "They got the message that it was much more complicated than [they had believed]. the island nations especially are Lord Stern It could have been much better handled by the rich countries .had anticipated. that would further erode trust among developing countries. Speaking in Brussels. opinions are inevitably split on how countries seeking stronger curbs on greenhouse gas emissions should move forward. "The developing countries want to see this money unblocked.the UN's special envoy on climate change ." he said. and that they have to work with Brazil and China and others. Gro Harlem Brundtland .

(Prove that Industrial growth give big impact to temperature rising which developed country dominate the industrial world)(Pro) I suggest u to read this http://www. Energi yang masuk ke Bumi:     25% dipantulkan oleh awan atau partikel lain di atmosfer 25% diserap awan 45% diserap permukaan bumi 5% dipantulkan kembali oleh permukaan bumi Energi yang diserap dipantulkan kembali dalam bentuk radiasi inframerah oleh awan dan permukaan bumi. Kenaikan konsentrasi gas CO2 ini disebabkan oleh kenaikan pembakaran bahan bakar minyak.membuatblog." said Mr Elvira.html According to NASA temperature record. (i havent have prove that exploiting natural source is causing GW)(Con) Sejak tahun 2001. Namun sebagian besar inframerah yang dipancarkan bumi tertahan oleh awan dan gas CO2 dan gas lainnya. maka Bumi telah mengalami pemanasan sebesar 0. sejak 1900. According to wiki id Penyebab rumah kaca Efek rumah kaca disebabkan karena naiknya konsentrasi gas karbon dioksida (CO2) dan gas-gas lainnya di efek rumah kaca diperlukan. (con) Developing country like Nauru & Brunei Darussalam are exploiting the natural resource - China a developing country is a largest manufacturing state. warming. itu saja jika bisa menekan konsentrasi gas rumah kaca supaya stabil pada 430 ppm CO2e (ppm = part per million = per satu juta ekivalen CO2 ± yang menyatakan rasio jumlah molekul gas CO2 per satu juta udara kering).waiting for this funding. It increased for approx.3 to 0. studi-studi mengenai dinamika iklim global menunjukkan bahwa paling tidak. batu bara dan bahan bakar organik lainnya yang melampaui kemampuan tumbuhan tumbuhan dan laut untuk menyerapnya. -0.7°C. 8 degree C is a lot to global temperature. global temperature has been increased from approx.5. dengan adanya efek rumah kaca perbedaan suhu antara siang dan malam di b umi tidak terlalu jauh berbeda. dunia telah mengalami pemanasan lebih dari 3°C semenjak jaman pra -industri. Richard. 8 degree C from the early 19th century to 20th century. Yang pasti.Black-INTERNET@bbc. How and where these funds are to be disbursed has yet to be decided. Dalam keadaan normal. untuk dikembalikan ke permukaan bumi.

Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050. China took the biggest credit in co2 emission for about 22more %. people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Arab developed country (con) Developing coutry who works on livestock alot is the cause of GW. maka akan semakin banyak gelombang panas yang dipantulkan dari permukaan bumi diserap atmosfer. (con) . nitrogen monoksida (NO) dan nitrogen dioksida (NO2) serta beberapa senyawa organik seperti gas metana dan klorofluorokarbon (CFC). It is also a major source of land and water degradation. Gas-gas tersebut memegang peranan penting dalam meningkatkan efek rumah kaca.Selain gas CO2. while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes. Says Henning Steinfeld. the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent ± 18 percent ± than transport.´ With increased prosperity. Co2 is the major culprit of global warming and china emit the most co2 comparing to other nation. - - Masdar city. in Abu Dhabi there is a project city call Masdar city which later will be a zero CO2 and zero trash city. Dengan meningkatnya konsentrasi gas CO2 di atmosfer. To just care what other countries have done to making situation better but not what the US themself have done to redeem their sin. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation. efek rumah kaca telah meningkatkan suhu rata-rata bumi 1-5 °C. The energi usage of this city will be mostly relying on solar panel energy and renewable energy source. (con) Copenhagen climate change conference fail. Chief of FAO¶s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: ³Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today¶s most serious environmental problems. rise of the sea level cause by the iceberg melt at poles. Which is the conference that stands as major role in climate change handling but ending fail all bcos us so selfish to not want to tell what to do. Prove : Surprise! According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Hal ini akan mengakibatkan suhu permukaan bumi menjadi meningkat.5 °C sekitar tahun 2030. That is again bcos GW. Bila kecenderungan peningkatan gas rumah kaca tetap seperti sekarang akan menyebabkan peningkatan pemanasan global antara 1. Kalo gada penanganan Menurut perhitungan simulasi. - - Consequence from global warming such as. Island or country which located near to sea surface are going to sunk like maldives. yang dapat menimbulkan efek rumah kaca adalah belerang dioksida.5-4.

as in Global. you can see that you have an opportunity to start to develop a reasonable representation of what climate reality might be. A classic example is the first law of thermodynamics: which some of us might remember as fancy talk for energy not being able to be created or destroyed . by applying other scientific principles. they do so with the help of computers." Obviously. as in Global Issues Generally ‡ NatureLand: What They Used to Call the Environment Posted on: November 23. hopefully. a sentiment he backed up with what can be summarized (and since I just signed up for twitter the other day) in the following <140 character phrase. and also because. It works because physical laws. And to be honest. drawing conclusions from observations seen in 10 year. "Badly done. We can't say: "Let's take Earth here. computers have just gotten better. or even 20 year spans. That in the world of climatology. Category: Nature as in Earth." So let's start with a few take home points .. Or as Jane Austen might say. Patrick Moore. currently. There was. if you take the thermodynamic law as an example. and particularly his advocacy for nuclear power. more powerful and in a freakishly fast pace. other scientific laws. with a major role in the evolution of the organization in its earlier days. On my just moves around. 2.nothing to do with the conference logistics but rather a statement or two issued by one of the speakers. and kick it up a notch. by David Ng I recently attended the TEDxVancouver event. etc (the list can go on). scientists keep learning more and more about the physical laws behind climate trends.two actually: 1. these models have been getting better and better all the time. it's a little bit like the Matrix movie. he essentially outlined a few points to suggest that anthropogenic climate change is all a ruse." It's a compelling statement and certainly easy to digest. by and large. what do these points mean exactly? Well. one thing that irked me . however. evaluation. Why? Because. So. water considerations. some of which are very nuanced relating specifically to atmospheric conditions. . 2009 11:51 AM. Anyway. Just a little background on Patrick: he's one of the founders of Greenpeace. but I thought I'd take a minute or two to weigh in a little here. are entirely dependable. because looking at this scientific puzzle is not like a conventional science experiment where you can test your ideas by comparing something against a control sample.. the first is to understand that when climatologists attempt to predict climate trends. However. I'd like to explain why I think that kind of statement (wh ich happens to be classic climate change denialist prose) is a great example of spinning things to meet your own particular agenda. Predictions of how things will be in the future are largely determined by the formulation. Now. and ultimately validation of climate models. I won't raise it at all. at the beginning of his talk. then I'll have to wait 50 to 100 years or so. is statistically weak. which was wonderfully done and also useful for being able to network with a lot of interesting people. he's a little more well known for his climate change skepticism views. the ice in the Antarctica doesn't even seem to be melting. a law like that (which can be eloquently stated in mathematical terms) is really important because it sets real boundaries on how things should be in the physical world. and then compare it to this other Earth over here. They do this." Here.. which is why you resort to computers attempting to model how things "will go.. Oh yeah. you can't really do that sort of thing in these circumstances. "Earth has not actually been getting any warmer in the last 10 years. But if you think about it. Of course. and on this other Earth. Badly done. where there are these overarching algorithms and equations to try and explain the physical world. I'll raise the CO2 by so much."Global Warming is not real because weather patterns have stabilized in the last 10 years!" Why statements like this need a little context. and then we can all get together with our calculators and compare graphs and stuff to try to figure out what's going on.

the concept of the weather channel is not a new thing!). and this is the tricky part.k. Which is why. In other words: poverty is bad. all models. and really. This.At this point. Again. and to get them to weigh in on the climate issue. Not only that. I guess the point is. you could still say that a fancy climate model is just that . you'd want an opportunity to look at many records of that day as possible. it's generally agreed that its desired mission is to look into things of global consequence. How does one do this? Well. and you can probably guess that that would be better than say reflecting on the last 2 years of climate data. things where we do have good data on (a. These might be big things like El Nino. you can reflect on the last ten years of climate data. That would be statistically risky. because there are many scientists and academics in the report who do have opposing views. there a number of ways. the 10 year trend is really too short and narrow for climate timescales. And how does the IPCC work? Well. inequity is bad . conflict is bad. and then run the model to see if the climate warming trends match up with observed records. yearly average for temperature. More importantly. are pretty convinced by them because (1) they've been earnestly picked over and validated. however. or bbq.and so what can we do about it. that there's something going on there. since it is a mother algorithm. or anything. You might not even base it on only two years worth of data. have to be validated. Say you're trying to plan a wedding. --So where are the references for all of this talk? Well. by the way.e. lots of them. you can actually calculate probabilities along the way. but common examples include running the model backwards in time. Now.a. i. . And despite the flaws of how the UN operates. One that is already looking at much larger timespans in a number of different ways (i. if you want to hedge your bets. and at some point even make calls on what might be a good number of years to look at all in an effort to feel pretty good about your chances. or say the year when such and such a huge volcano spewed a ton of stuff into the air.which is something very specific to day to day considerations and also exact locations. But the long story short is that folks have done statistical analysis on this sort of thing. and i t turns out that focusing on something like a 10 year trend is just not a reliable way to overturn the long term predictions. enter info on CO2 levels for the next 50 years. Let's use an analogy here. you would not base your day on only what happened the year before. we've got a much meatier scenario. it should also be able to correctly represent things tha t have already happen. where you hope to be outside. This is just saying that there needs to be some way of ensuring a sort of quality control on the predictions. is also why climate models aren't about predicting "weather" . the IPCC report is essentially a global recognition that the Earth's climate needs attention. Chances are. i. from all sorts of relevant areas. Therefore. Which brings me to the 2nd point: that not seeing a temperature rise in the last ten years or so doesn't really mean too much.e. there's the UN's IPCC report (in my opinion. Another example is taking these same models and validating them by seeing how they perform in special circumstances where notable weather related variations occur. the policy makers report is required reading for everyone who cares about the environment). to pass the scrutiny of the scientific community. and you want to pick a particular day in the year to have the best chance of sunshine. in our climate prediction case.e. The reason for this is because this trend still fits within the predictions of existing climate models (the same ones that say that our current CO2 production pace is bad news down the road). they have to come up with a consensus statement. often the best in their fields. lucky for us non -climatologists. as well as trying to project decades down the road). Not an easy task. it's an attempt to draw in expert folks. as a whole. All through this. and (2) they continue to be validated by the weather we see year to year. is that these models are our window to the future and scientists. let's start the model at 1958 (when CO2 was first carefully measured at Mauna Loa).a fancy climate model. For example.

in a rational. All to say that Patrick. - The top 15 country who have most vehicle are developed country acc to'sfar from it. and testable manner. is not on this report . the US president stressed: If developing country doenst want to play their role well then developed country couldnt be blame A solution to global warming will not come if only developed countries act.partly because it's likely that he is no longer a practicing ecology scientist. because the statements he's making here really aren't about the field of ecology. it works. I'm not saying the IPCC is perfect . that's a huge collective of expertise. I A solution to global warming will not come if only developed countries act. trying. at the end of the day. But right now.i. And this is because the fact of the matter is that the robustness and elegance of experimental design is universal. and you would presume that most if not almost all of them do this work to live up to Karl Popper's ideals . to get as close to the "truth" as possible. Oh. Even so. At the end of the day (and I may be niave here). it's the best we've got. the US president stressed: . and this is something a scientist in his/her respective field is trained to do. and with the last version of the IPCC (4th version. more than 800 contributing authors. and partly. objective. There are empirical ways to determine whether an experiment is done well or shoddily.However. and more than 450 lead authors. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers. And the "best we've got" (as oppose to careless spin) is exactly the sort of thing we need for a global challenge of this magnitude.e. released in 2007) it's quite a few of them as well: People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years.

3. Instead of acting proactively and with leadership. Compounding this problem is the realization by some countries that they aren¶t going to be too negatively impacted by climate change ²a disturbing reminder that nation-states are unwilling to deal with threats that are not considered local. Well. And seeing as no one is doing anything«. whatever that¶s supposed to mean. 2. This unilateral approach is particularly disturbing considering that they¶re the largest .g. our social and political institutions are ill equipped to deal with a pending catastrophe such as this. there you have it. They¶re going to go about this whole global warming thing on their own terms. cultural and political considerations) and disarmed of their petty selfishness and local biases. George Dvorsky More specifically.Five Rea so ns the Co p enha g en Cl i ma te Confe re nce Failed George Dvorsky Sentient Developments Posted: Jan 8. The immediate reasons for the conference¶s failure are complex and laden with the political and economic realities of our time (e. like the politicking politicians who supposedly represent them. No more and no less. this would only work if the µpeople of the world¶ were universally educated about the intricacies of the issues (including scientific. and when push comes to shove it¶s far too easy for them to hide behind the sovereignty shield. compel and motivate the nations of the world to address the climate crisis in a meaningful and precedent setting way. Nation-states are far too self-serving: Countries don¶t like to be told what to do. many nations (particularly those in the developed world) are µaligning¶ themselves with what other countries are doing. I was hoping for an internationally binding deal that would. As this crisis is revealing. This isn¶t going to happen anytime soon. Like so many others. Isolationist and avaricious China : One thing that the Copenhagen failure revealed is that China¶s isolationism is alive and well²even as they emerge as a global superpower. Moreover. But it was not to be. at the very least. settling on exact targets and incentives).well. the masses have shown a tremendous unwillingness to deal with a problem that has yet to show any real tangible negative effects. economic. and consulting the Joe the Plumbers of the world on something as multifaceted and complex as climate change is probably not a good idea. Democracies are too ill-equipped and irresolute to deal with pending crises : A reader of mine recently complained that the people of the world were not being consulted on what they feel should be done about climate change. there are basically five µbird¶s eye view¶ reasons that can account for the conference¶s failure: 1. 2010 I¶m still reeling from the rather anticlimactic finish to the recent Climate Change Conference held in Copenhagen. But these reasons are part of a deeper malaise that is currently paralyzing the countries of our warming planet.

Adherents of this view contend that human civilization is not responsible for the changes to the Earth¶s climate and that as a consequence we don¶t need to fix anything²we can keep on spewing carbon into the atmosphere with reckless abandon. whether it be coastal areas. I¶m inclined to believe that semi-annual conferences are not the way to go. if left to its own devices. The decisions of this governing board would be binding and impact on all . This idea is particularly appealing to politicians who use it as a convenient escape hatch. if you will).manufacturing state in the world and house a massive population that will soon start to demand first-world standards of living. corporations will never voluntarily deal with a seemingly ethereal and controversial problem. Weak consensus on the reason for global warming: Global warming denalists are no longer the problem. is that some countries will be impacted more than others. What¶s of great concern now is the growing legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change denialists²those individuals who believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon. representative and accountable) and dedicated to debating and acting on the problem of anthropogeni climate change (a subc parliament. I¶m inclined to think that the only way the nations of the world will band together and act decisively on this issue is if an actual climate-instigated disaster happens²one that touches all international stakeholders in a profound way. capitalism. Instead. The powerful corporatist megastructure : As the onset of last year¶s economic crisis so beautifully illustrated. especially one that requires a dramatic reduction of profits. This is because corporations don¶t act rationally or in a way that would indicate foresight or a desire for long-term self-preservation. those dealing with desertification or those having to contend with the exodus of climate refugees. Moreover. I¶d like to see the United Nations assemble an international and permanent emergency session that is parliamentary in nature (i. This is a particularly pernicious idea because it absolves humanity from the problem. a prospect that will ultimately lead to the rise of a new geopolitical stratification: different regions (both inter. Part of the problem right now.e. But even this isn¶t guaranteed as there will always be global disparities in terms of impact. will eat itself. aside from the intangibleness of it all. 4.and intra-national) will experience the effects of global warming differently. Given the failure of Copenhagen. And exacerbating all this is the communist Chinese system itself with all its corruption and lack of accountability and due process. 5.

What¶s required is something more respective of the dire situation we¶re in. Failure at this point is not good enough. Read this.html#backToTop i think this is all alrd . The chances of outright failure (like the one in Copenhagen) would be significantly lessened.nasa. nasa webpage http://www. Instead of ad hoc conferences. namely a crisis-ofresolution.the nations of the world. The current climate problem has caused the emergence of another the emergency sub-parliament would conduct a series of ongoing debates over proposed legislation that would ultimately result in internationally binding agreements.