Can't you do better than that? pledges - Copenhagen Summit

by Babel-Fish | December 6, 2009 at 07:43 pm

280 views | 14 Recommendations | 10 comments

There are I92 countries attending with the highest ever presented amount of pledges from many nations that have never pledged before. It shows countries awareness of what could or not be a very important issue. Some countries are asking for aid and blaming the west, Oil producing countries are seeking compensation. Why ask now as they are mostly very rich, why not later if and when they need the cash..

The main target date is 2020 it’s a 10 year plan.

China is pledging a massive 40 – 45% cut and they will do it because the form communism allows them to do so. The measly 17% pledge being made by USA shows there is to much pressure applied by the real bosses the capitalistic string pullers.

But what is interesting China is asking the west to supply the technology, does that mean buying the manufactured goods or so they can manufacture the goods?

EU wants to cut emissions by 20% (3 more than USA), and not to be out done by China wants emissions cut by 90+ % by 2050. Want the third world to slow down development (but stated a political “slow down emissions growth”).

India pledges 20-25% but rejects legally a binding target but wants the rich countries to be legal bound. Wants 40% cut in rich country emissions by 2020.

The Copenhagen conference intended to agree a new international framework for controlling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is about to begin. The final round of preparatory talks in Barcelona has revealed deep divisions between some of the key participants. Use this table to study their positions.

Summary.

1. India will get its wish from China

2. USA is not too far away from EU just 3%

3. Third world scroungers are on the loose, using an over used claim to make the west look guilty.

All pledges should be taken in respect and those who make the pledges should be thanked but clearly told exactly in the tones Winston Churchill used to use in a very quiet voice "Can't you do better than that" to any one that failed his expectations.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 03:58 on December 7th, 2009

Bottom line when the rubber hits the road, it.s the same as always. It.s the economy stupid. From what I understand the Chinese proposal is tied to GDP growth, which realistically means no real reductions.

On the same token, the developed world has pumped greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for 100 years and developing nations want the developed nations to clean up their mess first. It should be an interesting conference.

What does binding targets mean? Is there a way to enforce them?

The question in your title is relevant Can't you do better than that?

Let the finger pointing begin.

PIM of SPAIN

at 06:05 on December 7th, 2009

Global Warming is a man made Hoax. CO2 emission are not the culprit to global warming. In Copenhagen the summit is already costing the respective 192 economies a fortune with lots of promises for contribution, donations, solid commitments that all aren't met in the end. When the summit is over the world turns around as business is as usual. But arrogant politicians and hungry scientists have said their sayings to obtain maximum publicity for their egos. All even quicker forgotten after the summit has ended without any firm agreement. For hoax matters its better to cry hardest and do as little as you can. People's memory is short lived and requirements for accountability don't exist. Off they go and not that much will change, it won't be possible either, menatlity and interest amongst the summiteers differ far too much.

One may asks himself, what has climate change to do with finance and economics? Actually, quite a lot. Especially when it is a huge financial drag that no one actually is looking for in times of a recession.
Anyhow most of what will be said is bogus at least all about CO2 emission. However the implications carry enormous additional unnecessary costs. Estimates vary on how much a proposed "cap-and-trade" plan might cost. Depending on where you get your figures - which seems to be a recurring caveat surrounding this whole discussion - annual cost to the US alone could be between $200-$350 billion, or roughly $1,750 - $3,000 per household. Even President Obama himself said that energy costs were likely to "skyrocket" under his plan. One memorandum, estimates that, "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."
Critics, predictably, rebuke those figures, claiming that they are typically inflated and that their government would never spend that much money on a bogus scheme. Besides, "how can you put a price on human life... they say!?"
Depending on what side of the debate you reside - skeptic or believer - action or inaction will cost consumers and taxpayers thousands of dollars per year in additional taxes and their surrender of liberty to a world government.

Think about.

Babel-Fish

at 12:25 on December 7th, 2009

Are you a scientist as you seem so sure?

I have seen so much pollution in my life and observed human untidiness and lack of care. I have seen animals and fish dead because of pollution. Filthy rivers and then the snog where one could not see your hand if you held it up in front of your face.

I am not a scientist and I can not make a scientific judgment, seemingly you can and you seem so sure?

The cost out ways the possible threat, so we have to worry about the cost so lets keep on polluting?

I want to breathe clean air, see a thriving sea and see more care towards the other species on our planet. We do need to be more responsible and it is possible we are effecting climate change we should of thought about cost before we polluted.

snuffysmith

at 16:12 on December 8th, 2009

Crapshoot in Copenhagenfrom Foreign Policy In Focus FPIF's weekly update.

snuffysmith

at 08:44 on December 9th, 2009

Obama’s Envoys in Denmark Are Hemmed in by Congress, Kerry Says

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., downplayed the chances of the U.S. committing to wider carbon-reduction targets during the ongoing climate summit in Denmark, saying Congress will not approve them. U.S. representatives plan to offer an emissions reduction of about 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels, but the country "ought to be doing 20 percent or better," Kerry said. Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=aW6mAB05Hsqs

snuffysmith

at 09:02 on December 9th, 2009

Copenhagen and Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change- by Prof. Robert M. Carter - 2009-12-09

snuffysmith

at 09:13 on December 9th, 2009

Copenhagen Climate Summit in Disarray after 'Danish Text' Leak

By John Vidal in Copenhagen

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol. Continue

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24135.htm

Read the Danish Text:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change

Copenhagen climate change conference in pictures: Day twohttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-in-pictures-day-two

snuffysmith

at 14:58 on December 9th, 2009

Global Warming's Ironclad Evidence By: Nate Beeler
Examiner Cartoonist
12/05/09 3:33 PM EST

snuffysmith

at 15:04 on December 9th, 2009

Jay Ambrose: Big networks asleep at the wheel on the climate scandal By: Jay Ambrose
Examiner Columnist

snuffysmith

at 19:48 on December 9th, 2009

Calibrating Credulity for Copenhagenfrom Shadow Government by Phil Levy

By Phil Levy

Amidst the dire warnings and the pledges and the general cacophony coming out of the global climate talks in Denmark, how can we separate real progress from -- forgive me -- hot air?