[Lore]

Basically Obama's foolishness single handedly derailed the Copenhagen meeting. Because of Obama's foolish behavior the chance for ratifying a binding UN treaty to reduce CO2 emissions is now lost for at least another generation. Its taken another 6 years to draft a much different and much weaker treaty for consideration at the upcoming Paris conference. Lets hope Obama does't screw it up again.....

cheers!

As usual Plant gets it wrong with Obama. I knew he couldn't resist. Let's take a look at someone who was actually there for the real story.

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room
Mark Lynas

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.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China's game

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.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... mark-lynas

[AgentR11]

And as I said the point is irrelevant. Politicians are suppose to work with facts on the ground. That is unless we are electing grade school kids. The scientists are not running victory laps and are not calling out names. They are presenting a dangerous set of facts. If your preaching willful ignorance because of hurt feelings in being called a name by the someone in the general public maybe its time to get people with a thicker skin able to do the right thing.

The facts on the ground are simple.

AGW is true.
The lefty proposal is worse than AGW.
Therefore, no holds barred defeating lefty proposal, including claiming the sky is pink.

We will continue to preach crazy things and true things, and continue to defeat you, until you figure out what the word compromise means. The truth or facts about AGW can not save your policy objective.

When you do, and understand that compromise doesn't mean you get half of what you want and we get none of what we want, then progress could certainly be made in reducing emissions. I've laid out one particular plan that would reduce emissions, create some positive tax reform, aid business and industry, and not change the amount of revenue taken in by the Federal Government.

[Lore]

The lefty proposal is worse than AGW.
Therefore, no holds barred defeating lefty proposal, including claiming the sky is pink.

What lefty proposal that's worse then AGW are you referring to?

We will continue to preach crazy things and true things, and continue to defeat you, until you figure out what the word compromise means. The truth or facts about AGW can not save your policy objective.

Right now the right-wing chooses to do nothing at any stage. Not even making their own initiative on a very serious problem. The defeat is their own and they also own our future demise. In fact guys like Ted Cruz are promising to undo the progress and programs we already have in place if elected.

When you do, and understand that compromise doesn't mean you get half of what you want and we get none of what we want, then progress could certainly be made in reducing emissions. I've laid out one particular plan that would reduce emissions, create some positive tax reform, aid business and industry, and not change the amount of revenue taken in by the Federal Government.

LOL... They are not even in the discussion mode. Pretty hard to compromise with someone who won't even acknowledge the facts to begin with. You're flapping your wings here.

[Plantagenet]

Basically Obama's foolishness single handedly derailed the Copenhagen meeting. Because of Obama's foolish behavior the chance for ratifying a binding UN treaty to reduce CO2 emissions is now lost for at least another generation. Its taken another 6 years to draft a much different and much weaker treaty for consideration at the upcoming Paris conference. Lets hope Obama does't screw it up again.....

cheers!

As usual Plant gets it wrong with Obama. I knew he couldn't resist. Let's take a look at someone who was actually there for the real story.

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room
Mark Lynas

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.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China's game

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.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... mark-lynas

Yes China humiliated Obama at Copenhagen.

But WHY did China humiliate Obama at Copenhagen? Because obama humiliated China first by barging into a meeting that China called and he wasn't invited to, and then pushing the Chinese leader aside in an attempt to take over the meeting that China called.

It was only AFTER Obama insulted China that China responded by insulting Obama.

The whole cock-up at Copenhagen was Obama's fault, since he insulted China first.

Cheers!

[Lore]

Yes China humiliated Obama at Copenhagen.

But WHY did China humiliate Obama at Copenhagen? Because obama humiliated China first by barging into a meeting that China called and he wasn't invited to, and then pushing the Chinese leader aside in an attempt to take over the meeting that China called.

It was only AFTER Obama insulted China that China responded by insulting Obama.

The whole cock-up at Copenhagen was Obama's fault, since he insulted China first.

Cheers!

Get over it, I just gave you the evidence of what really happened. Pretty obvious how the Chinese were playing games. They never came with any intent to negotiate in good faith.

[Plantagenet]

I just gave you the evidence of what really happened. Pretty obvious how the Chinese were playing games. They never came with any intent to negotiate in good faith.

Yes, but Obama was the one who insulted them first.

It seems like Obama was the one playing games and that obama never came with any intent to negotiate in good faith, since Obama was the one who intentionally ignored basic good manners and diplomatic protocol to humiliate the chinese.

You can't blame the Chinese---everything the Chinese did was just a response to Obama's initial insult to them.

[Satori]

"You can't blame the Chinese---everything the Chinese did was just a response to Obama's initial insult to them."

so the Chinese started crying,picked up their marbles and went home

AND

now a lot of people are going to suffer and even die

I don't think the Chinese ever had any real intention of doing anything

ever see pictures of the air pollution in their cities ?
ever read about all the "cancer villages" ?
read how many of their rivers are so polluted they are beyond hope?

[Plantagenet]

"....now a lot of people are going to suffer and even die

Yup. Thats exactly why I'm so critical of obama.

Obama's public humiliation of the Chinese leader at the start of the Copenhagen conference wound up derailing the conference and then the whole UN climate treaty process. The 20 year-long effort to draft a binding post-Kyoto climate change treaty to reduce CO2 emissions has now been abandoned.

The proposed treaty at Paris will NOT be binding, and will NOT reduce CO2 emissions.

Cheers!

[ennui2]

Get over it, I just gave you the evidence of what really happened. Pretty obvious how the Chinese were playing games. They never came with any intent to negotiate in good faith.

You should know better than to waste your time trying to get Planty to give up the idea that this or that isn't Obama's fault. Blaming Obama is what gives him a reason to get up each day.

Thats exactly why I'm so critical of obama.

No it isn't. You're critical of Obama because it comforts you to have a reliable scapegoat. Therefore every ounce of your mental energy on this board is invested in reinforcing your Obama-is-the-root-of-all-evil narrative.

Really, your rhetoric says more about you than it does Obama.

[careinke]

This is the crux of the problem and why the UN is totally screwing this up. China, India, etc. should have no right to increase their emissions when we all know the global carbon sequestration capacity is being greatly exceeded. This approach would be a major scandal if it was applied to water pollution discharges to rivers or lakes in the U.S. or Europe.

I don't know, Canada has been dropping raw sewage into the Straights of Juan De Fuca with no adverse (non-ecological), effects for years. Cities like Victoria, on Vancouver Island, don't even have a sewage system other than dumping directly into the straights.

[ennui2]

Meanwhile, amidst all this Obama blame-mongering...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/po ... Drecg&_r=1

[careinke]

Let me give you a right wing plan.

There can't BE a right wing plan because the right won't even acknowledge AGW. They also will never endorse a tax (like a carbon tax) of any kind. So you aren't describing a right-wing plan. You are describing your own personal platform which is disconnected from the GOP mainstream, who are more interested in complaining about the f*cking design of Starbucks coffee cups than anything else.

I think you are mistaken ennui2. Most conservatives would take Agents plan in a heartbeat. Do you honestly think the Dims would support it? I seriously doubt it. I've seen basically this same plan put forward by lots of self described conservatives. I've never seen a lib put forth a plan like this, instead they want some new carbon market they can manipulate that does nothing to reduce FF use.

[Plantagenet]

Obama-is-the-root-of-all-evil

Try to be rational about this

Some things O has done have been good and some have been bad.

O's role in derailing the Copenhagen climate meeting is one of the bad ones. It may even turn out to be the worst of all the bad ones. But after all, no one is perfect

Cheers!

[Tanada]

China plays the long game, they always have even when they were in the middle of a very deadly civil war. Even when they agree to something you think you want by the time you read the fine print you discover the geniuses they have doing their negotiating have stacked the deck in their favor. I say that with admiration, not disgust. I want to know why the people in our negotiating team are so desperate for a deal to score political points domestically that they do not negotiate deals that are in OUR favor. That is their job, and making deals that fry the future is not in OUR favor no matter which party gets political points that last days at most in the media.

[Lore]

I just gave you the evidence of what really happened. Pretty obvious how the Chinese were playing games. They never came with any intent to negotiate in good faith.

Yes, but Obama was the one who insulted them first.

It seems like Obama was the one playing games and that obama never came with any intent to negotiate in good faith, since Obama was the one who intentionally ignored basic good manners and diplomatic protocol to humiliate the chinese.

You can't blame the Chinese---everything the Chinese did was just a response to Obama's initial insult to them.

No, they came with a plan to get it their way and executed it perfectly. They had no reason to dis the other members of the summit.

[Lore]

Let me give you a right wing plan.

There can't BE a right wing plan because the right won't even acknowledge AGW. They also will never endorse a tax (like a carbon tax) of any kind. So you aren't describing a right-wing plan. You are describing your own personal platform which is disconnected from the GOP mainstream, who are more interested in complaining about the f*cking design of Starbucks coffee cups than anything else.

I think you are mistaken ennui2. Most conservatives would take Agents plan in a heartbeat. Do you honestly think the Dims would support it? I seriously doubt it. I've seen basically this same plan put forward by lots of self described conservatives. I've never seen a lib put forth a plan like this, instead they want some new carbon market they can manipulate that does nothing to reduce FF use.

ennui2 is correct, the Republicans will never indorse a tax on fossil fuels. As I mentioned guys like Ted Cruz are even now proposing to get rid of every program and agency that smells of environmental protection.

[Plantagenet]

ennui2 is correct, the Republicans will never indorse a tax on fossil fuels.

?????

First of all, I think you mean endorse a tax----there is no such word as "indorse."

Second----Do you guys never look at the gas pump when you buy gas for your Winnebago?

There already is a tax on fossil fuel---you pay it every time you pull up to the pump, and its part of the federal budget so the Rs definitely voted for it.

Cheers!


There already is a federal tax on FF

[Lore]

First, thanks for the spelling Nazi lesson Plant and you know full well what we're referring to is a separate carbon tax.

[drwater]

Agent said:

Yes, Republicans WILL discuss taxes, as long as the total revenue of the government does not increase, and preferably decreases some. What Republicans will have nothing to do with, is a new tax that is used to fund mailing checks out to people for no good reason, Hanson's "fee and dividend" being the most obnoxious possible example.

Tell Republicans you're going to repeal the corporate income tax and replace it with a nondiscriminatory carbon tax, they'll jump all over you in celebration.

Yes and no. Believe it or not, Republicans are concerned with the effects of a carbon fee on low income families. Some amount of dividend from a revenue-neutral fee addresses that. Whether it is all rebated as a dividend check or some goes back to businesses as a reduction in the businesses' social security payroll tax (my favorite) or reducing the corporate income tax (reasonable concept, but possibly messy), the key principal is that it remain revenue-neutral.

Regarding your earlier comment on carbon fee and border adjustments on China, China would take the easiest way out, which would be to adopt the international level of carbon fee internally so that they got to keep the revenue rather than pay it out in export tax.

[drwater]

careinke wrote:

I don't know, Canada has been dropping raw sewage into the Straights of Juan De Fuca with no adverse (non-ecological), effects for years. Cities like Victoria, on Vancouver Island, don't even have a sewage system other than dumping directly into the straights.

If there are no adverse effects, then the treatment/adsorptive capacity of the natural system is not being exceeded. We are talking about a system (global CO2 sequestration) that is being far exceeded.

For example, let's say hypothetically that Victoria's discharge was causing a bunch of fish kills or whatever. Let's say they (being responsible Canadians) put in a treatment plant to reduce their discharge strength to where it wasn't causing a problem. Then let's say that China decided to build an artificial island in the Straights and put 1,000,000 people on it and no wastewater treatment. And all the fish started dying again. Would we say - Gee, they are a "developing nation". They should be allowed to dump all the crap they want to into our water. Hell no! We would say - wait a minute, we just spent $10,000,000 to build a treatment plant and clean up the Straights, who are these assholes to come in later and start dumping in it?

So that's the crux of the idiocy at the UN with their ridiculous "common but differentiated responsibilities" nonsense.