S-e-S Redux: Copenhagen?

[Philip]

Transferred from the Geo-Pol thread.

The current Climate Change Conf.and the positions taken by various nations are mere tokenism according to this report.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 35499.html

Quote:
Greenhouse gas cuts just 'token gestures'

Copenhagen won't prevent disaster, warns top scientist
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

A globe lights up the night sky in Copenhagen as delegates descend for the two-week climate change summit that begins today

The cuts in greenhouse gas emissions being proposed at the Copenhagen climate conference, which opens today, are completely inadequate to stop dangerous climate change, one of Britain’s leading climate scientists warns.

Current proposals, including recent ones from major emitting nations such as the US, China and India, are “little more than token gestures”, compared to what the science deems necessary to give even a 50-50 chance of staying below the danger threshold, says Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester.

Writing in The Independent today, Professor Anderson cautions that with the commitments currently on the table in Copenhagen, global emissions of carbon dioxide will peak far too late for temperature rises to stay below two degrees Centigrade above the pre-industrial level, which is regarded as the limit that the earth and human society can safely stand.

Related articles
Was Russian secret service behind leak of climate-change emails?
Kevin Anderson: Decision time... face the facts or give up
Michael McCarthy: The express? More like a crawl to Copenhagen
Leading article: Will the world finally wake up to the scale of the challenge?
Copenhagen Diary: Conference of a thousand limousines

Instead, they are likely to put the world on a disastrous trajectory for four degrees or even higher.

Nations must now make much more radical commitments, he says, even if it means sacrificing economic growth.

Professor Anderson is one of the world’s leading experts on CO2 emissions rates, and his comments represent a sobering reality check about just how great is the task which the world now faces in bringing global warming under control.

The meeting in the Danish capital, which lasts for the next two weeks and will be attended in its final stages by most of the world’s leaders including President Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, will attempt to construct a new climate treaty under which all countries will eventually cut back their CO2.

In the run-up to the conference, most of the world’s biggest carbon emitters, led by China and the USA, and including the European Union and Britain, have “put numbers on the table” indicating the reductions they are prepared to make, if negotiations are successful in the round.

The targets announced for the first time in the last fortnight by America, China and India, in particular, have been regarded as a considerable step forward.

But the sum of all the commitments is simply inadequate for the point where emissions peak as a whole and then start to decline to come early enough, Professor Anderson says.

The date of the emissions peak is increasingly seen as a vital point in checking the progress of the warming.

Last year, the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for climate prediction and research said that if global emissions peaked in 2015 or 2016 and then declined annually at a rate of four per cent, there would be a 50-50 chance – but no more than that – of keeping the rise in temperatures to two degrees, the goal upon which much of the world’s climate policy is premised.

For every ten years that the peak was delayed, the Hadley Centre said, the world would be committed to another 0.5 of a degree of warming.

Professor Anderson points out that there is a widespread assumption that an emissions peak might come relatively early, but asserts that the political and economic will to bring this about is actually absent.

He writes: “For example, the [Lord] Stern and the [UK] Committee on Climate Change reports are premised on global emissions reaching their highest levels by 2015 and 2016 respectively, before beginning a process of year-on-year reductions.”

He goes on: “However, amongst those working on climate change there is near universal acknowledgment that such early peaking years are politically unacceptable – yet the Stern and the CCC analyses remain pivotal in the formation of emission-reduction policy.

“The statements by the US, China and India, allied with commitments from other nations, suggest peaking global emissions between 2020 and 2030 is about as hard as the economic and political orthodoxy is prepared to push in terms of emission reductions.

“If peaking global emissions between 2020 and 2030 is left unquestioned, the cumulative quantity of greenhouse gases emitted will be sufficient to put temperatures on a 4 degrees C or higher trajectory.”

In recent years, emissions have shot up in a way no-one expected even a decade ago, largely owing to the breakneck industrialisation of China, which doubled its CO2 output over the decade from 3bn to 6 bn tonnes, and in doing so overtook the US as the world’s biggest polluter. Currently global carbon emissions are rising by nearly three per cent annually, making a four per cent annual decline as tall order indeed, and one that the present Copenhagen commitments would not remotely be able to facilitate.

There has to be a move to a radical new level of emissions cuts, Professor Anderson says, if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.

He writes: “If Copenhagen is to have any chance of kick-starting a global movement to stay below the 2 degrees C characterisation of dangerous climate change, it must inspire and instigate a rapid shift away from the current political and economic consensus.”

The first challenge, he says, is to get political buy-in to what the science is saying in relation to, at least, a 50:50 chance of not exceeding 2 degrees C.

“In brief, wealthy (OECD) nations need to peak emissions by around 2012, achieve at least a 60 per cent reduction in emissions from energy by 2020, and fully decarbonise their energy systems by 2030 at the latest.

“Alongside this, the ‘industrialising’ nations (non-OECD) need to peak their collective emissions by around 2025 and fully decarbonise their energy systems by 2050.”

He notes: “This scale of reductions is presently far removed from that which the negotiators in Copenhagen are intending to consider.”

He concludes: “The second challenge for Copenhagen, therefore, is to make a clear and explicit decision to do all that is necessary to put global emissions on a 2 degrees C pathway, even if this requires a temporary cessation in economic growth amongst the wealthy OECD nations.”

* On the eve of the conference yesterday, the UN’s top climate change official expressed confidence that the meeting would deliver a comprehensive, ambitious and effective international climate change deal. “Negotiators now have the clearest signal ever from world leaders to craft solid proposals to implement rapid action,” said Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Mr de Boer said there was unprecedented political momentum to clinch an ambitious deal in Copenhagen: “Never in 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different nations made so many firm pledges together.

“So whilst there will be more steps on the road to a safe climate future, Copenhagen is already a turning point in the international response to climate change.”

However, climate sceptics will be boosted by the fact that the controversy over the stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, which has been seized on by the sceptic lobby seeking to undermine the scientific consensus, will receive an airing at the conference today. Mr de Boer said that Dr Raj Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, would refer to it in his speech during the opening ceremonies.

The UNFCCC secretariat revealed last night that 34,000 people had applied for accreditation to the meeting, taking place in a conference centre which only holds 15,000. The limit on accreditation of journalists has already been reached at 3,500 and further accreditation has been suspended, while environmental groups are being rationed as to the numbers of activists who are allowed on the site.

[amit]

Here's an interesting piece:

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

This is similar to "environmentalists" driving to conferences in their 4 wheel drive SUVs and to give an impassioned speech on how disastrous it is that Tatas developed $2,500 car which Indians would be buying in large numbers and polluting the Earth

And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.

At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.

Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – Britain excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in Kyoto.

And this one sums it up very nicely, thank you Anders Fogh Rasmussen:

The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable...

[Philip]

What a laugh! Can anyone get me a conference pass please? In fact a few more would be welcome! I guess that th ebest way that the world leaders could've shown their committment to the globe's crisis,was to have conducted the ntire conference via sat tele-conferencing.But then who will feed the hungry and tired leaders after their strenuous hot air production and massage their bodies...sorry, egos?

[enqyoob]

C? I told u so. This is going 2 b as much fun as BENIS dhaga 4 the next month.

[enqyoob]

Why Now: US Administration is favorable to an international agreement to bolster its green credentials.

Actually, no (perhaps they did tune it to the POTUS election cycle, but that would be presumptuous to assume in public). Its the Agreed Protocol. Montreal, Kyoto, next is Copenhagen. The Kyoto Protocol covered what was to be done through 2012. Copenhagen covers what is to happen from 2013 onwards. They want to expand the Oiropean-imposed quota system essentially worldwide.

Consider that this is tied intricately into the other 2 scams: Globalization and ISO900x Certification.

The increased pressure is because the economic crisis is sending Oirope into bankruptcy. Countries like Spain who bought into this Franco-German b.s. are now seeing massive unemployment as the social welfare system has lost the tax base that supported it. So they need new "taxes" and they need to impose tariffs on imports, badly.

See that comment from the limo fleet owner about insanely high taxes on hybrid cars in Denmark? I don't think Denmark makes any hybrid cars, so these must be imports.

This means that their grand scheme now is to impose a massive tax on imports from countries outside of "Annex 1" since the ISO900x scam has run its course.

IMO, China is trying to avert that by those noises being made. They need the US on their side to make it stick, and they keep the US on their side by asking about the health of those $$$T invested in the US economy and making BO "go" every time they ask that.

Jairam Ramesh wimped out and blinked first. Or maybe he was trying to imitate China and fell into that monkey-c-monkey-do trap.

[ramana]

Two op-eds from Pioneer



LINK:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/220837/Reth ... n-cut.html

OPED | Monday, December 7, 2009 | Email | Print |


Rethinking carbon cut

Caroline Boin

Mere reduction in carbon emissions won’t help

Cutting carbon emissions will not cut death and suffering. More than 75 world leaders meet in Copenhagen over the next two weeks to attempt an agreement on climate change. They should start by admitting the political and economic failure of the Kyoto Protocol: Its prohibitive costs will prevent us from addressing other, more pressing problems.

The current Kyoto agreement expiring in 2012 committed countries to reducing their collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent from the 1990 level by 2008-2012. But major countries like Australia and Canada are expected to miss their targets. And many will only meet them through so-called ‘additional measures,’ which are of dubious efficiency and subject to abuse. For example, the Clean Development Mechanism allows rich countries to invest in low-carbon projects in poor countries instead of cutting their own emissions.

The European Union, with by far the most developed climate mitigation system, will meet its Kyoto target — but not its own target of 20 per cent by 2020: It expects to reach only 14 per cent, which translates to a paltry 6.4 per cent cut in its own emissions once you take out the ‘additional measures’.

These failed arbitrary caps have created vested business interests that profit from subsidies and regulations — and they desperately want an extension beyond 2012: The global low-carbon economy was worth nearly $ 5 trillion last financial year, according to a report for the British Government. And even if everyone met Kyoto targets, the result would be an insignificant dent in temperature.

Emission caps have high costs and unclear benefits. There is a better way: Enabling people to deal with a changing climate through economic growth holds a dual promise. It will allow us to address urgent problems that afflict the poor today, like malaria and hunger. And it will also empower people to deal with those problems in the future, should they get worse because of climate change.

There is a lot of discussion about the predicted effects of climate change. Will diseases like malaria rise? Will there be water and food shortages? Will extreme weather events like Hurricane Ida become more frequent?

In fact, these problems could hardly be worse for the majority of the world’s people right now — simply because they are poor. Malaria kills about a million people every year. Diarrhoea from dirty water kills 1.5 million children every year. The United Nations has just dropped its target of halving hunger by 2015 as the number of hungry people rises.

It was economic growth that allowed now-wealthy countries to rid themselves of hunger and diseases like malaria. Wealth means health, potable water and a wide array of life-saving technologies, from hybrid seeds that increase crop yields to vaccines that protect us from once-deadly diseases.

Similarly, economic growth and technological development allow us to overcome events like droughts, floods and storms. In fact, deaths from extreme weather events have fallen 95 per cent since the 1920s. Hurricane Ida tragically killed 192 people in El Salvador recently but that number pales in comparison to hurricanes that used to kill thousands just decades ago. Extreme weather events disproportionately affect the poor because they do not have robust dwellings, early-warning systems, flood defences or good roads.

To build that infrastructure, the poor need, once again, economic growth. This will not come from increased foreign aid or subsidies for ‘clean’ technologies — all too often, these have simply enriched ruling cliques and interest-groups, allowing little development.

As the climate changes, Governments need to accept the reality that growth is good. They need to trust their people with economic freedoms, such as the right to own property. Growth would enable people to invest in robust buildings and get technologies that would drastically reduce their exposure to climate extremes.

They must also get rid of the subsidies, taxes and regulations that undermine economic growth and encourage waste. It is not climate change but Government policies, such as prohibitive tariffs on medicine, subsidies to farmers for water-use and restrictions on food exports, that cause poverty and poor health.

Drastic reduction of carbon emissions will stifle the very economic growth that is needed to reduce poverty and vulnerability. Governments must stop blaming their mistakes on climate change: They must empower people to fight poverty today and whatever the climate brings tomorrow.


The writer is a Project Director at International Policy Network, London, an independent think-tank working on economic development.

and



Link:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/220836/Cope ... -fail.html

OPED | Monday, December 7, 2009 | Email | Print |


Copenhagen talks should fail

Gwynne Dyer

If the summit succeeds, rich countries will get the right to go on emitting greenhouse gases by subsidising clean power and forcing emission cuts on poor countries. This won’t deliver results

Sometimes the best is the enemy of the good — and sometimes ‘good enough’ is the enemy of all mankind. That is why Mr Jim Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world’s leading climate scientists, wants the global summit on climate change in Copenhagen to fail.

The summit is supposed to work out a successor to the Kyoto accord, which expires in 2012. In theory, the follow-on treaty would mandate deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, and find some way of bringing the developing countries into the process as well. But for Mr Hansen, the methodology is so flawed that the new treaty is not worth having.

“I would rather it not happen,” he told The Guardian recently. “The whole approach is so fundamentally wrong that it is better to reassess the situation.” In diplomacy, ‘good enough’ solutions predominate because of the need for compromise, but in this case, Mr Hansen argues, it is better to have no deal than the wrong deal.

“This is analogous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill,” he said. “On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can’t say let’s reduce slavery, let’s find a compromise and reduce it 50 per cent or 40 per cent.”

He’s right — and most of the negotiators at Copenhagen know it. It’s surprisingly common in international negotiations. Almost everybody involved knows what the one really fair and effective deal would look like, although they feel doomed to settle for something much worse. In this case, the fair and effective deal would take full account of the history, and it would look like this.

It would require the rich, industrialised countries to take really deep cuts in their emissions: 40 per cent by 2020, say, and another 40 per cent by 2035. The developing countries would cap the growth in their emissions at a level not much higher than where they are now — but they must be allowed to go on growing their economies, which means that they will need more energy.

All that extra energy has to be clean, or else they will break through the cap. They will therefore have to get their new energy from wind farms or solar arrays or nuclear plants, all of which are more expensive than the cheap coal-fired power plants they rely on now. Who pays the difference in the cost? The rich countries do, by technology transfers and direct subsidies.

What makes this lopsided deal fair is the history behind it. Emissions in the developed countries have stabilised or declined slightly (except for Canada, where they continue to soar), but they are still at a very high level. Indeed, what has made these countries rich is burning fossil fuels for the past 150-200 years — and in doing so, they have taken up almost all the available space.

In the early 19th century, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air was 280 parts per million. It is now 390 ppm, and four-fifths of that extra CO2 was put there by the ancestors of the one billion people who live in the developed countries. The point of no return, after which we risk runaway warming, is a rise in average global temperature of two degrees Celsius. That is equivalent to 450 ppm of carbon dioxide.

All we have left to play with is the distance between 390 ppm and 450 ppm, and on a business-as-usual basis we’ll cover it in less than 30 years. All the economic growth of rapidly developing countries like China, India and Brazil — 3 to 4 billion people — has to fit into that narrow band of 60 ppm that the developed countries left for them.

That is why the post-Kyoto deal must be lopsided — but it is still politically impossible to sell that deal to people in the developed countries, most of whom are (wilfully) ignorant of that history. What we have on the table instead at Copenhagen is a ******** version of the deal in which the rich countries buy the right to go on emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases by subsidising clean power and other emissions reductions in the poor countries.

“This is analogous to the indulgences that the Catholic church sold in the Middle Ages,” said Mr Hansen. “The bishops collected lots of money and the sinners got redemption. Both parties liked that arrangement despite its absurdity.” And everybody goes to hell together.

The Copenhagen summit will certainly fail to deliver the right deal. The danger is that it will lock us into the wrong deal, and leave no political space for countries to go back and try to get it right later. Public opinion is climbing a steep learning curve, and the assymetrical deal that cannot be sold politically today might be quite saleable in as little as a year or two.

So the best outcome at Copenhagen would be a ringing declaration of principles, and an agreement to get back round the table and do the hard negotiations over the next 12 to 18 months. Since the US Congress has still not mandated any reduction in American emissions and Canada will do its best to subvert the proceedings, that is also a quite likely outcome.


-The writer is a London-based independent journalist.

[Suraj]

I think N^3 is making a valid point that Jairam Ramesh speaking about intensity reduction pledges right now is a bad idea. However, I don't agree that the Chinese intensity cap plan specifics were clearly stated at the outset. The fact that they announced a cap got far more press than any detail about them tying it to rate of GDP growth. Considering the amount of confusion regarding exactly what we announced, it wouldn't be surprising if we've the same riders. However, it would be a good idea to keep Mr Ramesh away from any microphones for a while.

As a further note, we've already managed a 17% reduction in carbon intensity between 1990 and 2005, which is close to the 20-25% pledge for 2020 that we announced. Has this entirely voluntary reduction in carbon intensity hurt our economic growth so far ? I don't think so - this has been the period of greatest economic growth in our history.

There are some non-negotiable items, i.e. no binding requirements on emissions cuts, and no imposition of a de facto carbon trading regime. Other than that, a lot of the debate seems to be white noise.

[enqyoob]

we've already managed a 17% reduction in carbon intensity between 1990 and 2005, which is close to the 20-25% pledge for 2020 that we announced.

Suraj, this is news to me. How was this done, and how is this figured? There has been industrial growth in India, and sharp growth in automobile emissions. On the other hand, growth in clean energy, viz, wind, solar etc., while impressive in percentages (any growth from zero is infinite percentage growth..), remains like 1 percent or so of total primary energy.

Have conservation measures made that much difference in India? I am curious about this number.

Re: the above two articles, I strongly disagree with both, since both are utterly biased and without foundation. The first claims that the Kyoto Protocol has failed. On the contrary, it has made a huge difference. Whether the climate has become better is not the issue - the world is definitely on course towards a huge shift away from fossil hydrocarbon burning (burning trees is technically carbon-neutral as long as more trees are planted and grown). There are huge projects for wind and solar energy.

Secondly, these folks attack the "CDM" etc. Their logic is specious, and what they are really upset about is that this is an amazingly far-sighted method of doing the conversion. No US/British origin global accord would ever come close to the basic sense of the Kyoto Accord. What bisses off the US Republican types and their British poodles is that the Oiropeans came up with something this good and actually implemented it.

The biggest changes are in energy efficiency and in sustainable, renewable energy. Today I can say that the path towards an eventual hydrogen economy looks much more level and achievable than it did even 5 years ago, and the reason is the Kyoto Protocol. OK, ppl will claim that it is the Oil Crunch that did it, but without the CDM and other features of the Kyoto Protocol, the response to the Oil Crunch would be war, not an accelerating drive towards energy independence with technologies coming on line swiftly.

The British and the Americans, sadly, are the ones now out to derail the move towards energy independence, by bringing in this deal-killer argument tossing out the carbon footprint as the metric and going back to their GunBoat Diplomacy style of behavior.

Gwynne Dyer is a notorious idiot. We've seen her "journalism" in other aspects, thank you very much. The NASA guy is basically saying:

Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah! Let us do nothing onlee yaar!

Aren't we familiar with this from the Non-Participants? Clearly, if the UNFCCC were run by NASA, we'd be stuck at the 1999 level of progress towards the 2013 deadline, like they "achieved" with the International Space Station and the $100/lb-to-LEO Space Shuttle and the Space Solar Power project.

[Suraj]

N^3: Carbon intensity is a measure that reports carbon emissions per unit GDP. The 17% reduction in the rate of growth of carbon intensity is a reflection of GDP growth in excess of carbon emission growth. It is realistic that we can grow fast and yet not generate disproportionately large carbon emissions. Growth in automobiles sales has also been accompanied by growth in emissions standards (Bharat Stage IV by 2010). Cities like New Delhi have acted to mandate CNG for all commercial vehicles. There's been a significant increase in commercial vehicles with efficient higher capacity engines as opposed to a legion of older, inefficient smoke-belchers. Further, unlike China, we haven't seen a massive growth in coal-fired plants.

The following article quotes a member of the Planning Commission stating this:

Since India has already started energy conservation measures — but never totalled the numbers — it should be able to immediately trim 20 per cent off its emissions intensity by 2020; with technological changes, the country could
even commit to a 30 per cent cut.

“Between 1990 and 2005 we reduced emission (carbon) intensity by 17 per cent,” a Planning Commission official said. “There is no harm in declaring our emission intensity aim for 2030 without taking it as a target.”

Most of the emission-intensity reduction will come from the use of better technology in coal-fired power plants. These were the technologies discussed in Delhi in the first-such meeting of top Indian scientists and technocrats, chaired by Shyam Saran, the PM’s special envoy on climate change, and R Chidambaram, the government’s principal scientific adviser.

Another variable is the increase in green cover:

An official report billed 'India State of Forest Report 2009' released in New Delhi on Monday by the federal Minister for Forests and Environment Jairam Ramesh shows that India's green cover during the period 1997-2007 had grown by 3.13 million hectares.

The key findings, which is based on the work done by the Forest Survey of India, shows that the country's forest cover had shown an annual average increase of 0.3 million hectares while countries like Brazil and Indonesia had seen their forests reduce at the rate of about 2.5 million hectares per year in the same period.

As far as Mr.Ramesh's statement goes, India was expected to make a emissions claim, just to keep up with the Joneses. As we grow and rise in profile, that is something that will be expected of us - to come out and say something, not just 'we won't do this' refusenik viewpoint. Whether we *act* on anything or impose our fine print is our business, and something we do have control over. Hence my statement that binding agreements on emissions cuts, and carbon tax imposition being non-negotiable red lines. Those are all I really bother about. The rest is just grandstanding.

[ramana]

X-post...

It could be a difficult trap being set at Copenhagen for MMSji to escape from. PRC is temporarily going to get along with India for bargaining purposes. But PRC is a dictatorship which can impose enormous costs on its society for short and long term economic or political advantages. India cannot.

The political costs of accepting any compromises could be unbearable for the Congress government. So this is going to be hard dilemma. Financial and "technology' compensation could be part of the package deal. But how far are European "green tech" going to be economically feasible for India to maintain?

Why cannot India propose its own "climate change response" agenda? Based on its own needs and experiences? Even a counter proposal for the "developed" countries to adopt! I have dabbled in a lot of green tech "used" in EU. The basic ideas are sound - but based on an economy, and infrastructure that is completely different in certain key ingredients compared to India.

India needs to have its own, completely self-sufficient programme to tackle climate-change if any. India needs to have its own team of scientists doing independent research on local data, and not connected to Pachauri's IPCC.

Under the current international ganging up, it is India who seems most likely to suffer and bear the majority of the costs of adjustment - even bear the costs for TSP and BD.

I think that Pachauri guy is an agent provocator. Its his outfit IPCC that fudged the Himalayan glacier melt timeline to scare the GOI into coming up with those voluntary cuts.

[Jarita]

Hilarious one on Rajendra Pachauri


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... Y2OWZiZDg=
Monday, November 30, 2009



Come Fry with Me [Mark Steyn]


In order to save the planet from global roasting, it seems entirely reasonable to ask Mr. and Mrs. Joe Peasant to subordinate their freedom of movement to an annual "carbon allowance" preventing them flying hither and yon and devastating the environment. As Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, explains:

Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world’s leading climate scientist has told the Observer.

Rajendra Pachauri? Hey, if you're manning the VIP lounge at Heathrow, that name may ring a bell:

Dr Rajendra Pachauri flew at least 443,243 miles on IPCC business in this 19 month period. This business included honorary degree ceremonies, a book launch and a Brookings Institute dinner, the latter involving a flight of 3500 miles.

Wow. 443,243 miles. How many flying polar bears does Dr. Pachauri kill in an average quarter? Well, not to worry, he probably offsets his record-breaking ursocide with carbon credits from carbon billionaire Al Gore.

And in any case it's okay to devastate the planet on IPCC business — plus the occasional cricket match:

So strong is his love for cricket that his colleagues recall the time the Nobel winner took a break during a seminar in New York and flew in to Delhi over the weekend to attend a practice session for a match before flying back. Again, he flew in for a day, just to play that match.

And why not? Aside from a slight increase in the risk of polar bears dropping from the skies onto stray Indian bowlers and wicket-keepers, where's the harm?

P.S. I like the headline on Dr. Pachauri's climate'n'cricket story: "Heat On Cricket Pitch Warms This Climate Change Laureate." If you're waiting for some journalist to ask him about the contradictions between his lifestyle and the one he wants the rest of us to submit to, that sound you hear is cricketers chirping.

[enqyoob]

Suraj:

Thx. That is really very good (and useful in the "right" hands ) info. Point is, there are enough Carbon Credits waiting to be "earned" by the "developed" polluters so that they can keep polluting, that India can get all its power plants cleaned up essentially for free.

To me, the BIG news about this CDM and Carbon Credits, while they last, is that most of spent in India can bring India that much closer to breaking free of the Arab oil stranglehold. In fact the huge ultimate winner from this CAN be India if the game is played with focus. Get someone to pay for the "impossible" and "not viable" conversion to a solar-wind-biomass-hydrogen distributed economy, and then there is no looking back. Renewable power generation is proportional, not to concentrations of resources, but to number of people, because pretty much everyone can do the work needed to keep a solar or wind or biomass micro-plant operating in their garden/rooftop/balcony/ backyard/ shopfront. The sun shines everywhere in India. This is why I consider this noise about Global Warming, however fudged the data might be, to be a gift from ATM, and getting the kufr to pay for it is double dipping. And if in the process, lazy Indian plant owners and operators are kicked in the musharraf to clean up their act and institute modern safety, health and hygiene practices in the interests of "energy efficiency", hey, so much the sweeter.

[Rahul M]

Hilarious one on Rajendra Pachauri

Monday, November 30, 2009

link please.

[pgbhat]

Even before kickoff, a self-goal by Team India
Jairam Ramesh in climate hot seat, rebuts charges

[Amber G.]

...... It shows just how incompetent out government and the IPCC is. This is the sort of stuff we based our negotiating position on. Enjoy:

The BBC now has a more detailed story on the Himalayan glaciers. The 2035 doomsday melting date for the Himalayas... was actually 2350. I kid you not. No, really:
Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'

If one does go to pp493 of http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... pter10.pdf and indeed see the CITE which is

WWF (WorldWildlife Fund), 2005:An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and
subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China.WorldWildlife Fund, Nepal Programme,79 pp

it is not clear .., may be WWF (indirectly) is citing Kotlyakov, may be not ..IMO claim of bad proofreading itself needs a little more proof.
Kotlyakov's report (pp 66) (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/0 ... 06523E.pdf does tell what BBC story tells, but as I said it is not clear that IPCC indeed made reference to that.. It Cites WWF, not Kotlyakov as far as I can see..

My interest ends here..as this may be irrelevant..

[abhishek_sharma]

I think that the upside is negligible and unlikely and the downside will have significant consequences.

Abhishek,

It would further this discussion if you could kindly list some of the downsides, arising from the current Indian stand on a non binding carbon intensity reduction as opposed to a straight forward emission cut figure.

TIA

It is a question of opportunity cost. For example, we are investing Rs74000 crores in upgrading coal fired plants. My belief is that if we spend this amount in another sector of economy, it would lead to more jobs, cheaper energy and higher rates of growth. This wouldn't help the planet but our first duty is to save the current generation. Once we can care for our present citizens, then we would worry about future generations.

I agree that global warming is real and we should do something about it. However, given the attitude of rich countries, it is difficult to find any equitable solution.

Jairam Ramesh has changed significantly since July. Then he said that American emissions are lifestyle emissions. He was 100% correct.

Now Mr. Ramesh says that not reducing our population growth was our mistake. These are typical far right views.

[Mort Walker]

N^3,

The NASA scientist, James Hansen, is not actually advocating doing nothing, but he thinks the current talks are useless. Hansen believes from what he has seen is that the earth is on the brink of a runaway greenhouse effect similar to what has been seen on Mars. He fears that temperatures will rise so fast, that fresh water will evaporate as well as the oceans and we'll then have a dead dry planet like Mars. IMHO, I think he's on the extreme side and doesn't want us to become like the Martians....well at least that better than becoming a Paki.

[abhishek_sharma]

This is Paul Krugman's view on effects on US Economy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opini ... ugman.html

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that by 2050 the emissions limits in recent proposed legislation would reduce real G.D.P. by between 1 percent and 3.5 percent from what it would otherwise have been. If we split the difference, that says that emissions limits would slow the economy’s annual growth over the next 40 years by around one-twentieth of a percentage point — from 2.37 percent to 2.32 percent.

If Jairam Ramesh and Planning Commission can show that our carbon intensity targets would lead to similar insignificant effects then we should go for it.

Moreover, we will need to argue that the people who are losing from new carbon intensity targets have been appropriately reimbursed and rehabilitated. For example, reducing kerosene subsidy and using that money for research in electric cars is unfair because people who use kerosene for cooking are less likely to be involved in studying different aspects of battery technology.

[abhishek_sharma]

However, if the green technology for power generation can lead to higher efficiency, then it would be an argument for incorporating green technology in our society. I think this will reduce to two tests:

1. The price of electricity (or other energy sources) should not increase.
2. The extra investment in green technology should be recovered by improved efficiency.

[amit]

It is a question of opportunity cost. For example, we are investing Rs74000 crores in upgrading coal fired plants. My belief is that if we spend this amount in another sector of economy, it would lead to more jobs, cheaper energy and higher rates of growth. This wouldn't help the planet but our first duty is to save the current generation. Once we can care for our present citizens, then we would worry about future generations.

Abhishek,

I’m sorry but you’ll have to be more specific. What other sector(s) are you talking about where the Rs74,000 crores would lead to more jobs, cheaper energy (which energy source is cheaper than coal???) and higher rates of growth?

As long as you don’t do that, you’ll have to contend with sceptics like me.

Also, its interesting that in another post you wrote:

However, if the green technology for power generation can lead to higher efficiency, then it would be an argument for incorporating green technology in our society. I think this will reduce to two tests:

1. The price of electricity (or other energy sources) should not increase.
2. The extra investment in green technology should be recovered by improved efficiency.

Admirable sentiments and in principle I fully agree with you.

However, if you read the link posted by Suraj which had the Rs74,000 cr figure you’d have found this:

All these initiatives, according to sources, would lead to a total of over 20,000 Mw of 'avoided' capacity addition by 2015. This would also mean an overall avoided investment of Rs 1,95,980 crore (Rs 1,959.8 billion) in the three sub-sectors of generation, transmission and distribution in the same period.[/b]

Now tell me doesn’t this paragraph agree with your points 1 and 2?

So the report: India to invest Rs 74,000 cr in CO2 emission cutbacks is essentially saying that Rs74,000 cr investment in better technology for coal powered plants would ensure:
1) Less investment for the same or more MW of electricity which would free money for further investment
2) Ensure that better emission control norms are followed.

Now can you tell me where is your disagreement?

[amit]

Even before kickoff, a self-goal by Team India

I'm sorry to say but people who write thunderous articles like this have missed the entire plot of Copenhagen. That's the charitable explanation. The less charitable one is that they know what it's about but are deliberately writing what they are due to some agenda.

See this quote:

Finally, reducing emissions intensity is not a solution to climate change. This is so because the emissions intensity can come down while total emissions rise. Indeed, this is the case for the entire world as the draft clearly shows. Hence, a reduction in emissions intensity should not become our key negotiating ploy.

There's no point in stating the obvious that reducing emission intensity is not a solution to climate change. And as some senior posters have pointed out on this thread, Copenhagen is not really about the poor climate or all those lovely beaches in Maldives. It's about prolonging the power of the haves by incorporating a few erstwhile have nots in the club (think China) and kicking out outliers like India.

We got to understand some hard facts.

The top two polluters in the world is China and US, with the former overtaking Uncle Sam in 2006. Together they account for 60 per cent of total global Co2 emissions. The third highest polluter is the EU with India following as a close fourth.

Now Copenhagen is essentially a Dog and Pony show where every competing interest is trying to flash green credentials and get concessions from the other parties.

The Man of Peace from the US will be coming with his 17 per cent cut by 2020 over 2005 emissions figure. In an earlier post I explained what that actually means is a measly 4 per cent cut which will do nothing to ameliorate climate change. And even this 4 per cent can be covered with all manner of exemptions.

In response China came out with its 40-45 per cent carbon intensity proposal which is a neat trick because its emission level becomes a function of its economic growth. I explained how it works in the previous post I was referring to above.

EU's 20 per cent cut over 1990s level if no agreement and 30 per cent if there's an agreement is also a clever jugglery because the 1990 base year allows the EU to count the emission reductions that occurred in the 1990s due the collapse of the Soviet economies which are now a part of the EU bloc. So essentially the figure looks impressive only on paper.

In such circumstances, IMO India had to put a figure on the table if it wanted to act like a big player at the talks. The easy way, as is being advocated by this author of being a naysayer is, again IMO, not commensurate with India's international clout today. Besides, every has a figure, even Brazil. Will they adhere to their figures - go figure!

So I think if we had to put a figure on the table, then this non binding 20-25 per cent emission intensity cut seems to be a good bet for the Dog and Pony show currently going on. After its failure nobody can turn around and accuse India of being the culprit.

Just a ramble, please take it for what it's worth.

[amit]

Now for some light reading about Copenhagen, by our good friend Tunku

A Skeptic's Guide to Copenhagen

B is for Björn Lomborg, the Danish professor whose book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, should have put Al Gore out of business forever; for the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) that aren’t ready to abandon the good, carbon-burning life just yet; and for boondoggle (see "ethanol," infra).

C is for the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, the now-discredited source of much of the data used to fuel climate hysteria. In November, in an episode that was oh-so-predictably dubbed Climategate, a cache of leaked emails showed that researchers systematically hid or manipulated data that was inconsistent with the accepted narrative of man-made climate change. (Read John Tierney's clear-headed critique here.) Don't forget carbon dioxide, a colorless, odorless gas once considered essential to life on earth, not to mention bubbles in Champagne. (Although it's now regarded as a poisonous pollutant, you can, however, trade it.) Think also of consensus—the idea that science is settled by an asserted poll of experts after all objections from dissenting scientists have been suppressed.

H is "hide the decline", (referring to a temperature graph that appeared on the cover of a 1999 report from the World Meteorological Organization). The phrase has been embraced by deniers as proof that the warmists are charlatans, as, previously, was the "hockey stick"—a graph that shows warming in the Northern Hemisphere, and which was featured in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report. Since its publication, the scientific methodology used to create it has been a source of intense dispute.

O is for Obama, the man who may just end the Industrial Revolution; and ozone, the g-spot of the climate debate.

[abhishek_sharma]

I do not disagree with the conclusions of the article posted by Surya. My disagreement is with people like Al Gore, who want India to take other steps, which would help the planet but harm our citizens in the short-term.

Moreover, this is just a plan our government would like to implement. We know that plans and their implementations have significant differences. (For example, see DAE's nuclear power production targets.). A better criterion would be to use numbers from last 20 years. We have reduced our carbon intensity since 1990. How have they affected our GDP numbers? If they haven't led to iniquitous distribution of wealth or lower growth rates, count me in.

Abhishek,

I’m sorry but you’ll have to be more specific. What other sector(s) are you talking about where the Rs74,000 crores would lead to more jobs, cheaper energy (which energy source is cheaper than coal???) and higher rates of growth?

I think investment in education provides the best returns in the medium and long-term. (not sure about what would the best choice for the short-term.)

All these initiatives, according to sources, would lead to a total of over 20,000 Mw of 'avoided' capacity addition by 2015. This would also mean an overall avoided investment of Rs 1,95,980 crore (Rs 1,959.8 billion) in the three sub-sectors of generation, transmission and distribution in the same period.

I have no disagreement with the article. If we invest Rs 74,000 crores and gain Rs 1,95,980 crore then it must be sound business policy. We don't need to wait for Copenhagen conference for implementing such steps. However, this alone can't reduce carbon intensity by 20-25%. What about other steps? If all steps lead to similar gains in efficiencies, then I couldn't be happier.

My concern is about those steps which would not lead to better efficiencies. Al Gore has whined about India's kerosene subsidy. In recent G20 summit, all leaders agreed that they would move towards phasing out kerosene subsidy. (However, no timelines were stipulated.) The Indian Govt. said that they would replace subsidy by direct cash transfers. This, too, sounds good on paper. Time will tell.

[amit]

I do not disagree with the conclusions of the article posted by Surya. My disagreement is with people like Al Gore, who want India to take other steps, which would help the planet but harm our citizens in the short-term.

Let Al Gore be. After inventing the Internet and losing to Bush Jr due to Florida rigging the poor man has to do something for a living. So he flies around in his private jet to tell people that Indian villagers are destroying the environment by cooking their dinner on kerosene stoves. I think that's good entertainment for the poor Indian as he waits as the piddly heat from the stove cooks his/her dinner.

Moreover, this is just a plan our government would like to implement. We know that plans and their implementations have significant differences. (For example, see DAE's nuclear power production targets.). A better criterion would be to use numbers from last 20 years. We have reduced our carbon intensity since 1990. How have they affected our GDP numbers? If they haven't led to iniquitous distribution of wealth or lower growth rates, count me in.

Please let's not bring DAE into this. Some people have err, certain strong opinions on DAE.

Seriously, boss if you're really interested in this subject I would request you to read all the posts, especially the ones by the Admins - they are what they are here for a particular reason. Suraj has already posted some studies which actually talk about the kind of gains that have been made in carbon intensity reduction during the period when we witnessed the best economic growth since Independence.

So bottom line is a carbon intensity reduction target does not necessarily hinder growth if handled properly.

I think investment in education provides the best returns in the medium and long-term. (not sure about what would the best choice for the short-term.

Sorry boss I again don't understand what you're trying to say. In your earlier post you talked about investing this Rs75,000 cr in other productive avenues. Of course this is not say education is not a productive investment. However, I think you'll agree that the education budget and the power generation budget are two separate things altogether.

However, this alone can't reduce carbon intensity by 20-25%. What about other steps? If all steps lead to similar gains in efficiencies, then I couldn't be happier.

You've got to understand that there are two issues involved here.

1) India taking a seemingly "reasonable" position at Copenhagen which does not stymie any future growth.

2) The real need to actually improve the environment in India for the better well being of Indians.

I believe (1) and (2) have no relation whatsoever. (1) is for the show that is going on in Copenhagen and (2) is something that we've got to tackle sooner or later. And cleaning the environment is not just about reducing carbon emission. One of the major causes of pollution in Indian cities is suspended particulate matter, as one example.

So please don't confuse the two and understand (1) for what it is.

[abhishek_sharma]

You've got to understand that there are two issues involved here.

1) India taking a seemingly "reasonable" position at Copenhagen which does not stymie any future growth.

2) The real need to actually improve the environment in India for the better well being of Indians.

Okay. This sounds reasonable.

[Philip]

The entire issue is lopsided,as it is not just Climate Change that endangers the earth,but the manner in which we live and work.Many decades ago,the word-famous Italian-American architect Paolo Soleri coined the word "Arcology",meaning planning and designing setlements and buildings that encompassed architectural and ecological requirements.He conceptualised various planning models of cities and settlements,advocating the use of non-arable land for industry,more efficient forms of internal transport in cities than the car and traditional techniques of building design,enhancing "passive" climate control.He probably would deserve the title of being the first "green" architect of the 20th and 21st century.The word "green" today has become a cliche and instead of using ancient traditional techniques of building,such as the various ethnic dsigns found all across India,which evolved due to climate and cultural factors,a high-tech "green" approach is being advocated for us in thetropics,which is more suited for cold-climate western developed nations.In India,we are sadly aping the west with glass IT and office buildings requiring vast amounts of electricty for their air-con needs and an army of window cleaners.I was in an IT city recently on a hot day,passing by an Infosys IT centre,where the window cleaners were hanging by cables on top of a large "egg" of a building completely built of glass! These alien concepts of architecture and city planning have thanks to the IT boom,invaded India and have destroyed cities like Bangalore,once known as the "garden city",now a concrete jungle bearing the epithet of the "garbage city".

Thus the standards for saving the planet,carbon emissions et al,are being handed down to us,nay imposed upon us by nations who do not care for opur way of life and our culture.They sold us the outdated polluting industrial model of the 20th century and now want us to penalise ourselves for their mistakes!In opening up the conomoy we have let in Pandora and her open box instead,destroying our heritage and environment through the cancer of SEZs usurping scarce farming land and rapacious mining interests ravaging our hillsides and forests and destroying the way of life of millions of our country's tribals.The NREG scheme has also resulted in a massive shortage of labour on the land and agricultural production has dropped (editorial in a paper today).It is past time that we evolved an Indo-centric concept of how India should grow and prosper,through non-polluting industrialisation ,whilst preserving our ancient heritage and the land ,in fact enhancing our green cover though mass planting would be immensely beneficial for the tribals,unemployed rural folk,retd. service personnel and make sound economic and ecological sense.This calls for a sea-change in our attitudes and lifestyles,as we've taken for granted the model of the 20th century,which with the burgeoning population of our county and the world,is showing the strain.The GOI should evolve an eco-masterplan for India first,which we should enforce before we agree to any "common" climate change policy that does not take into account India and its unique requirements.

[S.Gautam]

...... It shows just how incompetent out government and the IPCC is. This is the sort of stuff we based our negotiating position on. Enjoy:

The BBC now has a more detailed story on the Himalayan glaciers. The 2035 doomsday melting date for the Himalayas... was actually 2350. I kid you not. No, really:
Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'

If one does go to pp493 of http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... pter10.pdf and indeed see the CITE which is

WWF (WorldWildlife Fund), 2005:An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and
subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China.WorldWildlife Fund, Nepal Programme,79 pp

it is not clear .., may be WWF (indirectly) is citing Kotlyakov, may be not ..IMO claim of bad proofreading itself needs a little more proof.
Kotlyakov's report (pp 66) (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/0 ... 06523E.pdf does tell what BBC story tells, but as I said it is not clear that IPCC indeed made reference to that.. It Cites WWF, not Kotlyakov as far as I can see..

My interest ends here..as this may be irrelevant..

For the interested -- someone did bother to trace the citations to try to find the original study: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2 ... notes.html

[Hari Seldon]

Suggested slogan for Dilli in Copenhagen:

We didn't start the fire/
twas always burning since the world was turning/
we didn't light it but we tried to fight it

[ramana]

Amit, I agree that India had to put a figure once even Indonesia came up with some figure. The hedging has to ensure its non-binding and not linked to non-tariff barriers. Once they did that I saw no need for rhona dhona yet.

Zeenews had a FCCI rep talk about hazards to industry in Hindi.

[Amber G.]

S. Gautum -
OT but my point was BBC story (claiming IPCC got fooled by 'typo' and no one corrected it etc..) was sloppy at best.
There was no clear cite to Kotlyakov's report in IPCC doc pointed by the story ( WWF' 1995(?) or whatever it was pointing to)..

One may easily conclude by the story and tone of editorial comments that in IPCC's report (which gives the figure 2035) there was a direct reference to Kotlyakov's report (which gives figure 2350)... that would be something ...but simple check by looking at the report does not show that.

IPCC may be sloppy but not that sloppy ..it was not as simple as 'misreading the typo' ...
Kotlyakov reports BTW, (or numbers like 2350), are not the last word either (for example Kotlyakov uses linear rise in his projection (which many think is not too valid etc)

Anyway, as I said, this may be OT.

[AnimeshP]

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";
• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

[ramana]

The creation of "most vulnerable" is the way to divide the G-77.

[Suraj]

The island countries and other vulnerable ones (e.g. Bangladesh) in G-77 already have a separate umbrella grouping for themselves separate from the BASIC (Brazil, SA, India, China) group. That's nothing new, and not something the developed countries created during the summit.

In itself, it doesn't constitute anything great from a negotiation perspective, since these vulnerable nations seek support from others, but have little to offer themselves. In other words, their bargaining ability is poor. The real fight is between the BASIC countries and the developing world nations pushing for binding cuts or the impossion of a carbon trading regime advantageous to themselves. The best response is to back those developing world who are against the cuts announced by their countries. Despite what's been said, I don't think Obama can just walk in and commit to a major binding emissions cut by the US as a means to push the BASIC countries - his own domestic political opponents would rip him.

Our current non-binding pledge is not a matter of much concern, and our current voluntary energy-efficiency efforts already achieve most of the pledged level of carbon intensity reduction. What matters to us is:
* making cooperation contingent on obtaining capital and technology, or driving technological development ourselves. N^3 already referred to the first part of this.
* no carbon trading regime until we are in a position to be a creditor and major banker.

[abhishek_sharma]

The creation of "most vulnerable" is the way to divide the G-77.

Bangladesh disappointed by draft treaty framed by India, China

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/internati ... e61889.ece

[Jarita]

Suggested slogan for Dilli in Copenhagen:

We didn't start the fire/
twas always burning since the world was turning/
we didn't light it but we tried to fight it

Hey that was my slogan

[ramana]

Looks like bad news

Shyam Saran returning to Delhi for consultations with PM

Maybe there is twist in the proposals.

BTW its clear Jairam Ramesh was the trial balloon guy.

[Jarita]

Kindly explain trial balloon guy

[ramana]

Kindly explain trial balloon guy

He is the one to make all those offerings of 20-25 % cut etc. He has no power. Its MMS and his negotiators.

[S.Gautam]

Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Ah, so this is the famed "Danish proposal". Why beat around the bush? Can't they just state up front that they think whites are entitled to higher standards of living than everyone else? That would make things so much more entertaining.

[Madhusudhan]

We need to walk away from Copenhagen based on this leaked report - Was always a supporter of carbon reduction but looking at the way the west is behaving, I think we are better off with India improving standard of living quickly to withstand climate change better rather than to prevent climate change. Someone needs to tell these Europeans and the US to p*** off. Sorry for the rant but I'm a bit peed off by the leaked report.