Liveblogging Barack Obama's Copenhagen speech
December 18th, 2009 by Mark Bahnisch | Published in Blogging, Climate change | 7 Comments
Helmut is live blogging President Obama’s address to the Copenhagen climate change conference at Phronesisaical.
December 18th, 2009 by Mark Bahnisch | Published in Blogging, Climate change | 7 Comments
Helmut is live blogging President Obama’s address to the Copenhagen climate change conference at Phronesisaical.
This post was written by mark bahnisch, who has written 1595 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Did I miss it, or did he actually say something?
No doubt you missed it.
It was a strong pointed speech, and Obama seemed a bit pissed off, almost angry. That was my reading of it.
The reason if you read the subtext the way I have was China’s reluctance to transparency. And that would have to be a deal breaker as there is no way in the world you could trust China to self audit and report. They would lie, guaranteed, as would many other countries of course.
It seemed that Obama was ready to make a deal, indeed keen to make a deal and the problem of China probably added to his angst.
The USA or anybody really cannot unilaterally make substantial reductions whilst China continues on its merry way, with no reduction targets and the targets they do have to be self monitored. They are now the No.1 polluter and that will grow significantly over the next decade.
However by my reckoning China and India are the countries that most need a deal in place due to their risk profile from the effect of GW. Particularly China, not only do they have to feed 1.3bn people the vastness of their country leaves them vulnerable to many more natural disasters, and ultimately the weakening of Communist control and rule across the country.
I can imagine many in the US industrial estate preferring to look ahead to the opportunities that come from GW and there being no carbon reduction deal in place. And strategically in the long run the USA can see GW as a way of relatively weakening China its main military competitor.
To me China has a far greater risk profile than the USA and has much more need to get an agreement in place.
If I was China, I would tell the USA “Start reducing your per capita emissions buster and when yours match ours, we promise to match yours downward. You have befouled the entire planet while we have only shit in a little corner so far. You have a nation of fat, lazy, greedy degenerates half of whom refuse to believe in AGW. We have a nation of people most of whom are so close to the edge of survival they haven’t time to think about AGW”
I disagree with you, TP3. China does indeed have an emissions problem. But China is way ahead of America and Australia in grass roots solutions on the one hand, and national solutions on the other. China has the difficult task of consolidating their position in as a manufacturing nation and of reacting to the global warming challenge, a challenge that they are acutely aware will destroy everything that they have built. The Chinese governemnt understands this far more thoroughly than the Australian government does. As I understand it, China, being a late comer to the GW realisation, is in a massive research programme right now while at the same time installing massive yet “experimental” energy facilities (2 gig of CSP for instance). Once the information is collected I expect to see from China a massive energy infrastructure building effort, the kind that the West only ever talks about. The problem for China is that they know that they have to become worse before they get better. It is a timeing thing which will clash with rigid targets at this particular time. So in that they are being more honest than any other nation.
The ulitimate dishonest government is the Australian Rudd government. This little cliche decided a while ago that they were going to continue using the fuel that has created the problem mostly, but they would find a way to make it seem as though they are doing the right thing. Even the most casual of observers can see through the veil of lies. Clean coal, CSP, token renewables, the nuclear solution, etc. They are determined to do anything but use the one energy source that Australia has boundless amounts of…Solar.
Australian goverment history is a “trail of tradgedies”. Why change now.
SG, I think that is roughly what they are telling the US. The only problem is that if China, as promised, increases energy efficiency by 40% they will still double emissions in the next 20 years because of economic growth. The planet can’t afford for them to do that.
But Thomas P is right about China being in the front line for adverse effects of climate change.
Brian, the US has a very simple technique to encourage China to better manage emissions. That technique simply is to restart their own manufacturing power and build for themselves, rather than relying on China to make everything for them. Probability factor…about zero. America is, as is Australia, addicted to “cheap”. Cheap comes from China. For as long as “cheap” comes from China so also does CO2.
This is the MARKET at work. Place the blame where it belongs. The trillion dollar question right now is “can the ‘market’ fix that which it is destroying”?
Every economist who is married to free market economies is saying YES. I say NO! The “market” is a vehicle which enables commercial interaction. The real problem is the concept or “FREE” in conjunction with “market”. Freedom of behaviour is a rare thing, even in the broadest understanding of nature. Everything is constrained by its surroundings. So the idea that it was possible to have a “free market” was a nonsense, as we now see by the outcomes from a free market for even a short period of time ie economic collapse brought about by virtual free trade in virtual money right along with the with the environmental equivalent.
So is a free market carbon trading mechanism going to solve the problem of global free CO2 generation? Absolutely not. Get ready for the world of virtual trade of virtual carbon, along with the economic collapse that it will bring about.