Poznan climate talks: not good enough

Húrin

According to Friends of the Earth Ireland delegate Molly Walsh, as recorded in her blog.
http://www.foe.ie/blog

Molly Walsh wrote:

As the Irish minister for the Environment wondered back to his hotel room some ministers and delegations were still at the convention centre negotiating text. Despite talks going until late on Thursday and Friday pitifully little progress was made. In fact the exact same text on reduction targets as from the 2007 Bali talks has been inserted.

The world's wealthiest countries, including the EU, failed to commit to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. If industrialised countries don't make clear commitements to reduce their emission then developing countries won't come on board. These commitments were lacking, so the trust of developing countries was lacking and therefore nothing much happened at the UN climate talks this year.

We have therefore taken the wrong road. The planet was at a crossroads two weeks ago. The world has taken a terrifying path of insufficient action on climate change. We have one year to get back on the right track. After Copenhagen there will be no more chance for U-turns.

I overheard two people from the youth delegation talking behind me at the end of the final plenary. One was clearly upset. Her friend was comforting her and said. "Don't worry; we are going to win this thing. It's just going to be even harder than we thought".

Walsh has spent the last two weeks in Poznan, in Poland, watching the UN Climate Change negotiations unfold. These talks exist in order to pave a clear way for an international climate deal to be negotiated in Copenhagen this time next year.

It is hardly an exaggeration to say that these December 2009 talks will be the most important set of negotiations in the history of the world. They will exist in order to design a successor to the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. The purpose of these is to ensure that the world reduces its carbon dioxide emissions to a sufficient degree so as to prevent dangerous levels of climate change.

---

It is sad but true that the public debate on climate change policy pretty much does not exist in this country. I can just about accept that Gormley and Co. have not achieved much on reducing Ireland's carbon dioxide emissions, given that they have to share with FF. What I cannot accept is that they have not even tried to convince the Irish media and public that climate change is an issue of serious importance to the economy and thus the whole country. It is still regarded as a "green issue".

So what do the boardsies think of this? What can be done to get the governments' ass in gear on this issue, if anything?

asdasd

its ok. the coming recession will save the planet.

Húrin

asdasd wrote: »

its ok. the coming recession will save the planet.

The developed world needs to cut emissions by 20% at the least by 2020, and probably decarbonise almost entirely by 2050 (that is, a 99% cut in emissions).

Recessions typically reduce emissions AFAIK by little most than the amount that the economy shrinks. That is not nearly enough. Concerted political action is needed. Nor is the idea of a permanent recession appealing.

Húrin

seems like you can't get any discussion going on this forum without involving words "republican" "IRA" "Cowen" or "Adams".

Danuogma

Húrin wrote: »

The developed world needs to cut emissions by 20% at the least by 2020, and probably decarbonise almost entirely by 2050 (that is, a 99% cut in emissions).

Yeah, lets go back to the stone age:rolleyes:.

Húrin

Danuogma wrote: »

Yeah, lets go back to the stone age.

If governments do not take the climate seriously and apply the needed political will to implement the solutions, which mostly exist already, we will have no choice at all as to whether or not we go back to a stone age style existence.

Húrin

asdasd wrote: »

its ok. the coming recession will save the planet.

Here's an article which goes into a bit more explanation of why this is unlikely.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/16/carbonemissions-climatechange

tolosenc

I admit climate change is happening, however I question the extent as to which we are responsible. The mainstream media has us on a bit of a guilt trip, to be honest.

Boggle

I admit climate change is happening, however I question the extent as to which we are responsible. The mainstream media has us on a bit of a guilt trip, to be honest.

Don't worry, if the price of oil stays low for the next 5 years then climate change will be forgotten.
I personally believe the climate change stuff is at best exaggerated and at worst made up crap to make people wealthy. I believe that the world has questionable oil reserves and, rather than panic people (and the market) by coming out and saying it directly they chose to invent climate change based on some makey uppey video by gore to get people to reduce their oil dependence slowly. Doesn't hurt that a lot of people are making a lot of money off it either (including gore by all accounts).

Whichever the truth, we do need to get off oil but this global warming bs wrecks my head.


(Cue hysterical religious like rantings.....NOW)

Danuogma

obl wrote: »

I admit climate change is happening, however I question the extent as to which we are responsible. The mainstream media has us on a bit of a guilt trip, to be honest.

It has always happened, climate is in a constant state of flux, it is not static.
Is CO2 the main driver of "climate change", no it isn't. It is just a convenient excuse that will be used to tax people and control their lives.

Beware of dogmatic fundamentalists that use shoddy science to back up their claims.

djpbarry

Boggle wrote: »

I personally believe the climate change stuff is at best exaggerated and at worst made up crap to make people wealthy.

Made up? You serious? You think scientists have nothing better to do but to make stuff up?

djpbarry

Danuogma wrote: »

Beware of dogmatic fundamentalists that use shoddy science to back up their claims.

Perhaps you could explain what is "shoddy" about the science behind this? Or this?

tolosenc

djpbarry wrote: »

Made up? You serious? You think scientists have nothing better to do but to make stuff up?

It's not that they're making it up, it's just that as of late there's been a significant shift away from the "IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!" theory on the part of many experts.

djpbarry

obl wrote: »

It's not that they're making it up, it's just that as of late there's been a significant shift away from the "IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!" theory on the part of many experts.

I don't recall any (credible) scientist uttering any such phrase. Besides, the latest IPCC report concluded that "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>= 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations."

Danuogma

Oh, the Hadley graph, you are using that as definitive proof?, that's laughable.
When the average layman sees the Hadley graph he’d be mighty impressed by the huge amount of warming that's going on. Of course, he wouldn't realize that it's showing annual temperature anomalies from a certain base period. If the base period is set near the low point reached when the Little Ice Age ended (around 1850), then all warming that follows will look impressive. The start point of this graph that you have presented as definitive proof is 1850:rolleyes:. Cherry picking science at its finest.

Btw, that graph that you presented has been revised to reflect recent cooling:






Wow, another dramatic "snapshot in time" graph. What does it prove?.

Does a 70ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 prove that CO2 is the main driver of global warming?.
Are atmospheric CO2 concentrations supposed to be static?.
What percentage of the increase is due to natural variables?.
What percentage of the increase can be pinned on human activity?.
Where did Keeling take his measurements? on top of an active volcano in Hawaii ?.
Is an active volcano in Hawaii the best place to measure atmospheric CO2?.

djpbarry

Danuogma wrote: »

Oh, the Hadley graph, you are using that as definitive proof?

I don’t recall using the term “definitive proof”, no.

Danuogma wrote: »

When the average layman sees the Hadley graph he’d be mighty impressed by the huge amount of warming that's going on. Of course, he wouldn't realize that it's showing annual temperature anomalies from a certain base period. If the base period is set near the low point reached when the Little Ice Age ended (around 1850), then all warming that follows will look impressive.

I see. Perhaps this is more conclusive:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg

Danuogma wrote: »

Btw, that graph that you presented has been revised to reflect recent cooling:

So the Hadley data is okay when it’s revised by an ex-newspaper journalist?

Danuogma wrote: »

Wow, another dramatic "snapshot in time" graph. What does it prove?

That atmospheric CO2 concentrations are far higher now than they were 50 years ago?

Danuogma wrote: »

Does a 70ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 prove that CO2 is the main driver of global warming?

You’re asking if evidence of an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is, in itself, evidence of CO2-induced global warming?

Danuogma wrote: »

Are atmospheric CO2 concentrations supposed to be static?

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have fluctuated between about 180 and 300 ppm for the past half-million years or so. We’re currently heading for 400ppm. It is estimated that we could reach 1,000 ppm by the end of the century.

Danuogma wrote: »

What percentage of the increase is due to natural variables?
What percentage of the increase can be pinned on human activity?

The origin of carbon in the atmosphere can be determined by finding the ratio between different carbon isotopes (principally carbon-12 and carbon-13):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v375/n6533/abs/375666a0.html

Danuogma wrote: »

Where did Keeling take his measurements? on top of an active volcano in Hawaii ?
Is an active volcano in Hawaii the best place to measure atmospheric CO2?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration measures atmospheric CO2 concentrations at a large number of locations around the world (approximately 100, I think).

oscarBravo

There's plenty of discussion about the validity or otherwise of climate change theories over on the Green Issues forum. The topic here is the politics of global warming.

Húrin

Boggle wrote: »

I personally believe the climate change stuff is at best exaggerated and at worst made up crap to make people wealthy.

It's nothing to do with personal belief. Whether you personally believe in New York does not make a difference to its reality.

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's plenty of discussion about the validity or otherwise of climate change theories over on the Green Issues forum. The topic here is the politics of global warming.

Thanks. I realise that facts that make people uncomfortable will tend to send them into ranting and grasping at straws (fine performance by Danuogma there!) but that is not the purpose of this thread.

If anyone has anything to say about this topic, please use the same assumption being made by those who called the conference - that climate change is affected by humans.

If this sounds like an impossible assumption for you, then perhaps you should consider the risk you are asking the governments of the world to take if you are expecting them to do nothing about anthropogenic global warming, despite the chance that it may be true.