# News Copenhagen mysteries

1. Dec 9, 2009

### Andre

It will not have escaped the attention that the world nations have gathered in Copenhagen to save the globe from climage change. The Jakarta Post narrates.

We also see:

A mysterious world or?

2. Dec 9, 2009

### hamster143

I'd be more interested in knowing how they got the 26 million figure. Wikipedia article on Vanuatu makes no mention of global warming or rising sea levels. Total population of Tuvalu is just over 12 thousand.

3. Dec 9, 2009

### Coldcall

Many mysteries appear to be unfolding at COP15.

I love it how the Danish text got leaked which shows a total stich-up concerning the balance of responsibilty between the developed and developing nations. So while all the (rich or poor) delgates at COP15 are doing their best to ignore the contents of the CRU emails, here we have more evidence of the sort of backroom manipulation that goes on at the heart of any process in which the UN is leading.

Is it any wonder many of us remain sceptical of the "consensus"?

4. Dec 9, 2009

### TheStatutoryApe

They likely mean 26 million world wide. Probably added Katrina victims to the list among others.

5. Dec 10, 2009

### Andre

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
6. Dec 10, 2009

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Or at least to complain about the sensationalism....

7. Dec 10, 2009

### vanesch

Staff Emeritus
Nothing but hot air and some meagre commitments will come out of Copenhagen. Of course there will be showing off and promises and everything, but not much will happen apart from some taxes and maybe some incitations for more energy-effective appliances, and maybe some extra money for renewables. This is nothing more but a big show, in order to launch the next green investment speculation bubble. Don't worry.

In any case, if the Copenhagen science update is correct, there's no point in trying to commit to the drastic CO2 emission reductions that are shown there. Emissions simply can't be divided by 4 or so by 2030 (in 20 years time), with a booming economy in India and China. In fact, to me that report shows that cutting emissions is now not on the order of the day any more because of totally unrealistic goals. Climate change is unavoidable and no realistic cutting down emissions is going to change it much. So there will be some lip service, some reduction will probably be promised, and that will be it. As we don't have clear predictions yet of exactly what local climate we will have where and when, and hence as individual countries cannot yet find out what they will win or loose, no strong policy is possible yet, no manoeuvring is possible if you don't know what direction you have to take.

Where will be the new fertile grounds, what countries will become economically less viable through the climate change, where will there be abundance and where will there be poverty? How will this climate change affect power ? And in what way will manoeuvring today have any clear influence 50-100 years from now, maybe after a world war for resources ?

How are you to commit, as a politician, to strong economic disadvantage based upon such uncertain elements ?

That's why there will be a lot of talking, and almost no strong commitments. As it is not clear what commitment is in one's advantage.

Let's come back in 30 years from now, when things will be a lot clearer.

8. Dec 10, 2009

### DrClapeyron

When nobody cares?

9. Dec 11, 2009

### mheslep

Sounds good to me, but I can't see a politically viable path for any elected executive getting arriving at a point where they could say 'get back to you in 2040'. Can you? Heads would explode in http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B202R20091203"; they'd likely to be the first state to attempt secession in 150 years, at least until they needed another federal bailout.

(Worst IPCC estimate is 23 inches this century).

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
10. Dec 11, 2009

### Integral

Staff Emeritus
... when those responsible for decisions made, or not made, are long in the grave or have one foot in it.

11. Dec 11, 2009

### mheslep

On climate change maybe, but on energy shortage issues we have a much shorter time frame, so lets concentrate on those.

12. Dec 11, 2009

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
I agree 100% that by far this should be the greatest focus. We have viable options to fossil fuels in view. Now we just need to make a dash for the finish line. That will in turn fundamentally change not only the discussion and metrics of global warming, but also the dynamics of innumerable geopolitical interests ranging from military budgets, to deforestation, poverty, and hunger.

Were it my call, we would have put 1 trillion dollars into a 10 year plan to end our dependence on fossil fuels, long ago. We once estimated that we could do this for about $1 trillion using algae farms based on estimates from the Aquatic Species program. By today's standards, that doesn't seem so outrageous any more. One only needs to calculate the wealth lost annually to crude imports, in order to justify trillions to find alternatives. For the US, going green means keeping$500 billion a year, or so, in the national economy. That's just for starters - the easy pickings.

Last edited: Dec 11, 2009
13. Dec 11, 2009

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
$500,000,000,000 per year /$50,000 income per job per year = 10 million jobs [for perspective]

14. Dec 17, 2009

### mheslep

Apparently this is a clip shown at the Copenhagen opening. Bizarre. I can't imagine this was made with the idea that it would persuade anyone, rather it is preaching only to the choir.

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
15. Dec 18, 2009

### DrClapeyron

Wait, when did climate change have anything to do with energy? I must be new.

Does anyone really think wind, tidal, algae, or biofuels will be anything more than niche ideas in the age of glutonous oil supplies? The real answer: Solar panels in outerspace. And this idea has been around for a long time.

16. Dec 21, 2009

### mugaliens

I am hoping the delegates had sense enough to laugh...

Nice music, though!

Ivan, I agree we need to move to nuclear, solar, and wind, without delay, if only to get the monkey off our backs. But to do it so as to forestall the oil outage looming in the 2040s, it's worth it.

17. Dec 21, 2009

### drankin

I can't wait til the oil shortage, then tyical capitalism will create the new energy course. I'm sure oil outage will be much farther out than the 2040s. We don't yet know what's available.