Copenhagen climate summit undone by 'arrogance'

By Richard Black 
Environment correspondent, BBC News

Western nations failed to understand how China

works, says Lord Stern

The "disappointing" outcome of December's climate summit was largely down to

"arrogance" on the part of rich countries, according to Lord Stern.
The economist told BBC News that the US and EU nations had not understood well enough the
concerns of poorer nations.
But, he said, the summit had led to a number of countries outlining what they were prepared to do
to curb emissions.
Seventy-three countries have now signed up to the non-binding Copenhagen Accord, the summit's
outcome document.
The weak nature of the document led many to condemn the summit as a failure; but Lord Stern
said that view was mistaken.
"The fact of Copenhagen and the setting of the
 The reality is different from half a year
deadline two years previously at Bali did concentrate
ago 
minds, and it did lead... to quite specific plans from
countries that hadn't set them out before," he said.
Gro Harlem Brundtland
"So this process has itself been a key part of countries
UN special envoy on climate change
stating what their intentions on emissions reductions
are - countries that had not stated them before,
Still real, still a problem
including China and the US.
"So that was a product of the UNFCCC (UN climate convention) process that we should respect."
The former World Bank chief economist and author of the influential 2006 review into the
economics of climate change was speaking to BBC News following a lecture at the London
School of Economics (LSE), where he now chairs the Grantham Research Institute on Climate
Change and the Environment.
During the lecture, he compared the atmosphere at the Copenhagen summit to student politics in
the 1960s - "chaotic, wearing, tiring, disappointing" - and said it was one in which countries had
little room for real negotiating.
However, he said, it was vital to stick with the UN
process, whatever its frustrations.
Twin tracks
Having failed to agree a treaty to supplant or
supplement the Kyoto Protocol, and having failed to
set a timetable for agreeing such a treaty, opinions are
inevitably split on how countries seeking stronger
curbs on greenhouse gas emissions should move
forward.
Speaking in Brussels, Gro Harlem Brundtland - the
UN's special envoy on climate change - suggested
there would now be a twin-track approach, with some  It could have been much better handled

of the important discussions taking place outside the by the rich countries 
UNFCCC umbrella.
She also acknowledged that the talks had proved Lord Stern
much more problematical than some governments -
particularly in the EU - had anticipated.
"They got the message that it was much more complicated than [they had believed], and that they
have to work with Brazil and China and others, not only in the broad framework of UN
negotiations but also more directly and pragmatically," she said.
"The reality is different from half a year ago."
Lord Stern agreed that what he described as the "disappointing" outcome of the Copenhagen talks
was largely down to rich nations' failure to understand developing world positions and concerns.
"[There was] less arrogance than in previous years - we have, I think, moved beyond the G8 world
to the G20 world where more countries are involved - but [there was] still arrogance and it could
have been much better handled by the rich countries," he said.
The EU limited its room for manoeuvre, he said, because too many of the leading political figures
wanted to demonstrate that they were leading.
Brass from pockets
The most concrete part of the Copenhagen Accord is an agreement that richer countries should
raise funds to help poorer nations adapt to climate impacts and "green" their economies.
Lord Stern is a member of the group set up by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to advise on
how to raise $100bn (£66bn) per year by 2020 using various "innovative mechanisms" that could
include taxes on international aviation and banking transactions.
But the immediate objective, he suggested, was to enact the short-term promise of providing
$30bn over the period 2010-12 from the public purses of western nations.
If that money did not start to move fairly quickly, he said, that would further erode trust among
developing countries.
Speaking in Brussels during a meeting with EU leaders, Mexico's environment secretary Juan
Rafael Elvira endorsed the point.
"The developing world needs to see clear signals to have something in their hands at Cancun," he
said.
The Mexican coastal city will host this year's UNFCCC summit.
"The developing countries want to see this money unblocked; the island nations especially are
waiting for this funding," said Mr Elvira.
How and where these funds are to be disbursed has yet to be decided.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

- China a developing country is a largest manufacturing state. (con)

- Developing country like Nauru & Brunei Darussalam are exploiting the natural resource
crazily. (i havent have prove that exploiting natural source is causing GW)(Con)
- Sejak tahun 2001, studi-studi mengenai dinamika iklim global menunjukkan bahwa paling
tidak, dunia telah mengalami pemanasan lebih dari 3°C semenjak jaman pra-industri, itu
saja jika bisa menekan konsentrasi gas rumah kaca supaya stabil pada 430 ppm CO2e
(ppm = part per million = per satu juta ekivalen CO2 – yang menyatakan rasio jumlah
molekul gas CO2 per satu juta udara kering). Yang pasti, sejak 1900, maka Bumi telah
mengalami pemanasan sebesar 0,7°C.(Prove that Industrial growth give big impact to
temperature rising which developed country dominate the industrial world)(Pro)
I suggest u to read this http://www.membuatblog.web.id/2010/03/penyebab-global-
warming.html
- According to NASA temperature record, global temperature has been increased from
approx. -0,3 to 0,5. It increased for approx. 8 degree C from the early 19th century to
20th century. 8 degree C is a lot to global temperature.

According to wiki id

Penyebab rumah kaca

Efek rumah kaca disebabkan karena naiknya konsentrasi gas karbon dioksida (CO2) dan gas-gas
lainnya di atmosfer. Kenaikan konsentrasi gas CO2 ini disebabkan oleh kenaikan pembakaran bahan
bakar minyak, batu bara dan bahan bakar organik lainnya yang melampaui kemampuan tumbuhan-
tumbuhan dan laut untuk menyerapnya.

Energi yang masuk ke Bumi:

 25% dipantulkan oleh awan atau partikel lain di atmosfer

 25% diserap awan
 45% diserap permukaan bumi
 5% dipantulkan kembali oleh permukaan bumi

Energi yang diserap dipantulkan kembali dalam bentuk radiasi inframerah oleh awan dan permukaan
bumi. Namun sebagian besar inframerah yang dipancarkan bumi tertahan oleh awan dan gas
CO2 dan gas lainnya, untuk dikembalikan ke permukaan bumi. Dalam keadaan normal, efek rumah
kaca diperlukan, dengan adanya efek rumah kaca perbedaan suhu antara siang dan malam di bumi
tidak terlalu jauh berbeda.

Selain gas CO2, yang dapat menimbulkan efek rumah kaca adalah belerang dioksida, nitrogen
monoksida (NO) dan nitrogen dioksida (NO2) serta beberapa senyawa organik seperti gas metana
dan klorofluorokarbon (CFC). Gas-gas tersebut memegang peranan penting dalam meningkatkan
efek rumah kaca.
Kalo gada penanganan

Menurut perhitungan simulasi, efek rumah kaca telah meningkatkan suhu rata-rata bumi 1-5 °C. Bila
kecenderungan peningkatan gas rumah kaca tetap seperti sekarang akan menyebabkan
peningkatan pemanasan global antara 1,5-4,5 °C sekitar tahun 2030. Dengan meningkatnya
konsentrasi gas CO2 di atmosfer, maka akan semakin banyak gelombang panas yang dipantulkan
dari permukaan bumi diserap atmosfer. Hal ini akan mengakibatkan suhu permukaan bumi menjadi
meningkat.

- Masdar city, in Abu Dhabi there is a project city call Masdar city which later will be a zero
CO2 and zero trash city. The energi usage of this city will be mostly relying on solar panel
energy and renewable energy source. Arab developed country (con)
- Developing coutry who works on livestock alot is the cause of GW.

Prove : Surprise! 

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the
livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18
percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation. 

Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of
the report: “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious
environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.” 

With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Global
meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465
million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes. 

- Consequence from global warming such as, rise of the sea level cause by the iceberg melt at
poles. That is again bcos GW. Island or country which located near to sea surface are going
to sunk like maldives.
- Co2 is the major culprit of global warming and china emit the most co2 comparing to other
nation. China took the biggest credit in co2 emission for about 22more %. (con)
- Copenhagen climate change conference fail. Which is the conference that stands as major
role in climate change handling but ending fail all bcos us so selfish to not want to tell what
to do. To just care what other countries have done to making situation better but not what
the US themself have done to redeem their sin. (con)
"Global Warming is not real because weather patterns have stabilized
in the last 10 years!" Why statements like this need a little context.
Category: Nature as in Earth, as in Global, as in Global Issues Generally • NatureLand: What They Used to Call the
Environment
Posted on: November 23, 2009 11:51 AM, by David Ng
I recently attended the TEDxVancouver event, which was wonderfully done and also useful for being able to
network with a lot of interesting people. There was, however, one thing that irked me - nothing to do with the
conference logistics but rather a statement or two issued by one of the speakers, Patrick Moore.
Just a little background on Patrick: he's one of the founders of Greenpeace, with a major role in the evolution
of the organization in its earlier days. However, currently, he's a little more well known for his climate change
skepticism views, and particularly his advocacy for nuclear power.

Anyway, at the beginning of his talk, he essentially outlined a few points to suggest that anthropogenic
climate change is all a ruse, a sentiment he backed up with what can be summarized (and since I just signed
up for twitter the other day) in the following <140 character phrase.
"Earth has not actually been getting any warmer in the last 10 years. Oh yeah, the ice in the Antarctica
doesn't even seem to be melting."
It's a compelling statement and certainly easy to digest, but I thought I'd take a minute or two to weigh in a
little here. I'd like to explain why I think that kind of statement (which happens to be classic climate change
denialist prose) is a great example of spinning things to meet your own particular agenda.
Or as Jane Austen might say, "Badly done... Badly done..."

So let's start with a few take home points - two actually:

1. Predictions of how things will be in the future are largely determined by the formulation, evaluation,
and ultimately validation of climate models.
2. That in the world of climatology, drawing conclusions from observations seen in 10 year, or even 20
year spans, is statistically weak.
So, what do these points mean exactly?

Well, the first is to understand that when climatologists attempt to predict climate trends, they do so with the
help of computers. They do this, because looking at this scientific puzzle is not like a conventional science
experiment where you can test your ideas by comparing something against a control sample. We can't say:

"Let's take Earth here, and then compare it to this other Earth over here. On my Earth, I'll raise the CO2 by so
much, and on this other Earth, I won't raise it at all. Of course, then I'll have to wait 50 to 100 years or so, and
then we can all get together with our calculators and compare graphs and stuff to try to figure out what's
going on."

Obviously, you can't really do that sort of thing in these circumstances, which is why you resort to computers
attempting to model how things "will go." Here, it's a little bit like theMatrix movie, where there are these
overarching algorithms and equations to try and explain the physical world. It works because physical laws, by
and large, are entirely dependable. A classic example is the first law of thermodynamics: which some of us
might remember as fancy talk for energy not being able to be created or destroyed - it just moves around. But
if you think about it, a law like that (which can be eloquently stated in mathematical terms) is really
important because it sets real boundaries on how things should be in the physical world.
Now, if you take the thermodynamic law as an example, and kick it up a notch, by applying other scientific
principles, other scientific laws, some of which are very nuanced relating specifically to atmospheric
conditions, water considerations, etc (the list can go on), hopefully, you can see that you have an opportunity
to start to develop a reasonable representation of what climate reality might be.

And to be honest, these models have been getting better and better all the time. Why? Because, scientists
keep learning more and more about the physical laws behind climate trends, and also because, computers
have just gotten better, more powerful and in a freakishly fast pace.
At this point, however, you could still say that a fancy climate model is just that - a fancy climate model.
Which is why, all models, to pass the scrutiny of the scientific community, have to be validated. This is just
saying that there needs to be some way of ensuring a sort of quality control on the predictions.

How does one do this? Well, there a number of ways, but common examples include running the model
backwards in time. i.e. since it is a mother algorithm, it should also be able to correctly represent things that
have already happen, i.e. things where we do have good data on (a.k.a. the concept of the weather channel is
not a new thing!). For example, let's start the model at 1958 (when CO2 was first carefully measured at Mauna
Loa), enter info on CO2 levels for the next 50 years, and then run the model to see if the climate warming
trends match up with observed records.

Another example is taking these same models and validating them by seeing how they perform in special
circumstances where notable weather related variations occur. These might be big things like El Nino, or say
the year when such and such a huge volcano spewed a ton of stuff into the air.

I guess the point is, is that these models are our window to the future and scientists, as a whole, are pretty
convinced by them because (1) they've been earnestly picked over and validated, and (2) they continue to be
validated by the weather we see year to year.

Which brings me to the 2nd point: that not seeing a temperature rise in the last ten years or so doesn't really
mean too much.

The reason for this is because this trend still fits within the predictions of existing climate models (the same
ones that say that our current CO2 production pace is bad news down the road). More importantly, the 10 year
trend is really too short and narrow for climate timescales.

Let's use an analogy here. Say you're trying to plan a wedding, or bbq, or anything, where you hope to be
outside, and you want to pick a particular day in the year to have the best chance of sunshine. Chances are,
you would not base your day on only what happened the year before. That would be statistically risky. You
might not even base it on only two years worth of data, and really, if you want to hedge your bets, you'd want
an opportunity to look at many records of that day as possible. All through this, you can actually calculate
probabilities along the way, and at some point even make calls on what might be a good number of years to
look at all in an effort to feel pretty good about your chances.

Now, in our climate prediction case, we've got a much meatier scenario. One that is already looking at much
larger timespans in a number of different ways (i.e. yearly average for temperature, as well as trying to
project decades down the road). Again, you can reflect on the last ten years of climate data, and you can
probably guess that that would be better than say reflecting on the last 2 years of climate data. But the long
story short is that folks have done statistical analysis on this sort of thing, and it turns out that focusing on
something like a 10 year trend is just not a reliable way to overturn the long term predictions. This, by the
way, is also why climate models aren't about predicting "weather" - which is something very specific to day to
day considerations and also exact locations.

---

So where are the references for all of this talk? Well, lucky for us non-climatologists, there's the UN's
IPCC report (in my opinion, the policy makers report is required reading for everyone who cares about the
environment). And despite the flaws of how the UN operates, it's generally agreed that its desired mission is to
look into things of global consequence. In other words: poverty is bad, conflict is bad, inequity is bad - and so
what can we do about it. Therefore, the IPCC report is essentially a global recognition that the Earth's climate
needs attention, that there's something going on there.
And how does the IPCC work? Well, it's an attempt to draw in expert folks, often the best in their fields, from
all sorts of relevant areas, lots of them, and to get them to weigh in on the climate issue. Not only that, and
this is the tricky part, they have to come up with a consensus statement. Not an easy task, because there are
many scientists and academics in the report who do have opposing views.
However, at the end of the day, it works. And this is because the fact of the matter is that the robustness and
elegance of experimental design is universal. There are empirical ways to determine whether an experiment is
done well or shoddily, and this is something a scientist in his/her respective field is trained to do. Oh, and
with the last version of the IPCC (4th version, released in 2007) it's quite a few of them as well:

People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years.
These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and
more than 450 lead authors.

At the end of the day (and I may be niave here), that's a huge collective of expertise, and you would presume
that most if not almost all of them do this work to live up to Karl Popper's ideals - i.e. trying, in a rational,
objective, and testable manner, to get as close to the "truth" as possible.

All to say that Patrick, I suspect, is not on this report - partly because it's likely that he is no longer a
practicing ecology scientist, and partly, because the statements he's making here really aren't about the field
of ecology. Even so, I'm not saying the IPCC is perfect - it'sfar from it. But right now, it's the best we've got.
And the "best we've got" (as oppose to careless spin) is exactly the sort of thing we need for a global challenge
of this magnitude.

- The top 15 country who have most vehicle are developed country acc to nationmaster.com
- A solution to global warming will not come if only developed countries act, the US president stressed: 
If developing country doenst want to play their role well then developed country couldnt be blame

A solution to global warming will not come if only developed countries act, the US president stressed: 
Five Reasons the Copenhagen Climate Conference
Failed

George Dvorsky
Sentient Developments
Posted: Jan 8, 2010

 
I’m still reeling from the rather anticlimactic finish to the recent Climate George Dvorsky
Change Conference held in Copenhagen. Like so many others, I was
hoping for an internationally binding deal that would, at the very least, compel and motivate the
nations of the world to address the climate crisis in a meaningful and precedent setting way.

But it was not to be. The immediate reasons for the conference’s failure are complex and laden
with the political and economic realities of our time (e.g. settling on exact targets and incentives).
But these reasons are part of a deeper malaise that is currently paralyzing the countries of our
warming planet. As this crisis is revealing, our social and political institutions are ill equipped to
deal with a pending catastrophe such as this.

More specifically, there are basically five ‘bird’s eye view’ reasons that can account for the
conference’s failure:

1. Nation-states are far too self-serving: Countries don’t like to be told what to do, and when
push comes to shove it’s far too easy for them to hide behind the sovereignty shield. Instead of
acting proactively and with leadership, many nations (particularly those in the developed world)
are ‘aligning’ themselves with what other countries are doing. No more and no less. And seeing as
no one is doing anything….well, there you have it. Compounding this problem is the realization by
some countries that they aren’t going to be too negatively impacted by climate change—a
disturbing reminder that nation-states are unwilling to deal with threats that are not considered
local.

2. Democracies are too ill-equipped and irresolute to deal with pending crises: A reader of
mine recently complained that the people of the world were not being consulted on what they feel
should be done about climate change. Well, this would only work if the ‘people of the world’ were
universally educated about the intricacies of the issues (including scientific, economic, cultural and
political considerations) and disarmed of their petty selfishness and local biases. This isn’t going to
happen anytime soon, and consulting the Joe the Plumbers of the world on something as multi-
faceted and complex as climate change is probably not a good idea. Moreover, like the politicking
politicians who supposedly represent them, the masses have shown a tremendous unwillingness to
deal with a problem that has yet to show any real tangible negative effects.

3. Isolationist and avaricious China: One thing that the Copenhagen failure revealed is that
China’s isolationism is alive and well—even as they emerge as a global superpower. They’re going
to go about this whole global warming thing on their own terms, whatever that’s supposed to
mean. This unilateral approach is particularly disturbing considering that they’re the largest
manufacturing state in the world and house a massive population that will soon start to demand
first-world standards of living. And exacerbating all this is the communist Chinese system itself
with all its corruption and lack of accountability and due process.

4. The powerful corporatist megastructure: As the onset of last year’s economic crisis so
beautifully illustrated, capitalism, if left to its own devices, will eat itself. This is because
corporations don’t act rationally or in a way that would indicate foresight or a desire for long-term
self-preservation. Moreover, corporations will never voluntarily deal with a seemingly ethereal and
controversial problem, especially one that requires a dramatic reduction of profits.

5. Weak consensus on the reason for global warming: Global warming denalists are no
longer the problem. What’s of great concern now is the growing legitimacy of anthropogenic
climate change denialists—those individuals who believe that global warming is a natural
phenomenon. This is a particularly pernicious idea because it absolves humanity from the problem.
Adherents of this view contend that human civilization is not responsible for the changes to the
Earth’s climate and that as a consequence we don’t need to fix anything—we can keep on spewing
carbon into the atmosphere with reckless abandon. This idea is particularly appealing to politicians
who use it as a convenient escape hatch. 

I’m inclined to think that the only way the nations of the world will band together and act
decisively on this issue is if an actual climate-instigated disaster happens—one that touches all
international stakeholders in a profound way. But even this isn’t guaranteed as there will always
be global disparities in terms of impact.

Part of the problem right now, aside from the intangibleness of it all, is that some countries will be
impacted more than others, a prospect that will ultimately lead to the rise of a new geopolitical
stratification: different regions (both inter- and intra-national) will experience the effects of global
warming differently, whether it be coastal areas, those dealing with desertification or those having
to contend with the exodus of climate refugees.

Given the failure of Copenhagen, I’m inclined to believe that semi-annual conferences are not the
way to go. Instead, I’d like to see the United Nations assemble an international and permanent
emergency session that is parliamentary in nature (i.e. representative and accountable) and
dedicated to debating and acting on the problem of anthropogenic climate change (a sub-
parliament, if you will). The decisions of this governing board would be binding and impact on all
the nations of the world. The chances of outright failure (like the one in Copenhagen) would be
significantly lessened. Instead of ad hoc conferences, the emergency sub-parliament would
conduct a series of ongoing debates over proposed legislation that would ultimately result in
internationally binding agreements.

The current climate problem has caused the emergence of another crisis, namely a crisis-of-
resolution. Failure at this point is not good enough. What’s required is something more respective
of the dire situation we’re in.

Read this, nasa webpage

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html#backToTop

i think this is all alrd