Copenhagen Climate Conference - will it fail?

[Winner]

After reading about the proposals that the developed countries should be paying 100 billion euros PER YEAR to the developing/third world countries (linky) to help them "reduce carbon emissions", I really really hope the talks fail UTTERLY. EU alone should be paying 15 billion euros a year at the minimum, which is simply outrageous. For comparison, the annual budget of the European Space Agency is about 3.5 billion euros.

Europe is full of places which need money. If we want to help the environment, we should be spending money here in Europe, to repair the damage done to this continent in the last 500 years, not pour money into the third world which will most likely just defraud it. Even if the money were spend well, it wouldn't stop the climate change:

Spoiler :

Cutting carbon emissions won't stop climate change, expert says

As world leaders meet at the UN to discuss climate change, Bjorn Lomborg tells DW he expects little to come from the talks. He tells politicians there are better ways to spend billions than on fighting climate change.

The author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," Bjorn Lomborg, has had public disagreements with climate activists including Al Gore and Sir Nicholas Stern. Lomborg's harshest criticism, however, is aimed at the international community for spending billions on what he says are ineffective measures intended to fight climate change.

He talked to Deutsche Welle about ongoing climate negotiations and how economists at the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think tank he heads, suggest spending aid and development money.


Deutsche Welle: What do you think will emerge from the climate talks taking place at the United Nations on Tuesday?[/I]

Bjorn Lomborg: First of all, I think it's important to recognize that probably nothing will come out of this, simply because they are so far away from the different nations on what they want to achieve.

It's always good to talk about the problem, and I think it's good to reaffirm to everybody that we need a deal in Copenhagen by the end of this year. The problem is the focus on cutting carbon emissions is actually one that both makes it very hard for everyone to agree because the Chinese and the Indians don't want to cut and while the Europeans and the Americans claim they want to cut, they actually also know that it's going to cost them a lot, and it's going to have very little benefit even in the far-off future. That's why they are all playing for the gallery but nobody is actually willing to really commit.



The Chinese leader has said he will present China's new plans for tackling global warming at the summit. Isn't that a positive signal?

It could be. But let's remember that the Chinese have been doing a lot of posturing on climate change and coming out and suggesting that we might even see China's emissions maxing out in 2050 or maybe even in 2040. But let's not base our hopes for a climate deal on things that will happen in 20 or 40 years.


If you had to give tips to the participants, what would you advise them to talk about?


We've run what we call the Copenhagen Consensus for Climate, where we ask top economists, including three Nobel laureates "Where do you do the most good for climate with the money you're going to be spending?"


What they told us was don't focus on cutting carbon emissions. It's very expensive and does very little good for the climate even 100 years from now. In the short and medium-term, we should recognize that nothing we do will change the temperature development except looking into geo-engineering, essentially making the planet cooler - for instance by spraying up salt particulates in the atmosphere, which will amplify natural processes, make more white clouds and hence make the world a little more reflective - especially over the South Pacific. That would be very cheap and could potentially avoid global warming for the next 100 years.

This is still a Band-Aid, so what you also need to do is more toward a situation where we can actually get people to not just talk about cutting carbon emissions but actually doing so, and we will only do that if cutting carbon emissions and green energy technologies become much, much cheaper. That's why their second solution was to focus on making much cheaper green energy technologies - cheaper solar panels, cheaper windmills - that will actually work.

Those two in conjunction is what I would like to see world leaders focus on a lot more, if we actually care about fixing climate change not just making beautiful speeches.


At the moment we also have to concentrate on adaptation to climate change. Its effects are already becoming very visible. Where would your priorities lie in that area?

I'm referring to top economists, rather than my own private opinions. What they found is we are very often being told that there is a huge amount of impacts from climate change right now, and it's certainly true that there are a lot of good pictures out there where you can show here's a catastrophe.

But what we fail to recognize is that the vast majority of the impact that we are seeing right now - climate impacts and other impacts - are impacts that have been there for hundreds of years. Most of this world's population is poor and they're ill-prepared to deal with any contingency that the world throws at them. What we need to focus on is not just adaption specifically for climate change, which is a small part of the problems most people live with right now, but simply making better lives for people that is focusing on getting them more food, getting them better healthcare and making sure their kids get educated.


The world's doctors have said failure to tackle climate change in Copenhagen could be catastrophic for health. Is it possible to separate climate change from issues like health, food security or a safe water supply?

We don't need to separate them in the sense that we probably all agree we should tackle some of the really big problems that are out there right now. I'm simply concerned that many people latch on to talking about global warming and that the most important this is spending money on adaptation to global warming.

But the main problem in Bangladesh or Myanmar is not future sea-level rises, it's the fact that the countries are so poor right now that they are already getting inundated. It's not about climate-proofing it in 100 years, it's about dealing with the vulnerability to climate right now, which has nothing to do with climate change but simply something to do with them being very poor.


It's more about an emphasis on focusing where you can actually deal with real problems right now rather than a possible problem in 100 years.

Interview: Irene Quaile (sms)
Editor: Nathan Witkop
source

So, what the heck is the point - to waste awful lot of money in the middle of an economic downturn, when we desperately need money elsewhere? I am sick of how this environmental debate degenerated into pointless talk about carbon emission, even though there are many more pressing environmental issues we should be dealing with.

Here are few things I would like to discuss here:

• Do we need to bribe the developing countries? It's them who will suffer the worst from the impacts of climate change, so it is in their interest to care about the environment. Them blackmailing the developed world and asking for money is simply absurd - it's like if a guy threatened to shoot himself if people don't give him money. Well...
  
  
• Shouldn't the money be spent on actual, real things like combating desertification, preventing soil erosion, reforestation, switching to less polluting (and I don't mean CO2, CO2 doesn't pollute) industries, developing new and better sources of clean energy (including nuclear, of course), protecting nature reserves, oceans etc. etc etc., instead of pouring money into a hopeless war against climate change, which is essentially unstoppable at this point?
  
  
• Is it politically acceptable to rob your own citizens and give their money to people from other countries for no perceivable benefit? Aren't we also talking about countries like China or India which are spending billions on armaments? Why should we be giving them anything, when they already have the money necessary to to go green - all they need is to cut defense spending. If they don't do that and we still give them money, we'll effectively be funding their military, which is so morally repulsive I am at loss of words here
  
  
• Why is the debate focused solely on carbon emissions - the problem we're least likely to effectively tackle? Aren't the politicians just looking for an easy fix to a complex and difficult problem? Do they really think that cutting emissions by, say, 30-50% would actually solve global environmental problems? Is it possible they're really that stupid?

Ok, my rant's over. Discuss

 

[Riffraff]

Some decent points here. I think that we are simply to far down the line to try stopping climate change given the strength of political leadership. I don't think that a consensus can ever be reached to not burn accessible fossile fuels so we're really discussing who is going to do the burning and when.

I definatly agree that direct enviromental policies which you indicated in your second point should take a priority as they have been neglected in the last years.

Apart from that though, the notion that we are 'robbing' our own citizens to help others is ridiculous. European countries give far less than 1% as foreign aid (exceptions being the scandinavians ofc), which is a vulgar when comparing our comfortable lifestyles with the suffering elsewhere. Coming from an eastern european, who has recieved aid in far greater quantities, this is an even less acceptable position to hold.

 

[Winner]

Some decent points here. I think that we are simply to far down the line to try stopping climate change given the strength of political leadership. I don't think that a consensus can ever be reached to not burn accessible fossile fuels so we're really discussing who is going to do the burning and when.

I definatly agree that direct enviromental policies which you indicated in your second point should take a priority as they have been neglected in the last years.

Exactly.

Apart from that though, the notion that we are 'robbing' our own citizens to help others is ridiculous. European countries give far less than 1% as foreign aid (exceptions being the scandinavians ofc), which is a vulgar when comparing our comfortable lifestyles with the suffering elsewhere. Coming from an eastern european, who has recieved aid in far greater quantities, this is an even less acceptable position to hold.

You can see that I didn't object to the idea of foreign aid in general, I objected to the notion of taking a ridiculously high amount of money from them and giving it to others for no gain. It's like if Germany gave Poland 1 billion euros for roads and highways reconstruction and they just bought a lot of vodka and got awfully drunk. The money would be wasted.

I am not an eastern European, so I really don't follow your last point. If you're alluding to the subsidies provided by the EU, it's rather cheap jab given that you know that EU funds are very benefits-oriented and that the whole continent, nut just the recipient profit from them.

 

[Tee Kay]

Do we need to bribe the developing countries? It's them who will suffer the worst from the impacts of climate change, so it is in their interest to care about the environment. Them blackmailing the developed world and asking for money is simply absurd - it's like if a guy threatened to shoot himself if people don't give him money. Well...

I don't agree with "bribing", but giving them financial assistance to deal with climate change, its consequences and move towards sustainable development, would be good. They will suffer the worst from the impact of climate change, true - they're also the worst equipped to deal with them, and they contributed the least to the problem (greenhouse emissions anyway).

Shouldn't the money be spent on actual, real things like combating desertification, preventing soil erosion, reforestation, switching to less polluting (and I don't mean CO2, CO2 doesn't pollute) industries, developing new and better sources of clean energy (including nuclear, of course), protecting nature reserves, oceans etc. etc etc., instead of pouring money into a hopeless war against climate change, which is essentially unstoppable at this point?

Aren't all those things you listed part of the war against climate change?

Is it politically acceptable to rob your own citizens and give their money to people from other countries for no perceivable benefit? Aren't we also talking about countries like China or India which are spending billions on armaments? Why should we be giving them anything, when they already have the money necessary to to go green - all they need is to cut defense spending. If they don't do that and we still give them money, we'll effectively be funding their military, which is so morally repulsive I am at loss of words here

The question the West needs to ask itself is: is it in their interests, or morally right, to watch the rest of the world fall or collapse from climate change, and will it be possible to shield Western countries and citizens from the effects of climate change which is global in nature.

And, Western countries don't spend billions on armaments?

Why is the debate focused solely on carbon emissions - the problem we're least likely to effectively tackle? Aren't the politicians just looking for an easy fix to a complex and difficult problem? Do they really think that cutting emissions by, say, 30-50% would actually solve global environmental problems? Is it possible they're really that stupid?

It's a start.

 

[Riffraff]

Ok I'll take the cheap shot, but is your objection to foreign aid linked on there being no gain for the donor country or is it specifically in this case to there being there no significant gain for anyone?

 

[Tee Kay]

You can see that I didn't object to the idea of foreign aid in general, I objected to the notion of taking a ridiculously high amount of money from them and giving it to others for no gain. It's like if Germany gave Poland 1 billion euros for roads and highways reconstruction and they just bought a lot of vodka and got awfully drunk. The money would be wasted.

Something which does not apply to all "developing countries" (it's as inaccurate a term as "Third World"). Giving right amount of money to the right people, that's what the West needs to work on.

I am not an eastern European, so I really don't follow your last point. If you're alluding to the subsidies provided by the EU, it's rather cheap jab given that you know that EU funds are very benefits-oriented and that the whole continent, nut just the recipient profit from them.

With environmental issues the effects are often regional, even global. Desertification, soil erosion, CO2 emissions, etc don't obey international borders. You stop logging near river sources for example and you improve the situation downstream, which can affect several countries. Improve forestry in Indonesia and people in Malaysia and Singapore can be spared the smoke. And so on.

 

[amadeus]

And, Western countries don't spend billions on armaments?

Yeah, but for those countries it's like a homeless crack addict buying an Xbox.

 

[Tee Kay]

Yeah, but for those countries it's like a homeless crack addict buying an Xbox.

I'd say it's more like a college student with a part time job buying crack.

 

[Winner]

I don't agree with "bribing", but giving them financial assistance to deal with climate change, its consequences and move towards sustainable development, would be good. They will suffer the worst from the impact of climate change, true - they're also the worst equipped to deal with them, and they contributed the least to the problem (greenhouse emissions anyway).

Such use of money would be justified, but as far as I understand the current proposals, it's about giving money to developing countries so that they reduce their carbon emissions... which are the least of their problems, IMO. I am objecting against spending trillions of euros fighting the climate change this way. It won't work and we'll miss the money elsewhere, in projects which are both more important and which could actually work.

Aren't all those things you listed part of the war against climate change?

That's the point, they're not - today it's all about reducing CO2 emissions, other problems receive faaaaaar less coverage.

The question the West needs to ask itself is: is it in their interests, or morally right, to watch the rest of the world fall or collapse from climate change, and will it be possible to shield Western countries and citizens from the effects of climate change which is global in nature.

That's not the issue here. The problem is that climate change is unstoppable and the notion that all we need is to reduce emissions by few dozen percent and all our problems will magically disappear is naive and stupid. For all we know, even if we stopped releasing CO2 completely, climate change would continue. It's a situation we have to deal with by adaptation, not denial or "let's fight the windmills" like attitude. Simply put, climate change is going to happen and we can't do anything against it, thus it would be better to use our money to adapt to changing conditions rather than to waste it in vain attempt to stop the unstoppable.

And, Western countries don't spend billions on armaments?

Yes, and I'd rather see global defense spending get lower, but the point is that Western countries can afford it AND finance the transformation of their economies at the same time. Developing countries can't. So, why should developed countries support them in their irrational behavior?

It's a start.

No, it's a dead end.

Ok I'll take the cheap shot, but is your objection to foreign aid linked on there being no gain for the donor country or is it specifically in this case to there being there no significant gain for anyone?

Well, foreign aid is meant to be beneficial for both countries. When there is a rich and stable country bordering a poor and unstable country, it is in the rich country's interest to help the poor country get better by providing economic assistance.

But in this case, money would be spent on pointless attempt to reverse climate change, and that will not work. And since everybody will have spent such huge money, nobody will be willing to pay more on project which will be needed much more than CO2 reductions. "We've already given you money, so what else do you want?"

 

[Tee Kay]

Such use of money would be justified, but as far as I understand the current proposals, it's about giving money to developing countries so that they reduce their carbon emissions... which are the least of their problems, IMO. I am objecting against spending trillions of euros fighting the climate change this way. It won't work and we'll miss the money elsewhere, in projects which are both more important and which could actually work.

And reducing carbon emissions is achieved by, ahm

actual, real things like [...] reforestation, switching to less polluting (and I don't mean CO2, CO2 doesn't pollute) industries, developing new and better sources of clean energy (including nuclear, of course), protecting nature reserves, oceans etc. etc etc.

And, at the rate of development of some of these countries (I'm looking at you China) reducing carbon emissions will be very important. Better set them on the right track (as China is doing by investing in renewables) than having to have more talkfests... sorry, climate change conferences in the future.

As for Copenhagen itself, I admit it's not very hopeful. The leaders seem to lack a clear direction or purpose. And Western countries and their less wealthy counterparts need to work closely to ensure the aid money is used to its full potential.

That's the point, they're not - today it's all about reducing CO2 emissions, other problems receive faaaaaar less coverage.

But CO2 emissions is one of the main sources of climate change, if the mainstream scientific research of the past 20 years + is to be believed. I agree it might receive too much coverage but it's still important nonetheless. And as I said before reducing CO2 emissions also means reforestation, developing renewables, nuclear, etc as well.

That's not the issue here. The problem is that climate change is unstoppable and the notion that all we need is to reduce emissions by few dozen percent and all our problems will magically disappear is naive and stupid.

Agree with the second part. But, it doesn't mean we (as a species) shouldn't try. At worst, we get to move towards a more sustainable development model

For all we know, even if we stopped releasing CO2 completely, climate change would continue...

Of course. The CO2 would stay up there for a while, and there's the issue with nitrous oxide, methane, etc.

...It's a situation we have to deal with by adaptation, not denial or "let's fight the windmills" like attitude. Simply put, climate change is going to happen and we can't do anything against it, thus it would be better to use our money to adapt to changing conditions rather than to waste it in vain attempt to stop the unstoppable.

Sure we could try adaptation. I have no problem with that, but it should go hand in hand with rectification. The earth is warming, climate is changing at an unnatural rate. Humans may adapt; though a few million people would have to move, a few billion dollars spending building sea walls and on food aid and all that, but civilization would survive. Other species however will not, and humans no matter how much we industrialize or urbanize still rely on them. For instances, climate change will likely cause a global disruption of the oceans and their ecosystem and we have enough problems with pollution and overfishing as it is.

Yes, and I'd rather see global defense spending get lower, but the point is that Western countries can afford it AND finance the transformation of their economies at the same time. Developing countries can't. So, why should developed countries support them in their irrational behavior?

Well most developing countries don't spend more than 3% of GDP on defence (the main exception is the Middle East). Many already spend the bare minimum without falling behind. We need another global arms reduction treaty or something like that.

Well, foreign aid is meant to be beneficial for both countries. When there is a rich and stable country bordering a poor and unstable country, it is in the rich country's interest to help the poor country get better by providing economic assistance.

But in this case, money would be spent on pointless attempt to reverse climate change, and that will not work. And since everybody will have spent such huge money, nobody will be willing to pay more on project which will be needed much more than CO2 reductions. "We've already given you money, so what else do you want?"

Well, if you think any attempt at reducing CO2 will be completely pointless...

 

[amadeus]

At worst, we get to move towards a more sustainable development model

What does this even mean?

 

[Winner]

But CO2 emissions is one of the main sources of climate change, if the mainstream scientific research of the past 20 years + is to be believed. I agree it might receive too much coverage but it's still important nonetheless. And as I said before reducing CO2 emissions also means reforestation, developing renewables, nuclear, etc as well.

Well, the consensus is that humans do contribute to climate change. There is no consensus about how serious the impact is.

There were pretty rapid climate shifts in the past - the Little Ice Age following the medieval warm period, for example. We might just as well be in another natural cycle so even if we managed to profoundly reduce CO2 emissions without ruining ourselves, climate might still get warmer. Thus, it is better to spend the money on adaptation rather then an attempt to reverse the climate change.

 

[Verbose]

What does this even mean?

Don't crap where you eat.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Tigers are going extinct. No money for that but for the climate there are billions.

 

[Riffraff]

Well, foreign aid is meant to be beneficial for both countries. When there is a rich and stable country bordering a poor and unstable country, it is in the rich country's interest to help the poor country get better by providing economic assistance.

Well here I would disagree - I think it is enough that the aid actually reduces suffering in the recieving country.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the Copenhagen Climate Conference will be a fairly large failure, because the Western governments are too corrupt & too weak. The "you do it first" attitude is going to cause a lot of the failure. I have strong hopes for a couple of the European countries; they seem to be trying, at least.

Now, there are a couple of issues.

There is a 'safe level' of total CO2 ppm that can increase in the atmosphere: or at least, one that causes change at such a rate as to not really be a problem. We're quickly approaching that level, and the countries that fill the first portion of this 'safe level' made mad profits doing so.

We need a global agreement that slows the rate of CO2 ppm increase, to avoid tipping points. At lower levels of CO2 ppm, most of the climate problems can be dealt with using adaptation.

Secondly, there's a 'safe level' of CO2 that can be generated every year. A portion of the CO2 will be sequestered by biomass, and a portion will be sequestered by the ocean. Now, ocean acidification is a potential problem, but slowing acidification allows ocean mixing to slow the damage (it is a buffered system, after all).

So, we need a global treaty to reduce the planetary CO2 production. Each country should be responsible for their own, and if a country has already dumped an unsafe amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, they're responsible for reducing their emissions to reverse this trend.

Additionally, we need to slow global emissions on a yearly basis. This can be done by reducing ones own CO2, or paying someone else to reduce theirs. Either way, it doesn't matter, and so it would be wise to do so in a cost-effective manner.


Finally, there is going to be climate change, no matter what. This will require mitigation strategies: and there's no way the West can avoid paying others to aid in their mitigation. I mean, the idea of paying to offset your pollution damage is a standard economic policy.

So, let's remember that all of these different concepts going to mix in when dealing with Kyoto payments. Some payments are mitigation payments. Some payments are offset payments. Some payments will be because it's cheaper to get others to reduce their footprints.

 

[MeteorPunch]

It'll definitely fail...worst..idea..ever.

 

[Elta]

Tigers are going extinct. No money for that but for the climate there are billions.

Rest assured that there are 10,000 Tigers in Texas alone.

4 Times more than in the wild.



Your welcome rest of world.

 

[Ecofarm]

Europe is full of places which need money. If we want to help the environment, we should be spending money here in Europe, to repair the damage done to this continent in the last 500 years, not pour money into the third world which will most likely just defraud it.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Of course it will fail, just like groupthink should. The change must be of our own, unpressured, fruition or it is meaningless and temporary.

 

[Winner]

It is IMO interesting that the EU leaders refused to give details about the deal they made during the last summit. I guess they're afraid of being vivisected by the press ("Hello, citizens, we're going to take 15 billion euros worth of your tax money and give it to the Third World. No, sorry, we can't reduce taxes because we're in economic crisis. Oh no, unfortunately we can't give more money to schools and universities, we must reduce the spending, y'know..." I sense the deal will be veeeeery popular.