ViruRulez Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 The UN climate summit reached a weak outline of a global agreement last night in Copenhagen, falling far short of what Britain and many poor countries were seeking and leaving months of tough negotiations to come. After eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was left to Barack Obama and Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, to broker a political agreement. The so-called Copenhagen accord "recognises" the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but did not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal. American officials spun the deal as a "meaningful agreement", but even Obama said: "This progress is not enough." "We have come a long way, but we have much further to go," he added. The deal was brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US, but late last night it was still unclear whether it would be adopted by all 192 countries in the full plenary session. The agreement aims to provide $30bn in funding for poor countries to adapt to climate change from next year to 2012, and $100bn a year after 2020. But it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries who had been holding out for far deeper emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century. As widely expected, all references to 1.5C in previous drafts were removed at the last minute, but more surprisingly, the earlier 2050 goal of reducing global CO2 emissions by 80% was also dropped. The agreement also set up a forestry deal which is hoped would significantly reduce deforestation in return for cash. It lacked the kind of independent verification of emission reductions by developing countries that the US and others demanded. Obama hinted that China was to blame for the lack of a substantial deal. In a press conference he condemned the insistence of some countries to look backwards to previous environmental agreements. He said developing countries should be "getting out of that mindset, and moving towards the position where everybody recognises that we all need to move together". This was a not-so-veiled reference to the epic row over whether to ditch the Kyoto protocol and its legal distinction between developed and developing nations. Developing nations saw this as an attempt by the rich world to wriggle out of its responsibility for climate change. Many observers blamed the US for coming to the talks with an offer of just 4% emissions cuts on 1990 levels. The final text made no obligations on developing countries to make cuts. Negotiators will now work on individual agreements such as forests, technology, and finance – but, without strong leadership, the chances are that it will take years to complete. Obama cast his trip as a sign of renewed US global leadership. "The time has come for us to get off the sidelines and shape the future that we seek; that is why I came to Copenhagen," he said. But he said he would not be staying for the final vote "because of weather constraints in Washington". Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, was scathing: "This deal will definitely result in massive devastation in Africa and small island states. It has the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing short of climate change scepticism in action. "It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush." John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: "The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. Ed Miliband [uK climate change secretary] is among the very few that come out of this summit with any credit. It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen." Lydia Baker, Save the Children's policy adviser said: "By signing a sub-standard deal, world leaders have effectively signed a death warrant for many of the world's poorest children. Up to 250,000 children from poor communities could die before the next major meeting in Mexico at the end of next year." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViruRulez Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 I am glad that we did not succumb to US or western pressure. The West and the US were pressurizing everybody and force emission drops in all countries but BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) countries opposed the drafts for forcefully curbing emission levels. Frankly speaking, we are one of the least emitters of carbon or greenhouse gases if you check the per capita emission of countries over the world. Even China is emitting 4 times the carbon emission compared to us while the US is nearly 15 times more than us. But we were seen as the scapegoat to pay for the misdeeds of the West and China etc. If we curbed our carbon emission levels it would have also curbed our growth as we would also have to limit our industries and other things needed during this developing phase. Good to see that we did not buckle under pressure though I think China needs to do something about it as they are emitting much more than us and are the highest emitters in the world as a country (not on per-capita basis). The US and the West is giving the logic that India's emission will increase in upcoming years and decades and so we need to cut down our emission levels. But WTF logic is that. Why do we need to cut down our emission when we are not emitting right now but are expected to increase emission in the future. The West should say that India should limit the emission instead of cutting down emission. I think India should not give to any pressure and we should let the US and the West reduce their emissions significantly and come to our emission levels and then say about emission cuts. Anyways I think too much is made about this climate change and global warming. A simple volcano eruption cause upto 0.5 C increase in earth's temperature. So, what guarantee is that we wont have 2C increase in temperature from big volcanic eruption in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonestarranger Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 There are a few conspiracy theories goin' on about 'global warming' and 'carbon consumption' as such. In fact, there are talks that the UN is wantedly skewing reports showing 'artificial' global warming & carbon consumption. So, is 'global warming' just a myth propagated to get money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViruRulez Posted December 19, 2009 Author Share Posted December 19, 2009 There are a few conspiracy theories goin' on about 'global warming' and 'carbon consumption' as such. In fact, there are talks that the UN is wantedly skewing reports showing 'artificial' global warming & carbon consumption. So, is 'global warming' just a myth propagated to get money? That is BS. Who will get money by propagating this myth. The developing countries are already developing and do not need any money if they do not limit themselves with these carbon emission things etc. India and China would hardly be affected by a few billion dollars which the West has promised to the developing and even the poor nations. It is the West who propagated this global warming thing. India or China did not go to the arctic to check glaciers melting. It was the West which did so. And the West is anyways not going to get any money but they would need to give money and technology to developing countries and assist them in reducing carbon emission. It is not a propaganda and anybody who says it is utter BS. I would be happy without a carbon emission limit for India as that would let the economic and industrial growth go on unhindered which is essential to become the economic superpower in the next few decades as expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 Viru, some good points there. Bookmarking this for the future to give a more detailed reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnterTheVoid Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhZK2KFV8SU]YouTube- Clarke and Dawe on climate change[/ame] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triam Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Interesting topic, will reply in detail, currently overwhelmed by work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinx - the Jinx Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 What is the use of the copenhangen accord and the ambitious goals for 2050, when the world itself is going to end in 2012 :dontknow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachinism Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 The west is just trying to curb the growth of India and China. Screw them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 It is appalling to read about people's attitude towards the environment. Forget global warming, forget the theories and conspiracies. Just think of what are leaving behind and if we can do better for the future generations. That alone is enough. Every act counts, be it recycling or reducing emissions or whatever anyone can do in their capacity. Is a little growth suppression for the sake of Mother Earth such a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desi Cartman Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 What is the use of the copenhangen accord and the ambitious goals for 2050' date=' when the world itself is going to end in 2012 :dontknow:[/quote'] :hatsoff: BTW this reminds me a story on India TV where they showed an ice berg heading towards Aus/NZ and they kept repeating " Yeh barbaad kur dega Australia ko " .. desi news channel are in love with global warming these days :icflove: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViruRulez Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 The great man has again started the positive change. Tata Steel has announced upto 25 percentage carbon emission cuts by 2020 to contribute in the effort to reduce global warming. :isalute: The Tata Steel Group is aiming to reduce its carbon emissions by 10 per cent by 2012 and 25 per cent by 2020, according to the company's managing director. HM Nerurkar told the Reuters news agency that the company had set itself a target of cutting carbon emissions from two tonnes per tonne of steel to 1.8 tonnes by 2012 and 1.5 tonnes in about eight years. Speaking to reporters at an industry conference in Kolkata, Nerurkar said that the firm's carbon emissions were already below the global industry average of about 2.2 tonnes per tonne of steel, but he insisted that Tata remained committed to delivering deep cuts in emissions. He added that relatively simple energy efficiency measures would allow the firm to cut emissions to about 1.7 tonnes per tonne of steel, but admitted that the deeper cuts that are planned would prove more challenging. The timing of the announcement, just days after the end of the Copenhagen conference at which the Indian government insisted that it was committed to curbing the country's emissions growth, appears to be designed to underline the India-based firm's commitment to cutting its own greenhouse gas emissions. The news came as UK Business Secretary Peter Mandelson made arrangements to meet chairman Ratan Tata during his current visit to India in order to discuss the proposed closure of Corus’ UK steelworks on Teesside, which will lead to the loss of 1,700 jobs. The government has announced a £60m aid package to help the area sustain the potential impact. It plans to invest £30m in low carbon and advanced manufacturing industries to create more jobs and will spend £10m on providing apprenticeships and support for Corus workers wanting to start new businesses. In related news, Gordon Moffat, director general of European steel industry association EUROFER, warned that the failure of the Copenhagen Summit to deliver a binding international deal could spell bad news for European steel manufacturers. "The Copenhagen deal is a disappointment," he said. "We had hoped that an agreement in Copenhagen would have resulted in a global level playing field between industrial competitors worldwide. Until an agreement is reached that results in comparable efforts by industries worldwide the EU must maintain the measures foreseen to protect the competitiveness of European industry." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViruRulez Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 :hatsoff: BTW this reminds me a story on India TV where they showed an ice berg heading towards Aus/NZ and they kept repeating " Yeh barbaad kur dega Australia ko " .. desi news channel are in love with global warming these days :icflove: It is not desi news channels only :mad: Aussies are one of the most worried about this global warming thing. They are surrounded by water and will be one of the most affected by this and hence more concerned. India does not have any problem except that Lakshadeep and Andaman might be somewhat submerged. Maybe Mumbai too to some extent as it was actually also a group of small islands which were joined and artificially covered to make the city. :nervous: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desi Cartman Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 arey bhai they were talking ke " yeh titanic dubadene wala Iceberg Aus mein trahi macha dega " .. they thought that Iceberg was gonna HIT Aus like it hit the ship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViruRulez Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 arey bhai they were talking ke " yeh titanic dubadene wala Iceberg Aus mein trahi macha dega " .. they thought that Iceberg was gonna HIT Aus like it hit the ship then dont say desi channels :mad: say India TV and Aaj Tak .. those are the only two channels running those crap news and India TV is especially made for rickshawallas and thelawalas and illiterates whom they can fool :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desi Cartman Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 what about News24 :hehe: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViruRulez Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 what about News24 :hehe: if you count News24, then you might be too big a fan of Indian news channels ... there are around 100 Indian news channels if not more including the small news channels right now and it is increasing everyday .. news channels are big business in India and there are a lot more news channels than all other categories of channels combined .. and the small channels always go for masala news stories to get their rickshawallas and thellawala audiences :giggle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desi Cartman Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 ^ But I like Hindi news .. its so entertaining ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViruRulez Posted December 25, 2009 Author Share Posted December 25, 2009 ^ But I like Hindi news .. its so entertaining ... If you like Hindi news, I would advise you to watch Zee News.. I like Zee News more than English news channels too.. at least I have personally never seen any masala or crap news in their channel and they also run the "India First" campaign which is perhaps one of the most media adorable campaigns in India :isalute: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts