- Online newsletter concerning issues on and about the UN's convention on long term weather change. Page includes list of meetings and the background behind the Kyoto.
- The world's poorest people feel the worst effects of climate change. Help us tell big banks to make the Big Shift to invest in clean energy.
- Established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess available scientific, technical, and socio.
- Climate Change videos and latest news articles; GlobalNews.ca your source for the latest news on Climate Change.
- The Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) is an independent coalition of organisations and companies throughout the air transport industry that have united to support.
BBC News - Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal? The summit failed to deliver a way to halt dangerous climate change. About 4. 5,0. 00 travelled to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen - the vast majority convinced of the need for a new global agreement on climate change. So why did the summit end without one, just an acknowledgement of a deal struck by five nations, led by the US.
The Convenient Disappearance of Climate Change Denial in China From Western plot to party line, how China embraced climate science to become a green-energy powerhouse.
And why did delegates leave the Danish capital without agreement that something significantly stronger should emerge next year? Our environment correspondent Richard Black looks at eight reasons that might have played a part.
KEY GOVERNMENTS DO NOT WANT A GLOBAL DEALUntil the end of this summit, it appeared that all governments wanted to keep the keys to combating climate change within the UN climate convention. In the end, a deal was struck behind closed doors, not by the conference. Implicit in the convention, though, is the idea that governments take account of each others' positions and actually negotiate. That happened at the Kyoto summit. Developed nations arrived arguing for a wide range of desired outcomes; during negotiations, positions converged, and a negotiated deal was done.
In Copenhagen, everyone talked; but no- one really listened. The end of the meeting saw leaders of the US and the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) hammering out a last- minute deal in a back room as though the nine months of talks leading up to this summit, and the Bali Action Plan to which they had all committed two years previously, did not exist.
The 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP17) was held in Durban, South Africa, from 28 November to 11 December 2011 to establish a new treaty to limit. New research has found that mass bleaching of coral reefs, once virtually unknown, now happens every 6 years on average. That means the reefs don’t have time to. At the November UN Climate Change Conference COP23 in Bonn, Germany, countries took important steps to rapidly implement the Paris Climate Change Agreement and non.
Over the last few years, statements on climate change have been made in other bodies such as the G8, Major Economies Forum (MEF) and Asia- Pacific Economic Co- operation forum (APEC), which do not have formal negotiations, and where outcomes are not legally binding. It appears now that this is the arrangement preferred by the big countries (meaning the US and the BASIC group). Language in the "Copenhagen Accord" could have been taken from - indeed, some passages were reportedly taken from, via the mechanism of copying and pasting - G8 and MEF declarations. The logical conclusion is that this is the arrangement that the big players now prefer - an informal setting, where each country says what it is prepared to do - where nothing is negotiated and nothing is legally binding.
THE US POLITICAL SYSTEMJust about every other country involved in the UN talks has a single chain of command; when the president or prime minister speaks, he or she is able to make commitments for the entire government. Not so the US. The president is not able to pledge anything that Congress will not support, and his inability to step up the US offer in Copenhagen was probably the single biggest impediment to other parties improving theirs. Viewed internationally, the US effectively has two governments, each with power of veto over the other. Doubtless the founding fathers had their reasons.
But it makes the US a nation apart in these processes, often unable to state what its position is or to move that position - a nightmare for other countries' negotiators. BAD TIMINGAlthough the Bali Action Plan was drawn up two years ago, it is only one year since Barack Obama entered the White House and initiated attempts to curb US carbon emissions. Copenhagen probably came a year too early in Barack Obama's presidency.
He is also attempting major healthcare reforms; and both measures are proving highly difficult. If the Copenhagen summit had come a year later, perhaps Mr Obama would have been able to speak from firmer ground, and perhaps offer some indication of further action down the line - indications that might have induced other countries to step up their own offers. As it is, he was in a position to offer nothing - and other countries responded in kind. THE HOST GOVERNMENTIn many ways, Denmark was an excellent summit host. Copenhagen was a friendly and capable city, transport links worked, Bella Center food outlets remained open through the long negotiating nights.
But the government of Lars Lokke Rasmussen got things badly, badly wrong. Even before the summit began, his office put forward a draft political declaration to a select group of "important countries" - thereby annoying every country not on the list, including most of the ones that feel seriously threatened by climate impacts. The chief Danish negotiator Thomas Becker was sacked just weeks before the summit amid tales of a huge rift between Mr Rasmussen's office and the climate department of minister Connie Hedegaard. This destroyed the atmosphere of trust that developing country negotiators had established with Mr Becker.
Procedurally, the summit was a farce, with the Danes trying to hurry things along so that a conclusion could be reached, bringing protest after protest from some of the developing countries that had presumed everything on the table would be properly negotiated. Flat Head In Adults on this page. Suspensions of sessions became routine.
The Convenient Disappearance of Climate Change Denial in China – Foreign Policy. In December 2. 00. The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference had just come to a close, and the summit, which had brought together 1. But in its final days, during negotiations between China and the United States, talks had sputtered, teetered, and ultimately collapsed. To observers eager for good news, the result came as a stunning and disheartening anticlimax. To most of the West, it appeared that China had come intent on playing the spoiler.
The country’s coal consumption had been growing steadily for decades as the government pushed industrialization. In the four years preceding Copenhagen, the country added 5. From the outside, the rationale for China’s alleged resistance was rather simple. It just wasn’t in China’s interest to put the brakes on its rapid growth for environmental considerations.
What could the country possibly gain by capping emissions? Back in Beijing, however, there was no doubt about the threat of climate change. Behind closed doors, officials were telling a different story about the failed negotiations in Copenhagen.“It was unprecedented for a conference negotiating process to be so complicated, for the arguments to be so intense, for the disputes to be so wide and for progress to be so slow,” observed an internal report commissioned by the Environment Ministry for the minister, vice minister, and various other subordinates in the immediate aftermath, and obtained by the Guardian in February 2. The report’s authors concluded that the plan pushed by the United States, which proposed cuts on all countries instead of just developed ones, had been “a conspiracy by developed nations to divide the camp of developing nations.” The report also lauded China’s decision to oppose a legally binding climate treaty, trumpeting, “The overall interests of developing countries have been defended.” Far from being the destructors of a progressive plan for climate change policy, the view from within China was that its delegates had possibly faced down a vast Western plot. It was a strong reaction but one mostly rooted in diplomatic objections — a rejection of a deal that could be seen as asking China and India to pay for the sins of countries that had grown rich and modern by their bad behavior. But just over a month later, the idea of the Western plot took a strange, sharp turn. While speaking at a diplomatic event in New Delhi, Xie Zhenhua, China’s top climate change negotiator — as well as vice minister of China’s National Development and Reform Commission, the country’s economic planning agency — surprised an audience of foreign environment ministers by saying that “we need to adopt an open attitude” about whether humans or natural atmospheric changes were to blame for the climate’s warming.
It was a shot against the very foundation of climate science. Though the remark flummoxed the diplomats in the crowd, it could have been written off as a negotiating ploy. Chinese leaders had been cagey about the politics of global warming and had assented to sign the 1. Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen’s predecessor, on the condition they not be forced to limit emissions.
It was known that there were still powerful forces in the government that were antagonistic toward any plan that could curtail the country’s freedom to burn fossil fuels. But this was something new. Back in China, the public backlash against Copenhagen — and climate science in general — had already begun. On Jan. 1. 7, 2. 01. Larry Hsien Ping Lang devoted an entire episode of his current affairs talk show, Larry’s Eyes on Finance, to the “great swindle” of global warming. Lang, a University of Pennsylvania- educated economist who was once described as China’s version of Larry King, told his millions of viewers that the goal of Europe and the United States at the Copenhagen negotiations was to prevent China from being a global leader.“The Western countries manufactured the climate myth without any scientific integrity,” and they have proceeded to “demonize and constrain China in the name of climate,” Lang said.
Clips of the episode were viewed tens of millions of times on Youku, China’s You. Tube. Lang’s worldview seemed to resonate. The weather] is obviously getting colder and colder, but they are still lying through their teeth. These disgusting Westerners never stop trying to topple China,” argued one online commenter in response to Lang’s show. These foreign bastards are so worried that China will rise and surpass the United States. Because they are jealous of China, they even made up lies about China … the scientists are all puppets controlled by politics,” read another. The commenter continued: “Copenhagen liars!
American liars!”Over the next year, more than a half- dozen books on the West’s climate conspiracy were published in China. Social media posts theorizing an American conspiracy proliferated. Then something strange happened. After 2. 01. 1, no more climate skeptic books were published.
Facts about Climate Change Science and Ocean Acidification, truth from consensus and climate change skeptics. Virtually all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed a small amount since the year 1. An increasing number. Has the city grown since 1. Have the runways increased near the temp gage at your airport since 1. This is particularly true of the global data set.
C hotter than their surroundings". Most scientists agree that warming. CO2 provides important enhancements. Our site makes every effort. When the news broke of the Arctic. U. of Illinois) reported. Antarctic at its record high, but this was not reported in the media.
To. show the imbalance, as one reads in the popular press, we have created a companion. There are many reasons to be cautious. CO2 as the causative agent if there really is warming.
This. is highlighted by 2 papers published in March 2. Scafetta. and West showed that up to 6. Ramanathan. and Carmichael show that soot has 6. CO2. They claim both factors are underappreciated by IPCC.
Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more. CO2, similar to the relationship in your home with your furnace.
The soot may well explain much of the Arctic melting, as it has recently. Asian glaciers. It is generally accepted that the Earth has been much warmer than. CO2 was 2 to 4 times greater than today (NOAA). More recently. in the prior period between ice ages, just 1.
Earth also. was much warmer than today and the sea level much higher - by about 1. IPCC). The primary driver of the past climate. Earth geophysical processes, such as volcanic eruptions.
It is also known that mankind's contribution to CO2 is just a small percent. CO2 (0. 0. 00. 40. The. Earth's ability to absorb CO2 has apparently been underestimated and the climate. December. 2. 00. 9 publication of work by Wolfgang Knorr that shows "No. Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 1. Years" (a. seminal study). Lastly, we know that the Earth's temperature and the level.
CO2 rise and fall roughly together, but it is not clear (not proven) whether. In a first attempt (Hadley- chart).
CO2 - based model to predict temperatures, the results are not impressive. The cause of the temperature rise. This is based on work of computer modelers, believing. There are many other scientists. These scientists and the people who follow them are often.
Most of these scientists believe that the. To help separate fact from fiction, an explanation of these thoughts. The Hadley prediction chart and the observation chart below are from. Climatic. Research Unit (CRU) at the University. East Anglia, which is well respected for its historical databases maintained. IPCC assessments.
See the Hadley. composite charts for 1. Note that "global" warming is greatest. Northern hemisphere.
Links to similar charts, but all slightly different. The Japan Met. Agency (JMA) site is recommended. For example. go to the JMA.
August and September. This will confirm. IPCC models that predict more warming will occur during the winter. We don't know if this true.
This chart looks ominous until put into the context that. C (5. 7. 0. F), so we are talking.
C per century. Scientifically, we should use absolute. C (4. 60 F) degrees. In this. context the increase is about 0. As seen below, this increase since the mid 1.
IPCC says the present temperature is likely higher. Greenland ice cores indicate that the start of the instrumented data (thermometers). Global Cooling- Doomsday Called Off), the. For the. trend is less pronounced. NOAA: "The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for September 2.
September in the NOAA global temperature dataset record, which dates back 1. The year- to- date global temperature was second- warmest on record. Russian. Academicians believe. The January. 2. 00. PRAVDA ice- age article is likely vetted by them and the IPCC. As the number of stations (often rural). Urban Heat Island effect is the.
Global Warming?: Time for a Reality Check? In the prior inter- glacial period about 1.
North Pole and the sea level was 1. Is this going to happen anyway?
Is our temperature just naturally. CO2 is helping it along, won't temperature still. CO2? IPCC 2. 00. 7 reports the prior inter- glacial warmth was driven by orbital. Nevertheless, this prior warmth tells. Earth now were present then also. Resource alarmists believe we will soon run out of fossil fuels.
As soon. as this happens, it seems, prices will rise and the CO2 problem. CO2, that seems to be getting. The GCMs (Global Circulation (or Climate) Models) knew of. Peak Oil". The projection to the.
The reserves of coal are much greater and production will peak later. For most coal producing. Shortages will drive prices. But, it is all a matter of time before CO2 production from all. Chronic Constipation In Adults. The upheaval to society will likely surpass even. In March 2. 00. 8, the.
Washington Post. In June 2. BP released. its well. Review of World Energy. This report says "The world.