What will happen in Copenhagen?

What will happen in Copenhagen?

All who are supposed to be bright, scientific and concerned about the fate of mankind and the planet must contribute to solving the climate change/global warming problem. On Wednesday, in Singapore, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting of foreign and other ministers, in preparation for this weekend’s APEC summit meeting, the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on world leaders to be prepared to agree on a compromise at next month’s talks in Copenhagen.

“We cannot let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of progress,” Secretary Clinton said.

The December 7 to 18 Copenhagen talks are organized to achieve a global agreement on slashing greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the impact of climate change before the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. But the US is not a signatory of the Kyoto Treaty, which then President G. W. Bush did not wish to bind US business and industry.

President Barack Obama will attend the summit in Singapore.

One of Obama’s first acts was to bring the USA into the climate-change negotiations. That is one reason he is very popular abroad.

Secretary Clinton said if all the countries “exert maximum effort and embrace the right blend of pragmatism and principle, I believe we can secure a strong outcome at Copenhagen.”

She also said, “we [the US] are committed to reaching the goal of a global, legally binding climate agreement, and will continue working vigorously with the international community toward that end.”

She affirmed that she had “fruitful discussions” on climate change with counterparts from the 21-member APEC forum, whose members include China, Russia, Japan and other countries of the Pacific Rim.

The APEC member countries account for 60 percent of global greenhouse emissions that pollute the Earth and cause global warming and climate change. But the industrialized countries, especially the US and China (which are the top emitters), cause some 90 percent of the harmful emissions while the Philippines emits very much less than 1 percent and is considered to be adding virtually no harm to the planet. This has emboldened President Arroyo to call for a system in which the heaviest polluters and greenhouse gas emitters should pay the non-emitting countries. These are actually more vulnerable to climate change.

Despite Secretary Clinton’s plea for cooperation and compromise, most experts think, as of this writing, that the possibility of the Copenhagen meeting reaching a decisive agreement to correct and strengthen the Kyoto Protocol is zero.

Therefore, mankind and our planet are doomed—if some of the more scary prophets are to be believed.

There have been several preparatory meetings prior to the Copenhagen one next month. Representatives of 180 nations have joined in these talks throughout the world. None of the meetings gives hope there will be a happy compromise as Secretary Clinton called for in Singapore.

If God wills that a compromise arises out of the APEC Leaders’ Summit this weekend, then perhaps the APEC countries could persuade the rest of the world.

But the biggest opposing views are those of the Western industrialized countries, principally the US (the second biggest emitter) versus China and India. The latter two would not agree to be bound by new strict limits if the USA does not agree to much greater limits. They argue that the older industrialized countries were the ones that caused more damage through the past centuries. They should be penalizecd while China and India should not be prevented from achieving higher levels of industrialization using greenhouse gas emitting fuels. China is the No. 1 emitter country. India is No. 4.

There is supposed to be a United Nations Adaptation Fund, which kicked in 2008, to help less developed countries pay for projects to curb the effects of global warming. The rich industrialized countries were supposed to contribute to the fund. Until now the fund is only $18 million. Together, our Manny Pacquiao, Dr. Lucio Tan, Taipans Henry Sy and Lance Gokongwei and a couple of our jueteng lords would be able to comfortably donate more than that laughable amount.

What me worry?

The battle between the US et al. and China-India et al. appears to have assumed an ideological overtone. Yet both of the two opposed blocs don’t seem to mind the global-warming/climate change status quo.
Why?

Could the reason be that both sides have in fact decided to side with those scientists who dispute the
UN-backed finding of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because it is pure bunkum?

The number of scientists who don’t buy the IPCC’s frightening scenario is growing. Numbers have made them sound less like voices from the fringe.

Those who are now making fun of Al Gore’s fame and profitable advocacy have doubled, at least in colleges and in the Internet.

We can imagine Beavis and Butthead, and oh yes, MAD’s Alfred E. Neuman, smiling at our global warming fears and telling us:

The ice caps have melted before. Yes, carbon emissions have increased in the last century because of fossil fuels. Yes, global average temperature has increased 0.8 degrees F. But, hey, the temperature increase came first—before 1940, 20 years before the surge of carbon emissions from the geometrically increased population of cars, trucks and factories! How can we trust scientists who call the results the cause?

The anti-IPCC scientists have many more words to say.

But one remembers that only 30 years ago, the scare was against the New Ice Age. So scientists were introducing ideas to cover the ice caps with soot and black paint to make them absorb more heat and get melted faster. (Excerpt from Manila Times)