Posted by: Tony Carson | 15 November, 2009

Global warming: a multi-step process to deal with a one-step problem

Looks like the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change is going to inspire a xxxxxxx Conference on Climate Change — the blank to be filled in at a later date.

This ‘two step solution’ to dealing with the rather urgent matter of global warming was apparent arrived at this morning in a breakfast meeting between US President Obama and Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, host of the up-coming iteration of the string of do-little show-cases, or, at least, show-cases that ended up in nothing being done by those who matter most.

The defeatist premise was, according to Time, this:

it is unlikely that negotiators can achieve a binding accord to limit climate change at an international conference next month, and should instead focus on a more limited agreement.

Under his plan, negotiators in Copenhagen would try to reach a political agreement on attacking climate change as a prelude to a later legally binding accord

A senior Obama administration official who attended the meeting said, “There was broad consensus of support by the leaders” for Rasmussen’s proposal. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

The Danish prime minister’s idea, which he has touted before, reflects a hard-eyed calculation that talks in Copenhagen will founder without an alternative approach.

Wasn’t reaching ‘a political agreement on attacking climate change as a prelude to a later legally binding accord’ the point of the conference before Kyoto?

Of course, one may ask why would a future meeting hold any more promise than this one? It’s not that anything has changed — not that the worsening conditions that inspired the need to act in the first place.

Any one government tends to be sclerotic, put a few of them together and they inevitably reach a vegetative state.

The NY Time explains:

“The agreement on Sunday codifies what negotiators had already accepted as all but inevitable: that representatives of the 192 nations in the talks would not resolve the outstanding issues in time. The gulf between rich and poor countries, and even among the wealthiest nations, was just too wide.”

‘Would not resolve the outstanding issues in time.’ That’s a lot like the sign over the bar saying ‘Free drinks tomorrow.’


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: