Copenhagen Summit, America, And China

Copenhagen Summit Roundup – Part 2

Published Date: Dec 26, 2009

The landmark United Nations summit on climate change that took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, earlier this month is still causing conversation and debate.  Much of this debate was around the conflict between two major players; the United States of America and China.  In a nutshell, the discussion centered around the two countries with the highest per-capita carbon emissions on the planet.  At the core of the debate was the insistence that all countries submit to outside verification, or external monitoring, total emissions.  Still, China is hesitating over this part of the agreement.

What led up to this part of the summit?  Many blame the fact that the United States, up until this summit, had universally rejected many of the climate change accords that had been previously negotiated (at the Kyoto agreements, for example).  Despite the changing attitude toward the United States, in general, toward a more open approach, there is still a bit of ‘bully’ mentality perspective; for example, surveys taken world wide have indicated a more positive view of U.S. Politics and world stance.  But, even so, the U.S. tends to come across as an overbearing force by telling other countries, new to the worldwide power stage (aka China) what to do.

This, of course, set up some interesting discussions.  It can be argued that China has, in some way, surpassed the United States in an economic sense.  China’s economy has been growing, while the United States economy is still in recovery from what some describe as a light depression.  Considered a ‘developing’ country by some standards, China argues that in order to sustain their economic growth and position, they must be given some flexibility when it comes to emissions.  The United States, long the biggest user (per capita) of natural resources, is in no position (paraphrases China) to dictate a reduction in emissions.

In the end, the United States made a situation during the Copenhagen summit that forced China’s hand.  It was, some say, a strategic move by the U.S.  And, others say that it is a bit of manipulation.  Either way, the result was that the U.S. would contribute more than $100 billion to poor countries, via an international fund.  But, there was a catch (here’s where the manipulation might have been involved) in that any major countries signing onto this assistance would be required to to commit to a reduction in carbon emissions by signing a binding agreement and submit to verification by external means or so-called ‘transparent verification.’

The assistance ‘catch’ specifically mentioned “all major nations,” and all who were involved in the discussions, and close observers knew that “all major nations” really meant China.  From the beginning of the summit, China steadfastly refused ‘transparent verification,’ and so this deal was a way to put to rest some of China’s stubbornness on this part of the agreement.  Nevertheless, the end result was what most saw as an important facet to the entire Copenhagen summit.

But, there’s some bad news.  Reports are that China is quite angry over having been ‘forced’ into this particular agreement.  Some Chinese officials made statements that these demands were, in fact, an ‘insult’ to China and might even be considered a violation of China’s sovereignty and national security interests. Another report states that China, more or less, snubbed bilateral discussions that had been previously arranged with President Barack Obama. 

Only time will tell if China and the United States will be able to find some common ground on the talks that started at the Copenhagen summit.  Needless to say, decades may pass before we know the ultimate result of these accords; both environmentally and politically.

To streamline and minimize blog maintenance, I will be discontinuing maintaining the Thegreenlivingblog.com website (however, I will still hold the domain). I will gradually move all articles from this site to A Dawn Journal. This article originally published on the above website on Dec 26, 2009.

Copenhagen Summit – Only The Beginning

Copenhagen Summit Roundup – Part 1

Published Date: Dec 22, 2009

Dubbed the largest environmental meeting in the world, the United Nations Climate Summit that took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, from December 7 thru December 18, 2009.  With almost 200 (192, to be specific) nations from around the globe gathering to discuss possible solutions to the state of our environment, the summit has been getting intense attention since its opening ceremonies, and will surely be examined as the years go by.

The main issues that the climate summit tackled were related specifically to reduce carbon emissions, believed by the vast majority of environmental scientists to be a major contributor to negative changes that we’re seeing in today’s climate, due to human-kinds activity and use (and/or abuse) of natural resources.

The challenge is finding consensus between the 192 countries related not only to the definition of the issue at hand, but the possible solutions, and (more complex) each nations’ role in the solution.  Finally, the summit had to agree on the verbiage of the agreement – this is where much of the debate occurs as all of the countries involved in the summit had to come to a mutual understanding, and stated in a way where they could all agree.

Key challenges also included core issues; carbon emissions, of course, being the main core issue.  Other core topics included the developing worlds’ use of carbon emitting resources, how might a global industrial system operate when considering a reduction of carbon emissions, and deforestation, especially in the rain forest regions of South and Central America.

Trying to agree on any one of these points would be difficult, so you can imagine how heated some of the debate might have gotten when factoring all of these highly complex topics.  Most of the critical debate came from the hardship of finding common ground between developing countries (China, for example) who have quickly growing economies, and are, as a consequence, emitting extremely high levels of carbon-based particles into the environment.  At the same time, there are so-called developed countries (the United States of America), for example, who argue that developing countries must curb their carbon emissions, while (at the same time) some developed countries (and the United States is an example of this) emit high carbon emissions per capita.  Therefore, must of the discussion resembles a finger-pointing type of scenario. 

Ultimately, the summit did result in a lengthy written agreement – critics state that the accord does not go far enough.  Basically, the agreement was to work toward reducing carbon emissions allowing each country to set their own so-called ‘green-house gas’ reduction goals for 2020.  In addition to the goal to reduce emissions, other parts of the agreement state, essentially, that an emissions verification (for accountability purposes) system will be setup, and that deforestation (the stripping of trees in fragile ecosystems like the rain forests in Central and South America) will also be reduced.

Although some may be disappointed by the, let’s be honest, highly limited reach of the summit agreement, the good news might be that the problem of global climate change was recognized as scientifically valid, and deemed an extremely important priority for public health.  In addition, another positive outcome was that all countries agreed that global warming should be limited to 2 (celcius).  Additional talks and actions will follow, and this summit was really only the beginning of a world-wide look at this global issue.

To streamline and minimize blog maintenance, I will be discontinuing maintaining the Thegreenlivingblog.com website (however, I will still hold the domain). I will gradually move all articles from this site to A Dawn Journal. This article originally published on the above website on Dec 22, 2009.

Copenhagen Negotiations Creating a Stir

Negotiation Focus on U.S. Possible

First Published Date: Nov 19, 2009

Obama trumps the pack as the House passes the Cap and Tap Bill, leading into the Copenhagen Negotiations. Under heavy fire from the U.S. citizens as they stand divided against or with the new bill is still an enormous volleying game. President Obama took this Bill as a proof positive to lead the Negotiations that the U.S is serious about stopping their damaging greenhouse emissions by capping the amount certain companies and industries can produce in a given period. In the future years, this cap will lower on a basic percentage until they are safely under the damage control level of concern.

By bringing this Bill into the negotiations, Obama hopes this will ensure U.S. dedication and aid in developing countries to make the decisions to join in the efforts as well. Does Obama plan to back the heavy requests by the developing countries or add this Bill as the top offer and non-negotiable? That is where the negotiations could hamstring. It is perceived that the Bill will represent the top offer to appease these developing countries, in reference to ask what they have done on their own to help the present circumstance clouding our future progress as a unified global economy.

The many debates regarding the Bill will filter into the negotiations and will plausibly be the turning key in these talks. There are several flaws rumored to be found in the Bill and these flaws will be the main propaganda used against the U.S. As one of the leading polluters in the world, it is believed that the U.S is simply not doing enough. The Bill, it seems, keeps companies with revenue to by the rights to produce green house pollutants, and if they exceed their limit, they buy more. This can create extreme energy costs for consumers and further kill the economy as well as let the powerhouse industries keep polluting while they overshadow and buy out smaller companies by purchasing their energy pollutant tickets.

The upside is that if the government can legitimately mandate this program it could be successful. However, the faith and trust in the U.S. from other countries will prove as to if this Bill is the answer. The percentage of those aware of the Bill believe it is an underhand ploy to maintain confidence that the U.S. is serious in expunging green house emissions but at a profit. If everything leading to the negotiations remains focused on big business, and monetary gains or losses the focus is going in the wrong direction.

It is also assumed that Negotiations will focus strongly on the fact that we as a global environment need to change our energy resources dramatically, which can also boost the economy of several countries and create a magnitude of employment opportunities. Developing countries will still need aid from the U.S., China, and Russia as well as other powerhouse countries to comply with these demands, the same demands they faced at Kyoto. The same demands that have never been negotiated will hang heavy as talks begin.

Will there be a concern that we as a global community need to aid our fellow brothers and sisters, at every cost to ensure our children will have a future? Who will be the first to point fingers? What arguments will ensue and what type of damage control tactics are in place. There are so many variables it is unclear as to whether everyone is ready to reach a negotiable resolve. As the populations around the world watch their governments prepare there is a since of apprehension, and uncertainty. One can only hope as a populous the best concerns for health and the well-being of people and planet will be addressed, as wealth and competitive gains are not mandating the outcomes. It is important to remain on an economic incline, but the costs to humankind must be highly regarded and evaluated safely.

Let us hope for once that our governments are working in our best interests.

To streamline and minimize blog maintenance, I will be discontinuing maintaining the Thegreenlivingblog.com website (however, I will still hold the domain). I will gradually move all articles from this site to A Dawn Journal. This article originally published on the above website on Nov 19, 2009

Copenhagen Summit – The Blame Game

Copenhagen Summit Roundup – Part 4

First Published Date: Jan 1, 2010

Early into the United Nations Copenhagen Summit, fears were in place that the conference would not be able to come up with a unified agreement as originally hoped.  All around the world, leading climatologists (and even some politicians chimed in) led the discussion that this particular climate summit was our ‘last chance’ to turn things around; that is, our final opportunity for the world community to form real agreements that would reverse, and ultimately eliminate the public health and environmental threat caused by harmful carbon emissions.

Some blame China for what is seen as the failure of the summit.  Despite the fact that an accord was adopted, China is seen as a villain for causing so much distress because of their refusal (until, some say, forced by the hand of the United States, and more specifically President Barack Obama) to submit to a transparent process for monitoring progress toward emissions reductions.  Some blamed the United States for, as usual as these critics charge, pushing smaller, less affluent countries around.  Still others blame ‘smaller’ players like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nicaragua for threatening to veto the accord, in part out of protest for the forced hand of big, rich players like the United States.  However, a new, more nefarious ‘enemy’ to the accords has recently been identified, and it might surprise some to know that that ‘villain’ is Denmark, herself. 

Did the host country ruin the Copenhagen Summit?  Critics charge that the host government, who convened a unilateral meeting of 26 hand-picked (by Denmark’s Prime Minister,  Lars Lokke Rasmussen) that would threaten the strength of a document drafted multilaterally by all of the attending nations.  In fact, other world leaders ‘warned’ Rasmussen to not convene such a unilaterally motivated meeting of the minds, as it would undermine any document or accord that would be presented as a result of pain inducing discussions involving more than 190 countries throughout the two week summit, and, actually for the last four years of climate change discussions between the participating countries. 

Despite the warnings and admonishments from other participating government, the Danish government did indeed produce and present a document that seemed to explicitly conflict, at times, with the multilateral and democratically negotiated accord where 193 countries had collectively been involved in coming to an agreement on the many-faceted climate deal. 

Especially since these unsanctioned meeting occurred during the last days of the Copenhagen Summit, the move by Denmark is seen as a way for the host country to bring attention to itself as a solution finder, and more for public image and relations than trying to contribute to a true and lasting accord.

What the long-term effects of Denmark’s move will be are up in the air.  As the host country, their move has been seen as some as a showcasing of the host country’s government.  Still others fear that this move will cause irreparable harm to the ongoing discussions that will continue for the next few years, as the world (it is hoped) community comes to some sort of agreement on how to reduce harmful carbon emissions.

To streamline and minimize blog maintenance, I will be discontinuing maintaining the Thegreenlivingblog.com website (however, I will still hold the domain). I will gradually move all articles from this site to A Dawn Journal. This article originally published on the above website on Jan 1, 2010.

Great Fears Expressed In One Day Global Warming Summit

China has The Most Impressive Carbon Emissions Reduction

First Published Date: Dec 6, 2009

It may appear that finally leaders of the world’s strongest nations are waking up to the reality that something needs to be done if we are to save the planet that we all call home. The days of lone ranger tactics are now gone and we must pull together as the human family of destroy the planet through our bad practices. The 1997 Kyoto protocol has come back to haunt us and there efforts to strengthen it or may be replace it with a better alternative. At a recent summit it emerged that countries such as US and China are gearing up towards drawing some ambitious programs that may be forerunners of what to expect in the climate summit to take place in Copenhagen in December 2009

The American president, who was also in attendance, took note that his country is leaving no stone unturned as it looks for an internal solution through the congress, which is battling to pass a new energy and climate bill which will go a long way in working out measures that could see a drastic reduction of the emission of green house gases. It may appear that finally the chickens have come home to roost and everyone is determined to play their honest role in this great undertaking.

During the one day conference it emerged that the greatest contributors to the problem are actually fast developing countries with the highest economic rate, chief of which are the two Asian giants of China and India, who jointly need to pull up their socks and encourage some green development because they seem to be catching up fast with the developed nations in contributing to the problem of global warming. The good news is that the Chinese president himself assured the participants of his county’s determination to work out their own domestic solution to the global problem, especially in trying to reduce the carbon intensity produced by his country’s economic activity.

China has emerged to be one of the countries with the most impressive records in reduction of carbon emissions in the last five years, having reduced her intensity by a whole 20% and things look like they are going to be much better. This is according to the vice president for climate and energy at the UN foundation in Washington, Reid Detchon. The US president now wants focus to be directed towards least developed nations who suffer the greatest consequences of global warming and yet are least prepared to face the challenges that obviously facing them. He believes a lot more financial help is in order so that these nations at least get equipped.

As nations prepare to go to Copenhagen at the end of the year it is the desire of the UN secretary general to see fresh ideas brought into the up coming summit because this summit taking place in Paris in June this year did not go as far as it would have been possible. One would hope that all the other forums that will be taking place in preparation for the Copenhagen meet will do substantial groundwork so that every country does its share in order to save our planet.

To streamline and minimize blog maintenance, I will be discontinuing maintaining the Thegreenlivingblog.com website (however, I will still hold the domain). I will gradually move all articles from this site to A Dawn Journal. This article originally published on the above website on Dec 6, 2009.