Copenhagen Accord Update

|

Copenhagen Accord image

Under the Copenhagen Accord hammered out at the last minute at the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, nations that accept the accord were supposed to submit their pledges to cut or limit their greenhouse emissions by January 31. According to the UNFCCC press release 55 countries accounting for around 78 percent of emissions have made some sort of submissions. The press release offers this bit of cheerleading:

?This represents an important invigoration of the UN climate change talks under the two tracks of Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol,? said Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC.

?The commitment to confront climate change at the highest level is beyond doubt. These pledges have been formally communicated to the UNFCCC. Greater ambition is required to meet the scale of the challenge. But I see these pledges as clear signals of willingness to move negotiations towards a successful conclusion,? he said.

Invigoration? Perhaps, but most of the reduction or limitation pledges are conditional. For example, among the industrialized nations Australia unconditionally agrees to reduce its emissions by 5 percent below its 2000 levels by 2020, but will agree to go to a 25 percent cut only "if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal capable of stabilising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 ppm CO2-equivalent or lower." Similarly, the European Union commits to a 20 percent reduction in its emissions below 1990 levels by 2020 and will agree to a 30 percent cut "provided that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and that developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities." Japan will commit to cutting its emissions by 25 percent below its 1990 levels by 2020 "premised on the establishment of a fair and effective international framework in which all major economies participate and on agreement by those economies on ambitious targets." Russia pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent below its 1990 levels by 2020. Currently, due to its post-Soviet industrial collapse Russian emissions are about 34 percent below 1990s levels. And the United States has agreed to cut its emissions by 17 percent below its 2005 levels if the Obama administration can get Congress to go along with the proposal.

Developing countries, including big emitters such as China, Brazil, South Africa, and India submitted their voluntary emissions control pledges. For example, China "will endeavor" to cut its carbon intensity (the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per dollar of GDP) by 40 to 45 percent by 2020. Under that scenario China's actual emissions could almost double. Similarly, India promises to "endeavour to reduce the emissions intensity of its GOP by 20-25 percent  by 2020 in comparison to the 2005 level." South Africa promises to take action to reduce its emissions 34 percent below the business-as-usual projection, noting that "the extent to which this action will be implemented depends on the provision of financial resources, the transfer of technology and capacity building support from developed countries." South Africa adds that this aid from developed countries depends on finalizing an ambitious treaty when COP-16 meets in Mexico this coming December.

So what's next? Reuters reports:

South Korea's climate change ambassador Raekwon Chung said that U.S. legislation was now vital.

"Every other country in the world is watching the U.S. … If (U.S. climate change legislation) does not happen this year, what will be the impact on the negotiations? I think the impact would be quite serious," he said.

However, it is hard to see how Congress can be persuaded to pass legislation cutting U.S. greenhouse emissions if China and other developing nations will not agree to international auditing of their greenhouse gas control pledges.

NEXT: The Obligatory Oscar Nominees for 2010 Post

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Every other country in the world is watching the U.S. … If (U.S. climate change legislation) does not happen this year, what will be the impact on the negotiations? I think the impact would be quite serious,” he said.

    Ain’t
    Gonna
    Happen

  2. Eveyone waiting to see if the US is going to join in the global game of economic russian roulette.

  3. The global warmng mania has reached its high water mark. No one was going to destroy their own economies for it even if it was true. Now with the climate gate e-mails and the various scandals involving the IPCC report and the global temerature data, there is enough doubt that no one is going to do anything. It is slowly going to start to fade away. Each year that goes by and nothing is done and there are no catastrophes, the movement gets less and less relevent. It is just a matter of time before leftists give up and put their energies behind a new justification to control people’s lives. In the mean time, douschbags like Ed Begley will continue to live bizzare lifestyles and crooks like Al Gore will continue to make money off of the idea, but their potential to do real long term harm is starting to dicipate.

    1. Have to agree with John here. Like the “global famine” douchebags in the 70s, this will just fade away quietly and all the morons who bought into it will just not mention it any more.

      1. So, tell me, Episiarch, did you know that John was recently wandering around your neighborhood, catching thrown salmon?

        1. No. He should have emailed me.

          1. Hey, I wonder if he’s still there? Yes, an Episiarch-John summit could yet be possible.

          2. I’ve often thought that it’s too bad we’re all so scattered across the country. That would be one helluva poker night.

            1. Agreed. I’m actually fairly pleasant in person.

              1. I first read that as “fairly peasant” in person.

          3. I am still in Tacoma until Friday. I have actually met another poster on here figuring that if I ever did they other poster would show up with a ballbat and bad intent.

            1. Man, this so has a SugarFree Penthouse Forum moment in it. John, Episiarch, the Lucky Lady, four women, and two luck salmon. Wild salmon, of course.

              1. ProL, your salmon fetish is both disturbing and fascinating. Speaking of euphemisms, “smoking the salmon” has some local charm and is actually quite descriptive.

                1. It’s not my fetish. I’m just anticipating SF’s move into something unexpectedly shocking, yet topical and germane.

                  1. Salmon porn is so 2006, dude. Sea urchin slash-fic is where it’s at.

                    1. I stand corrected. It’s the Lusty Lady, too, just to highlight another of my increasingly disturbing errors.

                    2. And that was “lucky” salmon, not “luck” salmon. I must’ve taken some damage when I tried to survive that 35,000-foot fall.

                2. It is very disturbing. And for the record it is the “Lusty Lady” and they have a sign on the door saying “no smoked salmon on the premises”. The owners wouldn’t explain why. They said it involved an ugly incident a few years ago with some guy with a funny latin name. They wouldn’t tell me anymore.

                  1. Oh, right. Lusty. It’s been quite a while since I’ve been to Seattle. All I remember are the guys throwing fish.

              2. Copper River Salmon?

            2. Weekends are the only free time I have, unfortunately. You missed the window, dude!

        2. Is that a euphemism for something ProL?

          1. Nah, it’s just Seattle talk. I don’t think John or Episiarch euphemize much.

            There is a significant Seattle contingent hereabouts. I even “lived” there for six weeks while working on a project for a bank that no longer exists. And no, my project didn’t cause its utter ruin and damnation. They didn’t need my help for that.

          2. The douchebags at the fish counters at Pike Place Market like to throw the fish around, quite literally. It’s just gimmickry for the turistas.

            1. What’s insane is how famous that is and for how long. BFD, right? I mean, I can throw fish myself, with practically no training at all.

              I like the whole market, though. There are some cool stores.

              1. It’s all overpriced and touristy. If you could get good prices that would be one thing. Also, it closes at six. WTF? What good does that do me?

                That being said the broccoli rabe there is actually a dollar cheaper than at the grocery store or Whole Foods. But it’s still $4 per bunch.

                1. I haven’t been there in a while, but I would only shop for something I can’t find in Poulsbo. Do you know if they have/had haddock?

                  1. Probably, but I don’t generally buy fish there considering how expensive it is.

                    I’ve seen Haddock at Metropolitan and Whole Foods, I think.

                    1. Central Market has a decent fish counter. I should check there too. Probably more expensive than Pike, though.

                    2. I thought Central Market was only a Texas thing. The one owned by HEB?

                    3. Hmm, don’t know. There are three in WA state that I know of.

                      This is the one I go to:

                      http://poulsbo.central-market.com/newSite/poulsbo/home.php

            2. Isn’t that like mockery of the fish’s predicament. I’m calling PETA on this one!

              1. Isn’t that like mockery of the fish’s sea kitten’s predicament.

              2. PETA? What are they going to do, send some naked models to protest?

            3. Yeah, I know, I’ve seen the videos on the Travel Channel. Or was that the Fish Monger Channel?

            4. What’s crazy is that they ship the fish to Japan overnight. As if Japan didn’t have some of the nicest fish markets in the world already, like Tsukiji.

      2. I hope it doesn’t just fade away. Al Gore has gotten rich selling his snake oil. I’m waiting for one of his big contributors to either get mad at being defrauded or to see an economic opportunity and file a lawsuit to recover some scratch and maybe make a few extra bucks. I would love to see subpoenas flying around for everything from memos for funding raising strategies to rough drafts for Gore’s movie.

        1. … er, that is, rough drafts of the script for Gore’s movie.

    2. Here’s an interesting article about how trees are getting bigger due to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

      Unfortunately, they won’t be able to suck it all up. But maybe continuing to stick your head in the sand will do the trick?

      1. Unfortunately, they won’t be able to suck it all up.

        I’m going to avoid the obvious zinger here…

        As the trees get bigger they sequester less carbon, becuase they don’t need it. So the thing to do it cut them down. Chew on that for a minute. While you do that, I’m going to use more wood in construction in place of steel and concrete, which are big carbon emitters during their production. Using that wood will increase demand for it. What to do? Plant more trees. And young trees sequester carbon faster than old ones. See? We don’t need overlords telling us to live like cavemen.

        1. We don’t need overlords telling us to live like cavemen.

          Apparently you need them to tell you what to think and say, though.

          Seriously, you can’t just repeat this ridiculous nonsense Glenn Beck hyperbole without evidence forever. Liberals didn’t invent global warming so they could enact their nefarious scheme to revert your lifestyle back to the stone age. The per capita costs will be quite minimal compared to the alternative of continuing to dump CO2 into the atmosphere.

          1. Seriously, you can’t just repeat this ridiculous nonsense Glenn Beck hyperbole without evidence forever.

            Actually, that nonsense is from one of the founders of Greenpeace. The stuff about the trees, that is. My last sentence is hyperbole, perhaps, but I needed a strong finish. How’d I do?

            1. I wasn’t talking about that nonsense, though it’s interesting to think about. We could cut down all the trees and replace them. Or we could build a giant mirror in space. Or we could just tax CO2 emissions.

              Solid finish, it’s hard to think of bigger exaggerations than “overlords” and “live like cavemen,” but I’m sure John could come up with something.

              1. Although bonus points could have been had with a reference to anal rape.

                1. We could cut down all the trees and replace them. Or we could build a giant mirror in space. Or we could just tax CO2 emissions.

                  I guess it depends on how much of a problem you think it is, and how effective those solutions would be at attacking the problem. Since you talk about cutting down ALL the trees, I can see you don’t take that seriously as an idea. Meanwhile, no one has shown that taxing CO2 would have any noticable effect on global temps.

                  1. I’m for anything that helps, I just don’t get why you’d be in favor of the least tenable solutions before considering the simplest ones (unless, of course, your main motivation is maintaining the profits of the oil and coal industries. I don’t think you’re paid by CATO so that can’t be it.)

                    If the goal is significantly reducing CO2 emissions then the simplest way to do it is set up an incentive scheme that makes it cheaper to use clean energy than energy that emits CO2. Nobody’s freedom or precious bodily fluids have to be violated by simply changing the subsidies around so that they stop rewarding CO2 emissions.

                    1. I just don’t get why you’d be in favor of the least tenable solutions before considering the simplest ones

                      “Use More Wood” is about as simple as it gets, dude. And it doesn’t involve driving up energy prices for everyone, wealthy and poor.

                      If the goal is significantly reducing CO2 emissions

                      I thought the goal was reducing global temperatures.

                    2. I haven’t read about this specific proposal but I doubt it will be adequate alone to address the issue.

                      I thought the goal was reducing global temperatures.

                      The goal is to prevent global temperatures from increasing beyond a certain point. Actually reducing it will take a very long time, and we have to start with reducing CO2 emissions that are causing the increase.

                    3. I think we’re at an impasse then on how urgent this problem is. I personally see other things which are more of a priority. Sorry.

                    4. Silly me. I thought preventing an increase in global temperatures was just the stated goal.

                    5. I thought preventing an increase in global temperatures was just the stated goal.

                      Since there is little to no evidence that reducing carbon emissions will lead to a reduction in global temps, I would say there’s a big disconnect between those two goals. And anyway, fuck you.

                    6. And anyway, fuck you.

                      No need for hostility, sage. I was obliquely pointing out that the stated goals of the alarmists may not be their actual goals. A pet peeve of mine is that the “Media” (not that you are the “Media”) mindlessly repeats rhetoric as if rhetoric represents actual intent. How many times have pundits said things like, “Obama moved to the right” in his SOTU speech? How many times have they said things like, “A bill was introduced in the Senate today designed to reduce childhood obesity.” The alleged solutions offered to the climate “crisis” always seem suspiciously like collectivist schemes to me. Don’t they to you?

          2. “Liberals didn’t invent global warming so they could enact their nefarious scheme to revert your lifestyle back to the stone age.”

            Of course not. They invented global warming because, unlike other pollutants, carbon dioxide is ubiquitous enough in all aspects of the economy and human activity that requiring or even allowing government to control it would open the doors wide to totalitarianism.

            Since mainstream progressive (and neoconservative) goals are almost always part of a move toward utopian totalitarianism, global warming is one of their most useful myths. People can disagree about welfare or immigration or labor laws or gun control, but carbon control is Science!

            1. Paranoid much?

              Why should anyone listen to what you have to say when everything is a secret totalitarian plot to you? Do you wear foil on your head? You do realize you sound ridiculous, don’t you?

      2. But maybe continuing to stick your head in the sand will do the trick?

        Probably not a good idea to do this around Tony.

  4. Nah, everyone is watching for the US to give them an excuse to back out of their “voluntary commitments.”

    1. But it was always thus. Even under Bush. Oh well.

    2. Or for us to torpedo ourselves and then move in for the kill, so to speak.

  5. Ah yes, the old Mexican standoff….

  6. Where is MNG to yell “Piltdown Man!!!”?

    1. I haven’t seen him in a while. I wonder if he has gone Joe Boyle sans the rant about racisim. I think things are getting so bad for liberals, even MNG isn’t up to defending it anymore.

      1. We’ve still got Tony, the male nipple of progressive posters.

      2. Maybe he committed suicide after Scott Brown got elected.

        1. Them my $25 donation is the best money I ever spent.

  7. Save us, America!

  8. I would almost go for all this crap if we had a climate change ambassador named Raekwon Chung.

    1. Rae Dawn Chong?

      1. No way. She got this whole problem started, discovering fire and everything.

      2. no, she should be drug czarina.

  9. Bailey’s just shilling for Big Emissions.

  10. Math Problems: 61 percent of Obama’s deficit reductions purely hypothetical

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/02…..othetical/

  11. Although legislation could theoretically be passed with 60 votes in the senate and a majority in the house, at least we have the comfort of knowing that a treaty basically can’t pass (“[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….”)

  12. “The commitment to confront climate change at the highest level is beyond doubt.”

    Ok then, that problem is solved. let’s move on.

  13. ClimateGate intensifies, as notorious decline-hiders Phil Jones and Wei-Chyung Wang deliberately attempted to hide Chinese station issues.

    1. When are these bitches going to jail?

    2. Mike M: Was busy finishing up other stuff today, but I finally got around to blogging this. Thanks for the prompt.

  14. Please watch my video images

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7I_eFoIk64

    It’s about climate change, earth catastrophe and our planet as we lives in.

    Thank you.

  15. As all nations tried to reduce emissions,they look for alternatives but none got the courage to replace the fuel coal that emits 6 billion metric tons of CO2 yearly the primary contributor to climate change so it is a hit and run issue.But there is a practical solution just ABOLISH the usage of the fuel coal for the J P I Fuel have develop an option fuel to replace coal out of waste organic materials a renewable form of energy that can ENERGIZE all of the worlds direct heavy industry and with a neutral CO2 emissions,and the world will be free from climate change.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.