The Copenhagen Diagnosis

Blank

Do you think our little Mr Key will go there and will he let greenpeace pay for his ticket?

Diaz wrote: More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-95% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/

This is simply not achievable. Unless there is an extraordinary expansion in the use of nuclear power. And that means fusion not fission. Vehicles would have to be primarily powered by electricity or hydrogen and perhaps a combination of both. Large ships would require nuclear power plants.

As for aircraft, bio-fuels are the only solution, and we'd have to accept the carbon therefrom.

It is totally unrealistic to expect that the developing World would settle for lower living standards than the rest of us. And somehow, population levels have to be stabilised.

It is probably more realistic to put most of the effort, and research, into learning to live with the reality of rising sea levels and temperatures. We don't have the resources, never mind the will, to turn the clock back.

New technologies will have to be developed. My dream is they will come from a combined Planet-wide effort to reach for the stars. And for that, it would be counter-productive for Nation States to waste resources duplicating each other in some weird space-arms-race. Not to mention dangerous.

Maybe it is time for the United Nations to grow up. There is nothing inherently flawed about the concept of a World Government. In fact, it is a natural progression.

The trouble with all this doom-mongering, is of course, that it is taking on the appearance of a religious crusade, not science. Scientists have been wrong before, they'll be wrong again. They can't seem to help becoming blinkered.

Wizz wrote:Do you think our little Mr Key will go there and will he let greenpeace pay for his ticket?

Mr FlipFlop has already decided to go after he heard that Obama will be there.

canterella wrote:

Wizz wrote:Do you think our little Mr Key will go there and will he let greenpeace pay for his ticket?

Mr FlipFlop has already decided to go after he heard that Obama will be there.

I believe he said he is not attending unless there is a legally binding document on the table. Has this occurred, or has he changed his mind?

I've heard it yesterday on radio, it was unofficial. But there you go, from the TV 3website:

Prime Minister John Key has had a sudden change of climate, and he is probably going to the Copenhagen conference after all.

Just days ago he said it was a 5 percent chance - now his staff are running around making the arrangements.

also @ http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/key-expected-attend-copenhagen-conference-3221405

What will the next flip-flop be I wonder?

I heard that there isn't enough uranium and/or other nuclear power fuels to last the world for more than 50 years I don't know where I heard it though...


Also: Copenhagen treaty sounds worse and worse each time I hear about it.

canterella wrote:I've heard it yesterday on radio, it was unofficial. But there you go, from the TV 3website:

Prime Minister John Key has had a sudden change of climate, and he is probably going to the Copenhagen conference after all.

Just days ago he said it was a 5 percent chance - now his staff are running around making the arrangements.

also @ http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/key-expected-attend-copenhagen-conference-3221405

What will the next flip-flop be I wonder?

taxes

Blank

Further to Diaz's reply to Lynz ...

I see several problems with resigning ourselves to just learning to live with climate change.

* So what if the earth has gone through warmer cycles before this - few would dispute it did not do so with anything like the current global population.

* There may be no person or organisation who is fully aware of the extent of possible changes. In the last week, I heard for the only time about the possibility of mountain snow and ice melts destroying major water sources for India/Asia. That's huge! There may be similar things that haven't even been thought of yet.

* Even with fantastic new technologies, we live on a planet with very finite resources. And solutions to specific problems often create new problems themselves. An example in a different field is the impact on the capacity to grow food when biofuels are given priority (not to mention the oil needed to manufacture and transport the biofuels).

* Climate change is just one of myriad problems caused (at least in part) by our over-consumption, which is the root cause of many problems. Without addressing our habits of greed, all the technology in the world will not fix enough. Saying it is too late to slow down or reverse changes makes people feel justified in continuing their self-centred lifestyles.