World events

I saw some footage of the devastation over there. Sad.

Is anyone following the Copenhague Summit? Do you care? Is it important or just bwabble?

I live in Copenhagen, so all the activities are kinda cool. But I don't follow it that much. My brother and his gf was at a demonstration today. I didn't want to join as I couldn't see the point. Also seemed a bit too ironic for my taste to go and protest global warming when it's freezing outside.

Peter

There's no moral problem? Rather China and India are in the most enviable position that they could learn from our mistakes...but guess what? They don't want to! Nor do the ex-Soviet republics, the whole of Africa, Japan and the Middle East.

That's what is the crucial annoyance to me.
It really doesn't matter what anyone comes up with: there is no, and never will be, any global agreement on the issue!.

Therefore all these talks are a complete and utter waste of effort.
We're throwing good money after bad, and yet feel better about ourselves because we see our own opinions and prejudices confirmed, depending on whose "expert opinion" we listen to during the evening news.

There is *only one* solution*), and that is a singular focus with nigh limitless resources on alternative or renewable sources of energy. Anything else is just talk.

*) Even if you don't buy into the Climate Apocalypse Now hype, even then most of our current energy resources are finite.

Wow. Martijn. Nice.

I was rather hopeful (as a naive person) for this summit, because it appeared a one time chance to work together to present a better organisation for the issue, but I've now left that thought fare. I was always in the understaning that (even when it is one hype or conspiracy, I doubt it though) doing nothing would be much worse investing in alternative energy sources and whatnot. But they're not even trying anymore. Just numbers (one kazillion favillion dollars), percentages (nagging vice (aka Europe): "And if you don't do it, then I don't either. Nah!")), and trying to be "the best in the class" or the most daring one. The fact that the USA talks about 4% is even silly.

Not in the draft statement.
That's just about reducing CO2 levels.
It's all about repressive action, rather than constructive action (which [cynical mode engaged] of course would be much more expensive!).



Let's not mince words: if it's not enforcable, it's worthless.
Sure, I'm convinced The Netherlands and Denmark will be most cooperative (and some more Western European countries with a comparatively high standard of living), but unless we get the ex-Soviets, Japan and incredibly rapidly upcoming industrial powerhouses China and India on board on a binding agreement, nothing will change.

...Note that I leave the US out of the equation for now.
That's because I greatly fear that aside from the countries and impediments I mentioned already, the US will prove the biggest obstacle, politically and actively (as they have been in the last fifty years: they talk a great deal, there's considerable political goodwill, there's a tremendous amount of good scientific data they provide, but at the end of the day their industry and cost of living will always win out when there's hard decisions to be made.
Of course things might be different now -there is a strong push towards environmentalism...but then I seem to remember that from Carter and Clinton as well, without much effect in the long run.
Let's face it: the US' history on climate control and energy efficiency has been...well...less than exemplary so far.)

Let's make a mass dinner out of them!

That's ALL of them!

Cannibals eh?

Oh yeah. Driving me CRAZY!



But that's what irks me. Rather than a PR-powered circle-jerk with unenforcable treaties that mean diddleysquat to the actual problem, how much wetter could any politician's dream have gotten by focusing on just as lofty, but actually meaningful targets?

What we have now is a half-hearted attempt towards negative regulation ("DIMINISH! STOP! LOWER!").
Just ONE country trying for a positive regulation ("MAKE! FIND! ENABLE!") would have made ALL the difference.
It's as if our eyes en masse are off the ball: we're NOT trying to regulate CO2 emissions, we're trying to make sure the planet is inhabitable for a couple of million years longer!
Human influence on CO2 MAY (or MAY NOT) be a PAR of that.

Prepare yourself of THE biggest and most important piece of news you'll ever read this year:

HERE IT IS!!! OMGZZ!!11!!!


This was actually on the BBC newsfeed. THE BBC NEWSFEED!
I mean... for christ sake.

yay

Is that a good thing, or what is it now? I always thought it was a good thing, but apparently there's so much resistance?

Man, that Haiti situation is some crazy shit.

I can't help but to think how unfair this world is when the poorest of the poorest are always the ones struck by the worst disasters of this world.

As if that wasn't bad enough there are maniacs with machetes running around stealing food and water and looting.