The Toothless Tiger…

“Consensus and Egalitarianism”, are hard to find.

The evening of the final day

Tim Jones climate policy officer from World Development Movement, “This summit has been a complete disarray from start to finish, and now appears to be culminating in a shameful and monumental failure that will condemn millions of people around the world to untold suffering. The leaders of rich countries have refused to lead and instead sought to bribe and bully developing nations to sign up to the equivalent of a death warrant.”

Obama seeks another meeting with China’s representative Wen.

Mid evening

Indian minister for the environment and forests Jairam Ramesh, “We are close to seeing a legally non-binding Copenhagen outcome after 36 hours of gruelling, intensive negotiations.”

Sky News reports a “meaningful agreement” with China, India and South Africa.

A Downing Street official says, “there’s been more movement this evening and we’re hopeful a deal can be done tonight. Final details are still being nailed down but we are now confident we can get the two degree target agreed.” “The time has come to get off the sidelines and shape the future that we seek”
“I believe what we have achieved in Copenhagen will not be the end but the beginning”

As we head into a long night session

Barack Obama, speaks during the plenary session at the Bella centre in Copenhagen on the final day of the COP15 UN climate change conference. Photograph: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

Obama, “Everybody’s taking as aggressive actions as they can.” “The most important thing I think we can do…is to build some trust between the developed and developing countries.” “Getting out of that mindset and moving towards the position where everybody recognises that we all need to move together.” “This is hard within countries, it is going to be even harder between countries”

Obama, “we need to strive for a more binding agreement over time.”

Tim Jones, climate policy officer at the World Development Movement,  “This summit has been in complete disarray from start to finish, culminating in a shameful and monumental failure that has condemned millions of people around the world to untold suffering. The leaders of rich countries have refused to lead. They have failed the poorest people in the world and history will judge them harshly because rich countries are trying to blind us to the fact that they have not offered the emissions cuts that science and justice requires. To say that this deal is in any way historic or meaningful is to completely misrepresent the fact that this deal is devoid of real content. These talks have been darkened by rich countries trying to save face, but not the climate. Rich countries have caused this problem and now they are trying to blame developing countries for stalling the talks because they are standing up to these insulting and outrageous bribes. The very survival of some of these countries depends on the outcomes of these talks but rich countries cannot see beyond the survival of business as usual.”

Obama praises five leaders, Meles (Ethiopia), Wen (China), Singh (India), Lula (Brazil) and Zuma (South Africa). And called the deal on the table “an important milestone” also admitting “This progress is not enough.” “We have come a long way but we have much further to go.” “We must draw on the effort that allowed us to succeed here today.” “We must bridge old divides and build new partnerships.” “The time has come to get off the sidelines and shape the future that we seek.” “I believe what we have achieved in Copenhagen will not be the end but the beginning.”

Obama, most significant is the “shift in orientation” with developing countries voluntarily offering emmision cuts, “That’s what I think will end up being most significant about this accord.”

Asad Rehman, Friends of the Earth’s biofuels campaigner, “I think its a toothless document between 4 countries [It stood] being spun by the US as a success but in reality does the exact opposite.” “We wouldn’t call it a historic step.” “This is a tragedy for the people of the world and for the planet.” “The EU should have played a much more constructive role.”

Kate Horner, Friends of the Earth, “This is the United Nations and the nations here are not united on this secret backroom declaration. The US has lied to the world when they called it a deal and they lied to over a hundred countries when they said would listen to their needs. This toothless declaration, being spun by the US as an historic success, reflects contempt for the multilateral process and we expect more from our Nobel prize winning President.”

Obama, “We know the targets will not by themselves get us where we need to be by 2050 but it’s a first step. The science dictates that even more needs to be done.”

Senior climate change advocacy officer for Christian Aid, Nelson Muffuh, “Already 300,000 people die each year because of the impact of climate change, most of them in the developing world. The lack of ambition shown by rich countries in Copenhagen means that number will grow.”

EU spokeswoman, “A deal is better than no deal. What could be agreed today, falls far below our expectations. But It keeps our goals and ambitions alive. It addresses the needs of developing countries. It was the only deal available in Copenhagen.”

Brazil’s climate change ambassador Sergio Serra, “It’s very disappointing I would say but it is not a failure…if we agree to meet again and deal with the issues that are still pending.”

John Sauven, Executive director Greenpeace UK, “It seems there are too few politicians in this world capable of looking beyond the horizon of their own narrow self-interest, let alone caring much for the millions of people who are facing down the threat of climate change.” “It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen”

John Ashe, Chair of Kyoto Protocol talks, “Given where we started and the expectations for this conference, anything less than a legally binding and agreed outcome falls far short of the mark.”

Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, “The world’s nations have come together and concluded a historic if incomplete agreement to begin tackling global warming.” “President Obama and the rest of the world paid a steep price here in Copenhagen because of obstructionism in the United States Senate.”

John Lanchbery, Birdlife International, “It sounds very vague. There’s no next step, nothing to link through to how to get a final deal done.”

Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, “This deal will definitely result in massive devastation in Africa and small island states. It has the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It’s nothing short of climate change scepticism in action.” “It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush.”

The Morning News

Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries remarked the deal had,  “the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It’s nothing short of climate change scepticism in action. It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush.”

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK,  “The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. Ed Miliband [UK climate change secretary] is among the very few that come out of this summit with any credit.” It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen.”

Lydia Baker of Save the Children about world leaders, “They have effectively signed a death warrant for many of the world’s poorest children. Up to 250,000 children from poor communities could die before the next major meeting in Mexico at the end of next year.”

At the meeting of December the 14th, Sudan’s negotiator, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, summed up the African position, saying, “We shall not participate in any negotiations until the issues of the Kyoto Protocol are discussed…that was one issue. The second issue is who draws up the outcome…We do not want the conference to adopt or present a draft that is not drafted by the parties to the convention. The third issue centres around the process, the transparency and the democratic right of equal participation of all member states who are parties to this convention.”

Climate Summit Ends

Delegates applaud as the Copenhagen accord is adopted after an all-night plenary meeting at the UN Climate Change Conference. Photograph: Reuters

Recognized but not endorsed by 193 countries we are looking at a new global climate change deal described by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon as an “essential” first step

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon emphasized the agreement, now only three pages, must be made legally binding late next year.

The Convention finished at about 11.30am.

Related Posts B

1. Copenhagen, One Step Back…
2. Copenhagen… What A Game Of Dodge Ball…
3. G8 and Climate Change…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Copenhagen Day 1…

The opening ceremony kick-off movie

Opening remarks, and some highlights of day one…

“Climategate” skeptics made some noise….

The make or break issue is clearly “burden sharing“. When sovereignty and the needs of survival find themselves up against it, and facing complications of long term responsibility, who would settle for an artificially created economic caste system. The need to retain sovereignty, and the finances to harmonize all morally must be respected and provided.

Among the more than 15,000 accredited and 20,000 civil participants in Copenhagen to be part of the negotiations of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol are Environment Ministers, activists, heads of state, functionaries, and scientists .

Copenhagen Day 2…

Some highlights from day two of the conference…

The question of  responsibility for climate change among the G77 is paramount.

Disarray over a leaked proposal by Denmark would have the World Bank in charge of climate funds, hand over more power to rich nations, weaken the UN’s role and abandon the binding agreements of the Kyoto protocol.

Developing countries interpret the proposal document to set unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions.

Drafted by “the circle of commitment” including the UK, US, and Denmark the proposal has been shown to a handful of countries.

The document relieves rich nations from their commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, and talks of a range of concomitant actions for poorer developing nations, to qualify for climate change financial assistance.

The document is seen as very dangerous by one diplomat who describes it as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks”.

THE AFTER DEAL…

Not part of the original deal developing countries would be forced to agree to specific emission cuts. Listing some countries in a new category “the most vulnerable”. lt further divides poor developing countries. Climate finance will be less a UN concern and be administrated by the World Bank.  A final untenable outrage, poorer countries can not emit more than 1.44 tones of carbon per person by 2050. The rich 2.67 tones per person.  A good beginning for a climate caste system.

It’s interesting how wealth can make some feel “god like”…

One diplomat said to want to remain nameless claims the documents introduction is the end of the UN process.

Climate policy adviser Antonio Hill,  for Oxfam International, said: “This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed. It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Program] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks.”

Considered inflammatory by sidelining the UN and proposing a new separate working framework for rich countries as yet it’s sketchy at best. When considering the equality of human rights, a clear cause for concern. The concept of “climate induced slavery” comes to mind.

More than the 15,000 participants to the conference, a number closer to 35,000 participants has arrived in Copenhagen to participate in many ways.

Developed nations were criticized for not living up to their historic climate debt. Complaints of lack of transparency were heard. “Climatgate” got blamed on a Russian hacker who informed the Russian Secret Service of his stolen material. Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the vice chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, said theory is Russia would like to see talks fail, wanting global warming to facilitate exploration and development of it’s far north.

Copenhagen Day 3

The Danish Text…

Business of the day for Kenya and other developing countries…

Battle lines drawn…

Questions of the day included responsibility for CO2 emissions, who should pay, how much technology and know-how should be transferred to poorer nations, and is forest protection a viable solution.

Britain, Australia, Mexico, and Norway presented a fund raising proposal for the billions needed to mitigate and adapt to the emerging climate condition. Australia spoke in favor of the 10 billion a year green fund to help poor vulnerable countries. Because of internal strife it’s not quite clear yet where India stands in the negotiations. Britain attacks the “climategate” faction with substantive proof that the first decade of the new millennium is on average the warmest in 160 years.

On a brighter note, the U.S. Environmental Agency’s decided to label CO2 as unhealthy. Presidential powers can now set binding CO2 goals regardless of other levels of government.

Copenhagen Day 4

Kenya’s works at reaching a single minded position…

Suspension of negotiations…

After a highly unusual split within the developing countries assembled, the island state of Tuvalu asked for and got a suspension of climate negotiations to resolve issues behind the scene on Wednesday.

AOSIS Proposal for KP Survival and New en Protocol – Final

Developing countries are split on demands and ask for protocols tougher than Kyoto. Richer nations are opposed to the idea. Developing countries argue for an extension of the Kyoto Protocols to run concurrent with a new tougher legally binding protocol.

China, India, and South Africa felt it would retard their economic growth.

With support from members of AOSIS (Association of Small Island States) Tuvalu called for a “Contact Group” and has been blocked. The conference will not proceed until all parties resolve how to proceed.

Copenhagen Day 5…

Highlights, EU commits 2.4 billion Euros…

Climate in turmoil…

African delegates threaten walkout…

Copenhagen Day 6…

Highlights and First Official Draft of the Proposed Climate Deal…

Copenhagen Day 7…

We are confronted by Winter cold, A lot of discord within the Bella Center, and protests, arrests, and cries for climate justice from the people outside the Bella Center.

Copenhagen Day 8…

Day 8, Highlights Report Alarming Update on Melting Ice…

Copenhagen Day 9…

Highlights, I’ll Be Back…

Connie Hedegaard resigns as president of the Copenhagen climate summit.

Copenhagen Day 10…

Difficult Negotiations in Copenhagen…

Many Christians remember growing up with a Papal edict to eat fish on Friday. It’s now being suggested by some that we abstain from meat one or more days a week to reduce the methane pollution from meat production, now indicated to be a more serious problem than fossil fuel consumption by all modes of transport.

So how is it going?…

Global leaders arriving to sign the climate deal now find they have to shift thinking globally rather than nationally in efforts to salvage agreement.

Copenhagen Day 11…

Heads Of State Arrive To Save The Climate

Copenhagen, The Final Day

The diplomatic words spoken in these huge plenary sessions and behind the closed doors will determine the survival of entire nations and environments on which many more depend. Will this be man’s noblest and finest hour?

Time is running out in Copenhagen…

Time is running out continued…

Many delegates worked into the small hours of the morning to resolve their dead locks. Confidential UN analysis shows that current offers on the table are agreed, global temperatures will rise on average by 3C.

early morning; a German Negotiator “There is still no text for the heads of state to negotiate,” the official told Reuters. “There are no results on anything. We have only several drafts. It’s very, very difficult. Time is running out.” Swedish environment minister Andreas Carlgren “It is now up to world leaders to decide.” Chinese delegate, Li Junhua “It’s a political statement, but it isn’t a lot.” Sudan’s Lumumba Di-Aping, stated the current draft being discussed is “weak”. He added: “There’s nothing ambitious in this text.”

Mid- morning

Senior White House correspondent, Ed Henry, says Obama has ripped up his schedule to try and broker a deal, tweeting that Obama is in negotiations with Australia, UK, Brazil, France, Denmark, Germany, EU, Japan, Bangladesh,Russia, South Africa, India, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, Norway, Colombia, and Ethiopia (representing China).

Filling in for Obama Danish prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, “Today doesn’t mark the end or our work, but the beginning.”

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, “The finishing line is sight, our discussions are bearing fruit.”

Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, “China takes climate change very seriously.” “Our target [for cuts] will be included in our long-term plans.” A promise from Wen, “China will honour its voluntary climate commitments with real action.”

Late morning

Activists outside shave their heads littering the entrance way with hair in protest of the slow call to action from the delegates.

Obama from the floor, “This is not fiction it is science. Unchecked climate change will pose unacceptable risk to security, economy and planet,” “Our ability to take collective action is in doubt.” “We’re running out of time.” “We will do what we say, now its time for the nations of the world to come to a common purpose.” “Our ability to take collective action is in the balance.”

Early Afternoon

Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth, ” The President is right that the endeavours in Copenhagen will go down in history – but unless we see a massive shift in the US position, it will be for all the wrong reasons. If the President’s idea of action is to cut US emissions by 4% on 1990 levels then we’re heading for climate catastrophe. Barack Obama should have taken the opportunity to up his proposed cuts to at least 40% by 2020 and ditch carbon offsetting. Obama has deeply disappointed not just those listening to his speech at the UN talks – he has disappointed the whole world.”

Greenpeace US’s executive director Phil Radford, “The world was waiting for the spirit of yes we can, but all we got was my way or the highway. He [Obama] crossed an ocean to tell the world he has nothing new to offer, then he said take it or leave it. By offering no movement on US global warming pollution cuts he showed his disregard for the science and the victims of climate change in the United States and abroad. He now risks being branded as the man who killed Copenhagen. He said all parties must move, but he offered no movement. He said the decades long split between the rich world and poor needs to end, but his vision of a deal here would give us a 3C temperature rise and devastate Africa and the small island states.”

ActionAid’s climate expert, Raman Mehta, “Obama has said nothing to save the Copenhagen conference from failure. The US is the one major player yet to move. Developing countries have come here to negotiate in good faith but feel they have been cheated and it looks like they will leave empty handed.

The UN has reportedly advised negotiators to extend their stays until Sunday night.

John Vidal referring to the draft text, “Their initial reaction was that it was not only weak on figures and targets, but that it could lead to the collapse of the Kyoto treaty, the only global legal instrument requiring rich countries to cut emissions.”

Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela won’t support the deal currently being “cooked up”. Chávez   leaving in protest at the failure of the talks. “We can’t wait any longer, we are leaving. We will reject any document that Obama tries to slip under the door.”

French president Nicolas Sarkozy, “The discussions lasted all night without interruption. The good news is that they’re continuing, the bad news is they haven’t reached a conclusion.”

China’s Wen Jiabao, “We will honour our words with real action. We commit to meet and even exceed our target.”

Mid-afternoon

It’s official says European Union environment commissioner Stavros Dima, “The secretary-general of the UN has asked people not to leave tonight.” “I cannot imagine 120 leaders going back to their countries with empty hands. Everyone expressed commitment to fight climate change. OK, do it.”

Talk of a new draft to be called the “Copenhagen Accord” emerges. It drops any reference to a deadline of the end of 2010 for a legally binding treaty.

climate campaigner Joss Garman, “This latest draft is so weak as to be meaningless. It’s more like a G8 communique than the legally binding agreement we need. It doesn’t even include a time line to give it legal standing or an explicit temperature target. It’s hard to imagine our leaders will try to present this document to the world and keep a straight face.”

A Third Draft

reinstates targets omitted from earlier ones. It says rich countries should reduce their greenhouse emissions by at least 80% by the year 2050. It adds that developing countries’ emissions should be 15-30% below “business as usual”.

Watch the proceedings live from The Bella Center Copenhagen

How will the “Gordian Knot” be resolved to the satisfaction of all.

Fast, Clean, & Cheap Cutting Glo –

The future fortune of nations hangs in the balance of their actions today. Nothing less than compassion and fair treatment for all is acceptable. Only open dialoge and democratic acceptance can be tolerated.

Related Posts B

1. COP15, Copenhagen, The wrap-up
2. The Burden of Climate Responsibility…
3. Copenhagen… What A Game Of Dodge Ball…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Supplementing For Human Control Factors

The Question remains!

No mater how you look at it. Becoming climate neutral is crucial to humanities survival.

What does it matter if “our footprint” as a civilization is contributing to global warming or global cooling? What does it matter if the science is absolute when determining civilizations effect, or the cyclical cycle of increased solar spot activity effect?

Some say empirical evidence,  from both written and geologic records, indicates global temperature modulates in cycles of warming and cooling, with 57 degrees Fahrenheit  as the normal mean temperature throughout a continuing 4500 year cycle. The current conjecture is, we may reach it’s recent past height set in 1100 B.C., again around 2030. There is also conjecture that the many volcano eruptions over past recorded history also played a role in rapid global temperature change.

In our time, a most significant climate control factor is human population .

Display created by Ed Stephan http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/

“A scientific report commissioned by the US government has concluded there is “clear evidence” of climate change caused by human activities. The report, from the federal Climate Change Science Program, said trends seen over the last 50 years “cannot be explained by natural processes alone”. It found that temperatures have increased in the lower atmosphere as well as at the Earth’s surface.”¹

“The human population growth of the last century has been truly phenomenal. It required only 40 years after 1950 for the population to double from 2.5 billion to 5 billion. This doubling time is less than the average human lifetime. The world population passed 6 billion just before the end of the 20th century. Present estimates are for the population to reach 8-12 billion before the end of the 21st century. During each lecture hour, more than 10,000 new people enter the world, a rate of ~3 per second!

Of the 6 billion people, about half live in poverty and at least one fifth are severely undernourished. The rest live out their lives in comparative comfort and health.

The factors affecting global human population are very simple. They are fertility, mortality, initial population, and time. The current growth rate of ~1.3% per year is smaller than the peak which occurred a few decades ago (~2.1% per year in 1965-1970), but since this rate acts on a much larger population base, the absolute number of new people per year (~90 million) is at an all time high.”²

Hypothetically, If someone were to survive climate collapse, and in retrospect using simple minded deductions, look back and note that population has always been on the increase, and eventually we would be where we are today anyway; who could fault them after every possible stone was turned as first president in the effort to stem the tide.

Nature has it’s own way of maintaining balance.

Species responsibility demands action and movement toward human climate neutrality.

We face the evident melting polar and glacier ice, rising oceans, the real threat of disappearing sovereign nations (The Maldives), disappearing rivers, great rivers no longer reaching the sea, lack of fresh water, over use of non-renewable aquifers, disappearing streams and empty wells, deforestation, dying species both plant and animal, over use of available land, food shortage, homeless starving people, sickness, and death.

“What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth’s great heat stores. Pacific ocean (BBC) In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated. The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too. But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles. Professor Easterbrook says: “The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.”

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along. They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man’s influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new. In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures – all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling. What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years. Iceberg melting (BBC)

The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world’s top climate modellers. But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly. It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.”³

A Possible Small Window of Opportunity…

“Air pollution can affect our health in many ways with both short-term and long-term effects. Different groups of individuals are affected by air pollution in different ways. Some individuals are much more sensitive to pollutants than are others. Young children and elderly people often suffer more from the effects of air pollution. People with health problems such as asthma, heart and lung disease may also suffer more when the air is polluted. The extent to which an individual is harmed by air pollution usually depends on the total exposure to the damaging chemicals, i.e., the duration of exposure and the concentration of the chemicals must be taken into account.

Examples of short-term effects include irritation to the eyes, nose and throat, and upper respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Other symptoms can include headaches, nausea, and allergic reactions. Short-term air pollution can aggravate the medical conditions of individuals with asthma and emphysema. In the great “Smog Disaster” in London in 1952, four thousand people died in a few days due to the high concentrations of pollution.

Long-term health effects can include chronic respiratory disease, lung cancer, heart disease, and even damage to the brain, nerves, liver, or kidneys. Continual exposure to air pollution affects the lungs of growing children and may aggravate or complicate medical conditions in the elderly. It is estimated that half a million people die prematurely every year in the United States as a result of smoking cigarettes.”⁴

Much of  the carbon culture or climate, smells of “dirty business” who’s only aim is turning scarcity into abundance at the expense of the whole. Where is the value in that? …

We have knowledge of known unused, and new developing technologies that can make “Our Energy Climate Change Footprint” a non issue.

Is it not true; the continued development, production, and distribution of  such technologies themselves would produce abundance beyond measure…

Re-write the future…

All anyone needs for growth is food for nourishment, a place of rest and good association.

Do we fade away, or live to give another day?

Climate Change…

The Anatomy Of A Silent Crisis

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnVGzlXmgko[/youtube]

For publication I am compiling a  list of past, current, developed, and promising, free energy technologies that could serve to reduce the human climate effect.  Send your list of clean energy technologies for compiling and presentation before Copenhagen to clean@environmentaide.org

Many remember first hearing of the wonders of magnetic propulsion, when The first commercial Maglev “people-mover” became a carrier  in 1984 in Birmingham, England. Other stator driven applications could include automobiles, trucks, and boats… Howard Johnson inventor of Spintronics, a unique magnetic gate which  formed the basis of many of his successful motors, was fond of saying “conventional magnetic theory and the real magnetic theory are about as much alike as a Venetian Blind is to a blind Venetian.”

Maglev Train – complete video presentation

From The Republic of  Georgia, Russian inventor, Tariel Kapanadze and his group have come up with one of many promising devices to aide in our move to clean free energy for all. This one capable of capturing enough zero point energy or free energy from the wheelworks of nature to power 60 homes… Perhaps not very much fun to watch, but proven possible…

Kapanadze’s third-party testing 100 kW free energy device

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV560xfYSJ0[/youtube]

This solution was found in a few minutes on the Internet. How many can you find? Combustion technologies can become a thing of the past, and the CO2 from a summer campfire a harmless pastime.

In the words of Author, Scientist, Former Astronaut, and International Speaker Dr. Brian O’Leary…  “Earlier in 2009,  the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) solicited concept papers for funding innovative energy technology research and development.  Some of us who have followed free energy developments were cautiously optimistic about these developments, because, up until now, the DoE has been in denial about anything beyond solar and wind, and even spends a pittance on the traditional renewables compared to the untold hundreds of billions of dollars they spend on research on fossil fuel technologies (hydrocarbons) and nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

So my colleague Wade Frazier and I decided to draft a concept paper to the DoE. Our idea was really quite simple: (1) poll the American public about their attitudes toward the POSSIBILITY of a breakthrough decentralized clean energy economy and making the transition from our current polluting multi-trillion dollar energy mix as painless as possible; and (2) advising the DoE about the most promising R&D options, and safe implementation and transition strategies, free of vested interests.  Part of our philosophy in designing this task was that, by its very nature, if our future energy were to be truly “free,” then our own effort should be of minimal cost for the taxpayer.  We therefore asked for $1 (plus occasional travel, as needed) to support our proposed task.

Needless to say, the proposal was turned down, but we can only hope that some technologies will be supported by the DoE under this program.  Or is this effort just another attempt to cover up the most promising technologies?  Time will tell.”

“If we become increasingly humble about how little we know, we may be more eager to search.” ~ Sir John Templeton

“We have come to this Rock, to record here our homage for our Pilgrim fathers; our sympathy in their sufferings; our gratitude for their labors; Our admiration of their virtues; our veneration for their piety; and our attachment to those principles of civil and religious liberty, which they encountered, the dangers of the ocean, the storms of heaven, the violence of savages, disease, exile, and famine, to enjoy and establish.

And we would leave here, also, for the generations which are rising up rapidly to fill our places, some proof, that we have endeavored to transmit the great inheritance unimpaired; that in our estimate of public principles, and Private virtue; in our veneration of religion and piety; in our devotion to civil and religious liberty; in our regard to whatever advances human Knowledge, or improves human happiness, we are not altogether unworthy of our origin.” –Daniel Webster

WE CAN IF WE TRY!

YES WE CAN!

Remember

Or is it a Factor of a much bigger problem?

Related Posts B

1. The Burden of Climate Responsibility…
2. Guidance Memo to Global Votaries of Current Energy Policy…
3. Air For Fuel, The Birth Of The Air And Magnetic Air Car…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Carbon Indulgences

Indulgence from the Latin originally meant kindness or favor. Post Latin it meant a remission from a tax or debt. In the Christian Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1) it expresses release from captivity or punishment.

Medieval writs of indulgences for past offenses, some purchased with coin of the realm, where wrongly attributed to popes. Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice that pretended to absolve “a culpa et a poena”. The Council of Constance (1418) revoked all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV (1740-1758) treats all indulgences granted in this way as spurious.

Haven’t we learned anything from history?

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international environmental treaty considered legally non-binding, came up with a solution to limit greenhouse gas emissions at the Earth Summit in June of 1992. By monitoring emissions and creating a protocol, the principal and better known update the Kyoto Protocol was created that would set mandatory emission limits to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with climate systems.

As part of the solution a system of emissions or emission trading, sometimes called cap and trade, was introduced to attempt to keep emissions below the 1990 levels. Governments or international bodies set caps on pollution levels and credits are issued. What the purchaser doesn’t use can be sold. If needed more can be bought from those that have a surplus.

The theory is, those that can more easily reduce will do so, allowing reduction at the lowest possible cost to society. On the surface a nice looking plan yet with close examination we find considerable flaws.

The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is the largest neighboring communities emissions trading scheme, with more than 10,000 installations in energy and industrial sectors. Among this group current emission-trading schemes have proven to be little more than a shell game with developed world polluters shifting the burden of change to factories in the developing world.

Often developing world factory owners use the additional profits banked from carbon credits to expand their dirty installations.

More worrying is the set back emission trading is creating by diverting investment from renewable energy technology.

So far the only winners are the large polluters who sell small cuts for large profits and the brokers who sell the rights to pollute.

Some consider carbon trading a promising strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions but also believe the current structure seriously flawed.

The plan is seen as easy to implement. Governments set caps on the amount of pollution they’ll allow. Then turning the right to pollute into a tradable commodity, let capitalism do the rest.

But emission trading under the Kyoto Protocol is proving grossly inefficient. Nation companies with Kyoto targets are avoiding expensive cuts to their own emissions by paying companies in India or China to make the cuts instead. Since developing countries have no cap on emissions they can use the money to build new polluting factories.

For example India’s Gujarat Fluorochemicals, tripled it’s 2005 income of $10.5 million US in the last three quarters of 2006 to a sum of $42 million US because of carbon credits. They are currently building a new plant to produce Teflon and caustic soda, both pollutant substances.

A study published in Nature, February 2007, a scientific journal clearly showed $132 million in equipment upgrades would have accomplished more than $6 billion spent on efforts to curb emissions of HFC-23. In 2006 Kyoto countries paid around $3 billion to some of the worst carbon polluters in the developing world.

There is a clear lack of standards that allows the trading of credits with polluters whose standards and concern for the environment are lower than accepted human living standards, leaving locals with growing health problems.

As a result of a vulnerability to lobbying, the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme, a zero-sum program, were too generous in handing out targets with some industries. The result, many companies where absolved from cuts or the need to buy credits. The resulting surplus of credits caused a market collapse in 2006.

Many say the whole concept was ill conceived. Others feel a tax would be more straightforward. Europe has set stricter quotas. Americans are talking of auctioning instead of giving away. They all feel there is a need for strict caps.

Only 2% of the United Nations’ trading projects involve renewable energy like solar, wind, and hydro projects. Natural preservation, and eco-friendly communities and practices are ignored.

The yearly global emissions of 25 billion tons is purchasable for $100 billion. One carbon offset credit = 1 ton of pollution or 1yr’s worth of emissions from 216,000 cars. The incredible fact is I can buy that for $4.00 US.

That’s an unbelievable cheap indulgence for such an incredible amount of environmental damage and raises a serious question of balance. When are we going to see a more timely, realistic approach?

Related Posts B

1. The Burden of Climate Responsibility…
2. Copenhagen, One Step Back…
3. COP15, Copenhagen, The wrap-up

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Related Posts B

1. Greenhouse, and Other Gases Of Concern
2. The Purchasing of Indulgences, the Status Quo and Follow The Money Solution To Global Warming
3. Copenhagen… What A Game Of Dodge Ball…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.