NOV 16

Congress seems to always be slow to react when it comes to issues like these. Then again it is to no surprise either that there isn't any agreement on the table.

The US is taking their position as Superpower to heart. Saying that since the US will not do it, other countries won't is also a bit of a way of wiggling out of it without looking bad. A serious global initiative would make legally binding targets with economic sanctions against countries that do not agree to the terms. That way, there would a reason for Congress to get a move on!

It is indeed disappointing when the government drags its foot and delays decisions. Every single country faces this problem in one form or another. Let us hope that people in power move things faster so that a decisive decision can be taken on these important matters. At Climatarians, our global sustainability directory, we bring people together who are interested in environmental issues.

I am ashamed to say that Canada ia also using the "if other countries don't do it there's no point for us to do it" claim. I had to sit through a speach by Tony Clement, minister of industry, talk about how Canada needs to be and can benefit from being a "leader" but will only sign on if China and India do also. I think that Canada and the US need to act now in order to not become even farther behind, let alone "ahead". We have the highest per capita GHG emissions and our technology is so inefficient, it can't compete with Japanese cars or European products.

It is important we not focus on our frustration, but what we can do. The government may not be ready to commit to change, but we are, so let us start there instead of bemoaning their hesitance.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. That silly meeting in Copenhagen is going to achieve nothing. Whatever agreements are made there are going to be only political grandstanding.

If manmade global warming is really underway, there is no way that we can now do anything about it except to declare war on our enemies.

Obama still has a window of opportunity to invade China now before China pollutes the entire planet. It would be cheaper to invade China than to spend countless more trillions of dollars supporting the broken domestic economy. After China is soundly defeated and depopulated the land itself can be used as a carbon sink by way of planting billions of trees.

This is the only scientific solution to the problem of global warming.

Let’s face facts; the government of any major power that decides to implement real and effective environmental emissions controls is scared that it will soon be out of office.

Either it will take a great deal of courage for the major powers to act, or it will take a national environmental disaster that will wake the masses of that nation up to the environmental danger that is actually looking them in the eyes.

Any bets on what will come first???

I agree that the governments in major industrialized countries aren’t will to commit to significant changes-particularly the U.S., Canada, Ukraine, and Russia, if you want to the European Unions list of most resistant parties. I wrote a recent article about this called ‘Major Industrialized Nations Criticized for Setting Weak Emissions Reductions Goals.’
Members of the European Parliament highlighted the following concerns:
Industry lobbies watering down the agreements.
America’s position regarding emissions reduction commitments.
Agreements possibly favoring non-European businesses by allowing the transfer of technologies toward developing countries.
The private sector will have to take a more active role in persuading company-by-company to lower their emissions. Some progress is being made on this front. I wrote another article entitled ‘United Nations Going Public with Industry Pollution Info. From Around the World.’
As of October 8, 2009, 36 governments signed the United Nations The Protocol on Pollutants Release and Transfer Register. The Protocol’s goal is to provide a “mechanism to increase corporate accountability, reduce pollution, and promote sustainable development.” It is expected to be done, in part, by enhancing public access to information through the creation of registers in accordance with the Protocol. The article has links to the registers of 20 countries that have already gone online.


‘Major Industrialized Nations Criticized for Setting Weak Emissions Reductions Goals’ can be read at: http://www.greenvitals.net/com...issio.html

‘United Nations Going Public with Industry Pollution Info. From Around the World’ can be read at: http://www.greenvitals.net/com...o-fro.html

It is of course disappointing that political leaders consistently fail to address the climate crisis, but I wonder if it is disappointing if this particular summit fails when it is still so locked into a framework of Cap and Trade that is so patently failing to deliver carbon reductions. I really recommend a new booklet - Carbon Trading - How it works and why it fails - by Transnational Institute that is the best I have read on how carbon trading is failing and with its various schemes (CDM, ETS) often leads to dispossession and human rights abuses in the process. We clearly need a new framework which may mean going back to the drawing board rather than a summit that just delivers more of the same. The link for the report is http://www.tni.org/carbon-trade-fails

How 'bout those leaked emails between "scientists?" Thoughts?