Greg Laden's Blog

Thanks Greg. I loved what Oxfam recently said about the leaked draft in an interview with CNN:

Like ants in a room full of elephants poor countries are at risk of being squeezed out of the climate talks in Copenhagen.

Though wouldn't "trampled" be a better metaphor?

Posted by: EMJ | December 9, 2009 1:54 PM

Could someone please explain to me why I am not at all surprised by this?

Sigh . . .

Posted by: Equisetum | December 9, 2009 2:41 PM

Here is a much better analysis of the "leaked" (not actually leaked), "Danish" (not officially endorsed by anybody with authority in Denmark document.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/09/copenhagen-analysis-reaction-of-g77-to-danish-draft-agreement-is-typical-overblown-cop-drama

The analysis Greg's posted is pretty terrible. For example this part, which I think might be from the Guardian article;

"It would further force developing nations to curb their emissions at 2.67 tons of carbon emissions per capita, while poorer countries would be limited to 1.44 tons."

These figures cannot be found in the "leaked" document anywhere, nor can anything be found that would allow people to calculate these figures.

This incident is just a media beat up and dishonest reporting.

Posted by: Jeremy | December 9, 2009 11:28 PM

So EMJ, based on that analysis I take it you accept that the "leaked" text doesn't actually "force" those specific emission limits per person at all and the specific numbers cited are actually just estimates based on a number of assumptions.

The reporting is clearly worded to make it appear as if the text specifically creates an unfair disparity between developed and developing countries and that this is some kind of conspiracy by developed countries to screw over developing countries. This is obvious sensationalising of what is actually basically a non-news story and just some hyperbole and posturing for position that occurs at every international climate change conference.

Lets at least wait to express our outrage until an actual proposal is put forward.

Posted by: Jeremy | December 10, 2009 1:04 AM

I agree with Jeremy; lots of posturing, and I'd add a lot mock outrage at the evil developed nations. I really don't give a damn what they whine about - the only important thing is will they agree on something useful. We don't need another Kyoto and another 20 years doing nothing. If the developing nations simply stall hoping for undeserved handouts, the developed nations will have to take more or less unilateral action. China and India as developing nations need to do something, so negotiating with them is essential. Pretty much all the other developing nations put together can be ignored and left to let their emissions grow for the next 10-20 years, with positive incentives being worked out later as appropriate.

I'm betting nothing useful comes out of the Copenhagen meetings though - just like last year. It seems to me that real progress is being made by individual states within larger federations and this is happening quite independently of the global whinefest. So, for example (purely hypothetical), if California, Washington, Colorado, and Arizona were to start enforcing CO2 reduction at the state level, other states and perhaps the federal government will eventually do the same. Any pro-CO2 reduction groups should work more at the state level rather than the federal level (where special interests buy the desired outcome). At the global level, as we can see from what's happening (or not happening) at Copenhagen is simply a mess.

Posted by: MadScientist | December 10, 2009 6:04 AM

Ultimately, this may be a strategy to get a treaty in place given the likelihood that developed countries are more likely to torpedo a real effort. I would like to know more about the source.

Posted by: YTA | December 10, 2009 8:19 AM

Good point Greg re: "developed vs developing." I'm unsure what terms are better to use though. "Industrialised" and something perhaps?

Re: Mad Scientist, I am a little more optimistic at the moment. Gordon Brown's comment that Europe should aim for 30% reductions from 1990 levels by 2020 regardless of what the rest of the world does was very positive and I'm hoping that it suggests we'll see a strong target from Europe, even if it's less than that. That will put a lot of pressure on the US to raise their reductions from the current proposal of returning to 1990 levels. I've also heard a lot of talk that the "developed" nations are prepared to dramatically increase the proposed $10 billion fund. Even if it doesn't get to $400 billion, if it's something along the lines of $100 billion I think the "developing" nations block, especially the "faction" that doesn't include China, India etc. will support it.

Posted by: Jeremy | December 10, 2009 4:18 PM