When the Guardian, that champion of everything “green” says it, you know it was a failure.
Excerpt:
The UN climate summit reached a weak outline of a global agreement last night in Copenhagen, falling far short of what Britain and many poor countries were seeking and leaving months of tough negotiations to come.
After eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was left to Barack Obama and Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, to broker a political agreement. The so-called Copenhagen accord “recognises” the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but did not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.
American officials spun the deal as a “meaningful agreement”, but even Obama said: “This progress is not enough.”
“We have come a long way, but we have much further to go,” he added.
The deal was brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US, but late last night it was still unclear whether it would be adopted by all 192 countries in the full plenary session.
The agreement aims to provide $30bn in funding for poor countries to adapt to climate change from next year to 2012, and $100bn a year after 2020.
But it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries who had been holding out for far deeper emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century. As widely expected, all references to 1.5C in previous drafts were removed at the last minute, but more surprisingly, the earlier 2050 goal of reducing global CO2 emissions by 80% was also dropped.
The agreement also set up a forestry deal which is hoped would significantly reduce deforestation in return for cash. It lacked the kind of independent verification of emission reductions by developing countries that the US and others demanded.
Obama hinted that China was to blame for the lack of a substantial deal. In a press conference he condemned the insistence of some countries to look backwards to previous environmental agreements. He said developing countries should be “getting out of that mindset, and moving towards the position where everybody recognises that we all need to move together”.
Read entire story at the Guardian here
===========================
Now compare what the Guardian has written, to what Obama says:
===========================
My summary of the Copenhagen Climate Conference is just a bit less wordy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Aw, shucks! 🙂
“Because of weather constraints” = Crushing Blizzard
Everyone involved at the Copenhagen Summit should be a little more rational click the link for further commentary
http://symonsez.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/we-dont-know-is-better-than-global-warming-global-cooling-or-they-are-wrong/
The politics isn’t settled either…
Early Christmas present.
I was just thinking about Nelson, with all the snow in Copenhagen and Obami rushing back to Washington before the snow storm. So , maybe if I had a couple of trees in my front yard I could be paid , like , a couple hundred thousand for not cutting them down. Let’s hear it for the climate summit!
Brent in Calgary
There is still damage that these incompetents can wreck upon the world. Do not trust them!
“Collapse at Copenhagen”
Playing at a theater near you.
Review: A sterling example of an inconvenient truth.
So, there’s nothing even close to binding limits on emissions, and no setup for emissions reduction verification, but we’ve agreed to send the developing world billions of dollars (more) a year? Because there’s been no fraud already by China or other countries on money for emissions reductions or carbon offsets? Will the US borrow money from China to give money to…China?
“But it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries who had been holding out for far deeper emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century.”
It always fascinates me to see that at least the writer believes and it is implied that many in Africa believes we can actually control the global temperatures. Has anyone really thought it through? Even if the AGW theory is correct(I don’t believe it to be) how does man go about preventing CO2 emissions without significant and radical changes not only to our economic world and lifestyles but even the ecological world we live in. How is CO2 emission reductions practically applied? Has anyone logically expressed how this is to occur without wiping out most of the human race?
Can Obama get anything done? Chicago Olympic disaster, the Asia trip. COP15…
Oh yeah I forgot… he was able to deploy more troops in Afghanistan.
We may be aware that the summit was a failure, but that isn’t what is being said in the msm. I thought the video just shown on CNN was indicative. Robert Gibbs trying in vain to get “his guys” (CNN etc) admitted to no avail in the face of Chinese strong arming. Gibbs said something along the lines of; “either my guys get in, or we’re leaving the meeting.” Apparently, no US media was admitted, and the meeting went ahead anyway… More empty threats that the Chinese wisely ignore. Still being heralded as a “breakthrough” due to Obama’s visit.
What a farce.
Any money spent on lowering CO2 emission is a waste, in my opinion. So, let’s not celebrate this “failure” as a good thing. Sure, we the skeptics, want less toxic gas emission and super efficient vehicles and power plants just like everybody else but we say no to carbon credits and cap and trade because it’s a gigantic scam.
As they used to say on our Air Force efficiency evaluations –
“Sets low goals and fails to achieve them.”
I should have mentioned that Gibbs was trying to get the US press in for a photo of Hu Jintao meeting with Obama earlier today.
Already the tone of voice has changed over at the Guardian, comments are a bit on the apologetic side.
Is Michael E. Neumann, sorry, Mann desperately trying to save his bacon ?
Washington Post – same old mantras
Environmental Research Web – regurgitate
Fantastic news.
This result is typically European. In the end, the global community organizers are an ad hoc, brittle coalition.
Hard to comprehend that the $100 Billion offered by the U.S. was not enough to do a deal.
Obama could not fund the climate government despite offering $100 Billion.
What has our world come to?
Since there is $100 Billion in play, would that it be spent on bonafide school construction and bona fide infrastructure repair in the U.S.of A.
It is a shame that 195 governments gathered in one place for two weeks and failed to resolve border disputes, civil wars, human rights violations, and the endless tragedy of refugee camp suffering.
What a wasted opportunity!
As for the climate, may God bless the entire globe with favorable weather for food, recreation, and beauty.
A few years and even this will fade away
The joke was about sour grapes, if you recall 🙂
Well, darn! It was pretty much a dismal failure.
I was hoping for a complete dismal failure, but I guess it wasn’t quite as bad as we thought.
The Jay Leno show tonight even took a shot at the AGWers. Quite funny.
I’m beginning to think Obama is really a skeptic. He could have been much more forceful in his speech. Maybe he has looked into the leaks and finds them troublesome. Clearly, for political reasons he can’t outwardly look skeptical, but I think he has been influenced.
Thank you Mr. ClimateGate wherever you are.!
Thank you Al Gore for making the weather in Denmark so delightful. Thank you Obama for doing what you do so well – failing.
But, but, but, but……..the AP said it was an “unprecendented” agreement.
The absolute scientific ignorance and gullibility of Western leaders is only matched by the sheer obstinate stupidity of journalists. Apparently in both industries it is a survival characteristic. Not so much for the rest of us.
Funny, I just heard a live performance of Handel’s Messiah.
The Hallelulia Chorus was being played, LIVE..chorus and orchestra.
NOW I KNOW WHAT THEY WERE SINGING ABOUT!