The Copenhagen Stitch-Up

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Dec 10, 2009.

  1. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #1
    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...world-are-enacting-a-giant-fraud-1837963.html

    Just how much will the Copenhagen Circus achieve?
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    It sounds like a lot of stuff at the conference is a pile of ********, including all the (frankly unnecessary) corporate sponsorship.

    However one initial comment from reading the article.

    That actually isn't true. The gulf states all are higher, and in fact the US comes in 9th (source).
     
  3. Rampant.A.I. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    #3
    I don't know.

    How much does link-and-running without bothering to articulate your thoughts achieve?
     
  4. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #4
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #5
    I similarly dislike this kind of initial post -- or ones that post an article and say "Discuss!" But I'm grateful to at least see a reasonable topic about Copenhagen.

    I "get" cap and trade, and I suppose it's better than nothing, but yeah, for the biggest polluters, it's an accounting trick. God forbid we actually do anything substantive.
     
  6. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #6
  7. scottness macrumors 65816

    scottness

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Location:
    Room 101
    #7
    Your post, for one.
     
  8. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Ah I missed that, great :).
     
  9. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #9
    I don't get why people still ignorantly think CO2 is a pollutant. The XBox 360 data is the only data that says that it is. It was a simulation. What's difficult to understand about that? A 20 year REAL study using REAL data from REAL sensors in space - which ended around September 2009 shows very clearly that CO2 follows warming and helps to REDUCE the greenhouse affect. Doesn't anyone here read at all? Really? All of you just get something in your heads and refuse to change as the scientific results roll in? Excuse me if I seem rude in saying: That's ridiculous!!!

    Which would you like to believe?

    A) An XBox 360 simulation - shown very clearly to be faulty? Or
    B) Real data from real sensors?

    It really is as simple as that!

    The conjecture from me and others about WHO and WHY the IPCC and related organizations don't correctly publish the real data aside, at least accept the facts of the matter.
     
  10. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #10
    from the article

    Last night Letterman interviewed Dr. James Hansen and they were saying the same thing. The carbon off-set thing is basically bullsiht. Developed nations can still move along as though nothing is different. Even if we stopped all methane and CO2 emissions today, there would still be the some human induced climate change.
     
  11. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #11
    This whole global carbon credit system is laughable. Why would I pay some other small country that doesn't pollute very much to start with, to not pollute so that I can pollute more? wtf? If we are going to do this system put a carbon per square ft of land regulation and don't allow any trading of credits. Id love to see some of these retarded congressmen squirm when all five of their houses don't meet regulations. We can turn the heater/AC off in all DC government buildings as a good start too.

    All this whole thing is going to be is a way to stick it to the poorest of the poor, and keep poor nations from developing properly.
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    One of the reasonings behind it is that there are more "easy wins" available to improve energy efficiency in the developing world more cheaply than you can in developed countries.

    Whether that is true in reality with corruption etc. is another question.

    EDIT: It is worth pointing out that assuming 2% growth by 2020 a cut of 40 to 45% per dollar (the Chinese commitment) works out to reduce emissions by 27% to 33%. If you assume 2.5% growth it would reduce emissions by 23 to 30% (the two figures depend on whether emissions are cut by 40% per dollar or 45% per dollar).

    As djellison pointed out earlier emissions per capita are important too - but Chinese emissions per capita are highly likely to stay lower than EU ones.
     
  13. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #13
    Even if we halved the emissions isn't the argument of global (whatever) that this trend started in the industrial revolution? If we halve our emissions and are skimming by what is our pollution emissions compared to the mid 1900s now that we have more of the world that is developed? Or are we going to just cut emissions, forget about the theory and consider it a win?
     
  14. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #14
    It might end up being something like that. But only actually a "win" for those wishing to use the system to control or influence the economies of the nations they can get away with it with. Even a 99% cut won't alter the whether or the climate one iota.

    Of course you're all recognizing the fact that when a body of governance (ie. a government) is able to control or influence the energy consumption of a nation, that body is then capable of controlling or influencing the economics of the nation in question and of course the individuals that define it - as a nation? Aren't you?
     
  15. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    Unnecessary. I read the article early this morning and posted it at 7.58am before going to work at 8.00am - where I do not have internet access except on an iPhone - and I thought it was interesting enough to be food for thought. If you only find it irritating, and can't come up with a useful thought yourself, don't feel you have to reply.
    For the record, I think that the whole exercise is in danger of becoming a transparently vacuous and inexcusably crass public relations exercise by politicians and their corporate backers paying lip service and nothing more to an overwhelmingly important issue.
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #16
    What the **** are you talking about? You honestly believe that CO2 only started being considered a pollutant in the times since the xbox 360 has been around?
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    Maybe by some countries. There are certainly countries that doesn't apply to like China for example.

    As I showed above per dollar the Chinese targets are almost as ambitious as the EU, and per capita obviously their emissions are lower. And frankly as this is a central Chinese government target and they have a reputation for getting things done. Also the environment and energy security are both very important so they are highly likely to meet the target.

    To give an example of this attitude on public transportation alone they've got 13 metro systems in different cities with at least one line currently operating and another 11 systems are estimated to begin operations by 2015 and most of the existing systems are going to be expanded significantly as well (source). On top of that they're building 7 high speed 300 km/h lines linking up most of their major cities - with 25000km of high speed railway track (so I guess that'd be halved if there is one track in each direction) to be complete by 2020 (source).

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #18
    You seem to be getting pretty worked up, calm yourself, your heart rate is probably rising and you are breathing more causing more CO2 to be produced.
     
  19. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #19
    The whole idea of these carbon credits is this:

    A energy efficient business caps it carbon emissions in 2009. In 2010 it does several projects to lower its energy use even more. In 2011, it wants to expand and build a new facility that will greatly increase its energy use. Instead of having to run two facilities with the energy it once used to run a single facility, the business can increase its energy use while at the same time pay to lower the energy use at a manufacturing facility in China. That Chinese plant has not done anything to reduce carbon emissions as of yet, but now that this company is providing funding, the plant will considerable lower its emissions. This is especially cost effective for the business if the Chinese plant gets its energy from coal plants that do nothing to keep emissions low.

    If you don't allow trading of carbon credits, you limit the expansion capabilities of every business. If a business is going ot double in size, there has to be a way for it to offset it energy use.

    I don't see cap and trade hurting poor nations; I actually think it will be a benefit to them. They will get a lot of businesses bringing money into their country to improve the energy efficiency there so those businesses can claim the reductions. These projects will advance the development of these countries instead of hinder it.
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    It depends how it is done. Basically it can hurt poor nations because its less efficient in terms of energy (for example) to make a car in China than it is in the US so they get taxed more.

    (source)
     
  21. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #21
    As a business I would rather just build my plant and not worry about it. Thanks though. Call me when you start to give incentives for going green instead of punishing people.

    The same effect could be had by not creating this global marketplace, have a tiered energy use tax, as they go up they pay more, the government can set a target rate and that does away with all of this global crap that is going to be a complicated (and non-useful) mess.


    Because energy efficiency initiatives are very costly I imagine what we will find is bigger nations simply paying smaller countries not to work at all. If our US plants have an absolute advantage and the smaller companies have no competitive advantage compared to other nations there is no reason that they should continue to work if we can use their carbon credits more efficiently than they can.

    Also what are we going to do if a country doesn't sign on and pollutes to high hell? This creates a disadvantage for all other nations in the global marketplace. Do you really want to put sanctions on a country because they want to develop their economy?
     
  22. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #22

    Of course you would rather build your plant. Cap and trade will create an additional burden on any business that is trying to start-up or expand operations. It is not a bad deal for existing businesses that are not planning to grow or for business that are already large and can do some major cut-backs.


    The problem with this is that our huge businesses will get hit with the largest energy taxes since they use the most energy. They also have the largest lobbying force and will not let it happen.


    Energy efficiency iniatives are really not that costly. Many of them pay for theemselves in 10 years or so and can have positve cash flow from day one.

    Once major energy efficiencies are complete, it gets more difficult to continue to find ways to lower energy use in a cost-efective way. That is when businesses will start looking at other countries.

    The rest of your statement is a possibility. If a business in a developing country is given X carbon credits, those credits might be more valuable to them if they sold them to another business instead of using them to run their own business.

    In cap and trade theory, if a country doesn't sign on they don't get any credits in the world market place and they have nothing to trade to other countries. They can pollute all they want and the cap and trade market will not affect them. Carbon reducing projects in their country will not be able to be claimed as a reduction in carbon.
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    If you count all the enterprises the Chinese government owns they probably *are* the worlds largest company and they are doing a lot to reduce emissions.
     
  24. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #24
    So we disencentivize new businesses, incentivize bloated crap corps that are already too big and causing most I'd our carbon emissions. Sounds like a wet dream for them.

    No if we start this system I would rather it be fair. As your emissions rise you pay more, this will make energy initiatives even more cheap compared to the alternative. This would also steer us away from too big to fail corps that we hve to bail out.

    Also if energy initiatives were cost effective as you conclude we wouldn't need to do this at all.

    The only other option is to forget the whole mess and pump some money into incentives for businesses that adopt the tech.
     
  25. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #25
    I'm guessing the people in his study didn't research it by sleeping in the garage next to a car that is locked and running...
     

Share This Page