Outrage By Poorer Countries at Leaked Copenhagen Draft

[cactusflower]

As new data has been issued showing this decade as the warmest in the last 150 years, there has been a noisy demonstration by African and other NGOs in the Copenhagen conference hall following leakage of this draft agreement, prepared by Denmark. The atmosphere is tense with talk of a walkout by the low-lying and African states who are appalled by the lack of action proposed by rich, high emission countries.

Copenhagen: Leaked Draft Noolo

The secret deal has been proposed by the Danes, who are in charge of the conference, with some support from Australia and Mexico.

The two-day old UN summit went into a frenzy when the deal was leaked to the Guardian newspaper on Tuesday. That's because some poorer countries think the deal is too soft on rich countries, and they have threatened to turn their backs on the negotiations - rendering the summit of 192 countries a failure.

The 13-page document aims to limit global warming to two degrees, which means Australia would have to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 per cent by 2020.

It says rich countries would have to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 - that's more than Australia is promising. And rich countries would have to find $US10 billion ($A11 billion) a year right away to help poor countries tackle climate change.

The deal is more green than past proposals, but it's not green enough for poor countries, who think it would let rich countries off the hook on climate change. They're worried that the deal seems to ditch the old climate treaty, the Kyoto protocol, which made rich countries cut their emissions. And China is worried because the deal would insist on international verification of countries' greenhouse gas emissions - a sovereignty issue

World News Australia - Copenhagen early draft irks poor states

There is real anger from the poorer countries who are contributing least to the problem and at the highest risk.

[The Caped Cod]

Yet more fuel for my cynical fire that even if the threat is real, the whole show is still only about more money for already rich men. Those who wish to impose the Carbon Tax are not doing so save the planet but rather line their pockets.

[cactusflower]

You can be sure that the rich and powerful intend to stay rich and powerful. They also see Cap and Trade as a way of restricting imports.

One African rep's response was " 10 million is not enough to buy us coffins".

They are not well pleased.

[andrejsv]

Oh, please... spare me.
The deal will involve percentages of GDP for industrialized countries (billions of dollars, euros, etc) and none from the poor countries. Why is that? 4 humans breathing are equivalent to a car's production of CO2. Poor largely populate countries should be paying us, not the way around.

And what is all this submitting to peer pressure?. NO! no way! Copenhagen should not be signed, and if signed it should be ripped to shreds and the UN leaders incarcerated for crimes against humanity.

Because that is what is going to happen: economic slow down and depression, hunger, famine, civil riots, death. For what? to avoid a fractionally warmer earth, which will bring bounty, abundance and prosperity? This is lunacy in order to create a world government.

[Tony_1975]

Yet more fuel for my cynical fire that even if the threat is real, the whole show is still only about more money for already rich men. Those who wish to impose the Carbon Tax are not doing so save the planet but rather line their pockets.

I agree completely. We, a country of 4 million, will see a carbon tax in our budget today. It's a bit like putting a sign up next to a massive pipe pumping raw sewage into a river saying: "Don't piss in the water".
It will have absolutely no impact on anything except our wallets.

[The Caped Cod]

Oh, please... spare me.
The deal will involve percentages of GDP for industrialized countries (billions of dollars, euros, etc) and none from the poor countries. Why is that? 4 humans breathing are equivalent to a car's production of CO2. Poor largely populate countries should be paying us, not the way around.

And what is all this submitting to peer pressure?. NO! no way! Copenhagen should not be signed, and if signed it should be ripped to shreds and the UN leaders incarcerated for crimes against humanity.

Because that is what is going to happen: economic slow down and depression, hunger, famine, civil riots, death. For what? to avoid a fractionally warmer earth, which will bring bounty, abundance and prosperity? This is lunacy in order to create a world government.

Can you link to that info, but assuming it's correct its a very interesting little fact to bare in mind.

[Mouroux]

" 4 humans breathing are equivalent to a car's production of CO2"

Are they for real? Breathing is taxable? How about, 18 cats equivalent to one car -kill all the cats!

More lunacy from the green bed wetters. Even if we try (I mean really try) to see things from this lunatic perspective, insofar as the necessary strategy that would arise from the current lunatic
framework is deindustrialisation and deeper poverty for developing countries, that this would of course increase populations! So the lunatic arguments about how to decrease co2 end up increasing it twice as much, again from this crazy green perspective. Think about it, birthrate is always low among the most developed nations (exception: US --but then they always end up breaking the patternfor some set of reasons). So how will un-developing the world help anyone (other than elitist bankers and their servant politicians)???

Anyway, Hopehagen is doomed to breakdown -think Climategate. I guess they all feel pretty uncomfortable turning up at that conference for the holiday factor and to claim expenses, when we all now know that the data is being deliberately corrupted by top scientists/apostles for the new green religion.

[Twin Towers]

Oh, please... spare me.
The deal will involve percentages of GDP for industrialized countries (billions of dollars, euros, etc) and none from the poor countries. Why is that? 4 humans breathing are equivalent to a car's production of CO2. Poor largely populate countries should be paying us, not the way around.

It is odd that population appears glossed over with regard to carbon dioxide.
Why could that be?

Apparently half the future increase in emissions will be from population growth alone and therefore the most populous countries like China and India with rising incomes should be paying us instead.

http://www.iussp.org/Brazil2001/s00/S09_04_Shi.pdf

[Jethro]

Can you link to that info, but assuming it's correct its a very interesting little fact to bare in mind.

How about this one.

Global Warming: Why cut one 3,000th of a Degree?

From an earlier post: a carbon tax will not make the rich richer. The money raised goes to govt - there are no allowances like in a cap and trade arrangement. Govts could of course redistribute to the rich but most proposals eg. Tol, suggest the money should be used to lower labour taxes.

But as Lomborg argues as does Prof Tol elsewhere, the evidence as to the effectiveness of co2 mitigation would suggest that a very modest carbon tax initially is optimal.

[Mouroux]

It is odd that population appears glossed over with regard to carbon dioxide.
Why could that be?

Apparently half the future increase in emissions will be from population growth alone and therefore the most populous countries like China and India with rising incomes should be paying us instead.

http://www.iussp.org/Brazil2001/s00/S09_04_Shi.pdf

There is only one proven, sane effective way to reduce population growth (complexities and very genuine sensitivities notwithstanding): increase standards of living. If poorer countries are made to 'pay' (by green bed wetters and puppet master banking elitists) the effect will be a further reduction in standards of living, i.e. an increase in population! Talk about contradictions and Orwellian double-think.

The highly politicised green movement is now completely insane.