After viewing over 100 online reports, news items, snippets, and blogs, the popular conclusion is that because of squabbles over just about everything, there will be no definite long-term agreement reached on CO2 emission levels, who will pay for them, and even how they can be reached, at the UN’s Poznan, Poland, climate conference.

The UN’s worldwide regulatory efforts to reshape and direct the economic future of businesses and countries through climate change initiatives, with the possibility of plunging many countries into recession and repression, looks rather dismal at this time.

However, expect the UN to never give up. Ban Ki-Moon, like a sales pitch on a late-night TV informercial, is keeping up the pressure saying, “If we take action today it may not be too late. But if we take action tomorrow, we may have to regret it for not only us, but for coming generations and even for planet Earth.”

Spiegel Online International reports that the first draft by Yvo de Boer, secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), of a protection treaty for 2012 and beyond consisted of lists of demands by the Americans, Europeans, and developing countries, all in contradiction to one another.

The biggest stumbling block according to a senior fellow at the CFR, Michael A. Levi, to what he described as stalled negotiations, are the classifications of poor countries vs. rich countries. Because the wealthier nations of the world would cap their greenhouse-gas emissions and would be paying for poorer countries economic problems resulting from emissions caps, re-development, and emission credits, the classifications really matter -- the devil is always in the details.

The parameters for distinguishing wealthy from non-wealthy nations was established in 1992. Well, a lot has changed since then. Countries such as Qatar, China, Singapore, and Peru were listed as Third World countries then -- very poor. But of course they are very wealthy now. Truly poor Portugal, with an average income of $22,000 per year, is still listed as wealthy. China and Singapore are doing everything they can to maintain their poor status, lest they have to ante up as they want the United States to do. They would rather be on the receiving end, than the paying end -- imagine that.

China has volunteered that First World countries, such as the U.S., give one percent of their nation’s wealth to poor countries, like themselves, for clean energy development. Nice of them. Unfortunately, the U.S. is dead broke, and in debt up to its eyeballs, so there is no more wealth to be had.

But what is probably being under reported, is the fundamental differences over the actual science of climate change.

On the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works website there is a post entitled “UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims,” by Marc Morano.  It’s interesting to check out. He cites scientists, using quotes, who dissent from the UN’s global-warming position. He examines faulty analysis and shoddy record keeping.

For example, did you know that weather reporting stations are down in number, from 15,000 in 1970 to 5,000 by the year 2000? And many of those left out were from the Soviet Union, particularly Siberia, leaving the coldest places on the planet from being part of the average global temperature equation.

Some bloggers have done a pretty good job as well, offering links with accompanying snippets on their blogs, doing the research work for you so you can just sit and click. One is Thomas Nelson. His blog links are worth checking out.  Co2 Skeptics is another with some amusing stories and commentary, much of it well-documented.

Another problem the conference saw was pessimism. No longer do many believe that alternative energy technologies and methods can avert climate change. So, few countries are willing to hop on the alternative energy band wagon. And with nuclear energy being dismissed, it seems an impasse has been reached.

All this bickering and fighting and squabbling might just buy us a few more years of freedom from the climate changers plans to rule the world. But keep a close eye on the next conference in Copenhagen.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments