Free Markets, Free People

The Debacle In Copenhagen

If I were at all amenable to the climate change arguments and felt there was a need to reach an agreement concerning greenhouse gas emissions, I’d still be embarrassed by what is going on in Copenhagen right now. According to the Politico, it appears to be “to be imploding from within and exploding from without on Wednesday.” Protests are turning violent outside and rhetoric is heating up inside (I wonder how much CO2 they’re contributing with their tantrums and tirades?).

But of course, the spin is there are “green shoots” in the talks:

Despite the gloom, U.S. officials told POLITICO they made incremental progress in a variety of areas during marathon sessions Tuesday night and cautioned that all previous climate conferences have experienced similar turbulence. And late Tuesday, negotiators announced a major breakthrough on a deal to preserve wetlands and forests.

Translation: They come to an agreement on how to take your property rights away in the name of “saving the planet”.

Of course that’s not the purpose of the conference, is it (although “progressives” will be happy with just about any collectivist control they can manage out of this, I’m sure)?

On Tuesday, Hedegaard made an emotional appeal for countries to put aside their differences to finalize a deal — after the G-77 bloc of developing nations accused her of trying to ram through an agreement amenable to the U.S. and other big industrialized nations.

But no sooner had Rasmussen assumed the presidency than those tensions burst out in the open again, with China, India, Bolivia, South Africa and Sudan saying they would block attempts by the Danish delegation to produce a draft text favored by most Western countries.

Minutes after taking the gavel, Rasmussen angrily denounced developing countries for seeking to delay consideration of the text, accusing them of focusing on “procedure, procedure, procedure.”

He was immediately rebuked by a representative of China, a member of the G-77 bloc, who said moving forward too quickly was tantamount to “obstructionism” and a bullying attempt by the West.

“I think the matter isn’t ‘procedure, procedure, procedure.’… You can’t just put forth some text from the sky,” the representative said.

Someone should caution the representative from China that using such language isn’t wise – it might remind others that since the “science” is “from the sky” there’s no reason that the language can’t also be from there.
Anyway, as you can tell, Politico’s characterization of “chaos in Copenhagen” isn’t far from the mark. The “developing world” isn’t seeing the type of long term cash pay-off developing as they’d like and the industrialized nations, assuming they learned from Kyoto, aren’t really amenable to hard target emission reductions. And the result is – well the UN displaced to Copenhagen. Sound and fury, but little to show for it. And we still have the circus of world leaders showing up for the final grip and grin to go.

Just lovely.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

13 Responses to The Debacle In Copenhagen

  • I think that the real goal is those apparently “minor” agreements re: wetlands and forests, for the reasons you state.  At least, for environmental activists.  The real goal for the nations at the talks are how to walk out of it with either the smallest amount of financial damage (via promised payouts to developing nations) or the greatest amount of financial gain (via those same payouts).  Does anyone expect industrialized nations to ever come close to CO2 targets?  Does anyone expect developing nations to spend their windfall on ‘green’ technologies or initiatives?
    Me either.

  • Things have definitely gone our way this year. Crap and Trade is dead in the US Senate, and Copenhagen is turning into a massive disaster.

    Of course, there is always 2010, but it appears that 1) The Clown™ is becoming more and more unpopular; and 2) Demmies are also becoming more and more unpopular. Perhaps it is not out of the bounds that the GOP could pick up 6-10 seats in the Senate next year. I do believe that Nancy Pelosi is in her last year as Speaker. That is almost a given, baring something amazing (a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack).

    • You know it could have been the other way.  If the Dems had come out from the start acting reasonable, compromising a little, and acting bipartisan, then they might have got nearly everything they wanted and still be looking great.  But they could not help themselves, they had to act like the greeedy mean spirited snakes that they are.

      • kyle8If the Dems had come out from the start acting reasonable, compromising a little, and acting bipartisan, then they might have got nearly everything they wanted and still be looking great.

        What lesson does this hold for the GOP assuming that they win a majority in the mid-terms?

        I suggest that, unless the come in looking to string up homosexuals, bring back slavery, eliminate every federal entitlement program, drill for oil in the middle of Yellowstone, and otherwise do all the things that lefties accuse them of wanting to do, they will adopt a de facto moderate position because this is the NATURAL position of most Republican members of Congress… or becomes so soon after they take office because of relentless pressure from MiniTru to be “bipartisan”, i.e. go along with the democrat agenda.

        The problem is that the GOP base, in reaction to the decidedly leftist turn the country has taken under Imeme and the dems in Congress, is becoming increasingly, militantly conservative.  People like me are not going to be happy with RINO-style leaders and policies.  So, the GOP will have to walk a tight-rope: too conservative and they tick off the independents who sort of LIKE a big (but not too big) activist (but not intrusive) government; too liberal and they tick off their conservative base, who will stay home in ’12 as many did in ’08.

        • I don’t think the Republican will have too much trouble acting bipartisan, but on the other hand, the real problem will be on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where the Democratic POTUS has never had to act bipartisan (which his base also dislikes) and voting “present” (which independents also dislike) isn’t going to get him re-elected.
          If Obama is to have a meaningful legacy, it will come in his last two years, or not at all.

        • It would be difficult to be less conservative or more bipartisan than the republicans have been in recent years, so much so that they pretty much alienated their entire base.
          It is not necessary that Republicans be all that moderate since the majority in this naiton are at least somewhat right of center.  That is why the Democrats screwed up so badly they mistook the elections as meaning that the electorate had turned leftward, which is not the case.

    • If Barack manages to leave Michelle back in DC this time, maybe he can use some of those “tips” he got from “Tiger” Woods.

  • I expect they’ll get something out of this.  Something small that people won’t get too upset about but will establish a precedent they can build on.

  • Maybe us “skeptics” were a bit too cynical as well.
    This state of affairs should have been foreseeable given the failure of “Cap-n-Tax” in the US Congress.  We should have known that all of the West wasn’t really going to give the “developing” nations a “free lunch”;  that’s the job of the US.  With the “free lunch” off the table, they now must argue over “scraps.”

  • The GOP better get this message: If you folks get the majority in 2010, and you EFF it up, you will get your heads handed to you by your own people. It will be like the troops in the field getting fired on not by the enemy but by the townspeople behind them who they are allegedly defending.
    That Tea Party is just waiting in the wings. If a GOP-led House and/or Senate flunks, Sarah Palin may run as a third-party candidate in 2012 and get 35-40% of the vote.

  • We are now like Japan. We require foreign pressure (from China) for us to adopt sensible economic and governmental policies.