http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference

The outcome of the summit was an agreement, not a binding treaty, which calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord, and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions, to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. The agreement includes a proposed $100 billion a year fund to assist poorer countries finance emission reductions and adaptation.

The New York Times described the agreement as being both a "major step forward" given that international negotiations had stumbled in recent years, and as being "fairly modest" as it did not require the changes that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2010 at 9:23pm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference The outcome of the summit was an agreement, not a binding treaty, which calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord, and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions, to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. The agreement includes a proposed $100 billion a year fund to assist poorer countries finance emission reductions and adaptation. The New York Times described the agreement as being both a "major step forward" given that international negotiations had stumbled in recent years, and as being "fairly modest" as it did not require the changes that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

1) The outcome doesn't seem to be worth much.

2) I would have thought the comment should have gone to the Environment board!

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 7:48am:

freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 9:23pm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference The outcome of the summit was an agreement, not a binding treaty, which calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord, and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions, to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. The agreement includes a proposed $100 billion a year fund to assist poorer countries finance emission reductions and adaptation. The New York Times described the agreement as being both a "major step forward" given that international negotiations had stumbled in recent years, and as being "fairly modest" as it did not require the changes that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change. 1) The outcome doesn't seem to be worth much. 2) I would have thought the comment should have gone to the Environment board!

Nothing like a talkfest to give the illusion to the gullable  that something positive is occurring.

UPDATE ...




buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 8:34pm:

Cancun climate deal offers hope to Pacific nations December 13, 2010 13:55:30 Contrary to the expectations (and wishes) of many, a deal has been hatched at the Cancun Climate Summit, and it's set to benefit the nations in the Pacific that are among the most at risk from the consequences of climate change. The developed nations have pledged to contribute to a multi billion dollar green fund which is designed to help developing countries deal with the impact of global warming and promote alternative energy sources. Australia has already agreed to contribute $80 million to the fund. http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacbeat/stories/201012/s3091449.htm MULTILATERALISM was saved on Saturday as delegates to the United Nations (UN) climate change summit at Cancun in Mexico delivered an agreement to a standing ovation, but they put off until next year in SA tough decisions on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Ending a marathon gathering of world climate officials in the Mexican resort on Saturday, the Cancun Agreement is a hollow shell which will need much fleshing out. SA, which hosts next year’s summit in Durban, has its work cut out for it to ensure a strong accord. "This is not a perfect document, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good," Grenada’s delegate Albert Binger said. His sentiment was echoed by almost all other s who admitted while they were not completely happy with the result, they were prepared to work with it. "Perfection is not an accident. For perfection, we can work later," said Bangladesh negotiator Ainun Nishat. "This is a question of the survival of Bangladesh." Critical issues such as ambitious emissions cuts and the future of the Kyoto Protocol have been postponed once again. The US again sidestepped any hard concessions. Most elements of last year’s Copenhagen Accord, the weak political agreement it championed, have been retained in this year’s text. A new Green Fund for climate action has been established, as well as an initiative to save forests, and a framework for monitoring and reporting domestic actions. Although no new funds were agreed, the Copenhagen Accord promises $30bn in fast-start finance up to 2012, and to scale up finance to reach $100bn annually by 2020. Relief among delegates was palpable. Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa, who brokered the compromise as the meeting’s president, was received with unprecedented enthusiasm in a late-night plenary. Praise for Mexico’s diplomacy grew hyperbolic. Ms Espinosa was compared to a deity by India’s Environment Minister Shri Ramesh. "God has been very close to Mexico," he said. "You have restored the confidence of the international community in multilateralism and the multilateral process," he told her, adding that he had never before witnessed two standing ovations even before the meeting had begun. In return, Ms Espinosa graciously thanked India for its contribution. Even Saudi Arabia — it demands compensation for lost oil revenue — received enthusiastic applause from the room when it indicated its willingness to work on the text. http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=129288

Nothing like a talkfest to give the illusion to the gullable  that something positive is occurring.  
Back to top  



---------------

couldnt agree more... LOL..

where the hell do they think these so called RICH countries are going to get 100 billion a year from.. ???.. shall we ask Ireland.. Portugal Greece..even America is still printing money........... they dont even say for how MANY years..

its got to be cobbled together to make the whole thing look worth while.. next year I think its Sth Africa.... what an obscene joke this is turning into..

we still have countries in the year 2010.. without clean water.we have kids living in garbage dumps.. and they rely on CHARITY to come and save them..

and we think we are doing something by having a special group of people..gathering once a year so they can tell us what we SHOULD be doing.. its a joke of the worst kind.in my opinion a very sick joke.

codswal wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 6:01am:

Nothing like a talkfest to give the illusion to the gullable  that something positive is occurring.   Back to top   --------------- couldnt agree more... LOL.. where the hell do they think these so called RICH countries are going to get 100 billion a year from.. ???.. shall we ask Ireland.. Portugal Greece..even America is still printing money........... they dont even say for how MANY years.. its got to be cobbled together to make the whole thing look worth while.. next year I think its Sth Africa.... what an obscene joke this is turning into.. we still have countries in the year 2010.. without clean water.we have kids living in garbage dumps.. and they rely on CHARITY to come and save them.. and we think we are doing something by having a special group of people..gathering once a year so they can tell us what we SHOULD be doing.. its a joke of the worst kind.in my opinion a very sick joke.

Well they did want to ban water!

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 6:59am:

codswal wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 6:01am: Nothing like a talkfest to give the illusion to the gullable  that something positive is occurring.   Back to top   --------------- couldnt agree more... LOL.. where the hell do they think these so called RICH countries are going to get 100 billion a year from.. ???.. shall we ask Ireland.. Portugal Greece..even America is still printing money........... they dont even say for how MANY years.. its got to be cobbled together to make the whole thing look worth while.. next year I think its Sth Africa.... what an obscene joke this is turning into.. we still have countries in the year 2010.. without clean water.we have kids living in garbage dumps.. and they rely on CHARITY to come and save them.. and we think we are doing something by having a special group of people..gathering once a year so they can tell us what we SHOULD be doing.. its a joke of the worst kind.in my opinion a very sick joke. Well they did want to ban water!

precisely!! my point a very sick joke..

and who is paying for it????..we all are! even these poor countries the ones with kids living in garbage dumps find the money to attend these outrageous" go nowhere "conventions..

"wake up" Australia.. be the first to tell them to shove it.

codswal wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 8:03am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 6:59am: codswal wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 6:01am: Nothing like a talkfest to give the illusion to the gullable  that something positive is occurring.   Back to top   --------------- couldnt agree more... LOL.. where the hell do they think these so called RICH countries are going to get 100 billion a year from.. ???.. shall we ask Ireland.. Portugal Greece..even America is still printing money........... they dont even say for how MANY years.. its got to be cobbled together to make the whole thing look worth while.. next year I think its Sth Africa.... what an obscene joke this is turning into.. we still have countries in the year 2010.. without clean water.we have kids living in garbage dumps.. and they rely on CHARITY to come and save them.. and we think we are doing something by having a special group of people..gathering once a year so they can tell us what we SHOULD be doing.. its a joke of the worst kind.in my opinion a very sick joke. Well they did want to ban water! precisely!! my point a very sick joke.. and who is paying for it????..we all are! even these poor countries the ones with kids living in garbage dumps find the money to attend these outrageous" go nowhere "conventions.. "wake up" Australia.. be the first to tell them to shove it.

As a greenie lacks any thought process it makes it real easy to fool them.

A greenie is just like a toddler, easily distracted by the bright shiny coloured christmas wrapping paper that it fails to even see the present that it once wrapped.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 4:05am:

codswal wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 8:03am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 6:59am: codswal wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 6:01am: Nothing like a talkfest to give the illusion to the gullable  that something positive is occurring.   Back to top   --------------- couldnt agree more... LOL.. where the hell do they think these so called RICH countries are going to get 100 billion a year from.. ???.. shall we ask Ireland.. Portugal Greece..even America is still printing money........... they dont even say for how MANY years.. its got to be cobbled together to make the whole thing look worth while.. next year I think its Sth Africa.... what an obscene joke this is turning into.. we still have countries in the year 2010.. without clean water.we have kids living in garbage dumps.. and they rely on CHARITY to come and save them.. and we think we are doing something by having a special group of people..gathering once a year so they can tell us what we SHOULD be doing.. its a joke of the worst kind.in my opinion a very sick joke. Well they did want to ban water! precisely!! my point a very sick joke.. and who is paying for it????..we all are! even these poor countries the ones with kids living in garbage dumps find the money to attend these outrageous" go nowhere "conventions.. "wake up" Australia.. be the first to tell them to shove it. As a greenie lacks any thought process it makes it real easy to fool them. A greenie is just like a toddler, easily distracted by the bright shiny coloured christmas wrapping paper that it fails to even see the present that it once wrapped.

After the wrapping paper, the greenie then goes for the box to play with and not the toy!

Greenies are onto a scam that they don`t want to let go of.  Better than working I suppose.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 9:12am:

Greenies are onto a scam that they don`t want to let go of.  Better than working I suppose.

True.
Penny Wong declared that the drought was a result of global warming.

Wonder what the floods are a result of then, Penny Wong has been unable to answer that.

freediver wrote on Dec 12^th, 2010 at 9:23pm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference The outcome of the summit was an agreement, not a binding treaty, which calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord, and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions, to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. The agreement includes a proposed $100 billion a year fund to assist poorer countries finance emission reductions and adaptation. The New York Times described the agreement as being both a "major step forward" given that international negotiations had stumbled in recent years, and as being "fairly modest" as it did not require the changes that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

But, what is the currently translatable target definition for keeping warming to under 2 degrees: ... is there one?!!?  :P :-? :-? 8-)

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 7:24am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 15th, 2010 at 9:12am: Greenies are onto a scam that they don`t want to let go of.  Better than working I suppose. True. Penny Wong declared that the drought was a result of global warming. Wonder what the floods are a result of then, Penny Wong has been unable to answer that.

I do agree that it is politically dangerous territory to be assuming that these things are Global Warming related phenomena!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1^st, 2011 at 8:34pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 9:23pm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference The outcome of the summit was an agreement, not a binding treaty, which calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord, and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions, to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. The agreement includes a proposed $100 billion a year fund to assist poorer countries finance emission reductions and adaptation. The New York Times described the agreement as being both a "major step forward" given that international negotiations had stumbled in recent years, and as being "fairly modest" as it did not require the changes that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change. But, what is the currently translatable target definition for keeping warming to under 2 degrees: ... is there one?!!?  :P :-? :-? 8-)

I'm pretty sure the IPCC has made an estimate.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 4:05am:

codswal wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 8:03am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 6:59am: codswal wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 6:01am: Nothing like a talkfest to give the illusion to the gullable  that something positive is occurring.   Back to top   --------------- couldnt agree more... LOL.. where the hell do they think these so called RICH countries are going to get 100 billion a year from.. ???.. shall we ask Ireland.. Portugal Greece..even America is still printing money........... they dont even say for how MANY years.. its got to be cobbled together to make the whole thing look worth while.. next year I think its Sth Africa.... what an obscene joke this is turning into.. we still have countries in the year 2010.. without clean water.we have kids living in garbage dumps.. and they rely on CHARITY to come and save them.. and we think we are doing something by having a special group of people..gathering once a year so they can tell us what we SHOULD be doing.. its a joke of the worst kind.in my opinion a very sick joke. Well they did want to ban water! precisely!! my point a very sick joke.. and who is paying for it????..we all are! even these poor countries the ones with kids living in garbage dumps find the money to attend these outrageous" go nowhere "conventions.. "wake up" Australia.. be the first to tell them to shove it. As a greenie lacks any thought process it makes it real easy to fool them. A greenie is just like a toddler, easily distracted by the bright shiny coloured christmas wrapping paper that it fails to even see the present that it once wrapped.

Are farmers greenies in your humble opinion!??!

 ;) ;) ;)

They know that change is upon us.... pastoral rents are going up for a reason!

Get a clue, sister!  :D :D ;)

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2011 at 10:15pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2011 at 8:34pm: freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 9:23pm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference The outcome of the summit was an agreement, not a binding treaty, which calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord, and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions, to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. The agreement includes a proposed $100 billion a year fund to assist poorer countries finance emission reductions and adaptation. The New York Times described the agreement as being both a "major step forward" given that international negotiations had stumbled in recent years, and as being "fairly modest" as it did not require the changes that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change. But, what is the currently translatable target definition for keeping warming to under 2 degrees: ... is there one?!!?  :P :-? :-? 8-) I'm pretty sure the IPCC has made an estimate.

It doesn't seem to be public knowledge!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 3:20am:

freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2011 at 10:15pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2011 at 8:34pm: freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 9:23pm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference The outcome of the summit was an agreement, not a binding treaty, which calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord, and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions, to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. The agreement includes a proposed $100 billion a year fund to assist poorer countries finance emission reductions and adaptation. The New York Times described the agreement as being both a "major step forward" given that international negotiations had stumbled in recent years, and as being "fairly modest" as it did not require the changes that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change. But, what is the currently translatable target definition for keeping warming to under 2 degrees: ... is there one?!!?  :P :-? :-? 8-) I'm pretty sure the IPCC has made an estimate. It doesn't seem to be public knowledge!

It's been on the front page plenty of times.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 9:42am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 2nd, 2011 at 3:20am: freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2011 at 10:15pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1st, 2011 at 8:34pm: freediver wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 9:23pm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference The outcome of the summit was an agreement, not a binding treaty, which calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord, and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions, to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. The agreement includes a proposed $100 billion a year fund to assist poorer countries finance emission reductions and adaptation. The New York Times described the agreement as being both a "major step forward" given that international negotiations had stumbled in recent years, and as being "fairly modest" as it did not require the changes that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change. But, what is the currently translatable target definition for keeping warming to under 2 degrees: ... is there one?!!?  :P :-? :-? 8-) I'm pretty sure the IPCC has made an estimate. It doesn't seem to be public knowledge! It's been on the front page plenty of times.

So, how do we supposedly keep change to under 2 degrees?

 ;)

By reducing CO2 emissions.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 4:24pm:

By reducing CO2 emissions.

Given increasing Population & Demand and Major Global Players that will not agree to the solutions being proposed?

Is it posible to reduce GHG's, on a voluntary basis, across the planet & if so how?

If not, what are the likely ramifications, over time?

They will agree on something eventually. That is just the nature of politics. Sometimes it seems like things never change. Then everything changes overnight.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2011 at 7:19pm:

They will agree on something eventually. That is just the nature of politics. Sometimes it seems like things never change. Then everything changes overnight.

I think you meant to say, SOME THINGS will change overnight.

But, as I'm sure you would agree, the issues involved in Climate Change means that it will take a great deal of time to make any change (of substance) on the climate itself, if that is actually possible, at this late stage of proceedings.