“The world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades.”—U.S. President Barack Obama.
IN THE view of some scientists, planet Earth is ill. It is running a fever. According to them, the global temperature may be approaching the so-called tipping point—that delicate threshold where a slight rise in temperature may “cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures,” says the British newspaper The Guardian.
But that is the kind of HYPOCRISY what we would expect from a newspaper whose paper mills destroy the forests of the world isn't it?
Many scientists believe that human activity is a major factor, beginning with the industrial revolution and the subsequent increase in the use of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. Another factor involves rampant deforestation.
Forests serve as lungs for our environment. Trees absorb some of the greenhouse gases that produce global warming.
However, the cutting away of large amounts of forest results in leaving increasing amounts of these gases in our atmosphere. In order to address these problems, world leaders have convened climate summits.
The Kyoto Protocol
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, or agreement, set new goals for carbon dioxide emissions. By signing the protocol, the countries of the European Union and 37 other industrialised countries committed themselves to reducing their emissions by an average of 5 percent against 1990 levels, and this over the five-year period from 2008 to 2012.
The Kyoto Protocol, however, had some serious weaknesses. For example, the United States never ratified it. Also, larger developing countries, such as China and India, did not commit themselves to specific limits on their emissions. Yet, the United States and China alone contribute about 40 percent of the global carbon dioxide emissions.
The Copenhagen Summit
The objective of the Copenhagen summit, called COP 15, was to replace the Kyoto Protocol and set new, binding goals for 2012 and beyond. To confront climate change, representatives from 192 nations, including 119 heads of State, gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009 to attend the event. COP 15 was faced with the following three primary challenges:
1. Reaching legally binding agreements. Would developed countries accept the necessary emission caps or limits, and would the major developing countries limit the growth of their emissions?
2. Financing a perpetual solution. The developing countries would need billions of dollars for many years in order to cope with the accelerating consequences of global warming and to generate environmentally clean technology.
3. Agreeing on a model for monitoring emissions. Such a model would help individual countries stay within their emission limits. It would also help to ensure that developing countries use donated funds properly.
Were these three challenges met?
Negotiations ran into such serious problems that even a much less ambitious consensus seemed out of reach. Within the final hours of the conference, leaders from 28 countries hammered out a final document called the Copenhagen Accord. This accord was formally accepted with these rather bland words: “The conference . . . takes note of the Copenhagen Accord,” says Reuters news service.
In other words, it was up to the individual countries to act on it.
More conferences have been held or are planned, but scepticism runs high. “The planet will continue to cook,” said New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.
All too often, short-term political and economic benefits outweigh long-term environmental factors, encouraging a business-as-usual approach.
“If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money,” says Krugman.
As yet no one has and no one is able to definitively prove global warming. In fact following initial exploration of Warming factors their followed lengthy periods of cooling with temperatures plummeting and flooding in many areas of the world.
The answer to the shaky theory was to change it to climate change.
No consideration has been given to naturally occurring cyclical cycles or to other factors of interplanetary activity.
So we are left with world governments seeking to explore ways to not only control newer forms of energy but also how to control the market as is done now with Gas, Electricity and Oil.
One thing is assured.......................no one will be Showing Us the Money!