NEWS

China: Climate talks yielded "positive" results

Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi (left on picture, with Prime Minister Wen Jiabao) praises the outcome of the UN climate conference in Copenhagen for upholding the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" recognized by the Kyoto Protocol.

Associated Press 20/12/2009 10:45
China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, lauded Sunday the outcome of a historic UN climate conference that ended with a nonbinding agreement that urges major polluters to make deeper emissions cuts — but does not require it.

The international climate talks that brought more than 110 leaders together in Copenhagen produced "significant and positive" results, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said.

Disputes between rich and poor countries and between the world's biggest carbon polluters — China and the United States — dominated the two-week conference. Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets to demand action to cool an overheating planet.

The meeting ended Saturday after a 31-hour negotiating marathon, with delegates accepting a US-brokered compromise. The so-called Copenhagen Accord gives billions of dollars in climate aid to poor nations but does not require the world's major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.

Yang said the positive outcomes of the conference were that it upheld the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" recognized by the Kyoto Protocol, and made a step forward in promoting binding emissions cuts for developed countries and voluntary mitigating actions by developing countries.

"Developing and developed countries are very different in their historical emissions responsibilities and current emissions levels, and in their basic national characteristics and development stages," Yang said in a statement. "Therefore, they should shoulder different responsibilities and obligations in fighting climate change."

He said the conference also created a consensus on key issues such as long-term global emissions reduction targets, funding and technology support to developing countries, and transparency. He did not go into details.

"The Copenhagen conference is not a destination but a new beginning," Yang said. (Photo: Scanpix/EPA)

Read more

New user

Comments

frank fog

20/12/2009 11:25"China: Climate talks yielded "positive" results"

-- The fraud has been exposed,
-- all leaders implicated
-- Silence implies consent

-- The Hero Russian Hackers
-- Saved the Planet from tyranny

John C Lepant

20/12/2009 12:28Gentle Readers,

According to this article, the position of the Chinese
Government is that the Copenhagen Accord is .....

" a step forward in promoting binding emissions cuts for developed countries and voluntary mitigating actions by developing countries. "

As the Chinese identify themselves as a ' developing
country ', essentially they may, or may not, volunteer
to take action, as they see fit.

However, ' developed ' countries are under " Binding
Emissions Cuts ".

So, " Common but Differentiated Responsibilites "
is a nice, polite, diplomatic way of saying

" We won't do anything! Somebody else will have to do it! "

The Chinese government has given the world their
solemn pledge to do absolutely nothing!

I hope the UNITED STATES CONGRESS will reciprocate
in kind to our Chinese friends.

According to these 31,000 scientists, human CO2
emissions do not cause any kind of climate change
and no actions whatsoever need to be taken.

www.petitionproject.org

It is becoming increasingly clear that this is the
same view held by the majority of delegates at
the COP 15.

Why can't we all just admit there is nothing to
do here, cancel the COP 16 & COP 17, and put an
end to this whole useless endeavor so we can
put resources into projects which will provide some
benefits?

Kindest Regards to all,

I am,

John Lepant
Brighton
Colorado

frank fog

20/12/2009 12:43"urges major polluters to make deeper emissions cuts — but does not require it"

-- emitted CO2 is not pollution !
-- What part of not is not understood ?

-- No target -- No deadline, No verification -- No enforcement -- No peaking year
-- Zero times Zero times Zero times Zero times Zero = One happy giant accord ?

frank fog

20/12/2009 12:48"urges major polluters to make deeper emissions cuts — but does not require it"

-- emitted CO2 is not pollution !
-- What part of not is not understood ?

-- No target -- No deadline, No verification -- No enforcement -- No peaking year
-- Zero times Zero times Zero times Zero times Zero = One happy giant accord ?

Aladar Stolmar

20/12/2009 13:49I don't like the Copenhagen Accord, because Russia was not part of it and they hold the key to the solution: First the Russian Federation shall commit to shut down the 11 still operating RBMK (Chernobyl type) nuclear power plant units before the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl, before April 27 2011 to remove the Damocles sword from above our heads and allow us to take the nuclear option, start to build the needed five thousand nuclear power plant units.

I like the Copenhagen Accord because there is no word about the carbon credits and the speculative trading. I assume it means that we can forget it, which would be a very positive outcome.

I like the Copenhagen Accord because there is a measurement of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (translated into degrees of alleged warm-up) is put for the basis of actions.

I hope it will work, not like the Kyoto protocol, which actually caused the irresponsible increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, against its stated intent to stop that increase.

I hope China will be the driving force behind the massive nuclear power plant building effort, it has the money on hand to finance it. The electric cars also may come from China.

frank fog

20/12/2009 14:08It is over. Sanity has prevailed.
All Obama could get is an accord.

Dreaming of wind turbines, nuclear reactors,
solar panels, geothermal, tidal power
Will not make it happen, even after Mex16

Moderator

20/12/2009 17:03- Deleted due to terms of use violation

Moderator

20/12/2009 17:03- Deleted due to terms of use violation

Moderator

20/12/2009 17:12- Deleted due to terms of use violation

Moderator

20/12/2009 17:13- Deleted due to terms of use violation

Chitra Srinivasan

20/12/2009 17:40Well what is the elation over the ACCORD.
We do not have clear cut bindings
AS remarked COP15 Is just the beginning
We have to take from here to promote awareness in the likes of AlGore and LIVE EARTH shows.
As i had mentioned we have to deal at the grass root level to promote the Environmental Awareness amongst the masses.
This should be initial goal before we get on to Greener Technologies and go in for sustainable development.
The toddler's step has been taken at COP15's accord.

John C Lepant

20/12/2009 21:24Gentle Readers,

Dear Chitra Srinivasan,

That, my friend, is exactly why so many
people do not believe any of this.

LIVE EARTH was an ecological disaster!
Huge amounts of emissions of all types
and tons of garbage, for a rock concert!

Al Gore is a hypocrite with a yaht ( he calls
it a ' houseboat ' so he gets a tax advantage,
but he doesn't actually live on it ), who
flys about in private jets, uses more energy
heating his swimming pool each month
than I use to heat my entire house in a year
( no exaggeration - that is true ) has
multiple mansions and generally emits
huge quantities of atmospheric CO2
with an extravagent lifestyle.

The same is true of the rock stars
at LIVE EARTH.

Yet, these hypocrites have the nerve
to tell me and everyone else we must
' reduce our carbon footprints '!

If you truly believe that human CO2 emissions
cause climate change, the first thing we
must do is shut down all the casinos and
rock concerts until we get a handle on this
problem.

Then, build proven zero-carbon energy sources:
hydroelectric and atomic power plants.

If you're not willing to do that, I have to question
whether you truly believe what you say about
human CO2 emissions being so harmful?

Honestly: We're supposed to be facing the
greatest crisis in human history, and your
response is LIVE EARTH rock concerts?

I don't believe human CO2 emissions cause
global warming, and I suspect that despite
what you say, you don't really believe it either.

Kindest Regards to all,

I am,

John Lepant
Brighton
Colorado

frank fog

20/12/2009 22:04To; Chitra Srinivasan -- 20/12/2009 17:40

Well what is the elation over the ACCORD.
-- Even with the assistance of the wet firecracker, Emperor Obama,
--The Commie co-Zombies have failed to enslave humanity

We do not have clear cut bindings
-- Why do you want to bind others ?
-- The basic motivation is baseless financial control

AS remarked COP15 Is just the beginning
-- The anti CO2 craze has peaked at COP15
-- Mex16 will be discussing Ice Age prevention

frank fog

20/12/2009 22:40玉皇帝是一个没有真正做任何获胜的主人。
他知道所有的方式的问题及其对最不发达国家行动纲领的原则（吴微)

西部生态僵尸需要采取的教训
说实话

Moderator

21/12/2009 07:08- Deleted due to terms of use violation

Michael Yeung

21/12/2009 08:43Dear John Lepant,

Firstly, it’s worth to discuss and understand the definition of ‘developing county’ and ‘developed county’. For the past 10 decades after the 1st and 2nd Industrial Revolution, the western world (UK, US etc.) has well-constructed and developed their own countries by technology advancement as well as primitive accumulation of all resources such as capital, crude oil, precious metals, etc. Leaving aside the negative impact brought in during the primitive accumulation stage, I must admit that the western world has been a driving power and played a vital role in the society evolutionary for the all nations. Peoples of the developed countries are now living a higher standard of life than those in developing countries, who earn more (GDP) and consume more on energy and food on average and this fact has been commonly recognized.

China, the country has been developing very fast in the past 2 decades, is still the largest developing country when look at the per head figures in each aspect, e.g. GDP, energy. I assume each people born on this planet has equal right for living regardless of their nationality / skin color / race / religious, then it is safe to draw a conclusion that China, despite of its undeliverable rapid economic-growth achieved recently, is and will still be the world’s largest developing country. Having said that each people are born equal, it is totally unfair to role out the chances for China’s endeavour to develop the world’s most energetic country for the wellbeing for its nationals.

In view of the above, I totally agree with what Chinese Foreign Minister Mr. Yang said ‘Common but differentiated responsibilities’, which pinpoints the exact direction we shall follow starting from this Copenhagen conference, i.e. ‘developed countries’ has the obligation to provide assistance to those ‘developing countries’ where ‘developed countries’ benefited from utilizing resources from these ‘developing countries’ for the enormous consumption of their own. On the other side, ‘developing countries’ shall not, on the way of its development, follow the same track and repeat what those ‘developed countries’ have done to our nature and planet.

Actually, I believe the theme of this Copenhagen conference shall focus more on the technology advancement to tackle the problem of green-house gas emission so to slow down or stop the temperature from rising that fast, rather than to make a deal on what they were arguing for the past one week. After all, technology innovation is the only way out that may help us enjoying the happiness of modern life while keeping the balance with our nature.

Kind regards,
Michael Yang
Hong Kong

frank fog

21/12/2009 10:04To; Michael Yeung -- 21/12/2009 08:43
Firstly, it’s worth to discuss and understand the
definition of ‘developing county’ and ‘developed county’

-- Nations are exclusive power centers hindering humanity.
-- Blocking interaction for the advantage of those in control

-- Lowering the balance of power to the neighborhood
-- of city, would allow greater equality

-- For their protection, lot of people in the US live inside gated secure dwellings
-- Security for safety, not for monopolistic tyranny of the elite of a whole country

Moderator

21/12/2009 14:03- Deleted due to terms of use violation

John C Lepant

22/12/2009 13:15Gentle Readers,

Dear Michael Yeung,

I wholeheartedly agree with you
and the position of the Chinese
Government regarding China's
emissions.

The Chinese Government has wisely
chosen to not subordinate all human
endeavors in China to efforts to
reduce human CO2 emissions.

That should be the policy everywhere,
not just China.

Especially as human CO2 emissions
currently only comprise 3.7% of
total atmospheric CO2 emissions,
and less historically, so, whatever climate
effects anyone may choose to ascribe
to atmospheric CO2 emissions, 96.3%
of that effect would be natural phenomena
with only 3.7% attributable to human emissions.

And, these 31,000 scientists say that human
CO2 emissions do not affect climate at
all.

www.petitionproject.org

Every country in the world should adopt the
policy that China has adopted for itself.

The policy which China prescribes for other
countries, steep reductions in atmospheric
CO2 emissions, should be rejected by other
countries.

If China see's the folly of the policy for its
internal affairs, why should anyone else
not accept their wisdom and adopt the
same internal policy?

The Chinese frequently accuse others
of arrogance, but isn't it arrogant for them
to demand the right to unlimited CO2
emissions while demanding others
reduce theirs?

Kindest Regards to all,

I am,

John Lepant
Brighton
Colorado