Climate Change

It seems like Gore's polar bears, whether or not their plight is real, are being heard. When Hillary Clinton got to speak at a meeting to decide what to do about conditions in the Arctic, her main point was not whether to take action but, rather, who was to take action. Hillary Clinton felt that Canada, the host of the conference, should have invited all those "who have legitimate interests in the region", referring to Sweden, Finland and Iceland, who were left out of the deliberations.

"We need all hands on deck because there is a huge amount to do, and not much time to do it. What happens in the Arctic will have broad consequences for the Earth and its climate."

China Will Join The United States in Attending the U.N. Climate-Change Summit

Good news from China! Their Premier Wen Jiabao will attend a major U.N. climate-change summit in Denmark, December 7-18. This is a great demonstration of the Chinese government showing serious concerns about the environment, as they have also proposed cutting emissions to 40-45% in 2020, compared to their 2005 levels. Symbolically, this also shows that the Chinese government is will cooperate with the international community.

President Barack announced yesterday that he will also be attending this summit. Obama is prepared to set a goal of reducing emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels over the next decade and reducing U.S. emissions by 83 percent by 2050. However, the United States is the only industrialized country that hasn't yet given the UNFCCC a proposal for cutting carbon emissions. To read more about this, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/25/obama.copenhagen.climate/index.html#cnnSTCText

Next month's climate talks aim to strike a deal on a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 pact that has legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The United States never ratified it, though more than 200 nations did.

I think this is a great step for the United States and especially China. The pollution is terrible in China, as I and many of you saw during the band trip. I think this trip will help get the Senate to pass the climate change bill. Internationally, I think the more, and bigger countries that make a commitment to improve environmentally, it will help other, more poor countries reach their goals. It might also put more pressure on other countries to be more active in environmental issues. However, Greenpeace is criticizing the president for going only at the begginning of the summit, since he will be in Norway to accept his Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, calling it a "photo-opp." I think it would be really hard for the preident to attend an 11 day conference. I don't think he is wrong to go at the begginning. What do you guys think?

Climate Change Fail

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23climate.html

Now we've all heard about global warming at one point or another and how we keep trying to do things, but never end up doing enough. Well, here we went again today at a UN Conference to talk about global warming. And you guessed it, we aren't doing enough.

China is currently the largest air polluter in the world, closely followed by the United States.  During today's United Nations meeting on climate change, over 100 countries discussed their goals on reducing emissions by 2050.

Most industrialized nations have agreed to "a 25 percent to 40 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020". However, developing countries like China have said "Due to their low development level and shortage of capital and technology, developing countries have limited capability and means to deal with climate change". Despite this China said they would "cut carbon dioxide emissions by a “notable margin” by 2020 compared with 2005 levels; drastically increase the size of forests; increase the use of nuclear or non-fossil fuels to 15 percent of power by 2020; and work to develop a green economy."

A fairly arbitrary percentage for the more industrialized nations. They need to set a far stricter goal that isn't so vague. China had a slightly more focused plan, actually stating what they want done in a period of time, but the notable margin part is a bit more bleh.

President Obama wants the U.S to invest largely on renewable energy, and giving incentives for cleaner vehicles and clean energy. He also wanted developed countries to provide both financial and technological aid to developing countries to help the world reduce carbon emissions. 

While this looks very nice, none of this has really happened. Frankly, the Cash for Clunkers thing wasn't useful at all. It required you buy a vehicle with a fuel economy of over 22 MPG which is absolutely abysmal.  Older cars from 10 years ago had mileages ranging up to 45 miles per gallon, and after over a decade, all we ask for is 22 miles per gallon? Come on!

Many environmentalists still don't feel we are doing enough to cut emissions, however the target date is so far into the future that Indian environmental minister Jairam Ramesh said that "It is the height of dishonesty to have a target for 2050 because none of us will be around to be held accountable,".

The main problem I've found with climate change, is that no one now actually cares. They won't live long enough to see it, and their children may or may not see it either. Furthermore, all we've done so far is plan. We "plan" to cut emissions by 2050. We "plan" to invest into various clean energy. Not much has actually happened to do anything of the sort. With dates like 2050, as the Indian environmental minister had said, are so far into the future that President Obama can just push the problem onto the next president, and not have to do anything but lay a big speech on how we'll do something about it. We need change now, not in 50 years.

-Weilu Jia