Copenhagen a waste of time, says environmentalist
Monday 21st December 2009, 1:00PM GMT.
Protesters voice their opinion outside the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, which finished at the weekend with what most, including local environmentalist Richard Lord, are calling a disappointing outcome. (0892157)
COPENHAGEN did not achieve much apart from giving politicians a networking opportunity, according to a local environmentalist.
Marine biologist and photographer Richard Lord joined millions worldwide in voicing their disappointment at the ‘accord’ reached at the summit aimed at reducing global warming.
National media reports heavily criticised the agreement, with activists labelling it weak and ‘scepticism in action’.
After eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was left to US president Barack Obama and Chinese premier Wen Jiabao to broker a political agreement. The so-called Copenhagen accord ‘recognises’ the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but does not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.
But Mr Lord said Guernsey already had the necessary tools to far outstrip anything that could have come out of the summit.
‘We have the expertise in the island to exceed anything they have decided. Guernsey is ideally placed to take advantage of reducing its carbon footprint. We have an electric vehicle company here and it’s fantastic. If we all bought those cars, we would slash our emissions – cars amount to 35% of emissions. An electric car is perfect for our island.’
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
I was cheering for a great outcome from COP15, Greenpeace Chief said that it is clear a radically different type of politics was needed to address CC and I think he is probably right, some sort of ecological dictatorship is of course what is needed, but then the blessings of democracy would be lost, and the communist block under an economic dictatorship was an environmental disaster, so I dont think that would be a wise approach, it is simple we cannot sort out a strategic issue like CC with short term politics, the trouble is if we dont well……………..
Report abuse
No problem recognizing which side of the global warming debate the BBC supports
On Ceefax ( or the other one ? ) this morning 21/12 they report that the Eastern Seaboard of America has been coated with up to two feet of snow which has ‘all melted into the sea ‘
I’m not sure if they think the public will believe that the sea will rise up to two feet as a consequence but that’s the first time I’ve seen reporting with quite such bias
Report abuse
Ray
I haven’t read ceefax for a long while, but the BBC is only ‘biased’ towards basic scientific knowledge. Whether or not people want to believe in ‘doomsday scenarios’ or the opposite evangelistic sceptism that is making scientific study look like witchcraft, is there own issue.
Anthropomorphic interference in natural cycles is a real threat to the status quo, the miniature blip of our existence on earth is disrupting millions of years of a cyclical stability.
We need to deal with it. Copenhagen was a disaster for the more optimistic of environmenatlists.
Continual denial of our rapacious consumption as a cause for wider problems, in all spectra of human interactions – with the biosphere and amongst ourselves, is just plain ignorance.
“Here endeth the lesson”, as you have said to me.
Report abuse
I totally agree with you on this one Arnald. Our biosphere is so, so fragile and we are wrecking it as a species. A rapacious, rampant species as you say. No supernatural power is going to intervene to stop us, we’ve got to stop it ourselves.
Report abuse
Arnald
I’ve seen some quite interesting TV programmes by the so called ‘deniers’ … all scientists by the way .. but I’ve never seen one on the BBC for the sake of balance.
I agree we have rapacious consumption but isn’t a lot of that caused by the massive leap in world population over the last half century.
I believe you mentioned on another stream recently that India was a poor nation. I wonder how many tanks or missiles the Indian Government would have to cancel in order to alleviate that poverty?
Report abuse
I am no scientist so will not jump on the ‘global warming bandwagon’ and keep my views on the so called global warming armageddon limited. Nevertheless, my concern is the billions being spent on this so called global warming. Billions which would be better spent on the worlds poorest nations not given to some mad so called eco experts or the thousands of eco evangelical businesses which have sprung up raking in the millions which are being literally thrown at them by government’s hell bent on gaining re-election and being brain washed into thinking the world is in meltdown.
I was dually informed that allegedly every 6 secs a child dies of starvation. Is this due to global warming of course it is not. This is due to mans lack of guts to deal with the problems they created in third world countries to oppress cultures and races for their thirst of power and control. Sadly, we live in a world which is governed by materialism and greed where the life of a dumb animal is more important then the life of a child.
Does global warming exist? I am in the Camp of no it does not but it will make thousands very very wealthy and millions poorer.
Is Guernsey the key to saving the world from total meltdown. Of course not. It does worry me that we have so many eco hardliners in little old Guernsey and any man or women dare question this global warming phenomenon they are savagely abused.
Does man inhumanity to each other exist……Yes it does on a daily basis and the so called global warming phenomenon is a clever distraction from the real global ills……
I begrudge paying extra taxes so some local eco nut can get rich. Perspective and deep reflection is what needed here. Have we not learnt anything from the fist biggest world wide con that being the Millienium bug which cost the tax payer billions and made so called experts billions. Y2K Bug and Global warming = one big con……..
Report abuse
Pete Burtenshaw (above) I agree with everything you say. I could not have put it better myself.
I would also like to say, I speak to my customers regularly and nearly all of them think it is a load of rubbish and a con like me. I did not tell them what I believed, simply started the conversation with “What about this global warming, eh?” Of course you get the odd looney who believes in it.
Doing an outdoor job I think I have a better judgement of what the weather is doing year after year and I’m sorry to disappoint the “man made global warming” believers but our summers in Guernsey are getting colder and as far as I’m concerned I find the winters colder now then I did even five years ago.
I would also like these “man made global warming” believers, including politicians and scientists to answer one thing, which i’m sure happened in other countries around the world. In the industrial era in the UK in the late 1700′s and 1800′s, Britain was burning thousands of tons of coal every week causing tons of thick smog around the towns and cities of the UK. How come there was no global warming during this era?
I’m hardly going to care what the weather or sea is going to be doing in 50 years time, because I will be dead then, plus I’m not likely to have any children anyway.
I feel really strongly about this, so I will end in the words of Catherine Tate’s Nan character “GLOBAL WARMING, WHAT A LOAD OF OLD ****!”
Report abuse
Pete Burtenshaw
The companies springing up around spurious economic arguments as a by product of the factual analysis of climate trends is a disgrace, I agree.
But as with the various dubious strategies in the finance sector, there will always be sharks playing the game. The general public vote in politicians that say that this type of ‘entrepreneurialism’ is the way forwards. Clearly it is not.
No matter what the new ‘technique’ is, there will always be a way to cash in, and produce a result exactly opposite to the spin that goes around it.
But what you’re talking about, whilst valid, is not the point. You are taking a dislike of global inequality, seeing a scam that has come about of scientific concensus and you are then blaming the scientists for making up the scam. It would be a conspiracy theory like non other involving manipulation of the most basic of physics, chemistry and biology, a way of keeping thousands of researchers, from differing fields, with differing methodologies and different theoretical outcomes to the data they see and what it means to them in a concensual Grand Lie, spanning decades, a generation since people started collating this stuff – CO2 has been known as greenhouse gas since the late 19th century – and it would involve the biggest and most incredible abuse of the scientific peer review system that, well, ..words fail me. It could never be done.
Are all these people ‘eco fascists’?
The scientists provide the research and their concensus conclusion. It is the politicians and the’entrepreneurs’ that have their ear at all times that make the mess.
The stats speak for themselves.
http://www.climatedebatedaily.com
puts up all the arguments for and against, though how you can be ‘for’ or ‘against’ i’m not sure. It’s more a case of
“do i believe thousands of scientists”
or
“do i believe the powerful business lobbies”
And then have a look at the biggest names of the ‘greed fascists’ that promote the stuff that goes into the papers and forms your opinion. Find out who they are paid by, for what reason, for how long and their arguments for NOT wanting to believe in science.
So you’ll believe ‘science’ when it comes to something like toxic emissions from an incinerator, but not ‘science’ about this. And on the flip side, you’ll believe reactionary politicians and clueless columnists about the real danger-scale of drugs, yet ignore the ‘science’?
Half right, though, the rich countries are promoting methods which involve multinationals getting very rich with no discernible and evidence based proof that those methods will work.
The only thing that will work to a tiny degree is that the rich countries cut their consumption drastically, or find means of consuming ‘smarter’.
Clever? 40 Something
It is clear from your “answer one thing” that you haven’t been bothered to look at even the most simple factsheets, primary school level i’m talking, not New Scientist or any of the signatories of the IPCC reports that have been published. I could draw you the principle on a piece of A4.
As you point out, we could be existentialist and believe that once we are dead, then so our vague dislike of others suffering is removed, and carry on regardless, but then what’s the point of living if in the end you are nothing?
Yours, and all the people you meet, opinion that MMCC is not only nonsense, but a scam, has been gleaned from the tv, the printed press, the pints in the pub and maybe even from school, where you were taught to read and write which has been passed down, along with how to build schools, and electricity etc etc etc all derived from dead people.
Outcomes concerning something as complex as fture global climate trends is of course speculation, but the understanding of a few basics that form the backbone of the general theory is hard fact.
Digging your heals in without acknowledging the subject is fine, even believing the denialists books is fine, even after their books and their Ch4 documentary have been completely torn to shreds as being lies, misrepresentations and unscientifically illogical, even after the biggest denialists are the biggest perpetrators of environmental catastrophe in business, or belong to groups connected to religious fundamentalism, or those whose viewpoints are of an obnoxious and vile minority, even after all that, it’s fine.
But do me a favour to restore my faith in humanity, a small kindness as it were, tell me you know where and how the petrol in your car has come so conveniently to exist, or where coal comes from. Do you think that since the 1700s we have been using more, or less, of these fuels?
You can answer your own question quite easily if you can see a relationship between how fossil fuels are made and over what period, and humankinds consumption habits. If you don’t believe either of these two things, then there really is no point in anything. The whole world’s just a scam. The weatherman’s a ‘cold-snap fascist’.
Report abuse
I read this thread a few days ago and wasn’t going to bother to respond because I found Pete’s post so illogical.
He professes to be concerned for the poor of the world and yet doesn’t seem to have made the connection between the prognosis of climate change and the poorest in the world. They will be the ones who will be on the front line and first to suffer the consequences….. and yet he seems to indicate that we should ignore our part in creating the problem. What does he think of the millions of Bangladeshi who will be losing their homes not to mention the ability to feed themselves, at the slightest rise in sea levels?
Almost half the worlds population depends on the water that comes out of the himalayan plateaux, which looks like it will disappear along with the glaciers from which the water comes. This will not directly affect the wealthier northern Europeans, but some of the worlds poorest. Scientists tell us that the burning of fossil fuels, and felling of forests are the primary drivers of these changes, but in Pete’s infinite wisdom, he thinks we should ignore their opinions.
If he wants to pretend that Climate Change is a figment of the scientific establishments imagination, and that they are all in it to make a quick buck, then maybe he could tell us what he thinks about the increasing acidification of our oceans also caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Many of the worlds poorest depend on food they harvest from the sea….food that is going to be drastically affected by this change in the seas composition. Or are the scientists making that up too?
Also what about the impact of rising fossil fuel prices due to a decreasing resource…… who is that going to impact on if not the poor? Whatever way you look at it… it would be more than prudent to wean ourselves of our oil addiction as soon as is possible. And that will only be made possible if there is encouragement for investment in clean sustainable energy….. and that will only happen if people can see that there is a profit to be made. I certainly do not condone the huge amount of greenwash that is bound to be deployed by dodgy companies eager to benefit from the growth in the ‘green’ markets, but all the same, market forces need to be encouraged to help solve this, and the many other problems that we are facing. Otherwise, we are just cutting off our nose to spite our face as well as denying everyone their inherent desire to better their condition.
Report abuse
Arnald
I’m not sure that I do more than five thousand miles a year in my car which is about what I did in the 1960′s.
What has changed though is that my little cottage which used to be on the edge of a large vinery is now on the edge of a large housing estate.
All these extra people are probably doing their own five thousand miles per year which I think could be part of the alleged problem.
Report abuse
Ray
In Guernsey’s case, the population has not increased in the same proportion to our overall consumption. That is the key. The rich world’s consumption rates have risen exponentially since the 1700s. The population in the majority poor countries consume a fraction of what we all do, the onus is therefore on the richest countries to consume less, and at the same time using our resources to mitigate any consequences of that consumption for future generations – sharing those technological and systemic advances with the developing nations.
Overpopulation is an issue, but it is not a reason for the unnatural rises in atmospheric greenhouse gases, nor should it be used as an excuse by lazy commentators to pass the buck onto the most vulnerable.
Report abuse
Just read an item in the Daily ‘Truth will out’ Mail
Apparently the head of the Russian space research laboratory at St Petersburg ,one Habibullo Abdussamatov,has discovered that Mars is also experiencing global warming on the same scale as Earth.
He reckons it can’t be anything to do with car use or little green men burning fossil fuels,and is convinced that it is just a normal cycle of solar irradiation.
Well worth looking up Mr A before we’re all bluffed back into the dark ages.
Report abuse
Ray
That stuff has been and gone years ago. I find it hard to believe that denialists would still be using it as proof of anything.
Report abuse