Copenhagen Failure

[Walsingham]

I think Copenhagen proves a far more important 'fact' than any proof of global warming. Specifically that human cannot/will not collaborate to solve collective problems.

 

Follow my reasoning:

 

1. Assume global warming is a result of human collective activity

2. Halting global warming will require an unnatural (that is counterto our normal behaviour) change in that activity

3. Being an unnatural change we would need to implement a control mechanism over our collective activity

 

I assert

 

4. Such a control mechanism is so utterly inconsistent with current geopolitical realities as to be effictively impossible.

 

Therefore

 

5. Optimal national/bloc policy must default to a self-interested focus on surviving the impact of global warming, not wasting resources on trying to pre-empt it.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I believe humans can and have co-operated many times to solve collective problems, albeit with lots of squabbling and self-imposed obstacles - and exceptions. The near-elimination of certain diseases, or nuclear non-proliferation, migh serve as examples - I'm sure you can think of others. Climate change does seem to present the greatest challenge, though, because the effects are delayed and its harder to galvanise public opinion against a less immediate threat. I'm still optimistic, though, particularly about technological solutions.

 

I've heard that China, far from being the great villain of Copenhagen, is actually one of the world's biggest investors in low-carbon technological research - does anyone know any details about this?

[Zoraptor]

China certainly has a very high proportion (relatively speaking, and depending a bit on whether you use 'renewable' or 'low carbon') of energy from renewable sources as a lot of the technology for things like solar and wind power are produced in China- there's a lot of solar powered hot water heating, for example. From memory the only ones ahead of it are a few smaller European nations- almost all Scandanavian- and a couple of others. If talking strictly low carbon rather than renewable then a few others with very high nuclear power supplies are also better like France. Unfortunately the non-renewable stuff China spews out tends to be highly unregulated and very 'bad', though, as it's coal fired.

[Walsingham]

I believe humans can and have co-operated many times to solve collective problems, albeit with lots of squabbling and self-imposed obstacles - and exceptions. The near-elimination of certain diseases, or nuclear non-proliferation, migh serve as examples - I'm sure you can think of others. Climate change does seem to present the greatest challenge, though, because the effects are delayed and its harder to galvanise public opinion against a less immediate threat. I'm still optimistic, though, particularly about technological solutions.

 

I've heard that China, far from being the great villain of Copenhagen, is actually one of the world's biggest investors in low-carbon technological research - does anyone know any details about this?

 

Sorry to jump on you, steve, but NEAR elimination of diseases? Nuclear non-proliferation when Iran is doing what it's doing? You've chosen perfect examples of why we don't work, haven't you?

[Rosbjerg]

I believe humans can and have co-operated many times to solve collective problems, albeit with lots of squabbling and self-imposed obstacles - and exceptions. The near-elimination of certain diseases, or nuclear non-proliferation, migh serve as examples - I'm sure you can think of others. Climate change does seem to present the greatest challenge, though, because the effects are delayed and its harder to galvanise public opinion against a less immediate threat. I'm still optimistic, though, particularly about technological solutions.

 

I've heard that China, far from being the great villain of Copenhagen, is actually one of the world's biggest investors in low-carbon technological research - does anyone know any details about this?

 

Actually I read a very interesting article about the major powers and why it failed.. Basically it blames everyone evenly - saying the developing countries where too optimistic and demanded too much without giving enough, the developed countries where too divided and not willing to give ground, America was too interested in keeping the status quo (power wise) and China wanted to show that it was strong enough to dance with the big boys.

 

It also mentioned that China is investing heavily in alternate fuel sources, green energy and CO

[SteveThaiBinh]

Sorry to jump on you, steve, but NEAR elimination of diseases? Nuclear non-proliferation when Iran is doing what it's doing? You've chosen perfect examples of why we don't work, haven't you?

Only a handful of the world's 200+ countries have nuclear weapons or are seeking to acquire them, most of those do their best to stop other countries from acquiring them, a number of countries have given up nuclear weapons or weapons programmes. Iran doesn't make all that meaningless - and I was careful to say that there were problems and exceptions, but the overall effort has been quite successful, don't you think? I put it to you that if nuclear non-proliferation had been a failure, we would be living in a very different kind of world than the one we have.

 

The same for diseases. Great progress against polio and Guinea worm - held back because some local populations fear vaccines are harmful, but nevertheless a qualified success and tremendous achievement for humanity.

[Nightshape]

Who said anything about me actually having the belief that global warming is occuring due to man's intervention.

well, you did directly say that WE were destroying our host. you even went on to anthropomorphize the earth by calling the damage a "wound."

 

No, my opinion is more that if this is infact the case, and we cannot address it, then well.. f*** humanity, looks like we fail.

or we adapt?

 

taks

 

Well I did say we're a virus with shoes... This is mostly because I find the concept humourious. I'm sorry if I mislead.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I like pickles.

[Walsingham]

Sorry to jump on you, steve, but NEAR elimination of diseases? Nuclear non-proliferation when Iran is doing what it's doing? You've chosen perfect examples of why we don't work, haven't you?

Only a handful of the world's 200+ countries have nuclear weapons or are seeking to acquire them, most of those do their best to stop other countries from acquiring them, a number of countries have given up nuclear weapons or weapons programmes. Iran doesn't make all that meaningless - and I was careful to say that there were problems and exceptions, but the overall effort has been quite successful, don't you think? I put it to you that if nuclear non-proliferation had been a failure, we would be living in a very different kind of world than the one we have.

 

The same for diseases. Great progress against polio and Guinea worm - held back because some local populations fear vaccines are harmful, but nevertheless a qualified success and tremendous achievement for humanity.

 

I accept your point that non-proliferation has had some success, and so have attempts to eliminate certain diseases. I should also add that I'm not in favour of just quitting without trying on anything involving cooperation. But at the same time your examples illustrate when cooperation will only go so far. When that far isn't far enough our only option is to take an alternative route.