
Poor countries will suffer most from any delay to an agreement to reduce emissions
Related Articles
EU must 'step-in' to save Copenhagen from disaster
Ecologist
16th November, 2009
Postponing an agreement on cutting emissions will delay key decisions on providing funding to less industrialised countries for adaption and mitigation, including tackling deforestation
Plans to delay a legally binding agreement on tackling climate change until next year have been heavily criticised by environmental campaigners.
The US has supported proposals put forward by Denmark, which is due to host the climate summit next month in Copenhagen, for a political agreement on greenhouse gas emissions and a deadline for agreeing a legally-binding one in the future.
Greenpeace said any delay would hit vulnerable countries hardest and called on EU leaders to continue to push for an agreement at Copenhagen climate summit next month.
'When Obama started downplaying the Copenhagen outcomes, did he check with the world’s most vulnerable countries as to whether their survival was now negotiable,' asked Greenpeace International Climate Policy Advisor, Kaisa Kosonen.
'That’s certainly not the message we have heard – climate change impacts are already affecting millions across the developing world and they need action now. This is not about time but rather the absence of political will from industrialised countries, which are refusing to take their fair share of the global efforts, and instead continue to postpone important decisions into eternity.
'EU leaders, including Merkel, Sarkozy and Brown, must immediately step in and publicly oppose this back down from a legally binding climate agreement in Copenhagen,' said Kosonen.
| READ MORE... | |
![]() |
NEWS Campaigners reject Copenhagen deal fears Campaigners have rejected claims that December’s Copenhagen climate summit cannot produce a legally binding climate deal, and called on the EU to stand up to US negativity |
![]() |
INTERVIEW Lester Brown: 'We shouldn't count on Copenhagen to save us' Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute and the WorldWatch Institute, on his fears for Copenhagen, genetically modified food and the failure of the media |
![]() |
COMMENT Conmen are already selling dodgy forest carbon Fancy some forest carbon, guv'nor? Only one careful owner... Dan Box explains why a cautious approach to deforestation schemes would be wise |
![]() |
NEWS Impact of religions will have 'deeper roots' than Copenhagen Archbishop speaks of the lasting impact of a religious movement to tackle climate change ahead of major summit of religious leaders |
![]() |
COMMENT Nothing will happen at Copenhagen until the 11½ hour Copenhagen was always going to be a nail-biting experience, but if we abandon Kyoto and try to reinvent the wheel you might end up gnawing your fingers off too |
Previous Articles...
Users Comments
Re: EU must 'step-in' to save Copenhagen from disasterDennis Earl Baker
103 - 66 Duncan avenue west
Penticton British Columbia V2A6Z3
Phone/Fax 778-476-3673
25/11/2009
The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the world on the Latest Climate Science. Has again indicated urgency in action is imperative. Here's my solution and immediate areas of impact.
dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com
RE : The solution to climate change.
( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen )
The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA.
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this utilization.
I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase the life expectancy of humans.
The four main areas of concern globally are energy, food,water and air!
The radiologic decomposing of organic materials generates Hydrogen
By using our sewage as a source of energy we also get clean air , clean water, and no ethanol use of food stocks. Eat food first, create energy after.
Simply replacing the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities with these plants, would reduce CO2 emissions, and CH4 emissions, to acceptable levels, globally.
This would require a completely new reactor facility capable of converting human waste into hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen to generate electricity on site.
This solution is sellable to citizens because of all the side issue solutions. I've been able to convince most simply with concept of using nuclear waste to a productive end.
Superbugs ( antibiotic resistant ) apparently are created in the waters sewage is discharged into, which is one more side issue solution.
Anything not converting into hydrogen will potentially be disposed of using Transmutation.
The water emitted from hydrogen burning will have uses in leaching heavy metals from other contaminated site clean ups.
I thank you for your consideration, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Dennis Baker
|














