“Copen” or “Hopen” for Climate Change in Denmark?
World leaders are supposedly considering serious emission control measures to combat climate change. However, translating this rhetoric into reality is something of international concern. Little focus has been made on what are the best management strategies that will lessen our dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. Also how will monitor and enforce such measures given the magnitude of this crisis?
First the “cap” and “trade” will not best address this problem since a “cap” and “tax” is a more effective combating this problem. Many leading economists and financial experts have voiced the flaws with “cap" and "trade". Also how and who will enforce this measures? For example, governments in India and China — which is the world's biggest carbon emitter — have resisted draft proposals that would allow for international verification of data. Just look at USA’s environmental enforcement measures to see why there should be concerned.
Presently the Obama administration is proposing a 17% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 with levels in 2005. China has pushed a target that would allow its carbon dioxide output to continue to grow with its economy, though at a slower pace. Most European countries have offered more ambitious cuts. However, this will cost trillions of dollars in a global market trading system. And we open the doors for massive corruption, greed and fraud without neutral third party monitoring.
Who is going to enforce any international agreements and how is this going to be measured? Ray Weiss, a geochemist at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He studies atmospheric pollution and says the numbers at the core of the debate in Copenhagen are flawed. Specifically, he says the cuts that countries including the USA are proposing in greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to measure and highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials and companies. In a study last year, Weiss and colleagues took air samples and found that levels of nitrogen trifluoride, an industrial gas 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide as an atmospheric warming agent, were four times above what industry estimates had suggested. He says that monitoring equipment must be significantly upgraded around the world to prevent similar fudging of data if a deal is reached in Copenhagen1.
Bjorn Lomberg, a Danish economist, says the problems reflect a "failed strategy" in the last two decades of international environmental talks."Conferences like Copenhagen allow the politicians to go back home and say 'We've got a deal!' but then the targets are almost never kept," says Lomberg, who advocates more research and development of clean energy sources to solve environmental problems2.
Copenhagen talks have been called “Hopen”hagen for a reason. Are these the best life saving measures for future generations? Please world leaders go beyond your present half measures to get real. Awaken and create a practical future blueprint. Otherwise I am "hopen" and "copen" humankind is not being lead off a cliff.
1Brian Winter, After climate talks, scientists worry about enforcement, USA Today, 12/10/09, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-10-copenhagen_N.htm
2Ibid
First the “cap” and “trade” will not best address this problem since a “cap” and “tax” is a more effective combating this problem. Many leading economists and financial experts have voiced the flaws with “cap" and "trade". Also how and who will enforce this measures? For example, governments in India and China — which is the world's biggest carbon emitter — have resisted draft proposals that would allow for international verification of data. Just look at USA’s environmental enforcement measures to see why there should be concerned.
Presently the Obama administration is proposing a 17% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 with levels in 2005. China has pushed a target that would allow its carbon dioxide output to continue to grow with its economy, though at a slower pace. Most European countries have offered more ambitious cuts. However, this will cost trillions of dollars in a global market trading system. And we open the doors for massive corruption, greed and fraud without neutral third party monitoring.
Who is going to enforce any international agreements and how is this going to be measured? Ray Weiss, a geochemist at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He studies atmospheric pollution and says the numbers at the core of the debate in Copenhagen are flawed. Specifically, he says the cuts that countries including the USA are proposing in greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to measure and highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials and companies. In a study last year, Weiss and colleagues took air samples and found that levels of nitrogen trifluoride, an industrial gas 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide as an atmospheric warming agent, were four times above what industry estimates had suggested. He says that monitoring equipment must be significantly upgraded around the world to prevent similar fudging of data if a deal is reached in Copenhagen1.
Bjorn Lomberg, a Danish economist, says the problems reflect a "failed strategy" in the last two decades of international environmental talks."Conferences like Copenhagen allow the politicians to go back home and say 'We've got a deal!' but then the targets are almost never kept," says Lomberg, who advocates more research and development of clean energy sources to solve environmental problems2.
Copenhagen talks have been called “Hopen”hagen for a reason. Are these the best life saving measures for future generations? Please world leaders go beyond your present half measures to get real. Awaken and create a practical future blueprint. Otherwise I am "hopen" and "copen" humankind is not being lead off a cliff.
1Brian Winter, After climate talks, scientists worry about enforcement, USA Today, 12/10/09, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-10-copenhagen_N.htm
2Ibid
Comments