How do you reach any agreement or consensus when nations are at all different levels of development? Will any nation agree to anything that is unfavorable to them in any way? Will China stop building coal fired plants or the U.S. agree to use closer to it’s share of global resources and energy?

I just can’t imagine how this will work.

People in Washington talking about the economy still hope to rekindle the kind economy that is frying the planet: work on the roads, the interstates (VERSUS start putting into place systems for conveying stored renewable energy, electrical pipelines; VERSUS getting railroad tracks in place and functioning). Our lead economists still think in terms of McAutos and McHouses, large and “fattening” to wallets and spewsome, not healthy for the planet. I guess the new solutions are too hard for economists to think about. I can understand getting vintage houses and autos that are “on the shelf” out of the way, but let’s start something new. They say our negotiators in Copenhagen don’t have anything to negotiate if Congress is stuck. And Congress is pretty much stuck.

Consensus will only come when each government and individual reaches the obvious conclusions about behavior and attitudes that must change to protect the planet. And they will do what needs to be done. Those with alternative agendas will resist and/or keep their heads and hearts in the sand.

Sadly our otherwise excellent president made up his mind to a tiny commitment (17%) going into the conference. This is a sad reflection of the true agendas of those who are influencing such a decision. This situation is dire and most of the world knows it.
USA needs to get off its fat bum and go an a huge energy diet for it’s own health and that of the planet.
China needs to live up to its own decisions to reduce toxins in the world, including their horrific occupation and oppression of Tibet.

To our president and our negotiators in Copenhagen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgtWIx2zLtk

Look in the mirror guys! Don’t make our commitments dependent on what others do. Be leaders and do what needs to be done to protect ourselves and the planet.

To the extent that governments pass laws concerning the environment, the basic political philosophy should shift from Global Warming/Climate Change (too much political pressure questioning and against it) to the Limited Finite Supply of Natural Resources (everyone should agree that natural resources will ‘dry up’ at some point in the not to distant future).

Bottom line nothing is going to be done.
China is not going to give in, and you know what, why should they listen to us.

I think we should lead by example, if not we are nothing more than blowing a lot of hot air. No pun intended.

However, if your from the Maldives this wont help as their country is sinking as I type.

We have some real problems in congress with senators such as Sen. Inhofe who does not believe in it at all.

The dessert-eater-at-the-dinner-party analogy is inaccurate.

It’s more like we’ve been having a spray-paint graffiti party and the Chinese have arrived at as the party goers are realizing that this much spray paint in one room is a bad idea.

They came late, they don’t get to paint.

No matter what China says, we know full well they are NOT reliable. They say one thing and do another, which should be very much beside the point of what USA does.
They are a brutal communist regime and everyone wants to believe they aren’t. Can they change? Sure. Should our actions to protect our people, our country and planet be dependent on them?
NO!

The US should reduce its production of emissions but we should have tariffs for countries that manipulate their currency exchange rate, have low wages, poor worker safety standards, and poor environmental standards.

Is any attention being paid to the enormous impact of war and preparations for war on global warming? The fuel required to maintain over 900 US military installations throughout the world to say nothing of the daily explosions of missiles and bombs and the consuming of fossil fuels to deliver those weapons to their targets contribute enormously to global warming. Few people seem to be focused on this issue, yet when a single F-16 consumes 23 gallons of fuel per minute, the impact of militarism on the health of the planet looms large.

There is only one thing I can say

SAVE THE PLANET!!!

If you don’t believe Global warming that’s your problem.

I don’t a have a chip on my back because I don’t always have something to say about any topics on NPR. Waste of time and energy.

Hoaxenhagen…’nuff said.

Unlike most of the media, Tom did a great job pointing out that scientists are not equally divided on this issue.

Meanwhile in Copenhagen the conference seems to be in disarray.

For the record I believe that the earth’s climate is changing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/copenhagen-climate-talks_n_390750.html

The best thing that they could do at Copenhagen would be to have a few banquets and go home. The myht of human caused climate change has already gone on for too long. More than 95% of the greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere is water vapor, and nearly all of that is from the normal interchange between oceans and atmosphere. Of the rest CO2 is most prevalent, but human additions to that amount to about 5%, so the human contribution to climate change has been about one quarter of one percent (0.25%), which is a barely detectable amount.

It appears that big banks and big energy are allowing the fiction to continue, because they plan to make very large amounts of money from trading carbon allowances and offsets.

Superb Show!
Let us not forget that the first industries & jobs moved to Asia were the high polluters and those dangerous to human health. Untill Americans remember the good ole days of ‘Love Canal’ and ‘Orange Rain’ in Pittsburgh and the Lung disease of the workers in the cotton mills then we will always foget the costs we have placed on the 3rd world. Americans cannot even clean up the power plants in the Mid-west and we want China to revamp their power system?? We have Walmarted our problems and perils to other shores. Now we must be willing to ‘pay’ the cost of earth and human health. But will we?? I doubt it!

President Obama would be more convincing with the “just wars”argument if he were not creating future conflict by participating in the Danish text. This is a process that marginalizes the vast majority of the world’s people while making them bear the brunt of industrialized countries’ historical pollution. It was created without consulting them, places greater restrictions on their development and gives far less responsibility to those who continue to pump carbon into the atmosphere at higher levels. It circumvents the UN procedures in which developing countries have a voice.

The Danish text proposes $10 billion per year to cover technology transfer and damage to developing countries due to climate change; according to Wikipedia, Hurricane Katrina alone cost over $89 billion.

Few countries are friendly to refugees now, so imagine the military power that will have to be deployed to keep hundreds of millions in place as they drown, or starve, or die of malaria.

America has an identity of people who came from around the world escaping oppression; will we welcome the global migrants created by our Dustbowl? I don’t know many Americans who claim that they would stay in place as they watch their children starve. We would steal and illegally cross borders for work, and so would a Bangladeshi parent.

If we want to give our children a better future, we take responsibility for our actions now. We drive smaller cars and take the bus to keep little Hunter and Megan from paying for – and fighting in – war after war after war. We insist that energy policy is written by scientists, not cabals reminiscent of Cheney’s Energy Task Force. It is a bitter pill now, but it is just a pill. Failing to swallow it will assure us of a future of chronic disease.

“The whole world is in His hands…” and God is within us, so it’s up to us to do His job as stewards of our blessed planet. Passion [greed], aggression [warfare], and ignorance [denial] can be transcended to save us, as well as the planet, from the structures of egocentric narcissism that’s become our tar-baby.

“Yes we can!” Are we so stupid that we’ll passively sit by as life-as-we-know-it is destroyed?

Thanks to “pm” for the heads-up re. the MJ video, “Look in the Mirror.” And to “Ghanda” for pointing out the environmental cost paid by our warfare state.

Todd, just consider for a moment….
what if indeed oceans are rising and island nations are disappearing under the waves, the arctic is melting killing all land mammals there, that glaciers are melting in mountain ranges across the globe, making water sources for those in the lowlands disappear.
Just consider that this might be true and that toxic emissions from man made sources are a, if not the major cause.
Do you think it would be a good thing for governments across the globe to make commitments to clean up toxins?

Until we measure CO2 emissions by per capita consumption (not production when so much is made by Western corporations and exported to Western countries), we are not serious. According to the World Bank, in 2005 the United States per capita CO2 emissions was 19.5 metric tons. China was at slightly under 5 metric tons while India was at 2 metric tons. The average in poor countries is .1 metric tons. With respect to the damaging practice of beef production, per capita beef consumption in the United States in 2006 was 43.8 kilograms. In China it is 5.7 kilograms. The devastating details of deforestation reveal US citizens as profligate consumers of paper products at 760 pounds per year. The world average is 125 pounds and in the poorest countries the average is less than a pound per year. Such vast disparities continue across multiple measures, including energy consumption, water consumption, grain consumption, and waste production, In the calculus of standards of living, the lifestyles of Americans are based on the exploitation of the majority of the rest of the world. From the perspective of other countries, US citizens avoid their responsibilities for climate chaos and refuse to make sacrifices to stop oppressing other people. Even worse, they then blame other countries.

Great topic, Tom. But it seems you are skirting around the drama and high stakes of what is involved. The arrogance and extremism of the American position is not clear in the polite discussions of your guests and callers. You may want to address these issues in another program, but the U.S. has flatly rejected the notions of a “past” debt for climate injustice, and this stands in dramatic contrast with Obama receiving a “peace prize” on the same day that the issue of reparations has been raised. (See:
http://www.climate-talks.net/2006-ENVRE130/CCTV-Programs/20091210-MSNBC-US-Climate-Reparations-Index.htm)

The Chinese position is one of being “shocked” at the American arrogance, and you may want to give greater links to your viewers/listeners diretly to the Chinese english-language news sources on this (see: http://www.climate-talks.net/2006-ENVRE130/CCTV-Programs/20091212-China-View-CCRA-Index.htm).

Perhaps most important, your listerners/viewers should realize that the intransigence of the American position in Copenhagen is being raised in the context of the Pentagon beginning to plan for climate contingencies through “proxy” armed forces in places like Africa. (See: http://www.climate-talks.net/2006-ENVRE130/CCTV-Programs/20091212-MSNBC-Climate-Conflict-Index.htm ).

All of this underscores that the Third World has a heightened sense of being manipulated at Copenhagen — something most Americans are not aware of at all.

Keep up the good work, Tom, …… but take it to a new level of depth and seriousness that matches the gravity of the issues and the intelligence of your listeners.

On Point & WBUR Will Need to Ramp Up Media Coverage of Climate Issues:

Tom, it now appears that Andrew Revkin is going to resign from the NYT. (See: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/index.php )

Revkin has been somewhat tepid over the years on covering the importance of climate issues. His famous “Meltdown: Yelling ‘Fire’ on a Hot Planet,” The New York Times – Week in Review, (23 April 2006) was a disasterous piece of reporting [see http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/weekinreview/23revkin.html ] that had a horrific impact on keeping Americans confused and mystified when the sciene had been clear as a bell. Nevertheless his recent reporting over the last two years in DOT Earth has been quite good. cent months.

The main point, however, is that he was the only mainstream reporter informed about these issues, and now he will be gone from the regular NYT coverage — althrough it appears he may continue his blog.

The problem is that WBUR and you personally, Tom, are going to have to step in and fill this void. There was much of the “same-old-same-old” in your coverage in this program. WBUR listeners (in Boston and well beyond) deserve a lot more and a lot better coverage of these key issues. Specifically, they should hear more from the Chinese directly (
http://www.climate-talks.net/2006-ENVRE130/CCTV-Programs/20091212-China-View-CCRA-Index.htm )

Why not cover things with at least the same sophistocation of Democracy Now? [ http://www.climate-talks.net/2006-ENVRE130/CCTV-Programs/20091214-DN-rm-Headlines-Copenhagen-Index.htm ]

WBUR is appealing for funds at this point. Why not launch an appeal directly for funding intelligent climate coverage to fill in the gap that Revkin’s loss will leave and to supply regular programs and update sequences to your On Point listeners in Boston and the wider world?

Tom
After reading David Carr in the NY Times this morning

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html?_r=1&ref=media

I really question the appearance of any WSJ reporter on your program. I agree with Carr that even the lowly reporters are now being forced to do Murdoch’s bidding. Can they be trusted any more, after all Murdoch may be listening and taking notes.

Dick Gaffney
Keene Valley NY
“The Home of the High Peaks”

Anyone following this discussion might be interested to click “Tim” above who turns out — well, look and see. There is a link to a college course on global warming. I’d like a focus on how to educate even younger ones, children, to approach the situation. If the majority of Americans doubt this science, I can believe that school boards, and the teachers they supervise, are presenting the future with rose-colored glasses.

Thank God another fraudulent and misguided Obama initiative is falling flat on it’s face. “Obamacare”, you’re next.

Co2 has density 1.5 of air. Heavier than air. Blow your own co2 pollutant into a ballon an watch what happens, it falls to the ground. The only way co2 could get into the upper atmosphere where it is causing this global warming thing is wind. So, if the wind stops blowing then the Co2 would then settle closer to the ground around our feet. If it settles towards the ground in such amounts to change the worlds temp. then all the ground creatures would be dying from Co2. My place is full of lizards and they seem to be doing really well.
Take the money out of the decussion in Copenhagen and see what happens. Let America agree to reducing our Co2 to help and forget about money and watch what happens. These 3rd world countries will not reduce their people producing habits but they do know how to build big expensive palaces at the expense of their poor. Money and how to get it from the wealthy is the name of this world problem.

Kevin, Thank you for your more balanced point of view. Instead of bashing China, and pointing fingers, let’s look within ourselves. China didn’t create industrialization, as a matter of fact, they joint the party of taking up global resource a little too late. Now China is facing even greater load of responsibility than U.S. a century ago. China produces a great deal of merchandise consumed by the rest of the world. Unless we alter our current economic model and system, otherwise American will continue BUY! BUY! BUY! & SHOP! SHOP! SHOP!

Just imagine how many of our holidays & events are based on consumption encouragement — Valentine’s Day, Easter, Mother’s Day, Memorial Day (& BIG SALE), Father’s Day, Independence Day (& BIG SALE)), Labor Day (& lBIG SALE), Halloween, Thanksgiving (& BIG SALE), and the biggest one CHRISTMAS! Then you have BIRTHDAYS, boss day, secretary day….on and on and on…….. And other countries started to follow this model, let’s celebrate just about every thing. Imagine everyone celebrate their birthdays since 1 year old to as long as they live, then multiply the populations of this country, we’ll do the meth.

Don’t point fingers, we change ourselves first.

To: pm

I also care deeply for the issue of global warming and our environment, and your intension and compassion for global warming are all good, but please don’t portrait China as an evil country like you hear from most of the main stream medias in the U.S.

correction on spelling—

***we’ll do the meth*** should’ve been “math”, big difference, haha…..

Dear justanother,
Frankly I don’t think our media has done nearly enough justice to show clearly what China has done in Tibet. The nation of Tibet is being occupied, its people tortured, it’s 1000 year plus culture destroyed by China.
Are the Chinese people all bad? No.
Many people and governments do exceptionally negative things to each other, and have for aeons. Does this make it ok? No.
Are the Tibetans perfect? No.
Are the Chinese open, loving, free and just in their equable in their dealings with their own people? No.
Should the world be kissing the broad butt of China because they own massive debt all over the world? No!
Should USA make commitments to purify our own water, air and earth for centuries to come? Absolutely.
I don’t use the word ‘evil’ in my lexicon. It suggests some sort of religious belief system that I don’t agree with.
Are the Chinese brutal in their oppression and destruction of Tibet and its people? Absolutely.

My oh my . . . Doesn’t your Wall Street Journal correspondent have a “vibrate” function on his phone? The constant ringing of his phone was very disturbing and made it hard for me to listen to what he said.

*****Frankly I don’t think our media has done nearly enough justice to show clearly what China has done in Tibet. The nation of Tibet is being occupied, its people tortured, it’s 1000 year plus culture destroyed by China.
Are the Chinese people all bad? No.*****

No disrespect, but they are so not true. I won’t delve into Tibet issue here, since it’s a forum about climate change.

no worries, justanother.
we can respectfully very much disagree.

[...] NPR actually spent some time covering the Copenhagen situation as it speeds toward its final collisi… Some points made on the radio show were about the crucial conflicts that are not settled. Will the [...]

Is anyone talking about population control as a necessary part of climate control?

****Is anyone talking about population control as a necessary part of
climate control?****

Very true, but it seems no major discussions want to go there. “Mandatory” birth control seems too dictatorial, takes away individual freedom, also creates social problems. But voluntary birth control through accessible education is very much needed. Then again, we are facing religious belief on anti birth control.

At the end of the day, we are going to ask ourselves, what is our ultimate freedom? by sharing or taking away future generation’s freedom behaving irresponsibly?

Religious fanaticism has no place in democracy.
Birth control and proper health education was the norm a few years ago and somehow christian extremists were able to take these education building blocks out of American schools.
How did this happen?? What is the present administration doing to correct this deep error?
Amazing!

Tom and producers: In a largely overlooked report prior to the convention Copenhagen’s Sex Workers announced they would provide conferees with preferential or discounted rates. For the Copenhagen wrap-up it might be of interest to your listeners to examine the outcome of such an offer.

>Amina (Detroit caller) sounds young and has probably never seen air pollution as it existed 45 years ago in cities such as Detroit, Pittsburgh, LA, or Gary, Indiana. Asthma is irrelevant to the question. While acute asthma attacks are indeed related to rare incidents of higher-than-normal air pollution, we clearly need more research into the root causes of asthma since it seems to be increasing even as the air is becoming demonstrably cleaner.

> Stop blaming the U.S. for everything. For 2008, 10 countries and regions (U.S., Europe, Australia, Spain, Italy, Finland, U.K., Germany, Denmark & Czech Rep.) DECREASED CO2 emissions by a total of 311 million tons. The U.S. accounted for 192 million of the 311 million. Another 9 countries (India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, S. Africa, S. Korea, Indonesia, Iran & Poland) INCREASED their CO2 emissions by a total of 312 million tons. For those 19 countries it was a virtual wash. CHINA INCREASED its CO2 emissions by 490 million tons.

> A guest spoke of more severe tropical storms. Where? One hurricane hit the U.S. this year, as a Cat 1. Our news guys had to cover Eastern Pacific storms hitting Mexico to have much storm news coverage at all. In fact the last year with much activity was 2005 (Katrina, Rita).

> Costs. Someone alluded to the costs of doing nothing, comparing them to the costs of doing “something”. Really? The comparison should be between the present value of the presumed future value of the damage presumably averted by “doing something” versus the present value of the costs of doing “something” now, including the lost opportunity costs of funds and effort diverted into “climate control” by “doing something”.

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to submit a comment about this program. I am a big fan of Tom Ashbrook to me _On Point_ is simply the most consistently informative and intellectually stimulating radio broadcast.

I am a college professor and am currently working on an essay about the factors that shape people’s views on global warming, from the perspective of an intellectual historian. Along that line I have a very basic question. It would really be valuable for me to get some responses from _On Point_ listeners, as they seem to be generally well educated and able to express themselves well. I would greatly appreciate any responses that are in keeping with my questions

The question is this: “What verifiable, lay-accessible, empirical fact from the physical world is for you the single most persuasive evidence that convinces you that global warming or climate change from human-emitted greenhouse gases is a dangerous and potentially catastrophic problem?”

Please note that I am not asking people to provide names of scientific authorities (either individuals or groups), nor am I asking for any references to printed or media communication.

Please note also that the simplified nature of my question (in that I inquire about “the single most persuasive evidence”) is deliberate, in that I am interested mainly in the epistemological process and how individuals make decisions in evaluating scientific propositions. I understand fully that such decisions can be quite complex and involve numerous empirical factors; many would of course be hesitant to cite a single evidence for their view, or even a handful of evidences, but might instead want to point to a variety of evidences.

For this exercise, however, simplicity is essential. If any any _On Point_ listeners are willing to respond by submitting their input to my question in “submit comment box” below, I would be most grateful.

To Ken,

Hummm…… , wouldn’t listener’s “age” play a perception factor? The older a person, the more experienced they have with our weather pattern change? The final numbers are deceiving if survey is not well thought out.

Also depends on which part of world or this country we live.

Ken, I’m happy to participate in your experiement…but I don’t feel you should conduct it here on this site.
Why don’t you provide a link.
peace.

***> Stop blaming the U.S. for everything. For 2008, 10 countries and regions (U.S., Europe, Australia, Spain, Italy, Finland, U.K., Germany, Denmark & Czech Rep.) DECREASED CO2 emissions by a total of 311 million tons. The U.S. accounted for 192 million of the 311 million. Another 9 countries (India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, S. Africa, S. Korea, Indonesia, Iran & Poland) INCREASED their CO2 emissions by a total of 312 million tons. For those 19 countries it was a virtual wash. CHINA INCREASED its CO2 emissions by 490 million tons.***

Those fancy numbers do look very impressive. And do remember U.S may reduce its industrial CO2 emissions by shifting them to other exporting country like China, but its household CO2 emission per capita is much higher than China. Do you see a bigger picture here?

I think often times when a comment is addressed toward the other side of spectrum is a pure purpose of bringing perception back to a more balanced view. Not for the purpose of blaming or finger pointing.

Often an ambitious plan sounded so promising, but when you look at the final target number, they are so puny. With all the investments, training and radioactivity risk of building nuclear plants in China, the projected number only generate 9.7% of the country’s power.

Someone please help me to put this number in perception of significance to bring down CO2 emission to meet below 350 parts per million?

I forgot to post the web link of the New York Times articles regarding China’s ambitious nuclear power plants—

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/global/16chinanuke.html?_r=1&hp

[...] [...]

The thing that will cool after this summit will be the inner thighs of Copenhagen’s call girls.