Will the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen result in a comprehensive agreement?

"General argeement (sic) on further negotiations"

I love it......OK, we'll all meet back here later and agree to meet again later.

United Nations welcomes International Criminal Court fugitives:

The Danish government has invited 191 world leaders to attend the climate change conference in Copenhagen next month, including three controversial figures that are forbidden to travel to any European Union member state.

The invitation to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir is especially controversial because he is the subject of an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity in Darfur.

The U.N. says up to 300,000 people have died in Darfur since the conflict erupted in 2003.

Denmark says it has no choice but to invite them given that the conference is a U.N. sponsored affair.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57682

Ain’t the UN grand?

Sounds pretty comprehensive to me:

'Danish Prostitutes Offer Free Sex to Climate Conference Delegates'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579350,00.html

ha ha....that sounds about right. Since when has a meeting of countries produced anything good?

The Marshall Plan?

'Minister Links ‘One-Child’ Policy to Emissions Reduction at Climate Conference'

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58412

that was good for everyone except Russia.

A private Canadian company says it will plant 1,176 trees to offset the carbon emitted by Air Force One when it carries President Barack Obama to Copenhagen for the international climate conference.

President Obama will travel 3,979 miles to Denmark on Friday, Dec. 18, and Air Force One will emit an estimated 196 tons of carbon on that trip, said LimeGreen Earth, Inc., in a news release.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58632

Hmmmm....plants emit carbon dioxide -

EPA Classifies Carbon Dioxide as Dangerous Pollutant
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0567071.htm


Damn Canuks are going to kill us all with those 1,176 trees.....

off to find dragonfang. he'll declare war on them dang canuks. :O)

BREAKING: Pelosi Bars Republicans from Copenhagen Press Conference
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34884

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today barred Republican members of the congressional delegation to Copenhagen for the U.N. “climate change” conference from participation in the official congressional press conference at Bella Center. Sources at the event told HUMAN EVENTS that Republicans were not initially informed of the event then were subsequently barred from participation. The Bella Center is the base for the U.S. Delegation in Copenhagen.

Around 3:45 pm local time today, Republican members of Congress and their staffs were rounded up for transport back to their hotels on busses just as the press conference began. They were not allowed to hold their own press conference.

Displaying more of the same type of “Climategate” behavior that has caused worldwide skepticism over the authenticity of the claims behind the anthropogenic global warming “science,” Pelosi is barring dissenting views in Congress from access to the worldwide press in Copenhagen.

...

[More at the link...]

Obama announces climate change deal with China, other nations
http://us.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/18/obama.copenhagen/index.html

'Meaningful' deal reached at Copenhagen climate summit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8421880.stm

Copenhagen climate summit: 'meaningful agreement' hailed by leaders
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6841696/Copenhagen-climate-summit-meaningful-agreement-hailed-by-leaders.html

Sounds like a settlement for "Comprehensive treaty signed by some countries" to me...

Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure
Deal thrashed out at talks condemned as climate change scepticism in action
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal

The UN climate summit reached a weak outline of a global agreement last night in Copenhagen, falling far short of what Britain and many poor countries were seeking and leaving months of tough negotiations to come.

After eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was left to Barack Obama and Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, to broker a political agreement. The so-called Copenhagen accord "recognises" the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but did not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.

American officials spun the deal as a "meaningful agreement", but even Obama said: "This progress is not enough."

...
[More at the link...]

Obama says 'unprecedented' deal reached on climate
COPENHAGEN - President Barack Obama said the United States, China and several other countries reached an "unprecedented breakthrough" Friday to curb greenhouse gas emissions — including a mechanism to verify compliance — after a frenzied day of diplomacy at the U.N. climate talks.

...

The deal reiterates a goal that eight leading industrialized nations set earlier this year on long-term emission cuts and provides a mechanism to help poor countries prepare for climate change, the official said.

But it falls far short of committing any nation to emissions reductions beyond a general acknowledgment that the effort should contain global temperatures along the lines agreed to by the leading economic nations in July.

...

"I am leaving before the final vote," he said. "We feel confident we are moving in the direction of a final accord."

If the countries had waited to reach a full, binding agreement, "then we wouldn't make any progress," Obama said. In that case, he said, "there might be such frustration and cynicism that rather than taking one step forward we ended up taking two steps back."

...

"It's not what we expected," Brazilian Ambassador Sergio Barbosa Serra said. "It may still be a way of salvaging something and paving the way for another a meeting or series of meetings next year."

...

The U.S. got its share of blame.

"President Obama was not very proactive. He didn't offer anything more," said delegate Thomas Negints, from Papua New Guinea. He said his country had hoped for "more on emissions, put more money on the table, take the lead."

Obama may eventually become known as "the man who killed Copenhagen," said Greenpeace U.S. Executive Director Phil Radford.

...

[More at the link...]

boy will this be tough to settle. They seemed to reach an agreement but said we need further negotiations?!? Everyone agreed to something but not all agreed to the same thing?!?

Comprehensive treaty imo no treaty was signed. nothing they signed is binding. if the USA signed anything its not a Comprehensive treaty in the USA. those have to be approved by the senate. now other countries might be differnt. i stayed away from this question because of option 2...Comprehensive treaty signed by some countries some wasn't clearly defined...that could be 2 or 7. goodluck to the admin.

they are all full of hot air

they have found a consensus in a paper which leaves many details open for further negotiations. there isn't even a binding accomplishment about the 2°C limit. thus, there is no comprehensive treaty at all ... but there is an agreement on further negotiations to define the details during 2010, AFAIK.

the "some countries" option was there to reflect the Kyoto situation: All countries signed a comprehensive treaty, but not (for example) the US nor China.

"Finally we sealed a deal," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said. "The 'Copenhagen Accord' may not be everything everyone had hoped for, but this decision...is an important beginning."

But a decision at marathon 193-nation talks merely took note of the new accord, a non-binding deal for combating global warming led by the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSGEE5BB07F20091219

UN conference recognizes climate deal

The U.N. climate conference has agreed to recognize a political accord brokered by President Barack Obama with China and other emerging powers.

The decision was made after an all-night plenary session, in which a small group of nations blocked the Copenhagen Accord, because it lacks specific targets for reducing carbon emissions. Decisions are taken by unanimity in U.N. climate talks.

After a break, the conference president gaveled the decision to "take note" of the Copenhagen Accord specifying those who agreed with it in the title.

Obama's day of hectic diplomacy produced a document promising $30 billion in emergency aid in the next three years and a goal of channeling $100 billion a year by 2020 to developing countries with no guarantees.

The emerging outcome was a disappointment to those who had anticipated the Copenhagen Accord would be turned into a legally binding treaty. Instead, it envisions another year of negotiations and leaves myriad details yet to be decided.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i9TuMrvrknh-ZXwqmZ2N-48kff3wD9CMABI00

There is a deal signed by some, but that deal is not considered "comprehensive".

Unfortunately, there wasn't a "Treaty signed by some countries" option. Just "Comprehensive treaty."
I'd say it was comprehensive, as it touched upon most/many major issues expected to be resolved.

As for "legally binding," in reality, most treaties aren't "legally binding." The US is party to many treaties and UN mandates with which we haven't complied.

Okay, it's like this:

The "Copenhagen Accord" was the primary outcome of the gathering. Here is how it relates to the following options, starting with the least first:

4) No general commitment at all: Defintely not this one, as there was certainly a "general commitment".

2) Comprehensive treaty signed by some countries: Not this one, either, as the Copenhagen Accord is far from "comprehensive", nor is it a treaty.

1) Comprehensive treaty signed by all countries: Ditto. Plus the Accord itself wasn't agreed to by everyone present. In fact, it was only acknowledged by most there.

Leaving us with:

3) General agreement on further negotiations: A) The Accord is an agreement. B) It was "general" in that the majority of those present acknowledged it. C) The Accord can be looked on as simply a statement of intent to take on climate change, and giving the mandate to extend into "further negotiations" into next year in Mexico City.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSGEE5BB07F20091219
http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/top-news/19968-moving-beyond-copenhagen.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/special-news-report/News-Feed/Copenhagen-Accord-is-sealed-finally/Article1-488586.aspx
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/agreement-on-climate-reached---but-unfinished-last-minute-deal-making-produces-accord-heralded-as-important-first-step-for-future-binding-treaty/article1406385/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091218/ap_on_sc/climate

I plan to settle this way, unless someone can talk me out of doing so...

I agree with you as it perfectly reflects my intentions as I wrote the question, sqlman.

i agree with (cough, gag, sneezing) both kruijs and admin sqlman. imo in the future some could be more defined, or taken to ment more than 1 come settlement time.

***bookmark this comment. i doubt you ever see me agree with both kru and sqlman at the same time, on the same subject again. :O)

@DD,
Pssst - don't let anybody else know this, but on this issue, I have to agree with them too.

thanks, both

;-)

So true for a cartoon:

"Is it over?"

"Did we save the planet?"

"Not even close"

"At least we agree on one thing"

"HEY! My wallet's gone!!"

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/properties/wpwg.php?id=92

@Erik - Nice... that cartoon nails it perfectly!

I hear that the Barry & Billary $100,000,000,000.00 Sweepstakes Prize Patrol was the life of the party at Copenhagen.

"Assume you are a scientist and have been given a major financial grant to prove that the mythical unicorn really did exist.

You know that as long as you can demonstrate some progress in showing the unicorn might have existed, your financial grant will be renewed each year, provided some other scientist does not come out with substantial evidence that the unicorn could not have existed.

Under such conditions, you would have a very strong incentive to disregard much of the evidence that the unicorn could not have existed and each year provide only the data that could demonstrate that the unicorn might have existed. You also would have a very strong incentive to attack any scientist who raised serious questions or provided evidence that the unicorn could not have existed.

You even might go so far as to refer to them with the disparaging term 'unicorn deniers' and attempt to use your influence with other scientists who also are receiving grants dependent on the existence of the unicorn to try to prevent the unicorn deniers from publishing their findings in well-regarded scientific journals.

The recently released e-mails (by whistleblowers or hackers, depending on your prejudice) between some of the best-known scientists behind global warming showed that they succumbed to the all-too-human tendency to protect their turfs and pocketbooks, despite the
evidence." --columnist Richard W. Rahn

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/16/corrupting-expectations/

NN> You must do some of the same reading as I.

Again, ^5

FoF...too scary

@Erik:

yeah, I bet we are reading the same thing - you told me about the historic documents at http://patriotpost.us/historic/documents/ and I was poking around the site and saw they send out e-mails too... great stuff!

Thanks for telling me about that!

NN> You're most welcome. It's a great outfit, indeed.

Please either void or settle this. The event is over, and a call has to be made. It doesn't fit into any option anyway...