Comments for en-gb 30 Thu 18 Dec 2014 07:01:07 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at dennisjunior1 I think that i can answer the question! probably, in rio in brazil. Mon 08 Dec 2008 03:52:48 GMT+1 DonRennie We cannot keep repeating the same actions, and expect a different result. What is needed is a new way of making decisions. This new way, must use the scientific method, and it must account for intangibles, like our need for clean air, water and food. (and the biodiversity required for that)Truth cannot be found by a popularity contest.Clearly we cannot let the politicians decide our future, as they are beholden to we the people, and we refuse to accept the truth. The masses get their truth from major media, and (most) major media get most of their funding from auto-makers. So the truth is obscured by profit motive.We’ve know about global warming for at least 20 years. For the last 10 years, some have been saying that it may already be too late. Last year a majority of the world’s climatologists agreed, the debate is over, now is the time for action.September 2008 saw the least amount of Arctic sea-ice on record. Yet people still question the science.The targets and actions, that are on the table, clearly do not reflect any urgency, and they will do too little, if anything, to stop climate change.We have been running a carbon deficit every year, for at least the last 60 years. If we had been running a financial deficit that long, would the solution be to reduce the deficit by 20% six years from now? Does the need for a surplus not occur to anyone? (of course a carbon deficit means emitting more than all the plants absorb, and a surplus means emitting less than is absorbed)What we have is a planetary catch 22. The politicians will not do what is unpopular, and the people don’t want to give up their cars. The truth is too obscured by profit-motive, so no one knows what is needed. What is needed, is the complete conversion of all non-renewable energy sources to clean power, AND the improved efficiencies of; well insulated passive solar heated buildings, solar hot-water, solar warehouse refrigeration, solar-fired cement, and transportation exclusively by electric train, bicycle, or sailing ship.Building such a free energy system, should make economic sense, but the PR campaign required to ‘sell’ it, is out of reach of the few people that know it to be needed.Can someone please crunch the numbers, and tell us what is the most cost effective way to save planet earth? Thu 04 Dec 2008 10:28:37 GMT+1 Beejay Why is the question of a 'carbon footprint' still an issue? Greenhouse gases are mainly water vapour [the really active one] the others are trace elements by comparison. Doesn't matter if Methane is highly reactive because there is so little of it. Since 1750 mankind has added barely one ten thousandth of one percent CO2 to the contents of our atmosphere. Are we really supposed to believe hysterical outbursts from the Porritts, Monbiots, Gores and Hansens of this world that CO2 is a poison/pollutant when in fact it gives life to just about everything growing on this planet. Sunspotless days are in 3rd lowest position since records began. Every time this has happened the global temperatures have dropped. Do not waste money on wind farms because with snow and ice they will barely work - just when they are needed most! A few winter power blackouts will sharpen focus on reliable power generation and that is going to be - coal and we have massive reserves of it. A final point. When the atmosphere had 6000 ppm/vol of CO2 there were both warm and ice ages. So what contribution did CO2 make when the world was hot than when the world was frozen? Time for the BBC to offer scientific facts and not biased politico science Green has been views. Get some scientists who are not Greenie Grant fed sycophants to offer an opposing view to Man Made Global Warming/Climate Change claptrap. Thu 04 Dec 2008 08:11:45 GMT+1 Richard Black (BBC) I like your idea, mikeb9, of some sort of "pre-qualification" for such a summit. I'm sure it's unworkwable for at least three reasons: the way the UN works means every country has to be involved, deciding who would set the standards would itself require an international meeting, and some countries have very good track records on some issues and very poor ones on others - New Zealand, for examples, manages fisheries as well as any country in the world but its carbon emissions are running well over the Kyoto targets at present. Still, nice idea.greenNautilus, you've reminded me of another reason for having another summit; by no means can everyone in the world remember the other ones. How many new human beings have arrived on Earth since Rio, or since Stockholm? I had a quick look around a few pertinent websites but couldn't immediately find an answer - but you're into the billions.jon112uk; a few years ago I covered the American Geophysical Union meeting, and a couple of researchers there had tried to calculate the carbon footprint of the meeting. They estimated that the average attendee would, by going, produce about 6% of the annual greenhouse gas output of the average American. More recently, Norwegian researcher Andreas Stohl calculated that a few weeks spent jetting off to conferences could produce more greenhouse gas than the average citizen of the world emitted in a year. The delegates in Poznan (or in any new super-summit) are more likely to be politicians and campaigners than scientists, but that shouldn't affect the basic numbers.They would say, of course, that in the long term the benefits of the treaties they negotiate would far outweigh any short-term production of greenhouse gases. Many delgates offset, though that's not foolproof. And train travel is increasingly entering the equation. Organisers of the recent World Conservation Congress in Barcelona aimed to have every European delegate arrive by rail, and negotiated fare discounts with the Spanish train operator Renfe to help them. Friends of the Earth UK tell me they're travelling to Poznan by rail. Doesn't help much if you live in Pretoria or Sao Paulo, of course - Dull accountant man, maybe you're right in suggesting video-conferencing (or even conference phone calls?) as something that's currently under-used. Wed 03 Dec 2008 17:10:22 GMT+1 Bishop Hill Fine, so long as they hold it in Wigan or maybe Burkina Faso. (Wouldn't want people thinking it was a jolly). Wed 03 Dec 2008 12:15:28 GMT+1 Trefor Jones The political reality of back tracking on "targets" seems to have not been covered by our mainstream media. France and Germany have strangled car emissions targets this week because of economic expediency, also the EU will be headed by the eminently sensible Vaclav Claus in a few weeks time. We seem to be drifting towards a situation whereby saving energy ( which no one presumably disagrees with) will seamlessly take the place of fanciful climate change targets, which everyone knows are impossible aspirations. I personally would agree with a programme for the production of new post carbon technologies however I baulk at the eco taliban who preach catastrophe and attempt to hijack the political agenda from a tiny if vociferous popular base. Wed 03 Dec 2008 10:16:07 GMT+1 Gareth I'll start taking global warming seriously when world leaders, environmental lobby groups and the attention seeking global warming scientists do.There's no need to swan around the globe in aeroplanes and limousines and descend on an area like a plague of locusts, stay in plush resorts and enjoy an extravagant lap of luxury. Video conferencing has been a practical alternative for years. Clearly they don't believe what they are pushing down our throats so why should I?They refuse to acknowledge that the science is far from settled yet continue to push their hypocritical agenda of YOU must cut back your carbon emission. The lobbyists and pro-AGW scientists also take massive amounts of taxpayer's money to lobby the people that dish out the money(ie Governments). It's a cushy number they are all running. Wed 03 Dec 2008 09:53:37 GMT+1 jon112uk I would be interested to see a calculation of the 'carbon footprint' of all these conferences.How much CO2 is released by thousands of people (including lord knows how many BBC) each flying thousands of miles in gas guzzling planes?And all to come with yet another 'target' no one will meet.(Equally interesting - the CO2 released by all the globalised 'environmental' organisations flying their acolytes to various prestigious resorts for their annual conference/holiday) Wed 03 Dec 2008 09:43:19 GMT+1 NutitanicPassenger I think everything is pointless unless the worlds population is controlled and I don't really understand why so few people seem to even want to speak about it. It's like everyone is worrying about where we are going to sail a boat too ..while it is sinking!...unless you stop it sinking first everything else is pointless. Wed 03 Dec 2008 08:20:45 GMT+1 Beejay If we wait patiently for 2 years or so the planet will have reached the desired temperature dropas per Kyoto target 1990, despite 'poisonous' CO2 production by mankind [all 3% of it!]. So forget this hyped up CO2 obfuscation, be frugal with any power source and concentrate on living and ignore the political 'smoke and mirrors'Lefty propaganda.Climate variability is due in part to barycentric solar orbits and nothing to do with the Hansen/Gore/Mann unsubstantiated cataclysmiccomputer predictions. Wed 03 Dec 2008 08:09:07 GMT+1 Faustino Yes, we need one more environmental summit, at which scientists who dispute the IPCC's alarmist scenarios can present their findings and question the IPCC orthodoxy. It should be run by impartial major scientific bodies rather than politicians/governments or the IPCC. The role of IPCC scientists and modellers would be confined to answering criticism of their work, and responding with scientific evidence to what they dispute.This way, we might get to the truth of matters which seem to be subject to bandwagon effects and self-interested scientific cliquery rather than to genuine, unbiased investigation and debate. We won'yt get it at meetings run by "true believers".We can then put, say, a 60-year moratorium on mammoth "green" gatherings. Wed 03 Dec 2008 03:19:38 GMT+1 DoctorMattPrescott I think all of the recent events have suffered from a surplus of ambition and a total lack of intention to do anything meaningful. In 2002, staged an event called the Oxford Earth Summit in the run up the UN's world summit in Johannesburg and then ran a website which covered the UN event called I now think that the world needs to start delivering on promises one at a time and to stop moving on until it has delivered the last one. Delivery matter far more than the constant production of ever grander wish lists, which no one intends to invest serious money in or see through politically.I am 100% sick of PR and big organisations cynically marketing themselves as green or caring whilst not changing themselves one iota. Tue 02 Dec 2008 23:04:10 GMT+1 Slidersafe Sadly I think that 2012 seems a little too late for such an event that could bring great reward. However, I do think we should have it, the need to talk and push towards effective solutions has never been more urgent. I feel though that the solutions that should be discussed need to involve the average citizen. We all are a part of the problem and therefore need to be part of the solution. Effective media coverage would allow us to engage more with big conferences like these enabling us to really see what is being said and done. If the 2012 meet goes ahead shouldn't more of us be involved in what topics and agendas are looked at? We know that the climate is changing, we know that our carbon dominated existence has been a part of that change but unless we all get on board with conferences like this what changes are we really going to be making as a whole?If we all started looking a little harder at how we are living our lives, begin to think about the possibilities of peak oil, try volunteering our time to conservation in our local areas and get good constructive coverage from the media on the environment then I am sure we would all want the conference to go ahead with some seats for a few more voices at the table! Tue 02 Dec 2008 22:02:45 GMT+1 greenNautilus Interestingly, meaningful summits seem to come in twenty year cycles. Stockholm and Rio were groundbreaking; Nairobi and Johannesburg weren't. The hopes of each generation are raised and new ideas promoted; sadly often ending in disappointment a decade later. But now things may be different, 2012 will follow (if we are optimistic) a severe recession; potentially a time when environmentalists will be losing out to those who say that getting out of the rut has to be put first, whatever the cost. Can we raise the expectations of yet another generation? Will they question the wisdom of boom and bust and the technological quick fix? Perhaps the 40 years from Stockholm will be enough for a wake up call for humanity... before it is really too late. Tue 02 Dec 2008 21:40:58 GMT+1 mikeb9 I'd be against such a meeting if it's just like the other meetings. That is, a talking shop with everyone quite clear that action is not going to be required. Of course that';s not what they say. But it's what they do.I suggest a pre-qualification process - like qualifying for the world cup. So, if you've followed the agreed protocol (and there are so many, you'd have to agree one first - but it has to demand real results) then you can come along. But if your emissions have been going up, and you haven't shown you're serious about change - then you can't.This may seem counter-intuitive - surely we want the renegades at the table. But the problem with the renegades at the table is that they just block the people who want to do something, from doing it! For example um.. OK the USA.So they would be held up in front of their own (voting) population and the rest of the world as part of the problem. Politicians don't like that.And then the countries who are clear they want to act, can act together without being held back by the commercially self-interested.But isn't it the whole timing that just shows we're not serious - yes do let's have a conference in 2012. Super. Terrific. And then we can agree what to do. It'll just be another example of a resultless summit on your list when you write a similar email in 2015.Is it just me that's sick of the hot air with zero result? Look at the latest report. .77 trillion tons carbon in the world's atmosphere. 1.6 trillion tons in the Arctic permafrost - twice as much!!. Which is now melting way ahead of schedule and starting to release methane. It's a massive lever applied to a relatively low level of carbon emission increase.But let's not disturb ourselves with all these unpleasant possibilities. Our leaders are, after all, honourable men, with our best interests at heart. If it was really a problem, they'd be dealing with it.Anyway, must go, nearly time for the Archers. Tue 02 Dec 2008 21:13:36 GMT+1 sahmsahm As stated in the article, the reasons for another summit are clear. Top on the agenda should be:1. Addressing the priority WTO rules give to trade at the expense of sustainability in the production and import of goods 2. Reform of International Environmental Governance  3. Grouping together of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) We have created an economic environment that artificially places both the physical environment and national political bodies in a subordinate position, and the current trade rules embody this. Market economics alone do not function well in relation to natural resources, as understood in the 'tragedy of the commons'. Likewise, market systems have no effective way of recognizing any aspect of the environment which is not monetized - social value and inherent rights do not enter into the calculations. As such, national and international market forces must be subject to socially established direction and regulation. Tue 02 Dec 2008 20:27:33 GMT+1 CuckooToo I actually agree with most of what you say Richard. Even a blind man could see that the rush for bio-everything would end in disaster and all because an, as yet, unproven, theory.I do actually think we should do all we can to protect our environment, not pollute, recycle etc, because it just makes sense. For the record, I drive a small, economical 2 seater car when i have to, i walk to work, recycled before it became fashionable etc etc. I cannot, however, fall for this rubbish about CO2 and climate models. There are other explanations why the recorded temperatures towards the end of the last century were higher. Tue 02 Dec 2008 19:13:28 GMT+1