If Copenhagen fails

[Hallo Alfie]

Coepnhagen appears to have failed to set any realistic, achievable and binding targets from much of what I read and heard today.
Agreements appear to be mere lip service rather than anything meaningful.

Assuming for the moment this is the case, what does that say about about the opinions of those making the decisions? Do they in fact question the reality of AGW? Was it simply political gain, opportunism and/or failed negotiation around those that doomed the talks? A combination of these and other issues?

And what of the ramifications? Will there be more talks, when and on what exactly? Or does AGW fall by the wayside for the next decade or so, as an unpopular and unsuccesful political stunt?

 

[XBoxWarrior]

Coepnhagen appears to have failed...blah, blah, blah...

try some Skoal?

 

[theprestige]

If Copenhagen fails, we're all doomed.

In fact, we were all doomed when Kyoto failed.

 

[Thunder]

if Copenhagen fails, I could care less.

 

[Meed]

if Copenhagen fails, I could care less.

So you care a non-zero amount.

 

[geni]

Coepnhagen appears to have failed to set any realistic, achievable and binding targets from much of what I read and heard today.
Agreements appear to be mere lip service rather than anything meaningful.

Assuming for the moment this is the case, what does that say about about the opinions of those making the decisions? Do they in fact question the reality of AGW? Was it simply political gain, opportunism and/or failed negotiation around those that doomed the talks? A combination of these and other issues?

It means that politics is the art of the posible and expecting people to make major changes in the short term with longer term payoff does not fall into that category.

 

[Francesca R]

Assuming for the moment this is the case, what does that say about about the opinions of those making the decisions?

Nothing by itself.

Do they in fact question the reality of AGW?

They might but you can't conclude that from the outcome of the summit

Was it simply political gain, opportunism and/or failed negotiation around those that doomed the talks? A combination of these and other issues?

To some extent it is an age-old collective action problem which is based on the simple prisoner's dilemma model. It is the reason why "public" goods are hard to extract in the desired amount from voluntary groups.

In other words, without a central world authority, inter-governmental co-operation is hard, and "victories" are few. AGW deniers, or sceptics who think nothing should be done, have this on their side and probably always will.

And what of the ramifications? Will there be more talks, when and on what exactly? Or does AGW fall by the wayside for the next decade or so, as an unpopular and unsuccesful political stunt?

Public support for it will prevent that happening IMO. The lack of a good deal really does not reflect the lack of desire for one.

 

[a_unique_person]

Or does AGW fall by the wayside for the next decade or so, as an unpopular and unsuccesful political stunt?

Non sequitor. Action on AGW can fail for several reasons, not just the one you prefer.

 

[Just thinking]

I hope we have learned a lesson from all this ... but I don't fall into the category of "Hope and Change".

It appears that James Burke was essentially correct many years ago.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

if Copenhagen fails, I could care less.

Why?

 

[varwoche]

Coepnhagen appears to have failed to set any realistic, achievable and binding targets from much of what I read and heard today. Agreements appear to be mere lip service rather than anything meaningful.

Easily predictable. For anything else to have occurred would have been a huge surprise.

Assuming for the moment this is the case, what does that say about about the opinions of those making the decisions?

It says that it's exceedingly difficult to achieve international cooperation on complex, costly issues.

Do they in fact question the reality of AGW?

This is ridiculous speculation.

Or does AGW fall by the wayside for the next decade or so, as an unpopular and unsuccesful political stunt?

In terms of the science, of course not. In terms of the prominence of the issue on the international stage, that will naturally wax and wane along with events.

Let's hope you aren't insinuating what you seem to be insinuating -- that the science is a political stunt. Otherwise not only are you promoting an anti-science agenda, but doing so based on hugely idiotic political meta facts.

 

[applecorped]

"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is never try"

Homer Simpson

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Non sequitor. Action on AGW can fail for several reasons, not just the one you prefer.

Which option do you prefer? I asked for others in the assumption that I haven't covered everything.

This is ridiculous speculation. .

Really? please explain.

Let's hope you aren't insinuating what you seem to be insinuating -- that the science is a political stunt. Otherwise not only are you promoting an anti-science agenda, but doing so based on hugely idiotic political meta facts.

You seem surprised I am skeptical of AGW? Wow!
Millions/billions are you know.

I am not suggesting science is a political stunt - that is your paranoid and incorrect deduction. I am suggesting a possibility that the politics and religious zealotry that follows after the science is a political stunt.