Greenland's shrinking glaciers

I think that India with so much at risk to go for green and create a great example! It's something the uk should think about too... Britain particularly likes to blame asia and the states when it's us that either told them start polluting to make us cheaper stuff or are encouraging them by buying their rainforest-destroying,glacier-melting products. As we started the industrial revolution anyway it's our responsiblity to start the green revolution! Instead of pointing fingers until the polluted sea is rising around our ankles! what do others think?

Thanks y'all.

Christian @ GPUK

The UN is putting on in Copenhagen its climate change “propaganda extravaganza” the “United Nations Climate Change Conference Dec 7 to Dec 18 2009”, otherwise known as COP15 (Note 1). Its Web-site headlines “green technology” business opportunities in China but what is the likelihood of China, India and other developing countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America agreeing to curtail their economic growth by shutting off the (fossil) fuel that powers it? I say it is NIL. They may well pay lip service to fighting climate change but they are not stupid people and will not be fooled by the UN’s propaganda machine. On an Australian Senator’s blog Ausie Dan commented (Note 3) on the likelihood of convincing these countries and Russia “to come to the party … NEVER”. I recently (Note 4) commented on that Senator’s blog on their projected demand for oil, natural gas and coal into the middle of this century and also commented on Greenpeace UK’s “geoengineering” blog about India’s position regarding cutting CO2 emissions (Note 5). A report on 19th July in Timesofindia said (Note 6) QUOTE: “India won't accept any legally binding emission reductions: .. ”. Environment minister Jairam Ramesh asserted that New Delhi was "simply not in a position" to accept any legally binding emission reductions and made it clear that India was not running away from responsibilities on the issue. The minister's comments came at a joint press conference with US secretary of State Hillary Clinton .. The US wants India to agree to limit its carbon emissions ahead of the signing of a new UN climate treaty in Copenhagen in December. .. Clinton pointed out that India's green house gas pollution was projected to grow by about 50 per cent between now and 2030 and the country was vulnerable to climate change. However, she said that the US does not and will not do anything that would limit India's economic progress. Ramesh underlined India's stand that its GHG emissions would never exceed those of the developed nations. .. UNQUOTE. Note that last sentence and consider it in relation to your own developed nation! I’ll come back to that shortly. How does the Chinese position compare with that of India? The UK’s Timesonline reported on 12th June under the headline “Climate pact in jeopardy as China refuses to cut carbon emissions” that (Note 7) QUOTE: Officials from Beijing told a UN conference in Bonn yesterday that China would increase its emissions to develop its economy rather than sign up to mandatory cuts. …. Hopes that Copenhagen might deliver tougher carbon reduction targets were dashed further when Japan failed to make a significant commitment to reduce emissions. Taro Aso, the Japanese Prime Minister, said on Wednesday that Japan would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15 per cent by 2020 from levels in 2005. The Japanese commitment is a mere 2 per cent improvement on its commitment under Kyoto. UNQUOTE. This report (Note 8) rounds that lot off nicely QUOTE: “Even with very aggressive GDP growth,” said Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, “India’s per capita emissions will be well below developed country averages.” That contention offers little solace to negotiators hoping to forge a climate treaty in Copenhagen this December, as the U.S. and some other developed nations have expressed an unwillingness to sharply curb CO2 emissions if developing countries such as India and China make no commitment to rein in theirs. UNQUOTE. So, what are the short-term implications of this for developed nations like the USA, Canada, Australia, etc? The Union of Concerned Scientists claimed in their 2006 report (Note 8) that Australia was the world’s highest per-capita emitter, ahead of the USA, Canada and Saudio Arabia (the latest figures were promised for August 2009 so if anyone has a link to them please pass it on). The UN will be doing its utmost to extract some kind of face-saving “agreement” from their very expensive (and fossil fuel hungry) extravaganza and knows that it will get nothing from the US and Canada, so what will they get up to?. As I see it there will be increasing and significant pressure from the UN on weak governments like the Australian Government to push through their carbon emissions trading legislation and make firm commitments ahead of COP15 as a sweetener for the developing nations. Keep your eyes open for signs of it and let me know if you see anything. I see Climate Change Copenhagen being a classic failure for the UN. We will be continuing to use fossil fuels for decades yet and why not? The main emissions are those life-supporting substances water and CO2, along with a few pollutants. As long as emissions of the pollutants (not the water and carbon dioxide) are reduced then everyone’s happy, except of course politicians, environmentalists and those people eagerly looking forward to making a lot of money out of that artificial market, “carbon trading”. NOTES: 1) see http://en.cop15.dk/ 2) see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6481997.ece 3) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/125/P1395/ 4) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/blog/comments/the_real_reason_ill_fight_... 5) see http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/perspectives-geoengineering-20... 6) see http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/India-wont-accept-any-lega... 7) see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6481997.ece 8) see http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-co... Regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change agnostic