Copenhagen
Joss Garman: Copenhagen - Historic failure that will live in infamy
Green activist's searing despatch from Denmark
The most progressive US president in a generation comes to the most important international meeting since the Second World War and delivers a speech so devoid of substance that he might as well have made it on speaker-phone from a beach in Hawaii. His aides argue in private that he had no choice, such is the opposition on Capitol Hill to any action that could challenge the dominance of fossil fuels in American life. And so the nation that put a man on the Moon can't summon the collective will to protect men and women back here on Earth from the consequences of an economic model and lifestyle choice that has taken on the mantle of a religion.
Then a Chinese premier who is in the process of converting his Communist nation to that new faith (high-carbon consumer capitalism) takes such umbrage at Barack Obama's speech that he refuses to meet – sulking in his hotel room, as if this were a teenager's house party instead of a final effort to stave off the breakdown of our biosphere.
Late in the evening, the two men meet and cobble together a collection of paragraphs that they call a "deal", although in reality it has all the meaning and authority of a bus ticket, not that it stops them signing it with great solemnity.
Obama's team then briefs the travelling White House press pack – most of whom, it seems, understand about as much about global-climate politics as our own lobby hacks know about baseball. Before we know it, The New York Times and CNN are declaring the birth of a "meaningful" accord.
Meanwhile, a friend on an African delegation emails to say that he and many fellow members of the G77 bloc of developing countries are streaming into the corridors after a long discussion about the perilous state of the talks, only to see Obama on the television announcing that the world has a deal.
It's the first they've heard about it, and a few minutes later, as they examine the text, they realise very quickly that it effectively condemns their continent to a century of devastating temperature rises.
By now, the European leaders – who know this thing is a farce but have to present it to their publics as progress – have their aides phoning the directors of civil society organisations spinning that the talks have been a success.
A success? This deal crosses so many of the red lines laid out by Europe before this summit started that there are scarlet skid marks across the Bella Centre, and one honest European diplomat tells us this is a "shitty, shitty deal". Quite so.
This "deal" is beyond bad. It contains no legally binding targets and no indication of when or how they will come about. There is not even a declaration that the world will aim to keep global temperature rises below C. Instead, leaders merely recognise the science behind that vital threshold, as if that were enough to prevent us crossing it.
The only part of this deal that anyone sane came close to welcoming was the $100bn global climate fund, but it's now apparent that even this is largely made up of existing budgets, with no indication of how new money will be raised and distributed so that poorer countries can go green and adapt to climate change.
I know our politicians feel they have to smile and claim success; they feel that's the only way to keep this train on the tracks. But we've passed that point – we need to go back to first principles now. We have to admit to ourselves the scale of the problem and recognise that at its core this carbon crisis is, in fact, a political crisis.
Until politicians recognise that, they're kidding themselves, and, more than that, they're kidding us too.
Not all of our politicians deserve the opprobrium of a dismayed world. Our own Ed Miliband fought hard, on no sleep, for a better outcome; while Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva offered to financially assist other developing countries to cope with climate change, and put a relatively bold carbon target on the table. But the EU didn't move on its own commitment (one so weak we'd actually have to work hard not to meet it), while the United States offered nothing and China stood firm.
Before the talks began, I was of the opinion that we would know Copenhagen was a success only when plans for new coal-fired power stations across the developed world were dropped. If the giant utilities saw in the outcome of Copenhagen an unmistakable sign that governments were now determined to act, and that coal plants this century would be too expensive to run under the regime agreed at this meeting, then this summit would have succeeded.
Instead, as details of the agreement emerged last night, we received reports of Japanese opposition MPs popping champagne corks as they savoured the possible collapse of their new government's carbon targets.
It's not just that we didn't get to where we needed to be, we've actually ceded huge amounts of ground. There is nothing in this deal – nothing – that would persuade an energy utility that the era of dirty coal is over. And the implications for humanity of that simple fact are profound.
I know we Greens are partial to hyperbole. We use language as a bludgeon to direct attention to the crisis we are facing, and you will hear much more of it in the coming days and weeks. But, really, it is no exaggeration to describe the outcome of Copenhagen as a historic failure that will live in infamy.
In a single day, in a single space, a spectacle was played out in front of a disbelieving audience of people who have read and understood the stark warnings of humanity's greatest scientific minds. And what they witnessed was nothing less than the very worst instincts of our species articulated by the most powerful men who ever lived.
Joss Garman is a Greenpeace activist and co-founder of Plane Stupid
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Also in this section
- Deborah Ross: After 'Antiques Roadshow', does Fiona Bruce go off to play netball or to have dirty sex? Or both?
- 'I was a victim of abuse. This is what the Pope must do to stop it'
- Jerome Taylor: This will go down as the year the crisis shook the world
- Charles Crawford: Bosnia will be the real loser in this messy legal battle





Comments
Can anyone here address these points rather than make personal attacks? (i.e. please don't call me a troll, an imbecile, a creationist, or a right-wing shill. I am none of these things).
1.The original idea is very speculative. True, adding Co2 to the atmosphere should have a warming 'greenhouse' effect, but doubling the amount would lead to a rise of only around 1°c. The theory states that this will be amplified due to the original heating putting water vapour into the air. This would double the temperature to a, still quite modest, 2°c. To create a catastrophe we then require a series of run-away feed-back mechanisms sending the whole system spiralling out of control:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg
This is an uncertain hypothesis, to say the least; even additional water vapour could have a cooling effect due to cloud refection. Isn't it likely that the Earth would have damping mechanisms rather than the opposite? No one knows - the system is fiendishly complex. So the evidence that AGW is really happening must be highly convincing; there must be well-documented records of clear and accelerating warming with no chance that it is part of a natural cycle.
2.There are natural cycles that can have nothing to do with human activity. Show me a historian or archaeologist specialising in the relevent periods (as opposed to climatologist), who doesn't believe there was a medieval warming period or a little ice-age:
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=con
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/li
3.Solar cycles. Very likely the cause of the fluctuations above:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/0
Is anyone saying that Mars hasn't warmed recently, or just that it's irrelevent?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n
4.Data collection. If you think all the data is pristine, take a look at this site:
http://www.surfacestations.org/
I doubt surface stations in developing countries are built and maintained to a better standard.
5.Data manipuation. For all I know the Russians may have devious reasons to dismay and confuse the West, but there is growing evidence that data was routinely manipulated at the CRU; adjusted upwards for no clear reason, real readings spliced onto proxy data (ouch), inconvenient data left out, etc. There are frequent references to this in the 'Climategate' emails and these are born out by analysis of original data (where it still exists). Here is a famously blatant example:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/t
or this
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_bri
(continued)
The world is warming because of increasing CO2 levels. It will soon begin to get ever more rapidly warm as more feedback mechanisms (loss of snow, melting of tundra, reduction of forests) take effect. Better get used to it. Your deniablog friends won't be any use then.
6.Computer models. See the 'Climategate' Harry_readme file:
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/colum
What this shows is a labyrinthine program that can't be made to work as required – they can't reproduce their own results! There also seems to be evidence of manipulation at this stage, too; ' manual entry' of results is mentioned, and 'Apply VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!' – what is THAT all about? At the very least their models are a complete mess and their (unreproducable) results must surely be far from reliable.
7.Clear attempts to exclude 'heretical' thought; hijacking of the peer review process, bullying the media and destroying careers:
http://www.infowars.com/climategate-pee
If you think there is a real 'consensus' of scientists for AGW take a look at this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/1
...or the response of scientists to this piece of regular AGW journalism posing as an editorial in the American Chemical Society:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/87/8725e
Strangely, the comments seem to have disappeared since I last looked; this gives a taste: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/a
8.Hiding and possible destruction of source data. Staggering! It is an absolute scientific tenet that data and methods should be open for all to see and use to replicate the results.
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/arc
What possible reason could there be for not doing this? It makes brushing off malicious doubters easier, not more difficult. What is there to hide here? And if this incredibly important source data is bizarrely 'lost', all models and predictions deriving from it become essentially meaningless.
9.Mainstream media ignoring all of the above and far more. The 'Climategate' story was ignored for weeks and then treated as a story about criminal hackers trying to sabotage Copenhagen and revealing nothing important. Even by the lazy standards of modern journalism, this must raise eyebrows. AGW 'deniers' (ouch, nasty!) have always been portrayed as odd-balls and fanatics. If the media (for whatever reason) isn't reporting important stories and credible points of view, inquiring minds will start to sort through the evidence for themselves. Thank god for the internet!
Now, all this may amount to nothing and AGW may be shown to be correct, but please don't say: 'these things (sigh) have been answered a thousand times', they haven't; they remain hanging in the air and will remain there no matter how studiously you ignore them.
Most of us aren't scientists, so once again, this comes down to which sources we trust. And, of course, we all have our biases, and tendencies to select sourcs according to predisposition.
I've had a good trawl through your incredibly long list of cited links (how long did it take you to write this - did you have it all prepared in advance of reading this article, by any chance?). Some of these sites are measure, reasonable, open-minded, and a good source of varying opinion. However, what is obvious is that your impressive list falls into the same trap of selective bias. For example, here's a typical post from a frequent commenter on American Thinker:
[quote]if there is one truth is that Liberals hate three things a) Capitalism b) freedom c) Human beings. The BS of global warming allows liberals the perfect storm of being able to tax us into slavery under the guise of saving mother earth. Liberals won't be happy until we have all been cowed and subdued and they steal it all. Every penny. And they will lie and cheat in other to do it. [end quote]
Sounds completely reasonable and sane, doesn't he? His tone isn't entirely untypical of the 'sceptics' we read every day here in the Independent and elsewhere. Are you really telling me its only the liberal-left who have something other than a genuine scientific agenda?
Perhaps you really are the open-minded, non right-wing shill you claim to be, but your list does display a strong bias in favour those who clearly have non-scientific reasons to wish AGW isn't happening.
Non-pseudonymously,
Duncan Marshall
...is quite simply that the world's top leaders have now got full cognisance of the fact that a) the science behind the theory of 'global warming' is far from indisputable, and b), more importantly for them, an increasing majority of their voters no longer believe in it.
'Slippage' on g.w. targets will steadily increase. Only a truly dramatic, indeed catastrophic rise in global temperatures, combined with no less dramatic negative effects, will reverse that trend. Basically, none of the real players are interested anymore. The dogs will bark, but the caravan has moved on. It's becoming yesterday's issue, just like the AIDS panic, the millenium bug, etc etc.
Truly pathetic. Sad really.
It also seems tragic that the biggest issues of the 21st century get $100bn yet we spend $2,000 on bailing out Merchant Bankers (bith literally and in rhyming slang).
Well that's good news surely?
Fortunately for us, through a series of litigation about to emerge, the whole house of cards of the global warming religion is about to be dismantled. But there is no certainty of that because it will be fought vigourously by some very rich and powerful people.
I challenge Mr. Garman and his crew to come forward with scientific evidence to prove that CO2 generated by humans has any influence on climate. Of couse he won't for two good reasons. Firstly, there is no such evidence, and secondly, he is not a scientist.
The slightest bit of geological history defiles the very premise on which this ruse is based by merely studying the cycles of global warming and cooling. History itself shows times in the age of this earth, certainly times when all manner of mammalian life (among other types) populated its vast reaches of land and ocean, where the climate was much warmer and when there would have been no glaciers to speak of. Yet man and animal survived.
Your puny little smokestacks are nothing to compare to a single volcanic eruption! Mother Nature provides more carbon into the atmosphere via volcanic activity and mere CO2 outgassing from oceans than two more centuries of crud-coughing factories would provide.
I am somewhat relieved that COP15 ended in relative failure, but worry still that the knock-kneed progressive pantywaists of the world will once again stir up controversy and manage to shackle progress in the name of progressivism. Unless and until then, I celebrate your failure.
With all due respect, I am not still quite certain about what has happened there is giving me the whole picture or a clear hint as anything as defining failure. Nonetheless, my understanding is that we ought to cut fusil fuel consumption drastically, although for different reason, namely for having a safe and reliable market with at least minimum stress and panic from emergence of uncertain and unregulated markets.
The major obstacle seems however, is that we have not much influence to change things, not because we are wrong but for our ailing economy and weakness in relation to international managerial guidance and lack of trust from other delegates - (quite frankly, I am not even sure that our own delegate had understood clearly the sensitivity of issues in the negotiation).
The complexity of the matter is that as the world political and wealth structure is changing hands rapidly, there are many that consider any adjustment to current financial programmes would indeed interfere with their progress, dramatically, thus preventing them to join in to an uncertain and untested deal.
Finally, as long as nature doesn’t go (whole swing) toward catastrophe, it is hard to bring everyone’s attention and interest on board. The untold story is that out there, there are far more pessimists to the idea than optimists.
There is no point in Garman complaining - at the end of the day I suspect that sufficient politicians have begun to smell a rat that they are no longer willing to troop stolidly over a cliff. In particular, I though Merkel was particularly quiet - and she and Mr Wen [as far as I am aware ] were the only trained scientists in the whole group.
The "settled science" behind it is about to become seriously unsettled, with 4 enquiries current on "climategate" and the Russians alleging that CRU cherrypicked or manipulated climate data from their country. Similar allegations are appearing about Australian and European data.
The CLOUD experiment at CERN, if it proves out, will invalidate every climate computer model in existence for having omitted a major physical effect.
Meanwhile, in the real world there seems to be a little snow in Europe and America .......
Hardly so, the man awarded a Nobel Peace Prize has increased the number of US troops in Afghanistan and talked of the benefits of war even as he accepted a prize for peace!
So progressive that he presided over billions of dollars for bankers and the very car makers whose energy inefficient vehicles are contributing so much to global warming while denying any real reform of the US medical system.
The author of this article is clearly not independent, he has a vested interest in promoting the idea of global warming, he and many thousands of others have made it their career of choice every bit as much as somebody who decides to work for Exxon or Shell. Nothing wrong with either choice, except hold back on the moral outrage as they are two sides of the same coin.
There have been many more important meetings; the Cold War ones between Russian and US leaders being clear examples, when the world clearly face the real threat of annialation.
The hyperbole of this article just shows how desperaretly out of touch the Global Warming extremists have grown; why should we agree to commit economic suicide when you offer us no proof of your misanthropic theories?
I am in the process of writing a computer game which simulates the next 90 years and allows the player to try and prevent the worst effects of climate change. Mind you the game does give the player the power to change our energy infrasturcutre!
It's called 'Save the Silly Earthlings!' apt really, check out the my progress so far at http://blog.arowx.com
I intent to send a copy to each of the delegates at copenhagen!
There will now be more time for a proper analysis of the very questionable and fraudulent warmist science to take place . The one problem remaining is that large sections of the media including the BBC are signed upto the warmist manifesto and as we have already seen want to censor anything which pours doubt on the theory.
You're either right and we'll carry on in our old sweet way or you're wrong and we all fry
Peace & love
This is where the 'warmist' camp have shot themselves in the foot. All the extravagant language, all the doomsaying talk, all the purple prose has now been used, and there's nothing much left for if/when something really bad does happen. You cannot tell everyone, editorial after editorial, year after year, that the planet is about to self-destruct in the flames of hell (and indeed there's a reigious overtone here, and didn't some activist recently plead his climate opinion was a religion?), that we are all about to fry in a conflagration of our own making, without human nature turning a deaf ear. There's only so much overblown rhetoric that the Great Public can absorb.
If you could be a little (well, a lot) more measured, and rational, and calm, you might make a greater impression. As it is, the only people you will convince are the already-converted.
I thought the real bogeyman of Copenhagen was not so much China as South Africa. The Africans clearly thought the best way to provide health and prosperity to their people was by being free to expand their economy exactly as the US did in the industrial revolution. Much to the annoyance of the “climate activists”, the real inhabitants of the developing world believe the US example of achieving health and comfort through technology and subverting harsh nature for human ends is not something to be shunned but to be emulated. Such a belief undermines a fundamental premise of the Warmists that mankind is completely unable to adapt to a changing environment. We all recall Sir David King, former chief scientist of the UK, famously stating that if we did not act to reduce our carbon emissions, by the end of the century Antarctica would be the world’s only habitable continent. That divergence of opinion is much more serious than China refusing to allow a bunch of Western scientists to march all over her country monitoring her activities as if she was an Oriental Iraq.
Why do the Americans consume so much energy? Because many of their centres of population are situated in deserts such as California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas that require prodigious amounts on enrgy to keep their homes, offices and public places cool. Many of their other population centres are situated in the North of the country and are very cold, so require massive amounts of energy to keep warm.
There public transport system is terrible, so all travel is organised around petrol-driven cars. Little wonder that they were unwilling to allow President Obama to sign up to any really significant agreements at Copenhagen?
So yes, be green, conserve energy and recycle, but whatever you do, don't be a patsy all your life.
Take a day off.
Environmentalists must accept this truth and find ways to counter it: how, I don't know, but it is clear that this is THE sticking point for any progress.
Peace & love
1. I'll wear two jumpers and lower / cut the central heating
2. I'll eat to live, not live to eat.
3. I'll do something constructive today
God, 'sounds awful; But then again, you either want things to IMPROVE...or NOT.
As you've already larded your post with the requisite number of 'may's and 'possibility's as well as including the 'Nobody knows how much of a threat this is' remark, you are clearly somebody with a belief rather than a rational argument.
All one can do is change the way one lives without government approval or sanction and hope upon hope that change will occur in the hearts and minds of ordinary people before it is too late.
Future generations will condemn us without any doubt if we don't do something soon :-(
Not surprisingly much of this professional actvist's record of civil disobedience betrays his inexperience in the ways of the world.
The Independent and like minded Environmentalists need to calm down,rid themselves of their primary anti-American rantings and above all stop panicking.
After all like the New Ice Age forecast by equally reputable climate scientists 30 years ago,Global Warming may never happen.
It's funny you should mention past concerns of a forthcoming Ice Age.
William F Ruddiman shows, in "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum" that, had humans not intervened by removing carbon-sequestering forests and recycling sequestered fossil carbon to the atmosphere, the Holocene interglacial period may well have ended by now, and the world would be entering the next glacial period ("Ice Age"). In my view, the "Little Ice Age" was a harbinger of this next "Ice Age".
I've subscribed to New Scientist since the mid-1980's, and I do recall seeing reports of concerns about global cooling back then. Such reports soon disappeared, and by the early '90's, all concerns were with the possibillity of a runaway greenhouse. Certainly, global dimming due to aerosols of sulphur and lead continued up until the 1980's, when lead was removed from petrol due to concerns about respired lead toxicity, and sulphur fumes were removed from furnace due to concerns about acid rain.
Temperatures may have been restabilised over the last decade because the Chinese industrial expansion has been largely fuelled by high-sulphur coal.
Here's a story that touches on some of these points. Fast Pace of Glacier Melt in the 1940s: Lower Aerosol Pollution, ScienceDaily (Jan. 1, 2010) Retrieved January 2, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/12/091231124858.htm
Hope this helps.