Of course, this all comes at a time when most of the world is suffering (and now slowly recovering from) the most serious financial crisis and economic downturn that the world has experienced since the Great Depression. As noted in today's Washington Post, one of the main sticking points at the Conference is "how much the rich nations should pay the poor ones".
It is now reported that a UN body (the UN Environmental Program Governing Council) is prepared to present a recommendation at the end of the Conference to start a process to improve "international environmental governance". This recommendation came out of a meeting held by this UN body in Belgrade in June 2009 and is being called the "Belgrade Process". Again the focus of this process is to improve the approach to imposing global mandates to restrict the emissions of greenhouse gases because, according to the Belgrade Process, the UN process to date has suffered from a lack of adequate funding, "incoherence among bodies, weak linkages between science and policy, insufficient capacity at the national level to implement laws and policies" and a disconnect between environmental, economic and social spheres. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580496,00.html for more information on this.
A recent article in the December 14, 2009 issue of Time magazine entitled "Beyond Copenhagen" by Bjorn Lomborg (Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center) suggests a new way to look at the issue of Climate Change. Lomborg says that "instead of trying to make fossil fuels more expensive, we should focus on making alternative energy cheaper". This suggests that there needs to be incentives to developing innovative technologies to help solve the Climate Change challenges, rather than prohibitions on fossil fuel use and caps on greenhouse emissions accompanied by continuing frenzied warnings that "The End is Near", 'The Sky is Falling" and the planet is doomed if we don't stop our misguided emissions of pollutants, including our natural exhaling of CO2! See http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1945639,00.html for the article.
Instead of requiring the richer nations to contribute to a fund that would be redistributed to poorer nations to "adapt" to the coming terrible consequences of Global Warming, why not have half that amount of money (proposals seem to be suggesting over $15 billion a year will be distributed from rich countries to poor nations) into a Climate Change Trust Fund governed by an internationally representative Board of Trustees, who would be tasked with making grants to applicants who offer the most promising proposals to develop new technologies that will result in the generation of cleaner, cheaper energy for all nations or help address any harm that climate change may cause. Such proposals could result in improved sources of alternative energy, cleaner methods of using fossil fuels, systems that would permit all nations to adapt to any negative consequences that may occur from climate change or any other innovations that would benefit the global environment.
This approach would unleash the entrepreneurial and creative energy of all qualified people in the world to work toward a positive goal that benefits all inhabitants of the Earth, including polar bears, not just those living in the developing nations, while holding back the so-called "rich nations" of the world. Use the innovative power of free enterprise to improve the quality of life around the world. Then set up valid systems of measurement to determine if this approach is making progress. It certainly should produce more progress and positive results than continued meetings around the world with protesters dressed in polar bear suits.
Without a change in the current "groupthink" approach to addressing climate change issues, the eco-extremists will continue their Doom and Gloom demonstrations and protests that produce nothing but photo ops.
By the way, is tear gas a greenhouse gas?????
No comments:
Post a Comment