World carbon emissions, by country: can the Copenhagen climate summit bring these down?

The Copenhagen climate change summit has started. Now, the US is no longer number one emitter of carbon dioxide, having been overtaken by China in these latest figures. But when did it happen?

Copenhagen summit: Carbon emissions around the world. Click image for bigger picture. Scroll down page for pdf
More of the article from the Guardian including the table

Environment Canada hit by 'damn clever' climate stunt

Jane Taber - Globe and Mail

December 14, 2009

Canada is red-faced at the Copenhagen climate-change conference as a result of a spoof news release purporting to be from Environment Canada announcing Canada was bringing in bold new emissions reduction targets.

The authentic-looking release, which was announced on a fake Jim Prentice Twitter account, caught many observers off guard and a fake story about it landed on a fake Wall Street Journal website - all an elaborate ruse to embarrass Canada, which is being considered the "dirty-old man" of the conference for its intransigence on negotiating better targets.

“In a major development coming three days before the final round of UN climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, and responding to the recent concerns expressed by the G77 bloc of countries, Canada’s Attache for Environment and Planning announced today an ambitious plan for a new climate change framework that answers vital concerns voiced by developing nations,” says the fake release. It says that Canada plans to bring in new targets of 40 per cent below 1990 by 2020 - way more ambitious than what the real Mr. Prentice has come to Copenhagen with.

The prank continued with another legitimate-looking statement from Environment Canada attempting to contain the damage: “One hour ago, a spoof press release targeted Canada in order to generate hurtful rumours and mislead the Conference of Parties on Canada’s positions on climate change, and to damage Canada’s standing with the international business community,” it says. It says that the spoof was “unfortunately” reported in major international outlets. It says the targets and all statements in the release are “unequivocally false.”

But that statement, too, proved to be a fake. The elaborate and damaging spoof comes just a week after Greenpeace activists embarrassed the government by climbing the roof of Parliament buildings to protest Canada’s leadership on his issue.

Dimitri Soudas, spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, was unimpressed. "More time should be dedicated to playing a constructive role instead of childish pranks," he said in an email to The Globe.

The story raised hackles in Copenhagen, with tensions running high between Mr. Soudas, who is travelling with Mr. Prentice, and Steven Guilbeault, a Quebec environmentalist with Équiterre who is as well-known in that province as David Suzuki’s is in the rest of Canada.

Mr. Soudas, who is not sure who wrote the releases, said Mr. Guilbeault was forwarding the fake announcements around and then had camped in front of where the Canadian delegation is located. Mr. Guilbeault denies any involvement in the prank.

The Prime Minister's spokesman added that the Environment Minister is meeting with his provincial colleagues and is also to meet with the U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu later. A real press release, Mr. Soudas said, will be issued from that meeting.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who is also in Copenhagen, says she doesn’t know who is behind the spoof but says it is clearly “an attempt to draw attention to Canada and force Canada to go to the media and say ‘no, we haven’t budged.'”

She doesn’t believe that any Canadian did it, although she says it was “damn clever.”

 hippiechick wrote: 
BBC says they're talking again?

Breaking news:

Copenhagen Climate Talks SUSPENDED, In Chaos, As Countries Walk Out Of The Conference (BREAKING)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/copenhagen-climate-talks_n_390750.html

 HazzeSwede wrote:
He's quite correct. The energy density of the methods you mention is terrible (they take up a lot of space) and they are very leaky. That low energy density imposes a terrible environmental cost too—look at the acreage drowned by hydroelectric reservoirs. And look at the energy required to make a lithium-ion battery.

What does work, and works very well, is "grid storage". If you have power plants that can change their output level quickly (like, say, a nuke plant) you use that to fill in the gaps when the other methods slow down. Then you don't bother trying to store energy, just generate what you need.

 Zep wrote: 
   The new world leader !
   (they bought my favorite car brand from GM,,  today !) SAAB !
   The management of GM,,,SUCK ! 

 HazzeSwede wrote: 
The G77 could make a lot of political trouble for the rest of the world, that's for sure.  It's going to depend on where China aligns herself. 

Told you Zep,,war is coming !

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
    Well,THANK YOU ! And thank the "Norrbaggarna" for their hard work !
    It will pay off,,any place where fresh water meets salt,one can have a plant =
   a small nuc one.

 

From the Beeb...  Too early to say what it means for the convention itself, and for hammering out an agreement.

By Richard Black - Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Copenhagen

Negotiations at the UN climate summit have been suspended after developing countries withdrew their co-operation.

Delegations were angry at what they saw as moves by the Danish host government to sideline talks on more emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol.

As news spread around the conference centre, activists chanted "We stand with Africa - Kyoto targets now".

Informal talks continue, and the UN climate convention head said the formal agenda should resume in the afternoon.

He said it would leave some of the world's biggest emitters without targets for cutting emissions.

Many developing countries have been arguing for a "twin track" approach, whereby countries with existing targets under the Kyoto Protocol (all developed nations except the US) stay under that umbrella, with the US and major developing economies making their carbon pledges under a new protocol.

Kim Carstensen, director of the global climate initiative with environment group WWF, said that much more movement was needed on the Kyoto Protocol negotiations here.

"The point is being made very loudly that African countries and the wider G77 bloc will not accept non-action on the Kyoto Protocol, and they're really afraid that a deal has been stitched up behind their backs," he told BBC News.

While understanding the G77 position, he said the suspension could affect progress towards a deal.

"We're losing time, and that's a serious matter; because for every minute we lose on one issue, the chances of getting to the bottom of the next issue diminish."

The Danish government has yet to make any formal response; but Australian Climate Minister Penny Wong described the suspension as "regrettable".

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN climate change convention, predicted that the negotiations would get back on track in the early afternoon.

"The vast majority of countries here want to see the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol," he said.

"I'm not aware that any countries are trying to block anything."

An African bloc walkout during prepatory talks in Barcelona in November proved unpopular with other developing countries, in particular some small island nations.

 

 HazzeSwede wrote: 

  loved the osmosis plant you drew to our attention!

 Xeric wrote: 

whoever solves that problem will become a very rich person.

 Xeric wrote:   beggin your pardon,,not so much any more,,new batteries,elevating water,heating the same,saving in the ground etc.

 MrsHobieJoe wrote: 
Pointing out that one of the glaring gaps in our energy technology is storage. 

 MrsHobieJoe wrote:    Not only that,,will also,if I have the correct info,burn the waste we already have and the time
    to make it "safe" will be 1000 years instead 100 000 !

 HazzeSwede wrote: 

I was just going to post "yes".  The nuclear power thing is the "gap" because wind, solar etc don't (at the moment) have the on/off capacity for flexibility that is needed.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
   I rate this post a # 9 !    

4Gen nuclear power plants.  I honestly do not see any viable future without them and I am speaking as an environmentalist.

I am all in favor of using every possible alternative energy source that returns a net energy gain and does not pollute the environment:

Wind
Solar
Tide
Osmosis

But I think we are kidding ourselves big time if we think we are going to generate enough energy from these sources in the short time left.

(BTW that short time left is NOT the time from now until resources run out.
The short time left is the time between now and the time it becomes economically unfeasible to exploit the few remaining natural resources).

Moreover, the energy supplied by 4Gen nuclear will hopefully give us enough time to get sufficient fully renewable sources (like osmosis plants, solar, etc) up and running.

As for all the climate change deniers: I don't really care whether you think the climate is changing or not. What bugs me most about your world view is somehow the tacit assumption you seem to make that the future will somehow carry on just like the past with us able to buy in everything we need if we can't produce it ourselves.

This totally ignores the fact that we have come to close to exhausting the bountiful resources of our own countries (I mean, how long would the States survive if imports stopped tomorrow?) and are actually buying in the deficit from poorer countries eager to sell it to us. Fine, worked so far, but what if these "poorer" countries are no longer willing to sell it to us? What if they enter the world market as net buyers of resources?

I mean seriously, the current first world lifestyle is simply unsustainable for 6 billion people. This is a fact. Either we change the way we live or we throw our ideals out the window and buy bigger guns to keep 80% of the world in abject poverty. This is what really drives me loopy. Not the whole climate change scenario.

 Zep wrote: 
     Perfect Zep !  I only hope that its not too complicated for Beaks and Co !

 Beaker wrote: 
That would be weather.  Climate is long term, say, over about 5000 nights.  So you have one data point out of 5000, which is, as we say in American, a drop in the bucket. 

Here's a good resource to learn how to distinguish between climate and weather.