steeler wrote: 
China's alignment reflects both economics and global politics.  By being a developing country, their GHG emissions caps will not be as low as they would be in Europe, Japan, or the US, so they can continue to burn lots of coal.  Their stance permits them to wield a lot of power in the league of developing nations, and effectively act as leader and spokesperson for over half of the world's population.  This in turn gives them entry into locking up contracts with Nigeria, for example, for oil trade. 

 Beaker wrote: 

I thought Rupert Murdoch was paying you to keep tabs on him, so I haven't been watching. Did he get away?

 Zep wrote: 

Thanks, Zep!  

I'm glad U.S. is there, making its views known.  I disagree with those, like Palin (article posted earlier in this thread), who insist that we should boycott the conference. What would that do?  Smacks of, if you don't play the game the way I want you to play it, I'm going to take my ball and go home.

I did not know that U.S. and China emit 40 percent of global greenhouse gasses. Interesting to see how China tries to align itself with the developing countries.   As Edie said yesterday, a lot of this is about being good stewards of the planet.  On this issue, U.S. and China have an obligation to lead.

 

Some more conference updates...

WSJ: All States Have Climate Role, U.S. Negotiator Says
The U.S. pressed major developing countries, and especially China, to commit to do their part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in view of a global agreement to fight climate change and limit global warming, in the third day of negotiations in Copenhagen. "There is no way to solve this problem by giving developing countries a pass," U.S. Chief Negotiator Todd Stern said during a press conference. "Virtually all of the growth in emissions going forward (...) will be coming from developing countries," of which about 50% from China alone, Mr. Stern said.

Xinhua: China criticizes rich nations' inaction on global warming
China on Wednesday criticized the lack of action by developed nations in fulfilling their commitments on carbon emissions reduction and financial support to developing nations in coping with climate change. "You will find a huge gap if you make a comparison between their pledges and the actions they have so far taken," Yu Qingtai, China's special representative in the UN climate talks, said at a press conference during the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

Reuters: China urges U.S. to increase Copenhagen offer
China urged President Barack Obama to increase a U.S. offer to cut carbon emissions but its top climate envoy indicated willingness on Wednesday to compromise at a U.N. conference in Copenhagen.

Xie Zhenhua said that China wanted to play a constructive role at the December 7-18 climate talks, where a successful outcome largely depends on agreement between the United States and China which together emit 40 percent of global greenhouse gases.

NPR: What Copenhagen Climate Treaty Might Look Like
There are so many issues on the table at the Copenhagen U.N. climate conference that politicians from all the major players have already declared there is no hope of reaching a binding legal agreement. But progress is still possible. Participants speak of reaching a "political agreement." Exactly what that would be remains undefined, but it would represent some form of commitment to address global warming that goes beyond mere rhetoric — yet falls short of a legally binding treaty

 Zep wrote: 

 "Agenda-driven science."

Is that anything like Intelligent Design?

 Zep wrote:
 
Olive oil, mustard, liberally sprinkle on 'brisket rub' and rub in well. Smoke for twelve hours over indirect heat at 250 F. Slice thin and serve.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
As Trekhead might say, she could use a little seasoning. 
 

 Zep wrote: 

Are you trying to tell me that Sarah Palin is not as qualified as climate scientist to offer opinions on the subject?? Well, alright then.

 
Nuff said.
 

Random posts and cites this morning.....

From the Beeb

Developing Countries Split on CO2
A major split between developing countries emerged on the third morning of UN climate talks here. Small island states and poor African nations vulnerable to climate impacts laid out demands for a legally-binding deal tougher than the Kyoto Protocol. This was opposed by richer developing states such as China, which fear tougher action would curb their growth.

This decade 'warmest on record'
The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization. Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record. Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years. The US space agency Nasa suggests that a new global temperature record will be set "in the next one or two years".

Bangladesh seeks 15% of any UN climate fund
Bangladesh says it will ask for at least 15% of any money which rich countries pledge to help developing nations cope with climate change.

Copenhagen summit welcomes US emissions curbs
UN and EU officials have welcomed the US declaration that greenhouse gases are threatening to human health. An EU spokesman said the announcement showed "a degree of resolve" on the part of President Barack Obama to address climate change. The US move came as delegates from 192 countries got down to work at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

The arguments made by climate change sceptics
At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, 192 governments are aiming for a new global agreement to constrain greenhouse gas emissions and curb human-induced climate change. But some commentators are unconvinced that rising greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of modern-day warming. Or they say the world is not actually getting warmer - or that a new treaty would hurt economic growth and well-being. So what are their arguments, and how are they countered by scientists who assert that greenhouse gases, produced by human activity, are the cause of modern-day climate change?

Financial Times

Whispers of dissent at sceptics summit
It was a ragtag group of mostly ageing male academics and politicians, no more than 100 in total, crammed into a small meeting room in central Copenhagen – a far cry from the 15,000-strong United Nations climate change summit taking place on the other side of the Danish capital. But the global warming sceptics holding their rival conference in the city insisted the momentum was shifting in their direction after the leaked “climategate” emails exposed questionable practices among some of the world’s leading climate scientists.

Micro-tax call to support poor nations
France is pressing for a modified Tobin tax – a micro-payment on financial transactions – to be included in any agreement at the Copenhagen conference as a means to help the developing world tackle climate change. Bernard Kouchner, French foreign minister, made a brief round-trip visit to New York on Monday to enlist Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general, in support of the French initiative at Copenhagen and of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s separate proposal for a new World Environment Organisation. Mr Kouchner said a “contribution” of 0.005 per cent on all financial transactions could amount to billions of dollars a year for the developing world. This would fill the gap caused by lack of donor funds to meet agreed goals to eradicate poverty in the developing world.

Hot air? Claims put to the test
Claim “Cap-and-trade schemes are a terrible idea ... A carbon tax, which is simple and honest, is a much easier task.” James Hansen, Nasa climate scientist. FT view Mr Hansen is a distinguished scientist, who has probably done more than any American apart from Al Gore to make the case for action against man-made climate change. But he is no politician and no economist. It would be politically impossible to reach a deal in Copenhagen that raised the price of carbon and financed mitigation work in the developing world solely through a carbon tax. Many economists say a market mechanism is needed to set a price for carbon while enforcing a fall in emissions.

American Society for International Law

State of Play: Changing Climate at Copenhagen (pdf)
Behind the current drama of climate change politics, international and domestic law play a key role, both facilitating and inhibiting progress on the Bali Action Plan (BAP). The BAP is the roadmap to negotiations that calls for parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, the Convention) to agree on .... (more)

 

Once upon a time, I was a climate-change skeptic. I'm not one anymore. The evidence is in the ice.
—James Balog.       Link to CNN

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I was thinking of cracking water to create a storage medium for later use.  Once produced the solar cells input is sunlight, that's free. Yes there is a large production cost, but with scale and experience we can reduce that. And the carbon emission of the running system is 0.

Again, I'm for a lot of sources. I don't think there is one solution. It's not the thermodynamics so much as the economics. We wage war to protect oil interests, we give away massive tracts of land (above and below water) to the oil companies. Why is it so unfair for us to help get the solar/wind/tidal/geothermal industries up to speed? Nothing short of ground fairy dust or cold fusion is going to instantly solve the massive problem so let's start chipping away at it. I'm ready for my bite of elephant, I wish the cooks would stop arguing about how to get it delivered to the restaurant.

 islander wrote:
 
If a solar cell making electricity directly is a net loser, using that energy to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen to convert back to electricity is an even bigger loser.

I started my analysis in terms of energy: how much do you have to spend to make more. In the case of fossil fuels there is a net gain, a large one. You can wave your arms and yell that we're giving away the store to oil companies (go ahead and prove that, BTW—I'll wait) but that doesn't change the thermodynamics: it takes much less energy to extract fossil fuels from the ground than we get from burning the fossil fuels.

This is not always the case for alternatives. And when it isn't, and we use them anyway, we have increased—not decreased—the amount of energy consumed and the amount of carbon emitted to the atmosphere. The deficit in energy will not be made up by the warm fuzzy feeling we get looking at our new gadget, it will be made up by burning more fossil fuels.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I'm with you, really. I want to build nuclear plants (smaller, standardized, but still). But I also want to have solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and packets of ground fairy dust if it's reasonably viable for getting us through the day. But we do need to conserve as well. There are good solutions that reduce our use without radically affecting our lifestyles. It will take some sacrifice, but what we are doing now is not sustainable regardless of what we build.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
How about using a solar cell to crack water for hydrogen instead?

You keep getting hung up on subsidies, but we have been subsidizing the oil industry forever (still are). We have traditionally used subsidies to support things that we desire - rail roads, telecom infrastructure, the auto industry....why is it so bad in this case? I know you will say they are all bad (and I'd agree with a few of them), but in general, we need subsidies to get some industries up to speed - especially when they are coming up to speed with a competitor that is also being helped by the .gov

 islander wrote:
The Japanese do indeed live on less—especially less space. The average housing unit in Japan is just over 1K ft^2, half what the average was in the US in 2001, and it has gone up since then. Urban living is more energy efficient than suburban living, and the Japanese have no choice—their population density is more than ten times ours.

But let's say we live like the Japanese and cut our energy consumption down to their level (and electricity use is only part of the story—we burn a lot more of every kind of fuel)—what happens when China and India start to approach that level of energy consumption? Cutting energy use by 300M people means nothing when you add 2.5B at similar levels. We're going to need power. A lot of power.

 steeler wrote:
Everything being proposed is top-down regulation/taxation schemes. People may get creative in how they cope with this, but they may just end up using the same amount of energy but paying more for it. Unless they end up paying a lot more they won't change their habits quickly. So yeah, it will either be expensive or it won't work.

Worse, it will probably also result in exporting energy use; ie replacing domestic products with high energy content with similar things from countries without that tax burden. If I were Alcoa I'd be very nervous. But I digress.

 islander wrote: 
Not anymore. Because they make no sense. Hence the $51K subsidy for a $60K 1KW device. And since the fuel going in is natural gas (which goes thru a reformer to make hydrogen) the net efficiency isn't much different from just burning the natural gas in a gas turbine—usually a tad lower.

 helenofjoy wrote:

Depends on how you define "success". If you define it as "lots of installations" then, yes, they've been successful. If you define it as real, sustainable improvements in energy consumption then mostly no.

Spain heavily subsidizes solar installations—which has become such a burden that their government recently started cutting back those subsidies. The people who get the power get a great deal; the people who paid for it get...the bill. They haven't changed the laws of thermodynamics.

Denmark has had great success with wind energy. It makes about 14% of the power they use. They happen to have a great resource: lots of wind, room (mostly offshore) to build windmills and a strong existing power grid. Good on them for exploiting it. But it won't work everywhere.