Business as usual? Poorer nations worrying about possibility of a ‘back-room deal’

COPENHAGEN, DENMARK — As Day Three plunged delegates deeper into negotiations, the media’s attention has been largely co-opted by the so-called “Danish Texts.”

These internal documents, which the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention for Climate Change, Yvo de Boer, insists carry no legal weight, have led the poorer nations to claim the industrialized countries are crafting a back-room deal they cannot accept. And there may be some truth to their argument.

The documents themselves will almost certainly prove as powerless as Mr. De Boer describes, especially now that they’ve become a political leverage point, but even so, the science does appear to support the assertion by many nations that the current temperature-reduction goals aren’t large enough to protect them from unmanageable climate destabilization.

In short, COP15 is descending even more deeply into the foggy trenches of negotiation … and it’s pulling the hopes of a large swath of humanity along for the ride.

Based on the scrambling I see in the halls, I doubt that anybody, at any level of power, has a good handle on what sort of deal (if any) is going to be produced in the coming days. In person, there’s a sense of escalating urgency as delegates literally run between offices with “draft papers,” the building blocks of a potential future agreement.

I’ve been told by many veteran observers that this is simply business as usual at the international level. That may be so, but I also know that just outside the Bella Center there are thousands of people from all over the world demanding anything but “business as usual.”

Comments (5)

  1. Submitted by david granneman on 12/10/2009 - 02:47 pm.

    hello all
    the global warming delegates in Copenhagan are saying we need to consider population control to limit global warming. – do you want the un telling you how many children you can have.

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm

    YOU MUST SEE THIS VIDEO
    http://neithercorp.us/media

  2. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 12/10/2009 - 03:57 pm.

    The U.S. has apparently offered the princely sum of $10 billion per year as its share of staving off the culmination of global warming throughout the world. One person speculated that this — and the sums to be offered by other wealthy nations — was arrived at in a secret meeting.

    David: I think the U.N. just wants family planning to be available to all who want it, no matter how poor they are or how undeveloped their country.

  3. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 12/11/2009 - 06:59 am.

    Dave,
    What peer reviewed data do you have to verify your claims? A best seller or perhaps in your case a “video” is sorely lacking in the peer reviewed analysis that would allow it to be held up to some scrutiny. What can you share with us about the mythical black helicopters of the UN?

  4. Submitted by david granneman on 12/11/2009 - 01:24 pm.

    hello ricahard
    it is ironic you ask for peer review when the recent emails from england reveal the the global warming scientists where dedicated to “crushing” any dessenting articles.
    here is some peer reviewed data

    http://neithercorp.us/media

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

    U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
    December 11, 2008

  5. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 12/11/2009 - 11:36 pm.

    Dave,
    Yes you have a minority of scientists who who dispute some of the science and data of global warming.

    Of course you are going to have an entire range of opinions in the scientific community. You have to rely on the overall assessment of scientists. The small fraction of the total that you mention are very visible because media in general is fair and balanced. So it will always give both sides of the story. Even if the science has become unbalanced and become clear. So you will continue to hear both sides and the public will be confused.

    What is the opinion of our National Academy of Science Dave?

Leave a Reply