10 Things You Didn't Know About the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit

By Jessica Rettig

November 30, 2009 RSS Feed Print

The United Nations conference is scheduled to begin on Dec. 7, 2009

1. The summit is the 15th annual meeting to review the effectiveness of the United Nations' climate change framework convention, which lays out a cooperative strategy for minimizing global greenhouse gas emissions.

2. The convention was first adopted in Rio de Janeiro on May 9, 1992, and went into effect on March 21, 1994.

3. The convention has been signed by 192 countries.

4. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was drafted as an addition to the convention, committing those ratifying it to reduce emissions by an average of 5 percent between 2008 and 2012.

5. In 2007, members agreed that the Kyoto agreement would not curb emissions enough and that a new treaty, set to be drafted in Copenhagen, was needed. That new pact has since been postponed, though the conference will go on as scheduled.

6. The current executive secretary overseeing the agreement is Yvo de Boer of the Netherlands.

7. The Danish government has budgeted approximately $62 million to host the conference.

8. Thousands of attendees—including country leaders and representatives, nongovernmental organization workers, and journalists—are expected. Last year's conference in Poznan, Poland, attracted about 9,300 participants.

9. On December 5, the International Union of Railways will sponsor the Climate Express, a 12-hour train ride from Brussels to Copenhagen. On board, experts will discuss the effect of transportation on the environment.

10. The conference will take place in Copenhagen's Bella Center, which at over 75,000 square feet is the country's largest exhibition hall.

Sources:

  • BBC
  • UNFCC Website
  • Bella Center Website
  • traintocopenhagen.org
Tags:
global warming,
energy policy and climate change,
UN

Reader Comments Read all comments (53)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

jab mainay bataya to tuuuu kya

uzair 4:08AM December 09, 2010

It’s all about the money stupid!

It's basic economics really. Before an economy will be willing to accept a new technology the tradeoff has to be worth it. That means the price of the existing technology has to exceed the price of the new and, in this case, "cleaner" technology.

We are watching our government artificially increase the price of our existing fuel with cap and trade type taxes. Sold as taxing the bad companies, we all know it is you and I that will be paying the price in the end. Obama already told us that our power bill will go up. Now we are talking about sending $100 mil to other countries on top of even more taxes and regulation yet to come.

Why? Simple. The price of our current fuel has to outpace the cost of the clean alternative for us to make a change. It's basic economics.

Obama promised change. It's the cost of that change that was not discussed. Face it, the masses want to fear things. People want to be protected. Fear drives behavior every day! Show someone something they fear and then offer change. History shows us over and over again that it is a sure way to gain power. The greatest opportunities are buried inside of a crisis. People hand over everything to be rescued from something they fear, even their lives. We elected Obama.

The cause of our fear? A science on climate that claims we are on the brink of disaster with no empirical data. The classic fear tactic. In fact, the only raw data was destroyed and cannot be duplicated. A good case can be made that the scientists will financially benefit and have manipulated much of the data. Russia made this claim in Copenhagen. When asked, the scientists resist and refuse peer review on their work. Significantly strange for real science. Bad software programming omits temperature data making the results undependable - reported by BBC. The scientist Al Gore quoted to cause much of the alarm even stood up and denied the quote.

I cannot bet billions $$ on a science that claims the sun does not play a factor in global warming. This was written in a Copenhagen publication debunking climate change myths.

Ok, The Earth has warmed since the ice age. But then, humans didn't cause that.

Isn't it just flat out pride to believe that humans have the ability to control the temperature of the earth? I mean, it changed before humans existed. Nature causes huge amounts of co2 naturally and humans have only been on the Earth for an insignificant time as compared to the History of the Earth. Our co2 creating years: even much less time there. We can really destroy the whole atmosphere in less than 200 years? I don’t think so. The Earth is billions of years old and will recover no matter what we do. The Earth will be here long after we destroy each other.

It's all about power and the here and now.

It's all about the money.

Jeff Davis of FL 9:19PM January 05, 2010

Sure, the world has been warming and cooling for it's entire existence. The fact that some parts are cooling is well predicted within the models that have been provided. Warm or cold, who gives a rats *ss. I look out my windshield in the morning and see smog...lots of it. I see high pollution advisories all frickin' summer. Does it look healthy to breathe? Is the source of this smog mother nature, or the millions of vehicles on the road, along with fossil fuel burning power plants? People who claim that CO2 exists naturally, or that it is safe because you carbonate your beverage with it. I ask you, if you put on scuba gear with tanks filled with CO2 vs. 02, will you survive? Is it natural for our vehicles and power plants to chemically convert breathable air into a noxtious exhaust?

Politics aside, do we need to continue to be 100% dependant on a power grid that hasn't been updated in decades? Do we need to continue to feed and house those that wish us all dead with the money we spend to buy their oil...or should we send them all back to the economic stone age by ceasing to be the majority of their income? Do I love to drive my 69 Z28? Yes. Do I need to drive it daily as a commuter? Heck no. It doesn't even make economic sense to do so. So, why not regulate auto manufacturers into creating more fuel economical cars? Why not build 2 solar plants that will provide decades of fuel free energy rather than building or retrofitting a single "clean coal" plant? Think coal can really be that clean? Please throw some in your fire place and make sure to shut your flue. Let me know how clean that was after an overnight burn.

Point is, these initiatives are being brought forth to discourage the continuation of doing things the "cheap" way, or the way that continues to line the pockets of those that already make billions a year in profits. It forces them to stop doing that which damages the environment, makes air bad to breathe, and will ultimately help ween us off of the oil and coal fields towards something that won't eventually run out and send us all back to the stone age.....or are all of the scientists (including those that work for oil companies) that have gone on record to say that we're already closing in on the end of prediction a bunch of liars and crack pots too?

I for one am with the green initiative. It's the best way to ensure I'll be able to drive my Camaro on weekends for the rest of my life...rather than having to push it around, or let it rot in my garage because there's no fuel to put in it.

Concerned B. Myname of AZ 7:44PM January 04, 2010

Photo Galleries

Before and After the Joplin Tornado

A look at Joplin one year after the deadly tornado.

advertisement

Latest Video