Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterExpert: Environmental deal in Copenhagen unlikely
But Bill Antholis of Brookings says progress toward climate change treaty is possible
Monday, Nov. 30, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Tiffany Brown / Las Vegas Sun File
Bill Antholis of the Brookings Institution was one of the leaders of the U.S. diplomatic team during the 1997 climate change conference in Kyoto, Japan.
Sun Archives
- Advocating a little pain at pump (11-12-2009)
- Brookings economist: Industries need to bolster their images (10-10-2009)
- More Nevadans will need help as economic storm worsens (9-27-2009)
- Six questions for Robert Lang (9-10-2009)
- The potential for prosperity in Las Vegas (9-9-2009)
- Experts: Despite downturn, Las Vegas has hope (9-8-2009)
- Washington think tank with ideas for the West starts UNLV partnership (9-8-2009)
- UNLV forms partnership with Brookings Institution (9-2-2009)
Beyond the Sun
IF YOU GO
- What: Brookings Institute Managing Director Bill Antholis will speak about “Double-Edged Sovereignty: The Politics and Diplomacy of Climate Change”
- When: 5:30-6:30 p.m. tonight
- Where: UNLV’s Greenspun Hall Auditorium, Maryland Parkway at University Road
- How much: Free
A week from today, dignitaries from across the globe are to meet in Denmark to try to hash out an agreement on reducing carbon emissions and curbing deforestation.
Big climate improvements come with a big price tag and none of the players wants to foot more than its share. But that’s only one of the many reasons why, after more than a decade of negotiations, the world’s leaders have yet to reach agreement on how the planet will put the brakes on global warming. Bill Antholis, an international political philosopher and managing director of the Brookings Institution who is to speak on the subject tonight at UNLV, makes the case that it is the most complicated international political endeavor of all time.
The obstacles to the agreement, he explains, include the long history of colonialism, industrialization, globalization, ideological and cultural differences, as well as the general distrust among so many nations.
Antholis, who spent much of the past week in Las Vegas talking to students and faculty at UNLV, says he wouldn’t put his money on a successful treaty coming out of Copenhagen. But Copenhagen isn’t the final destination, he said. Rather, it is another stop on a longer journey that could take years.
If anyone would know, it’s Antholis, one of the leaders of the U.S. diplomatic team during the 1997 climate change conference in Kyoto, Japan. That conference resulted in a wide-ranging agreement among many nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, but it was rejected by the U.S. Senate and ratified only by the European Union and a few countries.
Things will be different this time around, Antholis says. Domestic climate change legislation has more political support both here and in developing nations. President Barack Obama last week announced he would seek an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
Antholis said that target is far more fair than the 1990 target agreed upon in Kyoto, which strongly favored European countries.
The trouble today is finding a way to draft an agreement that is acceptable to all the countries involved while still making strides toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and climate changing deforestation, Antholis said.
There is strong tension going into Copenhagen between developed nations and developing nations such as China and India, which think their economic development should not be stifled by dictates from Europe and the West. Europe and the West don’t want to promise economically difficult emissions cuts that could be rendered meaningless if the developing nations continue to increase their emissions.
At the same time, the United States, China and India are wary of giving up too much control over domestic decisions or promising more than they may be able to deliver.
It would all be simpler if the U.S. passed climate change legislation ahead of the summit. Were domestic legislation already in place, the negotiating team at Copenhagen would have clear parameters of what the U.S. could agree to. Today it has the president’s views, but Congress is another matter, as Antholis learned after Kyoto in 1997.
Congress isn’t expected to pass climate change legislation any time soon, Antholis said. The Senate just pushed through a vote to get the health care debate on the floor. Asking political moderates to do the same again for climate change in such a short time would likely prove futile.
“You can only ask senators to walk the plank so many times,” he says.
The lack of domestic legislation means no concrete agreement is likely to come out of Copenhagen this winter, Antholis said. At best, the nations could reach tentative political agreements that could be taken home for debate and discussion before the group meets again, perhaps in the middle of next year. It could be a year or more before a new agreement is ratified, Antholis says.
“It’s by no means a lock,” he says. “At even odds, I’d take the under on an agreement being signed a year from now. But I know there would be a lot of bettors on the other side.”
Discussion: 20 comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.
Post a comment
Spotlight
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas to close in May
- Pricey land buy on Strip a bit of a surprise
- Engineering marvel taking shape near Hoover Dam
- Harry Reid’s co-writer unloads while discussing polls, Obama quote
- Police: Legal runner returned to home, shot husband and wife
- Grim numbers show Nevada leads nation in suicides over 60
- The 10 best steakhouses in Las Vegas
- UNLV back in the polls: No. 23 in AP, No. 25 in ESPN/USA Today
- MGM Mirage to leave N.J. in dispute over Macau partner
- GOP should blame itself for deficit, not Democrats
Blogs
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Miners sue to block mining tax initiative (3 Comments)
Shark Bytes
Willis reminds me of another great UNLV guard (5 Comments)
Elsewhere
With aggressive push, Internet gambling again in play
The Kats Report
A very quick list of which females could replace Steven Tyler in Aerosmith (18 Comments)
A 3.5-day sprint, highlighted superflously at Flamingo with Las Vegas newcomers
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Horsford: No taxes now, but tax reform later (14 Comments)
Gibbons: Cutting the budget can help me raise money (12 Comments)
Calendar »
- 10 Wed
- 11 Thu
- 12 Fri
- 13 Sat
- 14 Sun
-
Harlem Globetrotters at The Orleans Arena
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
House of Lounge giveaway at Wasted Space
Wasted Space | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Rakim at LAX
LAX Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Gilley's Casting Call at Treasure Island
Treasure Island Hotel and Casino
-
Freddy B and Mike Remedy at Blush
Blush Boutique Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Blushing at Blue Martini
Blue Martini | 8 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
"Hugs from God" appears to be a better explanation of AGW than the 'science' produced by climatology.
Rather than believing something called 'rusty57' please spend time reading that science and you will understand the utter vapidity of such comments.
I warn people that they will need a minimum time of some weeks to begin to comprehend the subject. Start here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
And for access to all that supposedly 'hidden' data:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/dat...
For the consensus by intelligent, educated, national science and other organizations:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...
According to the CRU emails "RealClimate" is in the alarmists pocket.
They specialize in creating the "science" that policy makers want for their various income redistribution schemes.
Total BS.
Good old reliable rusty57! Please explain in detail what data was being referred to and what it affected.
For readers smart enough not to believe any answer given by rusty57 spend your time on this post:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
Rusty57 doesn't know enough to even be not even wrong on this, but it won't stop him from continuing to insert both feet firmly in his mouth.
mschaffer: Your Kool-aid must be particularly strong today.
John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville who was attacked in the emails, said, "It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested -- but rather orchestrated."
rusty57,
Can you show that John Christy's viewpoint was not included in the IPCC report at that point in history? You can't because dissenting viewpoints were included and later shown to be wrong. You would know this if you bothered to read my link which you did not. It takes real work to remain this ignorant on AGW so I commend you for your willful stupidity.
If the science on climate has been orchestrated it started in the mid nineteenth century and continued on until practically today. The chance of that is rapidly approaching zero on the asymptotic curve.
mschaffer: Again, RealClimate is nothing more than an environmentalist shill site. The fact that you keep referencing it as some sort of authority says quite a bit on your level of indoctrination.
If anyone believes that the oil an coal industries are going to trade in their Trillions(?) of Dollars(?) worth of sub-surface inventories, recovery rigs, mining equipment, refining and processing facilities, marketing outlets,etc., for some windmills on a hill, they must be as crazy as the oil and coal industries specious ad campaigns indicate they think we are.
Let's get off the emphasis on "Climate Change" and focus on what we can see and smell -and will soon be able to taste! I.e., POLLUTION!
We will never correct climate change by mandating a severe reduction in greenhouse gases thru a comparable reduction in the use of coal or oil, because the oil and coal industries won't have it. In fact, it is not likely that we can correct "Climate Change" at all. Continued allusions to other forms of energy, e.g., wind, bio-fuels, solar, to replace the Multi-Trillion$ oil and coal industries, are nothing more than distractions to keep the "stupids" in a: "Hey, everything is really alright", frame of mind!
Pollutants are already firmly in place and growing by the hour. Each new dumping by Special Interests is adding exponentially to our growing environmental decline. Pesticides, coal ash, chemical and radioactive wastes, by-products and end-products of all the above -and God knows what else, continue to move into out streams, rivers and oceans. This in addition to their being forced downward into our water tables, well waters and aquifers by heavy rains and floods.
It is only a question of time until the old saw: "Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.", becomes a reality! Along with: "Air, air everywhere, but all too thick to breath!"
As a scientist, I know that all of the above is already in place and too late to stop. Slow them up, maybe? Stop them, Not a chance! However, we still may have a chance to slow it. As a Realist, I also know that to accomplish this, our national debt would reach beyond calculation. Unemployment numbers would precipitate social chaos.
The prevailing feeling seems to be that it is better to die on the job than to die while looking for a job that doesn't exist. Or, more succinctly, "Better no planet than a Planet of the unemployed." The alternatives are, of course: Keep dumping to keep "Special Interests" happy, keep our debt down, keep people working, keep polluting and wait for the inevitable, devastating results.
I don't think we will be kept in suspense too long!
Tom Nass
5th Marine Division - WWII
rusty boy,
If by indoctrination you mean earning a Bachelor of Science degree then, by all means, I am guilty. You on the other hand have the remarkable ability, through your density, of bending light around you.
Readers can safely ignore rusty boy blunder's mediocrity in favor of actually reading Real Climate where, if they take the time, they will become educated in the nuances of climate and sobered by what the human species is doing to that climate in such a short time.
support HR1207
Shaffer stop being some elitist know it all by attacking other people. You are a computer tech you have no room to point fingers.
PS,
Schaffer,
These could be out of context, or they may not. Given the fact that these professors knew about the stolen emails 3 days before the bomb exploded and given that 3 days later their only answer was "No comment" and that was the answer for several days, they look VERY GUILTY.
They didn't give the "out of context" excuse until days after when the international media swooped in. They look guilty and even other climate alarmists acknowledge this (I already sent you links to two alarmists condemning the actions of those scientists). You are just playing cheerleader for your team right now.
Furthermore, given the fact that there are lawsuits to get access to the CRU data, I can't possibly believe that you would know where ALL the data is and that dozens of researchers around the world can't find it. Obviously the CRU data that is available isn't the complete data.
And Realclimate.org is a partisan website designed to report only ONE side of the debate and HIDE information contrary to the alarmists opinion.
Here is an email from Dr. Mann a regular contributor to Shaffers favorite partisan website realclimate
Here is one of the Climategate emails from Dr. Michael Mann (PSU professor and realclimate contributor):
"Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include."
For those looking to see debate on climate science check out http://www.climateaudit.org/
for those wanting to learn more about climategate: http://www.climatedepot.com/
"Seemingly established in 2004 to counter, of all things, Michael Crichton's novel, State of Fear, RealClimate serves as the popular science media's main touchstone for alarmist memes second only to Gore and his advisor Hansen - and we see here that this is really a distinction without a difference. This outlet is populated by none other than NASA's resident alarmist mouthpiece - and official spokesman for Hansen's GISS shop - Gavin Schmidt. Although RealClimate touts the unpaid nature of their writers' work, the time-stamps on Schmidt's often highly personal blog posts make quite clear that these actually come on the taxpayer dime, as well. Other RealClimate writers include "Hockey Stick" Mann and Hockey Stick-related Casper Amman.
It turns out that Realclimate.org is owned by an outfit that is in essence a non-profit public relations firm called Environmental Media Services (EMS), "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues", whose Pittsburgh office houses the RealClimate server.[1] ActivistCash.com describes EMS as "the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications."[2]
EMA's listed registrant, Betsy Ensley, engages in the objective, non-partisan pursuit of "manag[ing] BushGreenwatch.org, a joint EMS-MoveOn.org public awareness website".[3] She also apparently ran WomenAgainstBush.org, and former Harvard string theorist (and still-hilarious climate blogger) Lubos Motl notes that when Ensley was campaigning against John Ashcroft her secretary was Kalee Kreider, now Al Gore's spokesperson.[4] MoveOn is of course in part a George Soros venture, and attentive climate realists recall the kafuffle over Soros supporting Hansen's alarmism.[5]
Motl describes EMS as "primarily an organization to pay for junk science about food and beverages, often hired by food companies to damage their competitors".[6] This is known as "black marketing."[7]"
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/27/wha...
And thus Patrick now opens himself up to every single criticism of NPRI, it's funding, it's right-wing patriarch, and it's biased findings.
Remember when you posted under a pseudonym and kept telling us that the source doesn't matter, kdr81?
What a hypocrite.
Ksand, you just don't get it, or you don't care. Shaffers entire defense against material he doesn't like is to attack his source. I'm point out his hypocrisy. Stop cheerleading.
Point to a website with a counter point - shaffer attacks the source as a partisan journal
Point to an organization with a counter point - shaffer attacks the source as an organization with a hidden agenda
Point to an individual with a counter point - shaffer attacks them as a lobbyist/special interest talking head or an individual without appropriate creditials.
His sources - entirely partisan with hidden agenda. Him personally - completely without the alleged appropriate credentials he desires in all his "debating" partners.
I don't think you care to rise above your own partisan nature to understand what I've said.
And I'm pointing out your hypocrisy. Pay attention.
Don't play the "partisan nature" card with me, Mr. "Sarah Palin thinks with her heart." Give me a break.
Hmm...no you don't pay attention. 1) Pointing out someone's hypocrisy does not make me a hypocrite and 2) that was a very reasonable statement by the Reason Foundation...one that is probably correct...
When Patrick can recognize his own incompetence that will be a special day. For those disinclined to believe what Patrick posts, please ignore his uninformed condemnation of Real Climate. By reading the complete history of those emails you will be rewarded with a far better understanding of climate and AGW then Patrick could ever hope to achieve. All you have to lose is ignorance.
http://www.realclimate.org
ksand99 sure is in a bad mood today. I guess he did not like the new poll numbers...