Climate deal edges closer
"We will endeavour to cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by a notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level." (source)
There does seem to be some momentum behind it all. The Sydney Morning Herald is using the recovery of the ozone layer, resulting from the Montreal Protocol, to be an example of how a global treaty can work (i.e. as for climate change), sadly missing the point that the link between CO2 and "global warming" is far less proven than that between CFCs and ozone depletion.
Even The Australian, usually healthily sceptical on climate, is gushing:
PERHAPS frozen climate change negotiations are starting to thaw, both globally and locally. It seems certain no nation wants to be seen as sabotaging the Copenhagen climate change conference before it starts. And UN head Ban Ki-moon is calling for a 'fair deal" as the basis for the Copenhagen talks. It seems he might have cause for confidence. Ahead of a major speech in New York by China's President Hu Jintao on his country's commitment to tackling global warming, Chinese officials were emphasising the country's commitment to dealing with the "real and imminent" threat of climate change. The UN's climate change director, Yvo de Boer, is talking of "his high expectations" of what Mr Hu intends to propose. Even India, which continues to demand action from the US, appears intent on bringing some reduction measures to the negotiating table. It seems a sea-change on climate is in the offing internationally and perhaps at home. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is saying that if the conservatives can come up with a settled stance on the government's emissions trading scheme by next month, she will consider amending the legislation.
This is despite admitting in the next paragraph that the science isn't settled, but the public think it's a problem [why is that I wonder? Continual media and government misrepresentations of the facts perhaps? - Ed], so therefore we have to deal with it. And with Ban Ki-Moon blackmailing the planet by making the climate debate an issue of morality, it's hard to see how some kind of agreement, pointless as it will be, won't be reached:
"Failure to reach broad agreement in Copenhagen would be morally inexcusable, economically short-sighted and politically unwise," he said.
Mr Ban pointed to worst-case scenarios of UN scientists, who say that the world has only 10 years to reverse the course of climate change which would put at risk entire species and worsen natural disasters.
"The fate of future generations, and the hopes and livelihoods of billions today, rest literally with you," he said. (source)
Pure climate madness, I'm afraid.