World leaders in Copenhagen tell citizens, "Go home and get a nice, quiet sleep"

by Charlie Smith on December 18th, 2009 at 10:25 PM

On September 30, 1938, after returning from a conference in Munich, then-British prime minister Neville Chamberlain declared that his deal with the German government brought "peace for our time".

In return for agreeing to peace, Nazi Germany was granted the Sudetenland, which was part of Czechoslovakia.

"Go home and get a nice, quiet sleep," Chamberlain said on the doorstep of 10 Downing Street to those who worried that their country was on the brink of war against the Nazis.

Less than a year later, the Second World War began when Adolf Hitler's army and air force attacked Poland. The conflict in the European and Pacific theatres killed more than 50 million people, according to several estimates.

Fast forward more than 71 years to the climate-change agreement reached today in Copenhagen by the United States, China, South Africa, and India.

It included no short-term or medium-term emission targets. It's not legally binding on any nation that decides to sign it, including Canada, one of the world's worst climate outlaws.

Developed countries have pledged to cut emissions by 80 percent by 2050 in this nonbinding agreement--long after many of their leaders will be dead.

This nonbinding agreement also declares that the average global temperature will not rise 2 degrees above preindustrial times, which is generally agreed to be the point when the climate-change impacts magnify enormously.

This 2-degree target in this nonbinding agreement will be reviewed in 2016 to determine if it should be reduced to 1.5 degrees.

Developed countries also agreed to fork over US$30 billion between 2010 to 2012 to developing nations. That's about 0.2 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product in 2008.

Countries can set their own targets for reducing emissions.

According to CBC News, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper called the nonbinding agreement "comprehensive and realistic".

U.S. president Barack Obama described this nonbinding agreement as a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough".

Rest assured that without serious action from world leaders, just as many people might die as a result of climate change as the number killed during the Second World War.

Let's look at what's been reported so far. More than 150,000 people may have died in 2000 because of climate change that has occurred since the mid-1970s, according to the World Health Organization Web site.

A report earlier this year by the Global Humanitarian Forum, which is headed by former UN secretary general Kofi Annan, concluded that 300,000 people are now dying each year as a result of climate change. That's expected to rise to 500,000 per year by 2030.

Do the math over several years, and you start ringing up a pretty large number of fatalities.

The Global Humanitarian Forum report noted that 300 million people per year are already seriously affected by climate change, which costs US$125 billion per year.

World leaders in Copenhagen who claim that the recent deal in Copenhagen is "comprehensive" or "meaningful" have blood on their hands.

The only thing missing from their comments was, "Go home and get a nice, quiet sleep."

Comments

6 Comments

max

Dec 19, 2009 at 3:29am

Fight climate change? Why not then fight for delaying sunrise? Or the full moon because of the 12 meter (40 feet) tidal rise and fall of the sea level or the variance from minus -40 C in winter to plus +30 C summer temperatures - in Western Europe (google Tide, La Brevine). The precision tool and watchmakers in La Brevine, Switzerland, and the seafarers in St. Malo, France, just shake their heads when apparently learned people argue about 1 or 1,5 or 2 degrees C temperature rise by 2050 or some millimeters or even centimeters per year of sea level change.
Copenhagen - R.I.P.

seth

Dec 19, 2009 at 11:23am

With Copenhagen's failure, we must adopt the nuclear power solution to the world's impeding warming/pollution/peak oil disaster.

Failure to replace all all our fossil fuel use within ten years is likely to drive us right over the civilization ending climate/peak oil crisis.There is no renewable option that can and do it within our political, financial and industrial capacities - only nuclear.

The reality is that Deniers and Conservatives will get on board with nuclear - they will fight to our death on 10 times the cost "renewables". Greenies need to decide. Do they want to end civilization fighting the "renewable" battle or face their fears, get educated and embrace the nuclear solution.

A worldwide investment in 10000 new mass produced nuclear reactors would be paid for by and would end fossil fuel use, eliminate most air pollution saving millions of lives, end the global warming/peak oil problem with a 100% elimination of GHG's within a ten year time frame, is a great job producing economy boosting investment, requires only a small part of our industrial capacity, and pays for itself in less than three years.

www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/add-a-gigawatt-a-day-to-k_b_261728.html

Goggle Westinghouse china nuclear and you'll see that the real unsubsidized cost of building an American nuclear reactor is $1.2B/Gw cheaper than coal less than 10% the cost of any renewable. Service is due for 2013.

In 2004, AECL built two Candu reactors in three years in Quinshan China for $2B/Gw.

Mass produced reactor costs are expected to be less than $1B/Gw.

Nuclear waste burning fuel efficient generation IV reactors could power all the worlds energy needs for hundreds of years on nuclear waste alone.

www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/climate-bill-ignores-our_b_221796.html

A $150 billion investment in mass produced nukes, would be paid for by and would end Canada's $100 billion annual fossil fuel bill- a two year payback using only a small fraction of our industrial capacity.Natural gas from Tar Sands and home heating would fuel our vehicles in the transition.

Similarly, the US needs 2500 new reactors but is crippled by inefficient private power companies, a biased Nuclear Rejection Commission and corrupt and litigious political and legal systems, quadrupling nuclear costs and time frames.

By rimming the border with AECL reactors, Canada's public power companies would make $trillions selling the US nuke power at premium rates.

A Federal/Prov conference including energy ministers should be called to make plans for a nuclear transition ordering new reactors, creating hundreds of thousands of hi tech jobs, making the Canada the world leader in booming nuclear tech and making $trillions selling the power

Legislate a one time environmental all sites anywhere permit for any and all reactors - no local input needed - 36 months start to service.

Atomic Energy Canada's recent problem's stem from Harpo - 100% owned by Big Oil. These thugs know AECL could with mass produced nuclear power, put them out of business and have Harper on task using time tested Neocon tactics to destroy government institutions. Read Thomas Franks - The Wrecking Crew for details. Harpo sure has. The technique used here is to target the Crown Corporation with budget cuts then when uckfups happen trot out the usual privatization government bad/inefficient hooey.

Harper pays lip service to the environmental issues when in reality he does everything in his power to increase Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Loves Tar Sands and Big Oil. Views peak oil as a big money maker. He is trying his damnedest to shut down AECL with his Nuclear Rejection Commission. I'm guessing he believes in the Tim LaHaye scenario where Global warming/Peak oil hastens the Apocalypse making any effort to reduce GHG's a very bad thing.

Nuclear power is our answer not those ten times nuclear cost carbon sequestration, "renewable", and tax schemes.
seth

Stryder

Dec 19, 2009 at 12:08pm

I can't imagine how the world's number one climate outlaw Steven Harper looks in the mirror every morning, let alone goes home and get's a nice quiet sleep. But the Canadian people are certainly not without sin, we have allowed 16 percent of Canada's most backward people to control all Canadian policy. This unfortunately will not only affect Canada but the world as a whole,not to mention the future of all our children. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

John White

Dec 19, 2009 at 11:56pm

In response to this political failure, concerned individuals need to consider reducing their carbon footprints wherever possible. No car, no meat, no airplanes. Do you need international agreements to tell you how to live?

It starts with us

Dec 20, 2009 at 12:52am

It is clear the leadership will not lead, so we have to start with ourselves and those close to us. I have already committed to making this an issue with my circle and encourage them to get informed and start contacting their Member of Parliament, demand to know the various positions of the political parties. I am also using the internet to gather further information for sharing and encouraging others to stand up and be heard.

Harper has to go, but I am afraid the Federal Liberals will not be much better. Although I have not totally given up on them yet, The NDP...in a minority government perhaps with the Libs, may work...I wish the Greens would fold their tent...an honourable green strategy could be negotiated with the NDP or the Liberals...This divide and conquer process is whats letting Harper stay in power, in the interest of a progressive clean economic-energy stategy, why can they not see it, unless of course their agenda is driven by some other interests.
The number of people that voted in our last election was quite low, hovering around 50%, I think if we make a commitment now we could increase the voter turnout in the next election, get those young people mobilized and the disenfranchised groups...we would see some change, I think it is important for the progressive political parties to find innovative ways to get their message out, because sadly, the average Jane and Joe, have no clue what the Copenhagen process is about.

So my challenge to you is begin the process start sharing your ideas, talk to people, I bet if you ask people in your circle, or even complete strangers you will surprized how few know about this, so next time some one says something about the weather, why not engaged them in a meaningfull dialogue about it.

To the naysayers...are you willing to gamble with the future of this planet and people that will come after us...is it not responsible to err on the side of caution...Someone shared this with me and I believe it is appropriate it is called the ..."the Precautionary Principle"...which means that when in doubt about the presence of a hazard, there should be no doubt about its prevention and or removal.

What are the consequences to humanity if we do nothing and global warming does take place?...What is that price and who is to blame?

What are the consequences if we do something and it was a big fraud?

Do we not have a responsibility to look at the The Precautionary Principle...would you not do that to protect your famlies interest?