Saturday, November 28, 2015

Disappointing end to climate talks

The climate-change talks in Copenhagen provided another frank lesson to the rest of the world on the limits to a U.S. president's power.

Disappointing end to climate talks



The climate-change talks in Copenhagen provided another frank lesson to the rest of the world on the limits to a U.S. president’s power.
Of course, it wasn’t the first time they had been read to from that book. The Clinton administration 12 years ago boldly spoke about cutting emissions only to see the Senate vote down U.S. participation in the Kyoto accords.
So, with jaundiced eyes, delegates from the 191 other nations attending last week’s global-warming confab opened their ears Friday to hear what President Obama had to say. But they probably only half-listened, knowing he had a tougher audience to face.
Congressmen opposed to Obama’s cap-and-trade plan to address climate change have been spouting the “Climategate” tale about the English weather scientists’ stolen e-mails. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R., Wis.) said the e-mails “show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy.” He called it “scientific fascism.” It was hardly that.
If the deniers of global warming are so concerned about the science, they should heed the Union of Concerned Scientists. It said that what the hacked e-mails “show are simply scientists at work, grappling with key issues, and displaying the full range of emotions and motivations characteristic of any urgent endeavor.”
An independent review of the e-mails by scientists working with the Associated Press also found “no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data.” In other words, global warming is real and its dominant cause is human activity. So, what to do about it?
It became clear early on that no definitive answer would be arrived at in Copenhagen. Less developed nations wanted hard cash to compensate for reduced industrialization. China balked at the suggestion that its promised steps be monitored. A scramble for the weak pact reached on the conference’s last day was disappointing.
We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy: comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog

The Inquirer Editorial Board's Say What? opinion blog showcases the work of the editors and writers who produce the newspaper's daily and Sunday opinion pages.

Find out more about The Inquirer's Editorial Board here.

The Inquirer Editorial Board
Also on
letter icon Newsletter