Every age has its peculiar folly; some scheme, project, or phantasy into which it plunges, spurred on either by the love of gain, the necessity of excitement, or the mere force of imitation. Failing in these, it has some madness, to which it is goaded by political or religious causes, or both combined. --Charles MacKay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, London 1852.
President Obama arrives [in Copenhagen] on Friday morning bent on applying a combination of muscle and personal charm to secure a climate change agreement involving nearly 200 countries. The world is looking to Mr. Obama to wrest some credible success from this process. The administration provided the talks with a palpable boost on Thursday when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that the United States would contribute its share of $100 billion a year in long-term financing to help poor nations adapt to climate change. --The New York Times, 17 December 2009
What once seemed a harmless token of good will from rich countries to poor ones could derail negotiations over a global climate deal next year. Developing nations want industrial countries to contribute the $100 billion they promised for a Green Climate Fund by 2020 to pay for clean energy and other projects meant to help them adapt to a changing climate. That $100 billion was never realistic. Rich nations that were expected to contribute when the U.N. started the fund in 2010 aren't feeling rich anymore. Unless developing nations drop their demands, negotiations over a binding climate pact next year in Paris might be over before they really begin. --Zack Colman, The Washington Examiner, 29 September 2014
While President Obama challenged China at the United Nations to follow the U.S. lead in pushing for drastic reductions in national carbon emissions to save the planet from “climate change,” it appears that China has dramatically different ideas. As in: no. China insists that the U.S. and other developed countries endure most of the economic pain of carbon emission cutbacks, and need to make significantly more sacrifices in the months ahead. A promised $100 billion in annual climate financing that Western nations have already pledged to developing countries for carbon emission control and other actions by 2020 is only the “starting point” for additional Western financial commitments that must be laid out in a “clear road map,” which includes “specific targets, timelines and identified sources.” --George Russell, Fox News, 24 September 2014
Global communities might have missed India’s point at the climate summit in New York on September 23, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi made up for the loss four days later by articulating the country’s views on the necessary actions to be taken to face the challenges of climate change during his UN general assembly speech on 27th of September. In a remark which may disappoint rich nations, specifically the US, Canada and the European Union (EU) countries, Modi insisted on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) and made it clear that this should “form the basis of continued action” in future. It’s a clear signal that India will not dilute its well-stated position when the country representatives would assemble in Lima, Peru in December for climate change negotiations in the run up to the global deal in Paris next year. --Vishwa Mohan, The Times of India, 28 September 2014
Have we beaten “peak oil”? For decades, it has been a doomsday scenario looming large in the popular imagination: The world’s oil production tops out and then starts an inexorable decline—sending costs soaring and forcing nations to lay down strict rationing programs and battle for shrinking reserves. But a growing tide of oil-industry experts argue that peak oil looks at the situation in the wrong way. The real constraints we face are technological and economic, they say. We’re limited not by the amount of oil in the ground, but by how inventive we are about reaching new sources of fuel and how much we’re willing to pay to get at it. --Russell Gold, The Wall Street Journal, 29 September 2014
From the beginning 25 years ago the arguments over climate science have dominated the scene and distracted us away from the fundamental problem: the prescribed method for preventing climate change is essentially replacing nearly all hydrocarbon energy, in the space of less than two generations. For the developing world, it means remaining poor for several more decades. The developing world needs to triple its energy supply over the next generation if it is going to raise hundreds of millions out of abject poverty, and that means using abundant hydrocarbon energy, not expensive boutique energy popular with ever-preening rich Americans and Europeans. The climate change community has reacted to this wreck of a policy not with second thoughts or openness to alternative frameworks, but with rage. --Steven Hayward, Forbes, 29 September 2014
