Copenhagen, week 2: Theater of the absurd
Thus far the commotion in Copenhagen over Earth's climate has led to predictable discords, from asinine assumptions based on "science" that's rapidly unwinding to outlandish wealth-transferring schemes.
The United Nations' big climate conference continues this week amid "a multitude of impasses, conflicts and dramas," notes The Boston Globe. Make that high dramas:
• Wide disagreements between wealthy and poor nations over emission-cutting goals without any meaningful regard for how the ultimate objective -- a reduction by 50 percent or more by 2050 -- will affect temperatures.
• A festering feud between the U.S. and China over what the former should pay Beijing in climate aid cash. And by the way, China doesn't want to be bound by law to do anything.
• The willingness by some European countries to pay billions to other nations in climate remediation without a hint of how such funding will be policed against fraud.
Never mind all those damaging e-mails from scientists from England's Climatic Research Unit, which earlier this year destroyed its original climate data set used by the U.N. as a primary reference.
What's rotten in Denmark, and so typical of the United Nations, is that the full burden of this swill will fall on the U.S., Europe and Japan while China, India and other nations will get a ticket to ride. We trust President Obama will not bow to such demands on his mission to the conference this week.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.