Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Planet Panelists

Archive: December 13, 2009 - December 19, 2009

Too little, too late

By any objective measure the three-page Copenhagen Accord that the Conference failed to approve but simply "to take note" of has to be viewed as a lost opportunity.

By Donald F. Boesch | December 19, 2009; 3:58 PM ET | Comments (1)

Not enough, Mr. President, not nearly enough

Mr. Obama's remarks to the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change were replete with contradictions, inconsistencies and hypocrisy. 'Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet", he said. He noted that there was no...

By David F. Hales | December 18, 2009; 7:02 PM ET | Comments (1)

It's time for the U.S. to play it's REDD Card

Some have described this week of the Copenhagen climate talks as being all about bridging the past and the future, bridging the North and the South, and bridging the US and China. There's a clear path forward in making this...

By Carter S. Roberts | December 18, 2009; 11:05 AM ET | Comments (0)

Common but different responsibilities

The sharing of reductions of greenhouse gas emissions among nations is challenging because the emissions are so disproportionate.

By Donald F. Boesch | December 18, 2009; 8:35 AM ET | Comments (0)

Global problem needs global solution

Climate change is a global problem requiring a global solution. This means all nations must work together to solve it -- urgently -- if we want to keep a stable climate.

By Nigel Sheinwald | December 16, 2009; 2:10 PM ET | Comments (4)

United? Nations

The nations of the world are certainly not united at the talks in Copenhagen. Rich and poor countries seem worlds apart when it comes to agreeing as to what needs to be done to stem the increase in global temperatures.

By Rick Edmund | December 16, 2009; 12:49 PM ET | Comments (1)

Time to put all bets on table

In poker, there is a saying: Trust everyone, but cut the cards. The same saying could apply to financing and monitoring and verification battles that are part of the international climate change negotiations taking place in Copenhagen this week.

By Ned Helme | December 16, 2009; 4:15 AM ET | Comments (0)

Cost sharing

Much of this issue is moot, or ought to be, since none of the world's major greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting nations is truly poor. Poor countries simply don't have enough electricity generation, factories, capital-intensive farming and automobiles to produce significant volumes of GHGs.

By Robert J. Shapiro | December 15, 2009; 11:55 AM ET | Comments (3)

Cooperation on technology is necessary

This has been a continuing source of tension between rich and poor countries since COP-1 and there has been little progress because the COP process is predicated on an imminent catastrophe instead of a long term challenge that will take a long term perspective to address effectively.

By William O'Keefe | December 15, 2009; 9:03 AM ET | Comments (1)

Poor nations have better things to worry about

As a first-time observer at a UN climate change conference, one thing that stands out here in Copenhagen is just how many delegates come from nations that ought to have far higher priorities than dealing with global warming.

By Ben Lieberman | December 15, 2009; 8:57 AM ET | Comments (2)

Show me the money . . .

With the second week of Copenhagen now upon us and the days rapidly counting down to the conclusion of the summit, the true meaning of climate change politics is showing its hand - money.

By David Hone | December 15, 2009; 8:44 AM ET | Comments (2)

Issues come down to morality, economics and politics

The divide between rich and poor countries over climate change ultimately raises three fundamental concerns: morality, economics, and politics. Each also provides a different lens for approaching the issue.

By Bernard Finel | December 15, 2009; 8:35 AM ET | Comments (2)

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company