When will the world act?

It appears that any hope for a legally binding agreement to be reached at next month's U.N. Copenhagen Climate Conference is pretty much non-existent. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that "significant differences" between leaders regarding combating the climate crisis led to his doubts about an agreement being reached. As if Harper really cares. After all, he used to ridicule taking action on climate change and the science. Harper also further dampened tackling the crisis, arguing that it would be "impossible" to control global emissions if the world's biggest polluters did not sign a deal. He cited "emerging countries" as some of the world's biggest polluters, such as India and China. But please don't take the initiative and try to get something accomplised there Steve.

Harper went on to emphasize that almost every global leader (except himself circa 2002) recognize the emissions dilemma and the requirment for a long-term arrangement. But it's complex and everyone has to be willing participants.

"Our message is that all major economies have to be included. If everyone is not included, you set up the possible risk that certain countries will gain economic advantage...if some contribute, or some contribute disproportionately, then the economic risks for others become enormous."

Although "difficult," Harper believes it is "doable." Yeah right, then do something about it. But we all know how Harper feels about absolute targets, and only doing something if the U.S. does.

Harper, like the hardcore right-winger he is, continues to argue that environmental goals have to be balanced with economic sustainability. Right Steve, because the almighty dollar is just as important as avoiding future global catastrophes. His useless government rejected the Kyoto accord because it was too expensive and damaging to the economy. Whatever.

Every leader in every country is trying to get an agreement that will be effective without imposing too heavy a burden on the economy. We have to work together.

Nice try. You thought it was a "socialist scheme".

Back at the G8 meetings in July, both China and India balked at initiatives commiting them to slashing emissions in half by 2050.

China is the world's largest polluter as it emits the most greenhouse gasses, followed by the United States, the European Union, and India. Yet China's gas emissions are expected to triple or possibly quadruple in the next twenty years. There were hopes that a consensus would be met at the last Asia-Pacific summit, which would serve as a catalyst for reaching a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen, but that of course fizzled out. Global leaders wimped out from previous plans. Reuters acquired the drafts of APEC's closing communiqué which had been rewritten with much more soft and vague assurances, as opposed to the previous plans which compelled members to cut emissions by fifty percent from 1990 levels by 2050: "We believe that global emissions will need to peak over the next few years, and be substantially reduced by 2050." Whatever. China, the United States, Canada and other APEC countries represent forty percent of the global economy, while also producing sixty percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

Meanwhile, developing nations persist that due to their manufactured products the west purchases, and therefore sustain the pollution in the process, western nations should finance the cost of controlling and reducing the pollution: if the developing world is the west's factory, than the West should contributions to its maintenance. The west counters this by arguing that the developing nations should embrace new, cleaner technologies and avoid the mistakes they made in the past. And so the proverbial tit-for-tat game continues, as does the climate crisis.