Breakdown of emissions talks positive

Freedom New Mexico

Copenhagen’s 192-nation global warming negotiations were suspended Monday over disputes between rich and poor nations about how much each should reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and how much money developed nations, like the U.S., should pay developing countries, like China.

The deadlock is bad news for global warming zealots, big-corporate profiteers and control-seeking governments. For everyone else, it’s probably as good as the news will get from Denmark’s two-week powwow, if it means no imposition of economy-sapping caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

The negotiations entered their final week “amid rancor between rich and poor nations, with a negotiating block of mostly African countries complaining that it looks like any deal will not be tough enough on major emissions producers in the developed world,” the Christian Science Monitor reported.

Developing nations demand developed nations reduce their emissions more than they so far have pledged. President Barack Obama, who is scheduled to arrive in Copenhagen on Friday, reportedly will promise the U.S. will cut emissions effectively only 4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, the Boston Globe reported, quoting the World Wildlife Fund. Even so, that would require congressional approval, unless it’s mandated through the Environmental Protection Agency.

But developing nations also want $10 billion a year to start, up to $100 billion a year in the long term, from richer nations to meet the presumed costs of mitigating and adapting to predicted climate changes. So far, some European nations have pledged a combined $3.6 billion a year until 2012.

In a related event, the head of the Asian Development Bank said rich countries’ offered funding is substantially “insufficient.” Failure to reach an agreement in Copenhagen “could lead to a collapse of the carbon market,” bank president Haruhiko Kuroda said. Carbon trading is the contrived means to buy and sell government-issued credits that permit companies to emit greenhouse gases under a cap-and-trade system such as operating in Europe and proposed in Congress.

Not only would it be a plus if Copenhagen fails to impose economy-damaging emission caps, it would be another plus if it means the death knell for the faux carbon trading market. The European carbon market was rocked last week by news that fraudulent trading may have accounted for up to 90 percent of all market activity in some European countries to the tune of $7.3 billion.

Meanwhile, the purported scientific basis for imposing carbon caps and trading schemes continues under assault since the leak of thousands of e-mails and records from the U.K.’s East Anglia Climate Research Unit that suggest data was manipulated and perhaps destroyed to make global temperatures appear warmer than they are. As that evidence increasingly comes into question, it becomes clearer that global warming supporters have something else in mind than just cooling the Earth.

If global warming science has been rigged, it makes no sense to impose hundreds of billions of dollars in worldwide costs to curb emissions and to force vast transfers of wealth. Acting would only make sense for those who stand to profit from trading schemes or gain control over others.

Finally, and probably more important to a greener planet than all the hot air in Copenhagen, Exxon announced Monday it agreed to buy XTO Energy, a leading U.S. unconventional natural gas producer in a deal valued at $31 billion.

As The New York Times reported: “The acquisition extends Exxon’s bet that fossil fuels will remain a critical part of the nation’s energy supplies for decades to come. Natural gas is a cleaner-burning fuel than coal, with half the carbon dioxide emissions. For that reason, it is considered as a potential ‘bridge fuel’ on the lengthy path to a renewable, carbon-free economy.”