(Copenhagen talks) to Emit CO2 Gas Equal to 200,000 Cars

[phantom power]

Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The 17,000 people visiting Denmark for global talks on reducing greenhouse gases will release as much carbon dioxide during the two-week event as about 200,000 U.S. passenger cars do in the period.

Environmental activists, government envoys, business leaders and journalists will emit 40,500 tons of the global- warming gas traveling to and within Copenhagen and for electricity and heat in their hotels and meeting rooms, according to an estimate by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which oversees the talks. Denmark’s government says it intends to offset the gases.

“The fact that all these people are flying into Copenhagen is a wonderful irony,” Adair Turner, chairman of a committee that advises the U.K. government on climate change, said in an interview. He’s taking the “more carbon-friendly” approach of appearing at the conference via video conference, Turner said.

...

“If the conference manages to bring about a sea-change in how energy is produced and consumed, then the amount of emissions caused by the meeting will be truly microscopic in comparison to what can be achieved in terms of emission reductions,” Hay said in an e-mailed reply to questions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aHq47NNs__Eo

[kestrel91316]

1. So, you think we should do NOTHING? That we should not work together to

change national and global policies to decrease overall CO2 emissions? People have to use energy in order to accomplish goals. Would you have those goals continue to be the relentless pursuit of egregious profits at the expense of all other considerations? Or would you, like me, understand that you have to do the equivalent of "spending money to make money"?

[phantom power]

2. Let me say this about that.

Firstly, it was not an accident that I included the last paragraph in my OP.

Secondly, I think it's a perfectly fair observation that the emissions are a definite, while the bit about "what can be achieved in terms of emission reductions" is subordinate to an "if" clause. Particularly if you consider the historic ratio of hot air to actual results in these sorts of summits.

You are a woman of the world, and I bet I don't really have to remind you that convening a committee does not actually guarantee that you're accomplishing anything.

[kristopher]

3. Another Republican meme

Attempts to paint environmentalists as hypocrites are a proven favorite of the Republican fossil fuel/nuclear energy power structure.

It is premised on the concept that since they want to change the existing system governing the way we ALL do business in the future, the damage associated with any use of that system to effect change is a hypocritical act.

Of course, that is nothing but self serving, circular logic *designed* to negate the message of the environmentalists.

[phantom power]

4. I thought Adair Turner took the same observation in a constructive direction...

attend via teleconference.

Or, you could interpret it in a motivational way: "Let's make sure our carbon-expensive summit accomplishes some actual emissions reductions"

[kristopher]

5. Teleconferences have distict limits and are more suitable for a limited agenda...

with a small number of participants.

This is an absurd line of criticism that is a favorite of the right wing, anti-environmentalist smear machine.

Why are you promoting it?

[Viking12]

6. Given that there are 250 MILLION registered vehicles in the US

That's a teeny, tiny drop in the bucket.

[tinrobot]

7. How many of these attendees are buying carbon offsets?

In this group of people I'd imagine it would be a significant number. The article seems to ignore that.