Environmental Economics: Copenhagen guide from Environmental Capital

December 07, 2009

Copenhagen guide from Environmental Capital

Copenhagen begins: The two-week climate-change summit kicks off with the goal of salvaging some sort of international agreement to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. The stakes are high, says a Guardian editorial: “Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days.”
There’s a certain level of optimism. Nicholas Stern says current emissions proposals go most of the way toward necessary cuts, in the FT. And President Obama strikes a more optimistic tone, including a rescheduled visit for the end of the summit, in the WSJ.
But the shadow of “Climategate” still fuels skepticism, even if that’s largely unfounded, says the NYT. Actually, given opinion polls on the subject, “we’re all skeptics now,” says the WSJ edit page.
The two-week negotiations at Copenhagen will break down along several fault lines: Rich versus poor countries; developed versus developing; new energy versus old energy, and so forth, in the NYT. One huge issue: How much will the rich world pony up to help the poor world cut emissions?, in the WaPo.
Here’s a handy guide to who wants what out of Copenhagen, in the WSJ. A wonkier crib sheet is available at CFR.
What’s it mean for the U.S.? Paul Krugman says that a cap-and-trade plan is doable and fairly cheap. James Hansen says cap-and-trade is a terrible idea, both in the NYT. IPCC head Rajenda Pachauri thinks the U.S. could do more—through executive action, in AP.
And that idea—through greater EPA regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions—has the U.S. business community seething, in the WSJ.
The WSJ has a big environment report out today. Among the highlights: A guide to what global-warming skeptics say, and how to answer them; When it comes to the money question, don’t forget about ponying up to adapt to climate change; and coming to grips with clouds could be the key to accurate predictions about the global climate system.

Posted by John Whitehead on December 07, 2009 at 10:31 AM in Climate Change | Permalink

Comments

Copenhagen Finally Kicks Off:

Copenhagen begins: The two-week climate-change summit kicks off with the goal of salvaging some sort of international agreement to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. The stakes are high, says a Guardian editorial: “Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days.”
There’s a certain level of optimism. Nicholas Stern says current emissions proposals go most of the way toward necessary cuts, in the FT. And President Obama strikes a more optimistic tone, including a rescheduled visit for the end of the summit, in the WSJ.
But the shadow of “Climategate” still fuels skepticism, even if that’s largely unfounded, says the NYT. Actually, given opinion polls on the subject, “we’re all skeptics now,” says the WSJ edit page.
The two-week negotiations at Copenhagen will break down along several fault lines: Rich versus poor countries; developed versus developing; new energy versus old energy, and so forth, in the NYT. One huge issue: How much will the rich world pony up to help the poor world cut emissions?, in the WaPo.
Here’s a handy guide to who wants what out of Copenhagen, in the WSJ. A wonkier crib sheet is available at CFR.
What’s it mean for the U.S.? Paul Krugman says that a cap-and-trade plan is doable and fairly cheap. James Hansen says cap-and-trade is a terrible idea, both in the NYT. IPCC head Rajenda Pachauri thinks the U.S. could do more—through executive action, in AP.
And that idea—through greater EPA regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions—has the U.S. business community seething, in the WSJ.
The WSJ has a big environment report out today. Among the highlights: A guide to what global-warming skeptics say, and how to answer them; When it comes to the money question, don’t forget about ponying up to adapt to climate change; and coming to grips with clouds could be the key to accurate predictions about the global climate system.