Talk:2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference/Archive 1

Move?
Would anyone oppose if I moved this to 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in line with the others in Category:United Nations climate change conferences? Gabbe (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd prefer you change the other two for consistency. For example, national elections in Wikipedia put the year last for grouping reasons (see Elections by country). Flatterworld (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The official website, Home - COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009, has the year at the end.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There must be a debate on why China,India,Brazil and SouthAfrica are not ready to cut emissions immideately,I wanted to know if there is any article about this issue if not Can we have one.

User:Aj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

The article refers to critics as "conservative," but does not refer to supporters as "liberal."
I think we should add the word "liberal" to describe the supporters. What do other editors think about this? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're mixing up your domestic politics with the actual English language. Conservative, with a small c, just means "A person who favors maintenance of the status quo", and is in no sense the opposite of liberal ("Generous in quantity") --Nigelj (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point, which had not occurred to me. Thank you for mentioning it. Of course the fact that the conference itself is creating such a huge carbon footprint, and its attendees are using so many private jets and limousines, suggests that the conference attendees themselves are also part of the status quo, so perhaps they should also be labeled as "conservative." Grundle2600 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Er...What "supporters" are you talking about? The article doesn't mention anything about "supporters".--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the conference attendees. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as politics are concerned, in the US anyways, you would be generalizing. Not all liberals support this. Not all conservatives are against it. It the same mentality that says all democrates support it and all republicans dont, because people just assume one is liberal and one is conservative, when really both are comprised of a mix of both conservative and liberal.

met agreements
Section Breakdown of met agreements (by country) - Should met agreements read as something else, they haven't met these targets. They are promices? Mrchris (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the heading to read "Breakdown of proposed actions (by country)". --TS 11:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible item for inclusion
This article seems relevant.

Lead sentence: “The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.”

It may be too early to add this, (I’m not proposing to add the opening sentence, just supplying it to emphasize the relevance.) and it isn’t clear where it belongs – it doesn’t belong in the lead, and there isn’t anything yet in the main body on events at the conference. SPhilbrick T  18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Critical reactions
I've removed the critical reactions section because, as it stood, it was grossly unbalanced, referring totally or overwhelmingly to responses of those on the political fringe of strong global warming skeptics. --TS 04:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it again as has recently been restored or recreated without further discussion. Please feel free to restore and explain here. --TS 11:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Isnt criticism usually unbalanced towards the opposition? I would actally say that removing it is creating a bias towards global warming. Given that global warming has not been officially proven in the world of science, to not include the fact that this is critisism about this conference is ignoring quite a bit of not only scientific data, but a whole political spectrum. Or are is wikipedia all of a sudden aligned with MSNBC?216.99.65.63 (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely the fact that they are holding this major international conference about it, which many are calling the most important meeting in the history of mankind, and at which every nation on earth is represented, tells you that such a view is WP:FRINGE and non-notable in the extreme? --Nigelj (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A 'fringe' belief is not one that is aligned with science, common sense, and logic as is the argument put forth by climate change skeptics... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.106.52 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Treaty
I've started an article for the treaty at Copenhagen treaty. Feel free to expand.Smallman12q (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Still looking for some help in writing the article...Smallman12q (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Citing the carbon emissions equivalent of the conference is not "irrelevant."
I added the following to the article:

"Prior to the conference, the United Nations estimated that it would create 40,584 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, approximately the same amount as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006. "

Dr.enh removed it, and commented that it was "irrelevant."

I disagree with that comment. The information is relevant to the topic of man made global warming, which this article is about.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The topic is the conference, and the framework for climate change mitigation that may be agreed upon. The cost is trivia. As an example, the G-8 summit is about money, but the article does not include the financial cost of the summit. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not trivia. It's relevant information that was reported by a reliable source. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute the source. How does the carbon footprint of the conference contribute relevant info to a reader wishing to learn about the conference, and the framework for climate change mitigation that may be agreed upon? --Dr.enh (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The good Dr.'s argument is much stronger then the Grundle's assertion.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody added this a couple of hours or so ago. Not immediately spotting any relevance, and remarking that we don't normally measure international conferences of this kind by carbon footprint, I removed it pending further discussion.  Coming back here I notice that there has been no discussion on the matter in over a day.  Ho hum.  --TS 07:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The persistent attempts to insert some "information" about the conference's alleged carbon footprint appear to be being done in bad faith, nothing more then a desire to poke fun at the whole thing. It's not only irrelevant to this article, but one has to question whether the "information" is even valid given the inconsistency between the two sources that have been used:
 * Fox News said,The U.N. estimates the 12-day conference will create 40,584 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, roughly the same amount as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006. (I guess Fox has extended the conference an additional day)
 * While The Telegraph said, According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough
 * At least The Telegraph can count, but which is it? Morocco for a year, or Middlesbrough for 11 days?  It's doubtful the UN even made such a statement.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's really Morocco's emissions for one day during 2006, and Fox News got it wrong. I agree that a better source is needed. I added something from the New York Post which refers to the emissions of several small countries for a single day. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and your addition has been subtracted. Per WP:RS, when using news organizations it is best to stick with the "high-quality end of the market."  You're scrounging around at the bottom of the barrel with a sensationalist tabloid like the New York Post, and you're using an opinion piece at that, which just shows the level of credibility this "information" has (i.e. very low).  Even if a credible source was found, nobody has yet offered a convincing argument as to why this trivia should be included in this article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone create the following article: Top ten carbon emission countries of the World. User:Aj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC).


 * We already have List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think that List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita is also useful. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Using 140 private jets and 1,200 limousines to stop global warming is not "trivial." The article should report the facts. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As there is no way to hold any such meetings no matter what they are about w/o "leaving a carbon footprint" it is indeed undue trivia for this article. If this gathering would involve an air show or other unneeded extraordinarities for entertaining purposes only that would be a whole different story.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They could use commercial airlines instead of private jets, and they could take taxi cabs instead of limousines. Or even better, they could hold the entire conference on the internet. This is not "trivial." It's hypocritical, and it should be in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's trivial, and based on unreliable figures too (no one has had time to count and verify the individual transport modes of tens of thousands of attendees, let alone work out the fuel consumption of all their vehicles). This is a vitally important meeting of world leaders. Their security guys alone are not going to let them arrive by public bus or rickshaw, or let them go ahead in the taxi and come by bus themselves. The only sensible comment was on '"It's organised chaos" says Channel 4 News frontman Jon Snow. Speaking on Audioboo he sounds exasperated at the amount of energy being expended at the conference. "It better be worth it," Snow says.' Well, let's hope it is, and wait and see. --Nigelj (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources are reliable. Calling it "trivia" is not accurate. If a convention of vegetarians was eating bacon cheeseburgers, that would be noteworthy. If the CEO of Coca-Cola was drinking Pepsi, that would be noteworthy. Likewise, taking limousines (instead of taxicabs) and private jets (instead of commercial flights) to a global warming conference is notable. If security was the real issue, they would be traveling by government owned vehicles, not by private jets and limousines. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I had created a new subsection called "Accusations of environmental hypocrisy" in the Criticism section, but it was erased. For the record, here's what I included in it:

"In an opinion column published by the New York Post, Charles Hunt wrote, "Some 40,000 tons of carbon will be spewed getting this crowd together and keeping them in comfort. That is the daily amount of carbon dioxide produced by 30 of the world's smaller countries, according to UN statistics." "

"According to The Daily Telegraph, it was predicted that the conference would involve the use of approximately 140 private jets and 1,200 limousines. "

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "If security was the real issue, they would be traveling by government owned vehicles, not by private jets and limousines."
 * And what difference would that make in regards to the carbon footprint?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly none. But at least it wouldn't make them look like elitist hypocrites. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean they rather should waste tax payers money instead of their own assets? Grundle, you're contradicting yourself quite a bit here. Can you see it?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. That's a good point. But I still think the info should be included. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Grundle2600's compromise is fine. Let the reader decide whether s/he would honor the sources. Normally, we don't mention sources at the main text, mentioning them gives the impetus for the reader to judge it for him/herself. – Howard  the   Duck  07:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Grundle has just demonstrated above that s/he is POV-pushing, and that s/he is under the mistaken impression that this is a gathering of environmentalists, which it is not. Besides, if you want to cover transportation to and from the conference, why not mention the free public transportation the delegates are being provided? That shouldn't go in the article either, because it's trivial, about as important as the CEO of Coca-Cola drinking a Pepsi, only "noteworthy" to people fixated on frivolity. --CurtisSwain (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the height of hypocrisy for these people to be using private jets and limousines to attend a conference on how to stop manmade global warming. This is relevant, and should be cited in the article. Since you don't like my Coke/Pepsi analogy, here'a another: Imagine if there was a conference designed to stop drunk driving, and the attendees arrived there by driving drunk. That would be notable, just as this is notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the attendees are world leaders, diplomats and esteemed scientists. Do you think President Obama should show up on a United Airlines flight and then get a cab to the conference from the airport? Of course not. Many of these people have had threats against their lives by climate change deniers, so most have to travel securely and safely in whatever form of transport is necessary. Fussing over their carbon footprint to score political points is plainly ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some poorer countries heads of states did/will use commercial flights to reach Copenhagen. – Howard  the   Duck  10:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor or not, all the countries attending have internet and computers, and all of the governments attending have phones. Seems like there are quite a few options for having a netmeeting, espeically given that most the people there are there strictly to listen.216.99.65.63 (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that comment shows that you haven't grasped the over-arching importance, size and extreme complexity of this conference, with all its private discussion rooms, select sub-meetings, implications and ramifications. I assure you they will all be using internet, texting, radio, TV and every other communication medium known to man, as well as being there. --Nigelj (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this meeting could leave a smaller footprint. Say, the ambassadors travel first class (so they can feel good about it at least, though truth be told, I'd seat them tourist...) on commercial airlines, and use hybrid cars to commute, despite the tax on them in Denmark. Not private jets which have to fly to Denmark, then Sveden, back to Denmark, and then home, and not 1200 limos. Smaller footprint, and they wouldn't look like elitist hypocrites... ThunderBird (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated at the top, please keep in mind that talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, but are for discussing improvements to the article. Personal views on what conference attendees should or should not be doing are of no value.--CurtisSwain (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I was trying to push a point across: this is relevant, if only because of the nature of fighting global warming. Industry is not enough, the general populace must contribute to lowering the emissions too, for which politicans carry the responsibility of changing people's views on the matter. Hard as it is, it will get even harder if people see this happening. That is why I think it is actually relevant to the article. The controversy section should be replaced. Also, wiki is an independent source in itself, is it not? The article should report on all things relating to the conference itself, including the emissions controversies.

ThunderBird (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thunderbird and Grundle both call the delegates "elitist hypocrites". Suspect socking, don't have time to file a report. §hep  Talk  10:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
I would like it if somehow it could be mentioned that the whole conference is a waste of time. Rather than attempting to control natural processes, we should encouraging people to live wealthier, which is inherently better for the environment. DannyJohansson (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to how spending more money helps the environment. Zazaban (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote for encouraging people to stop making babies! Also, if my Ford Edge gets 24mpg highway with 4 wheels, will driving on 2 wheels double or halve that number? I'm so confused! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to how China will reduce its emissions intensity in such a way that will not cause climate change without spending some of its income from loans to the US on research and development, on maximising market efficiency by minimising corruption and buying rather than begging for US technology. 124.170.151.116 (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, the controversy section needs major work. Extremely biased and not up to Wikipedia standards. Also, please remember this is an encyclopedia, not a suggestion forum. 70.29.82.94 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a single citation in the controversy section, and there are some extremely weighty claims there. I'm not going to remove it but at the very least that needs to be brought to attention- ABigBlackMan (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I know that the article is a current event and liable to change frequently but the controversy section is just ridiculous. The claims that its worthless and that the global warming opinion is a minority is backed up by citations from conservative blogs and forums? Very POV and very misleading for any trusting people who stumble on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.165.209 (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Have tried to clean-up the weasel words:. I would welcome your help with this; some sections are so non-NPOV I don't know what to do with them. JosiahHenderson (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no way to save the section. Wouldn't World Net Daily oppose ANYTHING the UN did? That bit about the limos seems to be more of a general criticism of climate change proponents, but I guess it's relevant since the Times article is new. NoWay555 (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * even the wiki article for wnd states that it is 'agressivly conservative'. there is ways to remove the weasel words, which i did and then you overwrote :(. still, dont bother anymore. i call for the section to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.46.194 (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the current phrasing acceptable to you, 24.6.46.194? The Telegraph source is the only source the forum post cites, so I thought it was appropriate to make it the main focus, but I have included the "hundreds" of planes and "thousands" of limos in User:ConstantlyDrunkRussian's edits. Acceptable compromise? JosiahHenderson (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think the world net thing should go. NoWay555 (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The section was added all at once by an editor (now blocked), who in his other edits displayed an obvious bias. We aren't losing anything by gutting that section. Evil saltine (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article discuss the controversy, concerns, or sekpticism. There most certainly should be something said regarding the concerns raised by reliable sources on the conference.Smallman12q (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but every time somebody attempts to add reasonable controversy all the fruitbars jump in and add their bit, causing the whole thing to get deleted. I'm thinking it might be worth waiting a couple of weeks until after the event is well over and the edits slow down. Zazaban (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I added plenty of well sourced criticism, but it was removed. This article is now a puff piece, instead of the kind of balanced article that wikipedia is supposed to be about. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added the following to the article:

Controversies

Accusations of environmental hypocrisy

In an opinion column published by the New York Post, Charles Hunt wrote, "Some 40,000 tons of carbon will be spewed getting this crowd together and keeping them in comfort. That is the daily amount of carbon dioxide produced by 30 of the world's smaller countries, according to UN statistics."

According to The Daily Telegraph, it was predicted that the conference would involve the use of approximately 140 private jets and 1,200 limousines.

Press conference incident

While conducting a press conference, Stanford University professor Stephen Schneider asked armed U.N. Security guards to stop a reporter from asking questions about Climategate.

Grundle2600 (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Grundle, you are topic banned from articles related to US policy. And this conference is about policy and the US is a part of it. Important enough for US policy that Obama is visiting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an international issue, not a U.S. issue. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course its a US policy issue. Its also a Danish policy issue, and a Polish, Chinese etc. policy issue. Try pulling the other one. US policy includes agreements that are done in international forums. Note that your ban is not on "national US policy" but "US policy" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased media coverage
Major media coverage of the conference has little to do with the substance of the issues at hand, and more to do with protests and arrests outside the conference. It would be interesting to find sources discussing the slanted coverage. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we all (not just this article) remain short on the substance of the conference. I believe this is to do with the real negotiations going on behind closed doors at this stage, while the public areas are used just for PR purposes. I assume that this will improve in the last day or so, and particularly after that, when those behind those closed doors emerge, and tell us all what they have come up with. I think we need to avoid the PR and 'filling' that we are getting fed, to save our coverage for when the real substance emerges. --Nigelj (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)