Phoenix94, its the level of carbon dioxide that is the problem - and its increase above a certain level has huge implications, which do not augur well for the comfort of humankind. One example: increased atmospheric CO2 is already increasing the acidity of the oceans, which adversely affects the formation of corals and the shells on crustaceans - which is an attack on the beginning of the ocean food chain. We have already depleted/destroyed many fisheries, and the acidification of the ocean makes it that much harder (?impossible)for them to recover. You are right about CO2 and plant growth - trials have shown increased growth with extra CO2 but the benefit there may not outweigh other detrimental effects. I don't think anyone is advocating a reduction in CO2 below the goldilocks level, just a retreat to back to it, if we can.

I see the usual ostriches putting their heads in the sand and making noises out of the other end.

It is good to see that some people are raising the problems of continuous economic growth. I suspect that will not happen until some time after the world's population starts to diminish more than a tad and I will not be around to see it.

While it is true that China is looking at alternative energy sources, particularly wind and solar, they are also building large numbers of coal fired power stations because it is necessary to have power when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. They still have an expanding population/economy, the latter increasing at an annual rate of a claimed eight percent. I can't see them reaching any reduction in CO2 emission any time soon.

Our own mob doesn't seem to have any useful policy on either side of the political fence so the conference in Copenhagen is not going to get any real leadership there.

All I can say is, I don't share your optimism, but keep plugging away and it might just happen. Just don't go buying a seaside house for your retirement.

David

One phrase in particular caught my eye.

>>China has accepted that the growth model followed by Western capitalism cannot work for them<<

Would it be possible to get a reference for this?

So far, they seem to be following the model almost to the letter. What indicators are they have "accepted" that it cannot work?

Given the opacity and complexity of the decision-making process of the Chinese government, it would have to be a very clear signal indeed, and I haven't spotted it yet.

What Climate giant? Its a good story but just doesn't add up.

Seems that he is trying to make us believe we are on the eve of the arising of some great force which will change the world for the better and that he and his climate warriors are finally succeeding.

Guess he has realised that beating the old guilt drum has alienated a lot of people. Now he is trying another approach.

The truth is now that people are sick of being harangued and are turning off in droves. Guess the softly, softly, approach is seen as a way of bringing them back- but its too late- people aren't interested anymore because the Climate Warriors just didn't know how to sell the message properly. You just can't get support from Joe Average by blaming Joe Average for the worlds ills.

Atman, you have hit upon the problem. It actually is Joe Average who is responsible and unfortunately for Joe Average, he is the one who is going to foot the bill for getting us out of the mess that we are heading in to.

David

For those who do not rely on the media for a feed to sustain their existence, changes in climate can be measured in cycles where proper planning can produce viable crops.