What have been accorded in Copenhagen?

¿Que se ha acordado en Copenhague?

Es importante conocer los puntos destacables del acuerdo en Copenhague, considerado como fracaso por ONGs, países más vulnerables y por los países mas comprometidos en la lucha contra el cambio climático. It was an accord and not an agreement.
El acuerdo es un texto de cuatro páginas y dos Anejos que no contiene objetivos cuantificados de reducción de emisiones, señalando solamente que es necesario limitar el calentamiento del planeta por debajo de la barrera de 2ºC.
El punto positivo del texto señala un compromiso político entre los casi 200 Estados presentes en la cumbre del clima de donar 30.000 millones de dólares durante el periodo 2010-2012 para la adaptación de los países más vulnerables al cambio climático y 100.000 millones de dólares por año a partir de 2020. Queda por acordar y saber quienes pagarán , cómo y a quienes.
Por último los Estados industrializados del Anejo I deberán presentar voluntariamente antes del 31 de enero de 2010 sus objetivos nacionales de reducción de emisiones cuantificados para el año 2020 señalando el año de referencia (1990 ó 2005).

What do renewable and future energies need?

What do renewable and future energies need? Experts in the Third World Future Energy Summit , held in Abu Dhabi from 18-21 January 2010I, say that to win future energy battle, there is more need for investments, innovation in technology, innovation in business looking for profits for longer periods, innovation in policy and legislation, academic and commercial partnerships and access of researchers to funds and industry partnership.
There is a strong correlation between investment in research and development and GDP productivity, according to Dr. Tariq Ali, Vice President of Research & Industry Relations at Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, who highlighted the United States as a specific example, saying that university inventions contribute $20 billion and 150,000 jobs to the U.S. economy each year.

Research and development of new technologies lead to less consumption in energy, cheaper energy and less emission of gases and so good business. Tariq Ali gave an example about a new technology ‘radiant cooling’ which would result in a 70% reduction in the annual Abu Dhabi electricity load and would reduce CO2 emissions by two million tons.
As another expert, Professor Daniel Kammen, Director of the Renewable & Appropriate Energy Lab at UC Berkeley, put it: We are facing a battle of ‘tipping points’ who continued on to say that developing innovative technical and social ‘tipping points’ is vital in competing with the potential negative climate ‘tipping points’. He highlighted energy ‘systems research’ as being largely neglected yet vital.

Comments about the Copenhagen Accord

I would like to cite some interesting comments published in The New York Times about the deal that followed two weeks of climate talks in Copenhagen among approximately 200 nations.
Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said:
“The Copenhagen Accord is clearly a work in progress, with key details such as the emissions reduction targets for industrialized countries and emissions mitigation actions of developing countries to be filled in later. It is also a voluntary framework, with negotiations to continue in 2010 toward a legally binding instrument that would either accompany or supersede the Kyoto Protocol.”
David Doniger, a policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, wrote on the blog “Switchboard”:
The Copenhagen climate deal “broke through years of negotiating gridlock to achieve three critical goals. First, it provides for real cuts in heat-trapping carbon pollution by all of the world’s big emitters. Second, it establishes a transparent framework for evaluating countries’ performance against their commitments. And third, it will start an unprecedented flow of resources to help poor and vulnerable nations cope with climate impacts, protect their forests and adopt clean energy technologies.”
Elliot Diringer, vice president for international strategies at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said last month:
“These pledges are not binding. They are statements of intent, not obligation. But that is not what disappoints me. I never expected Copenhagen to produce more than a political accord.
“What troubles me is that governments did not resolve to move next to a legally binding treaty. That goal was part of the tentative agreement announced by President Obama. But then he left, and in final deal-making, it somehow vanished. The negotiations will of course continue. Governments agreed they’d meet next year in Mexico, the year after in South Africa. But with what type of agreement in mind?”
Ed Miliband, the British secretary of state for energy and climate change, wrote in The Guardian:
“We did not get an agreement on 50 percent reductions in global emissions by 2050 or on 80 percent reductions by developed countries. Both were vetoed by China, despite the support of a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing countries.”
Wen Jiabao, China’s prime minister, was quoted by Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, as saying:
“These are hard-won results made through joint efforts of all parties, which are widely recognized and should be cherished.”

Mediterranean sea is not worthy of such treatment