This website is no longer actively maintained
Some material and features may be unavailable

December 7, 2009
U.N. Copenhagen climate change conference aims high

Today, the United Nations convened a long-anticipated conference on climate change.

U.N. officials said that the time has come not only to reduce carbon emission in the developed and developing worlds, but also for wealthier countries to help poorer countries deal with climate change.

To take a closer look at the Copenhagen climate talks, Daljit Dhaliwal speaks with Robert Guest, Washington correspondent for The Economist.

To what extent should the United States and other wealthy countries help developing nations pay for their own efforts to reduce carbon emissions?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

bookmark    print




for those who are actually interested in learning about the true problems with climate ‘science’ go to: wattsupwiththatd0tc0m


Well put, Jeff W….totally reflects my thinking on AGW and this particular “news” world focus.

I was enjoying this program until now.


Firstly, I am not sure what standard makes a nation wealthy? GDP alone, or GDP versus debt would be more accurate.

I encourage participation with all United Nations functions. However, history will reflect that change comes from within, and seldom at the behest of policy’s that change per administration.

When the citizens demand more green energy the venture capitalists will provide it. Innovation alone will then fuel the industry changes necessary for a sustainable effect. However, true change will begin in our households, and spur outwards – not outwards in.

Of course, this once was also how our governments were run. I am still hoping for a reversal of those fortunes, as well.


[…] From WNET’s Worldfocus, here’s a preview of the summit with Robert Guest, Washington correspondent for The Economist. […]


NONE! We can’t even afford to clean up our own mess, let alone subsidize the rest of the world.


WorldFocus? Sounds like an oxymoron; emphasis on the moronic. More like lost your focus, by buying into the farce of global warming; which, by the way; I must say I’m disappointed in the fact that the scientists have not delivered on their promise of global warming, because it gets pretty darn cold here in the winter time!

Joking aside; it is a very serious matter when such a large conspiracy exists to seemingly make extinct a substantial portion of the world’s population; that being the free and free minded peoples of the planet. The skewing of the data; the squashing of debate; the re-direction and mis-direction when confronted with fact and truth; the money and power involved leading to the nearly frenzied meglomania, and gutting of the varied nations’ wealth; can only count as evidence of this conspiracy. The punishment…… impeachment; in my estimation; as any treaty entered into would be supportive of the conspiracy; and would be a conspiracy against our people; our nation; and therefore treasonous. A high crime, ne’st ce pas?

Thank you Jeff Smathers (Dr., I presume; as you stated yourself a scientist); for your potent defense of sanity in this matter. I appreciate the like of your ilk; including Bjorn Lomborg of; whom articulate wisely and clearly the true nature of the matters at hand. And isn’t it just so; that human behaviour is a poor scale for balanced objectivity and metrics? Another strand of the tangled webs they weave; it would seem. I believe; it is designed to rid us of our pocketbooks.

Not regarding those whom are deceived by the conspiracy, thank you all here for your robust defense of liberty and justice for all; against the dichotomy of saving us from ourselves by eviscerating us of our liberty.

for unalienable rights granted by a Creator God,
I am,
Jeff Wroblewski
Newport News, Virginia


Most of the carbon emmisions that have led to the current situation comes from developed nations. Developed nations, since they have had the financial resources, have invested billions to exploit their own natural resouces as well as others. As a result, most of the benefits have gone to developed societies. They have been achieved at the expense of others without any regard to the Earth’s health. I think it is a moral responsibility for developed nations to payback. For this reason, this policy sounds fair and reasonable to me. However, policies need to be in place to make those recipient countries accountable.

I have alwyas thought that countries such as Brazil, my country Guatemala and other nations that have rainforest to charge a tax. This tax could be used for environmental efforts.

I also believe, the concept of consumerism, which is taught as a tool to propel economies, needs to be tone down. Too many societies want to have this and that, etc, This has created an unrealistic situation because the Earth can not sustain peoples wants.


This is just another money grab. With no increase in global temperature in the last decade, how can you say that our increase in carbon output has had an effect on global warming. If we were causing global warming it would have increased, not stayed the same.


“Rich” nations to pay “developing” nations not to kill their own people through pollution?


I believe in free markets, innovation,entrepreneurship,and capitalism tying it all together for a better world,and certainly not more “Big Brother Oversite”. Keep the governments out,period! The bureaucrats are nothing more than a den of theives. Just look at the alternative (the great fix,yea right) fuel, “ethanol” (corn base,not sugar cane as in Brazil) that every refinery in the United States has to produce at minimum 10% Plus, as a mandated additive to our nations gasoline. It’s ridiculously costly,and inconvenient logistically to deliver. The corn that it consumes making (energy $$$ consumption?) takes away from the world’s not-so-abundant food supply for a more worth-while,and admirable practical use. The government works in collusion with the oil companies in mysterious way? The use of ethanol lowers your mileage,and substantially increases the cost per gallon cutting/lowering your fuel efficiency by as much as 20%-25%,.. thus instead of helping consumers(mileage/pocketbook)it brings to you more painful,and frequent visit of filler-uppers at your least favorite “Gas Station/USA via the Arabs? Who’s fooling who,Al Gore,…where’s the carbon footprint on your own mansion in the “Great State of Tennessee? PS. I’m definitely for green energy,but certainly not the green-type color our government paints it.


The US should give NOTHING to help developing nations with so-called ‘climate change’. Why should my taxpayer dollars support another country? Let’s remember how much money has already been spent on so-called ‘humanitarian’ aid for less developed countries. How’s that working out? No, focus first on the US – creating jobs – not exporting them.


The young have had this bilge hammered into them just as with the Hitler Youth Corps. Man-made climate change is bilge. The same thing is happening on 7 other planets and Neptune’s moon, Triton. Climatologists who disagree are marginalied and shut out of debate. This is about and only about control of the world’s populace and wealth via one world government. As Al Gore said in the Istanbul Climate Conference in the ’80s, We’ve got to get the people out of their automobiles-it gives them too much independence. Follow the money-the chicken littles feed on grants from th public teat. If they admitted the lack of mankinds input, their stardom and easy ride would end. PBS would also see contributions shrink as people realized they too are just looking for funds.


Like it or not the evidence for the human impact on climate change (the latest moniker) is underwhelming and some of it is out-and-out fraudulent.,,as has been recently demonstrated and equally underwhelming in its reportage by what was once the main stream media.

You bet it is going to be a tough sell as long as science and the scepticism that is central to scientific inquiry is hopelessly entangled with the politics of concensus, personified by Al Gore et al in the UN.

Not a penny until the unvarnished truth is provided.


Like it or not, the evidence supporting the human impact on climate change is overwhelming. The United States and other wealthy industrialized countries should help developing nations to the extent that is needed to achieve success and still allow for a reasonable standard of living. We are all in this together; however, as #7 Ralph S. already pointed out, this is going to be a tough sell. Maybe if we call it a “war on carbon emissions” people would warm up to it better.


I want to thank you for the wonderful coverage of the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, and for the associated stories. I especially loved the segment on Samso Island off the coast of Denmark, which became Carbon Neutral in 10 years. Though the islanders were skeptical, they made the commitment, and started working toward oil, gas, and coal independence. The charming part was the clear adventurous excitement and joy they found in beating the system and the status quo. It was like a game of Pac-Man for them — gobbling up the problems, scoring success, and not only saving money in the long run, but making money off the deal, after their equipment is paid-up in just several years.

I am firmly convinced by existent scientific evidence that global warming is real, with the pain and suffering it has been inflicting and is going to inflict on earth dwellers. But even if that weren’t true, who wouldn’t like to live in a world with many fewer pollutants and carcinogens in the air, water, and food we consume — let alone a world with fewer extremes in weather, which are increasing, than we have been seeing in the last few years? It would be a much more pleasant world for us, our children, and our grand-children.

Because of the committment my wife, Jane, and I have made, when we built a new home in 2007, we planned it with multiple sustainable systems. We collect thermal energy to heat our home and electricity from photovoltaic panels on our roof. The home turned out to be Carbon Neutral — it collects all the energy it uses. It was do-able and lots of fun. And is it ever nice to get checks from the electric company rather than to send them checks!

As for helping poorer countries to become sustainable and reduce global warming emissions – yes, we should provide help, just as we send food to help them now. If the climate continues to change, there won’t be enough food for us or for us to send the poor.

And for those who don’t want to see changes to protect the climate: Come on folks, quit griping, start to play the new game (it is here), and enjoy not only the game, but the substantial and very real rewards! — I really mean that!


Samso report was very interesting. American energy pigs and their dirty coal-electric utility-bought Congressman allies just prefer to have profits as usual no matter whom they kill vis dirty water, dirty air and rising CO2.


How was the 1975 data that projected a comming ice age ajusted to suport warming? Do not give then one dime.


Google Climategate man made climate change due to carbon dioxide is a fraud , bogus science, a scam to fund world tyranical government , Say NO TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER


C’mon….this is nothing but another pseudo-justicfication for a pinata-grab of American dollars. Everyone hates us…but no one ever hates the US dollar! Hypocrites! BTW – I’m not paying! If Geitner doesn’t have to pay his taxes, I shouldn’t have pay for this! But here’s a thought: Call Al! (Gore)


And one more little tittle since I am so angry that I could spit !

A penny wise and a dollar short. If one could reconcile truth as a tool for behavior modification then perhaps, we could construct a conditional response to millions of people to behave in a desired way to promote an agenda that is morally ‘good’ for the earth.

If by an ethical standard we could say that our present human behavior is not conducive to long term benefits based on consumption and waste I would heartily agree. Idealized ratios of : Energy in and Crap out, are always in need of optimized systems. Some companies , people and groups in general are always seeking this as a goal, either as a quotient of energy, product, yields, money or happiness.

Human behavior unfortunately is a poor scale for balanced objectivity and metrics.
And, the larger the population, the larger the span for diametric opposition to logic and
the shorter the fuse to become satisfied with anything.

Hence, the resolve to want the truth becomes a need for an answer, which is not the same.

If you want to argue that an idea or goal has benefit and or merit then by all means let’s discuss the issues and show the logic of a decision to change a goal or outcome.
But, let’s act upon the virtue of the ‘merit of truth’ and not the rectification of an answer. Sometimes the answer is not immediately available based on a limited set of facts and
at times it may be important to make decisions without all the facts as a first ‘best guess’.

This perhaps is the case in the ‘Global Warming’ issue. This is evident among the ‘believers and non-believers’ on any platform of contention.

As an engineer and scientist I will wholheartedly resist the many that are on this populist train of believers that continue to cherry pick evidence of Global Warming (aka Climate Change). Even with this latest verified evidence of collusion and fraud in our CRU faction of data collection at East Anglia University’s , there is an unscientific trend once again to deny that evidence that ‘they don’t want to believe in’ …… The church of what ?


Western countries must get their houses in order first. Sadly this will not happen, at least in the USA because there are too many right wing politicians who could care less about the future and who are more concerned about lining their own pockets, getting reelected, and kowtowing to the moneyed interests they represent. As long as the USA is held hostage by its “democratic” system, nothing will change. I fear for m y 2.5 year old grandson. What chance does he have?


I will firmly agree to argue in defense of many of the environmentalists and ecological conservationists, as they are willing to be ‘conservative’ in usage and application of our non-renewable resources. This makes great sense in all manner of behavior.

My issues are those which apply ‘scientific’ facades to promote a concept so that governments or ‘groups’ of persons with ideological goals may manipulate another group. This is of course, the same as any religious group applying an ideological pressure on another group as to motivate their behavior in a certain moral direction. And even more reprehensible is the modification of data to make the ‘agenda’ more palatable and believable to those who are not scientists.

This reminds me of the ‘fudged’ experiments that MIT responded with to the anomalous effects of the ‘Cold Fusion’ debacle. The unknown effect was there and evident, however there were those at MIT that didn’t want to pursue it and thus altered their testing data and results to make the results fit their expectations.

The people who communicate this falsified data can cause the political community and TPTB to effectively gain control of our monies, taxes and our liberties by restriction of actions. This is and should be a punishable offense.

As far as providing a contributing path of income based on ‘taxed’ CO2 emissions … Absoulutely Not!


The west should do all it can to help developing countries develop clean energy. Developing countries who preserve rainforests or make substantial effort to develop clean energy should earn points toward forgiveness of their international debts. Developmental loans should be conditional on development of non-poluting energy and industries. Developing countries are often hesitant to reduce carbon emission because they feel they need to industrialize as quickly as possible. We should invest in the development of clean energy in those countries to provide a financial incentive.


And the story about Denmark…reducing its carbon footprint.

What about its greatest C footprint- shipping…..oh yes, we don’t count that do we. Not a word.


very good reporting, my view is that the problem would be better served by correcting the worlds biggest problem countries,they do more damage than many small countries,and are responsible for causing it mostly, industry without conscience and greed driven companies without control,china offers most change, because of not being constrained by democracy !!!


And, oh yes, not a penny for these misled hypocrites.


Real nice unbiased reporting. What rot.

Junk science + juck alarmism + juck politic = scepticism

Produced by Creative News Group LLC     ©2019 WNET.ORG     All rights reserved

Distributed by American Public Television