Developing Nations: Moral Obligation or None of America’s concern

Last week President Obama addressed the group meeting in Copenhagen on Climate Change debate. President Obama challenged the group, "So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it." I disagree with Obama on the nature of our challenge as recent studies on CO2 effects are not as the climate change group believes it to be. The recent study on Aspen trees displayed positive effects on tree growth and Dr. Park noted that the oceans with adequate forestation and biomass are absorbing excess CO2. To me it appears that Mother Earth is doing was she always does; finds balance. Now, this does not mean that we are not absolved from making it easier on Mother Earth.

Deforestation trends needs to be reversed. President Obama continued his apology tour when he said, "As the world's largest economy and the world's second-larger emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility." Does that responsibility mean raiding our coffers in giving developing countries $100 billion? If the Obama is serious about America doing our part then let's do it. We are not responsible for developing countries nor are we obligated. That being said, let's focus internally and implement a new energy policy where nuclear power is front and center. President Obama alluded that "changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America's economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive and spark new innovation." While Obama is correct that the "green" push will create new industry and innovation it will only replace current energy jobs at a rate of 1 to 2. On the surface moving toward solar and wind power will create new jobs, it will result in a net loss as per a recent report from King Juan Carlos University (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0).

The result of Obama showing up in Copenhagen cost Americans $10 billion a year pledge to assist developing countries and a non-binding agreement among countries to reduce carbon emissions. Last week I brought up the point that humans contribute, personally, more than the total fossil fuel burned on an annual basis. Since humans exhale more CO2 collectively than fossil fuels then why on Earth would we want to help developing countries as the more industry a country obtains the larger the population required to run it. People who peddle climate change say that Earth is on an unsustainable path to a reducing food supply and drought. Okay, so again, why do we, as Americans, want to assist developing nations? Increasing the world's population will only place more burdens on our food and water supply. Or is there a moral obligation on the part of America? I do applaud President Obama for going to Copenhagen and not turning over the keys though.

Al Gore mistaken on Polar Ice Cap science

Former Vice President Al Gore stuck his foot in his mouth while speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit when he claimed that, "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." Interesting but not so quick as the scientist that Gore quoted denied giving concrete numbers to which later Gore's office admitted that the figure was "one used by Dr. Maslowski as a 'ballpark figure' several years ago in a conversation with Gore" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece). Interesting error in science indeed, especially in light of those hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

While I do acknowledge that the climate warms and cools, I do not subscribe that it is as manmade that most on the left would like us all to believe. As I am writing this, Andrea Mitchell had Gary Hart and a former General on to discuss how climate change is a national security threat. The Left is losing the battle and has not gone to the bag of tricks that Bush used, i.e. WMD's, to push the climate change agenda. Let's all be honest, what is playing out in Copenhagen is not about being good stewards of the Earth; rather it is about plundering the coffers of the Industrialized World by Third World and developing countries. The EU has announced that it will give 500 million euro's to Africa and the Caribbean (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE5BE1BI._CH_.2420) and the United States upped their ante that will be set at $9 billion for 2010. By the way it was President Bush that led to the tripling of "direct humanitarian and development aid" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html).

That being said, it is time that we take a time out and look at the science of climate change. A friend of mine posted this webpage on my Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2009%2F11%2F091124140957.htm&h=a0758a2cd40ea99ae8b12077acd89c03 After reading the article I posed this question: Park says that "a strong correlations exists between sea-surface temperature and CO2 levels in the tropic areas. Conversely, in places with a lot of trees and other biomass to soak up much of the atmospheric CO2..." Wouldn't that lead us to believe that deforestation and the lack of biomass – will need a definition on that – is the root cause of the "inerannual time scales" that results in less CO2 absorption? So, shouldn't the push be for more forests and biomass instead of "Cap and Trade" legislation? Or did I read what he said incorrectly? It appears to me that Park is applying correlations found in tropical oceans to all waterways which does not equate when he says "in places with a lot of trees and other biomass" the oceans are able to absorb access CO2. Can't have it both ways…"

I have not seen an answer to this question. Perhaps someone here will help me understand or correct me if I am miss-understanding Parks report. All of this is why we need to have a robust debate void of emotion and political influence. Is that even possible? Plus, if Gore was told of the prediction by Dr. Maslowski took place several years ago, wouldn't that mean that we will see no polar ice cap in the next one or two years?