There seems to be assertions afoot that the planet is in dire threat of over-heating, which means that glaciers will melt so sea level rises 22 feet (50% of Florida disappears, hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis will have to move), causing world-wide droughts (already in Australia and the US southwest, and already the Nile, the Colorado, the Ganges and the Yellow Rivers do not reach the sea in the ordinary "dry" season), and promoting the extinction of many if not most species of plants and animals (the Costa Rican golden toad is already extinct because early seasonal warming has thoroughly confused its mating behavior: http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/extinct-golden-toad.html ).  

Whatever shall we do!?  

First, we could settle in, submissively, to the comforting commandments of the Delusionistae, the Fundamentalecstasists, and decry the reason of science, the thousands of truth seekers who have for decades thoughtfully considered and then studied the consequences of the painfully inconvenient truth that CO2, that pesky little molecule, a gas at atmospheric temperatures, does NOT allow infra-red radiation to pass through it.  Instead, it captures that heat energy reflected back by the Earth from the sun, and heats up.  So there is a sort of warm blanket over the Earth.  We could accuse the scientists of being hoaxsters, subversives.  Like was done to Galileo when he proposed that the sun does NOT circle the Earth, and then recanted in fear for his life: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/galileo/galileo.  (After all, the Earth does appear "flat" in Oklahoma, the land of Jim Inhofe link.)  

Or we could accept the probability of climate change (aka, "Global Warming"), get all the nations of the world together, say in Copenhagen in December (YIKES! the sun goes down at 3:30 and the weather comes in from the North Sea, cold and wet), and think about what can be done to mitigate the problem.

It is daunting, huge, complex - I believe the first time ever that all the nations of the world have gathered to collaborate on an urgent issue.  The considerations are so disparate: Why should China, now the biggest contributor to CO2, have to slow its growth?  Or India?  And shouldn't the developed countries, Europe and especially the US, who have prospered mightily by CO2-generating industry, bear the cost of compliance by the developing economies?  What about those Pacific island-nations at sea-level, innocent of carbon-generating industry, but flooded and needing assistance by the rest of the world?  

I understand that the only way to drive cattle fast is slowly - herding cats, pushing ropes.  So a great amount of pedantic political parlance is involved.  This really tangles my brain and I struggle with it.  But try to consider for example, as I have, this listing:       

To reach a successful climate agreement at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen, three fundamental elements:

• scientific evidence
• political will
• economic interest     

and four practical elements            

• target setting for emissions reductions
• adaptation (the fact many nations and peoples will be harmed and will need assistance)
• technology (for example solar, wind, biomass)
• financing     

need to be addressed.   Now I can report to you all that I attended the staff nightly recap of the day's work at the Admiral Hotel bar: 

and this is what I learned:       

1. NRDC staff (Barbara Finamore, Jake Schmidt, David Doniger) have been focused on the Chinese delegation, giving them advice and suggestions. Prompted by the NRDC. the Chinese today confirmed their intentions stated on November 26, 2009:

1. to cut carbon intensity - the amount of carbon dioxide it emits per unit of GDP - by 40 to 45% from 2005 levels by 2020;
2. to increase its share of primary energy produced from renewable fuels and nuclear energy to 15 percent by 2020;
3. to increase forest volume by 1.3 billion cubic meters over that period while increasing forest cover by 100 million acres. It appears that China is forth-coming in this intention in part to out-do the US - which it is well underway in doing.     

2. The $10 billion to help developing countries reduce their carbon footprint appears to becoming a reality. The US states it will contribute $2-3billion, Japan will contribute almost that amount, and the EU as well. The custody and management of these funds were discussed.     

3. There was generalized pressure on developed countries to up the ante - to increase their CO2 reductions.     

4. At 6PM, the "Fossil of the Day" award was to be given.  This goes to the country which has behaved most egregiously. The US has been so honored several times. When the award is bestowed, there is a brief, good-natured celebration with singing and dancing.

5. The heads of state planning to attend are far more numerous (now forecasted to be 110) than in past meetings, most recently in Bali in December, 2007. And they arriving much earlier. And developing countries are now offering CO2 reductions, which they refused to do in the past, placing the burden entirely on developed countries. In other words, there is a much higher starting point on which a final agreements will be established. As a result of this very favorable context, the environmental groups are pushing even harder for stronger measures.  

Brrrrrr from Copenhagen.