Looking forward to reading the Sunday's tomorrow. Let's hope its not all just the pre-written 'space filler' usually served up around Christmas. Let's hope there's some serious commentary about the Copenhagen summit. Because we've seen nothing of any substance so far. Just politicians and 'summit goers' justifying their existence. As things stand at the moment, my annual award for 'Optimist of the Year' goes to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations for his positive interpretation of the summit as an 'essential beginning'. What we need to know is whether it was a total failure, or whether something genuinely positive emerged from a meeting which involved 45,000 people flying into Denmark, from all over the world, at a cost of over £100 million and a massive carbon footprint. Hopefully, a day's reflection will enable some in-depth commentary to have been written.
Must admit I'm not sure what I was expecting. I certainly did not expect an agreement which would satisfy those who are rather dismissively described as 'warmists'. But I did expect more than we got - which was a non-binding 'agreement', prepared by the US, refined in discussion with China, India, Brazil and South Africa, and accepted by most attendees because there was nothing else on offer - and because they could not go home without any agreement at all. I'm not even clear about any timetable or scale of any emissions reduction. And we have no idea of how much money has to be handed over to developing countries as compensation for not following the same climate destroying path that developed countries have followed.
At Copenhagen, the UK may have been excluded from the real action, but as we approach the General Election, all parties will need to respond to climate change in their manifestos. And its not going to be easy - because of the catastrophic fiddling of the data that's been going on. Personally, I don't think it makes that much difference whether one believes our climate is warming as a natural phenomenon, or as a result of man's activities. The reality is that a significant rise in sea levels would cause such dramatic social disruption across the world that we had better do all we can to limit it. I believe that my generation (as with all previous generations) has a moral responsibility to leave the world in as good a nick as we found it. I suppose this puts me on the 'warmists' side of the debate. Worryingly, an increasing number of those I talk to disagree, and take a different view. And governments cannot take the sort of actions being talked about against a background of public scepticism. The scientists of the world need to start developing some communication skills. Dismissing 'deniers' as ar*****s is just not good enough. I wonder what Geoffrey Lean will have to say in tomorrow's Telegraph.