Comments on: Copenhagen Kickoff http://greenleapforward.com/2009/12/07/copenhagen-kickoff/ Tracking the emerging technological, commercial, political and social revolution that is greening China's red-hot economy. Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:26:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: The Green Leap Forward 绿跃进 » How Did China Fare in Copenhagen? A Critical Analysis by Someone Not in the Room http://greenleapforward.com/2009/12/07/copenhagen-kickoff/#comment-31662 The Green Leap Forward 绿跃进 » How Did China Fare in Copenhagen? A Critical Analysis by Someone Not in the Room Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:31:39 +0000 http://greenleapforward.com/?p=226#comment-31662 [...] stance, I use a collection of three posts: “Green Hops: BASIC Instinct…“; “Copenhagen Kickoff” and “China in Copenhagen Day 4: Back to BASICS!“.   Additionally, a [...] [...] stance, I use a collection of three posts: “Green Hops: BASIC Instinct…“; “Copenhagen Kickoff” and “China in Copenhagen Day 4: Back to BASICS!“.   Additionally, a [...]

]]> By: The Green Leap Forward 绿跃进 » Good Cop, Bad Cop - Analyzing The Copenhagen Accord http://greenleapforward.com/2009/12/07/copenhagen-kickoff/#comment-31155 The Green Leap Forward 绿跃进 » Good Cop, Bad Cop - Analyzing The Copenhagen Accord Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:27:46 +0000 http://greenleapforward.com/?p=226#comment-31155 [...] in Denmark on December 7, that was never an expected outcome.   As I made clear in my “Copenhagen Kickoff” post, the goal of Copenhagen was to agree on a political statement or accord.  At the [...] [...] in Denmark on December 7, that was never an expected outcome.   As I made clear in my “Copenhagen Kickoff” post, the goal of Copenhagen was to agree on a political statement or accord.  At the [...]

]]> By: The Green Leap Forward 绿跃进 » China Climate Progress Report 2009 http://greenleapforward.com/2009/12/07/copenhagen-kickoff/#comment-30246 The Green Leap Forward 绿跃进 » China Climate Progress Report 2009 Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:38:38 +0000 http://greenleapforward.com/?p=226#comment-30246 [...] a little late on this and should have definitely included this in our Copenhagen Kickoff post, but better late than never.  Two weeks ago, the National Developement and Reform Commission [...] [...] a little late on this and should have definitely included this in our Copenhagen Kickoff post, but better late than never.  Two weeks ago, the National Developement and Reform Commission [...]

]]> By: Patrick Lynch http://greenleapforward.com/2009/12/07/copenhagen-kickoff/#comment-30152 Patrick Lynch Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:58:52 +0000 http://greenleapforward.com/?p=226#comment-30152 Generally an okay post, but I especially want to pick on one point. You list 10 billion as a good start (by suggesting it is the least developed countries can do). The number requested by developing countries is more like 100 billion a year. Ten billion is much too little, and the developed countries can afford more. Which raises in my mind the question, are you supporting the positions of the wealthy developed countries, the poorer developing countries, or do you wish to be neutral? (I am not sure I believe anyone is neutral). [Julian: Patrick, thanks for your comment. To be clear, I never say $10 b is a good start. I am merely quoting from the COP15 briefing book by US CAN. That said, one must be clear between the distinction between the $10 b/year (for 2010 to 2011) figure that Commonwealth countries actually coalesced around in Trinidad & Tobago the week before COP15, and the $100 b/yr by 2020 that many countries are also in general agreement of, including developed countries. (In fact, some developing countries are asking for $300 to 400b/year.) Subsequent posts in the "China in Copenhagen" Series, and "<a href="http://greenleapforward.com/2009/12/10/a-stern-warning-no-money-for-china-no-probelm/" rel="nofollow">No Money for China--No Problem</a>" post try to draw this out. With respect to your question on neutrality, I am not taking sides on this issue, merely laying out the outstanding issues as they stood on Day 1 of COP15.] Generally an okay post, but I especially want to pick on one point. You list 10 billion as a good start (by suggesting it is the least developed countries can do). The number requested by developing countries is more like 100 billion a year. Ten billion is much too little, and the developed countries can afford more.

Which raises in my mind the question, are you supporting the positions of the wealthy developed countries, the poorer developing countries, or do you wish to be neutral? (I am not sure I believe anyone is neutral).

[Julian: Patrick, thanks for your comment. To be clear, I never say $10 b is a good start. I am merely quoting from the COP15 briefing book by US CAN. That said, one must be clear between the distinction between the $10 b/year (for 2010 to 2011) figure that Commonwealth countries actually coalesced around in Trinidad & Tobago the week before COP15, and the $100 b/yr by 2020 that many countries are also in general agreement of, including developed countries. (In fact, some developing countries are asking for $300 to 400b/year.) Subsequent posts in the "China in Copenhagen" Series, and "No Money for China--No Problem" post try to draw this out. With respect to your question on neutrality, I am not taking sides on this issue, merely laying out the outstanding issues as they stood on Day 1 of COP15.]

]]> By: Calvin Quek http://greenleapforward.com/2009/12/07/copenhagen-kickoff/#comment-29581 Calvin Quek Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:12:22 +0000 http://greenleapforward.com/?p=226#comment-29581 Excellent Julian! I am staying in, hunkering down, and reading all I can! I am also staying as carbon neutral as I can! (so pay me if you are driving today) Excellent Julian! I am staying in, hunkering down, and reading all I can! I am also staying as carbon neutral as I can! (so pay me if you are driving today)

]]>