Talk:2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

"protests"

It says 'protests' without a word as to what those protests are for or against. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an omission. __meco (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I've updated it so that it states what they were about. Smartse (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Added two words - to clarify that the word "small" in the first sentence does not apply to the subsequent sentences. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe the overwhelming majority of them are voicing their frustrations to their leaders and delegates, who are supposed to be representing them, regarding their inaction on the matter and the decent of the conference into farce due to political selfishness, short sightedness and misrepresentation of their peoples. I also understand that there are a small number of climate change skeptics in protest also. Perhaps a section on protests around the world could be made? We had 40,000 protest here in Melbourne, Australia alone! Nick carson (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for that by the way? This could be expanded further, I know of a few events that took place in the UK in the run up to the conference. I'll try to find something.

Brazil and other comparative conversions

For Brazil's current proposal of "38%-42% below 2005 levels by 2020", we translate this as "an emissions cut of between -5% to 1.8% below 1990 levels by 2020". The second statement is not sourced. Is that a cut of minus 5%? Should we say, "an emissions target between a 5% increase and a 1.8% reduction compared to 1990 levels by 2020"? Or is it meant to be "an emissions cut of between 1.8% to 5% below 1990 levels by 2020"? It's certainly unclear at the moment. Where do these figures come from? --Nigelj (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There has been some additions, including some reverted, that attempted to represent the negotiating position of different countries using a consistent baseline year, such as around 1990. It is clear that 1990 is one of the relevant years of concern for the reason that the Kyoto agreements used this year and Europe has expressed its offer in terms of this year. However it is not clear that any year in particular is any more relevant in terms of comparing reductions than any other year. It is precisely this fact that causes various countries to choose without fault some favourable year in which to calculate their reduction offer from. Complicating this is the fact that some offers are in absolute reductions whereas some are in terms of GDP. It seems that proposed actions should not be drowned in comparative analysis, but instead a new section dedicated to this analysis be created. Such an explanation is required to (a) Clarify calculations: I believe most of the calculations - including the Brazilian data apparently unreferenced - have come from IEA fuel combustion data. Perhaps data ought to come from the UN FCCC and include land use, land use change and forestry estimates and all greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalent)? Note however the UN FCCC data is only complete for Annex I nations... It must be noted that the language used in some proposals may or may not refer to this broader set of data (b) Cast all countries proposals in light of several different perspectives, including the Kyoto equivalent 1990 and in terms of emissions intensity (emissions per GDP (PPP)). This then will clarify all the immature controversy about 'one world government', etc. (c) Explaining briefly (citing complete discussions) concepts such as GDP, PPP and the relevant value of emission intensity when assuming (the unreal but predictable and measurable case of) constant GDP (zero growth). 124.170.151.116 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was just asking if a "cut of -5%" is actually an increase of 5%, because if so, it's not clear. And it would be easy to make it clear. --Nigelj (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I just recalculated using the IEA's dataset spreadsheet and it indeed comes up as 5% increase to 1.8% reduction. Brazil's CO2 emissions in 1990 from fuel combustion is 193.04 million tonnes CO2 rising to 326.8 million tonnes CO2 in 2005 giving between 189.544 to 202.616 million tonnes CO2 proposed.[1] 124.170.151.116 (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The comparative table is a good idea, and is good to translate all numbers into the same system of reference (i.e. 1990). However as noted this still does not provide the full picture of the comparative effort each country is offering to take. Is arguably easyer to cut emissions if a country was very uneifficient in 1990, but harder if it was already more CO2e efficient. It might be therefore useful to include data on current CO2e per capita and implied target CO2e per capita if targets are met (assuming no population change). Elekhh (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Further deletions of comparisons have been removed citing WP:OR and WP:NPOV. These are serious accusations in Wikipedia. Comparisons inevitably rely on taking a weighted ratio between a non-standard year and a comparative year (such as 1990). This ought to be compliant with Wikipedia:OR#Routine_calculations, however this discussion forum must decide the relevant authorative datasets used for such comparisons. Data is mainly sourced from IEA[2] and UNFCCC [3]. These need to be clarified, using the Australia case perhaps as an example. Some of the data can place one country or another in a good or bad light depending on the particular comparison (hence the need for multiple viewpoints). There seems to be a significant danger of inducing WP:NPOV problems and readers responding with edits. It appears there needs to be a concerted quality effort to ensure that the correct sources are used with respect to choosing between fuel combustion data, and various UNFCCC data: Wikipedia:Neutrality#A_vital_component:_good_research. COP15 is a negotiation and there is a need to describe it rather than engage in it as per Wikipedia:Neutrality#Impartial tone. Could it be argued that any and all comparison data involving routine calculation is against Wikipedia standards, in light of accounting methods being part of the negotiation? If so, there should be quality improvement with this in mind. A new analysis section, if appropriate to exist, should compare centred around specific relevant accounting methods, one clearly being the Kyoto accounting method. A multicolumn sortable table format could be useful. Relevant details of the GDP based accounting methods used by the Chinese and Indians needs to be identified. Another method relating to a parallel discussion (US oriented non-Kyoto methods) at the conference being mooted in the media also needs to be identified as detail become available. The article List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions confronts some of the same issues. 124.170.161.55 (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

China and India

Someone has conducted some original research in this area and clearly tainted the article with their own POV. S/he looks to not be so fond of developing countries and their emissions targets. I will remove this for now, but should any edit wars commence, I humbly ask the opinions of other editors here about how to edit that section fairly. Colipon+(Talk) 12:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits of varied quality with original research faults or risks continue: editors need to engage in this forum with calculations to ensure transparency. Perhaps a quorum of interested editors is emerging?124.170.138.76 (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I actually did try to engage first if you scroll to the bottom of the page. But no matter, I can provide my calculations if you want to see them. We know from the UNstats website that absolute emissions in China have grown from 1990 to 2005 by 5625561/2414698 = 233%. Beyond that, China's proposal is linked to future GDP growth rates. We don't know what those future rates can be, but I made an assumption of 10%, which was extrapolated from past performance. The assumption was stated in the article. That gives a GDP growth over the next 15 years of 1.1015=418%. China's proposed cut of 40-45% in emissions intensity relative to 2005 would amount to an increase of 418% X (100% - 42.5% ± 2.5%) = 240% ± 10%. Relative to 1990 levels, that would be 233% X (240% ± 10%) = 560% ± 20% or in other words +540% to +580%.
I did the same calculation for India, except using their historical emissions and growth rate and assuming a GDP growth of 6% per annum. 1423844/690595 = 206% 1990 > 2005 ; 1.0615 = 240% ; 240% X (100% - 22.5% ± 2.5%) = 186% ± 6% 2005 > 2020 ; 206% X (186% ± 6%) = 383% ± 12% = +370% to +400%.
I personally think that emission rate changes are not a good measure to begin with, and would most prefer to see time-integrated emissions per capita. That would be a much more complicated calculation, but I think that would much better reflect the scientific and political issues in dispute. I suspect that western and eastern nations would start looking more similar, which would help to understand the loggerhead. But all this is way beyond the current issue. The big thing that bothered me was just that absolute emissions and emissions intensity are apples and oranges and should not be in the same column.--Yannick (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I suspect a good deal of steam was created in this section of this article in readers because some countries have offered to reduce their absolute emissions whereas others have offered to reduce their emissions intensity. Yannick raises an important point that all offers are really some form of time-integrated emissions reduction profile (perhaps varying with GDP). This of course is best described on a graph and not a table. Some countries have offered 2020 figures, some also 2030 and 2050 figures. Discussion at the conference has included the controversial "developing countries emissions peak" that could become evident if expressed as one possible outcome in such a graph. The real/PPP GDP assumptions are reasonable, but not universally agreeable to readers. A previous edit[4] of the COP15 article had used valuation from both zero growth (representing lower bound) and a 15 year peak (representing upper bound) at 13.1% for China[5] (25%-805% increase) and 9.7% for India[6] (47%-530% increase), so the 10% and 6% assumption is more generous and perhaps more useful. There is a question over the use of CDIAC global monitoring data, IEA fuel combustion data and the UNFCCC country submitted data, since countries are reducing their emissions profile by their own account. I argue that for this conference, the UNFCCC data is the authoritative data, where present. There is also the issue of CO2 emissions reductions vs. greenhouse gas (CO2-e) emissions reductions with or without LULUCF, and indeed the definition of LULUCF including or excluding non-human activity emissions such as livestock through to non-human induced bushfires and volcanoes. User:Ytrottier has assumed CDIAC CO2 data because that is all that is usually available for non Annex 1 Kyoto nations. Comparisons between countries ought be made using the same accounting practices. I hence corroborate User:Ytrottier's calculation, and the assumptions made to make them. I also concur on the faults of comparing targets by listed table on any arbitrary year. It is interesting to note that if all major CO2 emitters par India and China keep their emissions at or below 1990 levels, my calculations show that China's 20% of the world population could claim more than 50% global CO2 emissions by 2020 at current growth rates whereas India's 17.25% of the world population could claim at most Europe's 1990 emissions with more than twice the population as Europe. This conference will have to make a decision (including through inaction) on this imbalance that at least I perceive.203.214.132.101 (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Well let's get a graph happening then, and organise the table as per the discussion below. And hope that some questions get asked and answered regardless of the outcome of this conference. Nick carson (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reduction table

The table called "Will of reduction (Kyoto protocol)" has serious problems. First, I'm not sure what Kyoto has to do with it, since all the numbers that I checked are actually recent proposals. Second, the numbers given for China and India are actually relative to a 2005 baseline, not relative to a 1990 baseline as the header line says.--Yannick (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The China and India calculations are WP:OR and should be removed. I have done it once already and I'm surprised they keep creeping back up. Colipon+(Talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the table needs to be better formatted. We need to see clear, easy to read figures.
Ex: Country / 1990 Levels / 2000 Levels / 2005 Levels / proposed reduction / proposed year / potential reduction.
Something like that! Nick carson (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Outcome section?

Okay. So what exactly happened? What is the outcome? Has a treaty been signed? If so, by who and how many? If so, is it legally binding? How will this help/hinder mitigation of climate change? Who is happy with the outcome? Who is not happy with the outcome? These are all questions that need answering, c'mon WP Users, let's find out exactly what's going on and write it up! Nick carson (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I came here to find out the outcome of this agreement. It is on the main page. It is false advertising because once you get here from the main page, there is no information. It should be removed from the main page or even a link to news websites would be handy. JB50000 (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this has been sorted, more could be added but the main things are covered. Smartse (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Indigenous rights section

I understand the concern over someone publicizing an organization through this article, specially coming from the editor of the organization's article in question. I understand that in light of wp:undue weight we may have to do some changes to better reflect the issue discussed in that section. Nevertheless, the report released by this organization does seem to be the most prominent in major news sources. If someone can find any other source, that is related to any other organization or not, he is certainly invited to approach the issue from a different perspective. Also, I want to underline the fact that the issue itself seems to be notable and deserving of a section. Several major news sources, as well as the UN entity mentioned in the article, have discussed it. I will be looking for more reactions, but I was hoping that I could establish a real reason for notability on the subject itself for creating this section. Even though this is clearly not a point in the summit’s negotiation, I believe that this is a notable subject that is perfectly adequate for a "reaction" section. Maziotis (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, most of the section is based on a press release which shouldn't be considered a WP:RS. I did boldly remove it but after reading this will move it to a different section and trim it down.... Actually, after reading it again I'm really not sure it should be included, it can't be used in a reactions section because it was talking about what might happen at the conference. Were any agreements actually made at the conference that could affect indigenous people? IMO it seems more like a general issue regarding how investments are made rather than specifically being about this conference. I'm a bit uncertain as to what to do, any suggestions? Smartse (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I see this as having the same impact/context of the "activism" and "danish" issues. These are "reactions" on the background of the conference that show what is happening in civil society as the summit of the world’s leaders advances. The sources do indicate a feedback on the Copenhagen summit itself. Since the issue has also been raised by the UN forum, I really don't see any issue with starting the "indigenous rights" discussion with either any one of these two major sources. Since someone expressed concern over the subject being too much around a single organization, I would suggest that instead of having two citations of the Survival International, perhaps we could substitute one of them for some non-related commentator. Maziotis (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've already trimmed it down anyway as I felt it was rather long. I agree it could do with better sourcing. Smartse (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I have just added the second source, not related to survival international. I don't know if this one is the best, but I think the section is now moving in the right direction. I have been looking for several sources here.[1] Maziotis (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Knickerbocker_Storm 2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference_2009

It is claimed that someone, I do not know whom, nor how, informed President Barry Obama that there was a secret meeting; he, & his delegation, did not want to be duped, so they salahi - ed the conference room, while simultaneously negotiating healthcare across the Atlantic Ocean, & rushing home against a storm often compared to the 1922 Knickerbocker_Storm, while debating global warming.

In order to drag in American journalists, Bob Gibbs said "Hold on. Hold. I've got to get my American guys in because everybody else got in…. My guys have to get just like your guys got in. This is a joint meeting, and my guys get in or we're leaving. …", from < http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/18/chinese-block-u-s-reporters-from-event >, as well as Rachel_Anne_Maddow.

This does seem to qualify for an article segment, as well as its own article, as well as a movie script.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 00:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Some vandal has deleted half of my comment; my message had specified content suggestions. I had hoped f/ discussion of the facts.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 02:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of inaccuracies in the above comments. If you'd like to reword them someone may be better able to help. Nick carson (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I was inspired to this by Rachel Maddow's comments, & by Andrea Mitchell's, & my subsequent google searches. If you think that I am mistaken, then please do explain.
Are you aware of another incident where a President barges into such a meeting? Andrea_Mitchell said "... he found all these guys that were supposedly @ the airport already, Brazil, South Africa, & India, in the room, they were caucusing against the United States.
"So, there you go, he didn't get what he wanted; but, they accused him of barging into a meeting, &, he came out with something, better than nothing. But, clearly, a very disappointed Barack Obama coming back, because, Rachel, it's not binding, they didn't get the goals, there is no transparency, there's no commitment that they will do anything except announce what they have achieved, & if China announcing what they have achieved is good enough for the developing countries, the poorer countries, that would be very surprising indeed."
{Rachel calls this diplobamacy}:
"In terms of the sort of diplomatic acrobatics today, isn't it some sort of a big deal if India & Brazil & South Africa & I guess, maybe China, lied to the United States about where their negotiators were? They said they were gone when they were there, & in fact, talking behind our back?"
Andrea: "Exactly, I mean, it's a real dissing of the United States; it's very disrepectful. It shows that this relationship with China is certainly not as cozy, as close, all of this reaching - out & all of these bilateral meetings, have not produced the kind of trust, on an issue this big, an issue of such economic importance to these individual countries, but, an issue of such global importance, I mean, you can't overstate the importance to the world. But, they blinked, they backed - off, & Barack Obama, @ least forced them to confront the fact that they had to make some kind of agreement before they left; but, it is a lot less than meets the eye."
Rach: "Andrea Mitchell, Nbc News chief foreign affairs correspondent, it's a pleasure to pleasure to have you on the show, especially with this, uh, bizarre news that I wouldn't necessarily believe if you were not reporting it; but, you make me believe it. Thanks, Andrea."
&, a vandal did delete my comment!!!!
hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 12:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • {{help }}
  • I do need constructive action regarding the listed vandal; I have been banned, several times, f/ far less, as well as f/ far more positive contribution.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 15:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

hopiakuta, please do not use the {{helpme}} tag on article talk pages. It is intended to be used on your user talk page.
None of your comments on this page have been deleted. The only edit made to one of your comments by someone other than you is this one, which only removed a comma to fix a grammatical error. You undid this, and all of the comments you made on this page remain. It is possible you wrote more comments but didn't save correctly. Any edits you make will not kept until you press the "Save page" button, which everyone forgets to do once in a while. --Mysdaao talk 15:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Move page

Shouldn't United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 be moved to 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference per 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference and 2008 United Nations Climate Change Conference? §hepTalk 09:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support the move, it reads better and if the other articles are named like that then it definitely makes sense. Smartse (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Support. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done Didn't seem as though anyone could oppose it. Smartse (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I offer late support. Nick carson (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
As one would expect, there is no consistency with UN Conference names (see Category:United Nations conferences) and no thought given to how other categories are set up. See Category:Elections, specific example Category:Elections in Barbados. The name was discussed earlier in this article, but that discussion was then 'archived'. To summarize what I posted earlier, the other article names should be corrected rather than this one. btw - 7.5 hours is not sufficient time for discussion on a rename of such a popular article. Flatterworld (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
2009 definitely goes in the front. Precedent and en.cop15.dk and google fight. 174.102.83.126 (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Er, en.cop15.dk has it at the end... --Cybercobra (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Conference logo provides solution to global warming

The logo of the conference offers a hint of a solution to counteracting global warming. Let's send all the offending emissions and waste through that Danish Stargate! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Teleportation technology?.. — We'll work right on it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Err, actually no, that is a flooded earth, which frankly, is a much more realistic prognosis. --92.202.82.4 (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wen Jiabao was not invited

Xinhua, China’s official news agency, reported that Chinese premier Wen Jiabao was not invited to secret US-initiated talks on the evening of December 17. --China Dialogue News (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Add? U.N. Official Says Climate Deal Is at Risk

Add? U.N. Official Says Climate Deal Is at Risk NYT 209.255.78.138 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaked Chinese report

See: China's fears of rich nation 'climate conspiracy' at Copenhagen revealed guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 February 2010 Smartse (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Purposes of Meeting

    According to many geologists and critics of the topic, the meeting was called to order to "revise their already failing plan of climate change," says THE NEW YORK TIMES.

But, many others who have a more optimistic view of climate change, suggest that the nations were trying to devise a less complicated, more suitable plan of cutting down plastic waste to the Pacific Ocean and Fresh Kills Landfill and properly dispose of chemicals that can easily escape into the air.

Technology Transfer and Joint-Ventures for Renewable Energy and Green Technologies

Why, How, Who, Where, When, For How Long, and What would be the benefit ?

If not now, then when ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobejohnhd (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

the European Union is not a country !!!

Can someone please change this madness, the EU is NOT A country, i couldt care less what the EU Is Doing, i want to see what Germany, France, Netherlands have done not the stupid EU !!!,- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.36.33 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read the source for the EU number, you will see that one of the instruments that the EU intends to use for the reduction is the ETS. I guess since the certificates can be traded across the EU, one cannot currently predict how any reduction in emissions will be distributed over the member states. Hans Adler 20:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree, the EU is a union of all sorts of countries, not a country itself. We really need a separate breakdown of EU countries details and statistics. Nick carson (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The way I see it, the EU was represented at the conference, in the same way as countries were. Whatever it signed up to (not much as it turned out) would apply to EU countries as well as whatever they signed up to individually. There are several cases (employment law, human rights laws etc) where EU citizens are bound by both their own country's laws and those of the EU. If there had been a legally binding agreement, and the EU had signed it, then if some EU country had abstained or signed a watered-down version, it would have made no difference to their legal commitments. That's a lot of 'ifs', and none of them happened, but it may be relevant another time. Does anyone disagree with this? --Nigelj (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. For all intends and purposes, the EU acts as a country. For the purpose of such meetings it makes as much as screaming for what Arizona is doing instead of "the stupid USA". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Lisbon_Treaty#Legal_personality_and_pillar_consolidation. "The Treaty of Lisbon abolishes the pillar system and the European Union becomes a consolidated body with a legal personality." The EU can sign international treaties now.--Oneiros (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

While the European Union may not be a country, it is a Party to the UNFCCC, and has the ability to take on commitments. If it does, it is then its own responsibility to ensure consistency between its overall commitment and those of its individual member states. There are 194 Parties to the UNFCCC; 193 of which are countries, and the other one is the European Union. Note that until the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the Party was referred to as the European Commission. rjtklein 08:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjtklein (talk • contribs)

Lack of integrity

Connie Hedegaard is alleged in the United States diplomatic cables leak to have stated to the US deputy climate change envoy, Jonathan Pershing on February 11, 2010 in Brussels that "the Aosis (Alliance of Small Island States) countries 'could be our best allies' given their need for financing". The importance of this is explained in an article in The Guradian in that "[a]ny linking of the billions of dollars of aid to political support is extremely controversial – nations most threatened by climate change see the aid as a right, not a reward, and such a link as heretical." I'm not sure this would be a good place to have this information added. Other suggestions are welcome! __meco (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

More on that here 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I actually did place a link to that article in my first post. __meco (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Unattributed analyses in the introduction

I've removed this from the introduction:


The reason for the apparent failure of this summit was revealed in December 2010 as a set of United States diplomatic cables were released by WikiLeaks. They showed that United States and People's Republic of China, the world's top two carbon dioxide emitters,[12] joined forces to stymie every attempt made in the summit to reach an agreement. The secret framework for cooperation between two countries was outlined in May 2009 when John Kerry, chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee met Prime Minister of China, Li Keqiang. It was revealed that in this meeting, Chinese were told that Washington could understand "China's resistance to accepting mandatory targets at the United Nations Climate Conference, which will take place in Copenhagen" and "a new basis for 'major cooperation' between the United States and China on climate change" was outlined, effectively deterring world leaders from reaching a strong conclusion on climate change mitigation beyond 2012.[13][14]


My reasons are as follows:


The reason for the apparent failure of this summit was revealed in December 2010 as a set of United States diplomatic cables were released by WikiLeaks.


"Failure" is a subjective judgement, and this judgement should be attributed.


They showed that United States and People's Republic of China, the world's top two carbon dioxide emitters,[12] joined forces to stymie every attempt made in the summit to reach an agreement.


There are several ways of measuring carbon dioxide emissions, e.g., historically, annually, on a per capita basis, etc.. Different measures produce different rankings of countries' emissions. It should be specified what type of measurement is being used.


The secret framework for cooperation between two countries was outlined in May 2009 when John Kerry, chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee met Prime Minister of China, Li Keqiang. It was revealed that in this meeting, Chinese were told that Washington could understand "China's resistance to accepting mandatory targets at the United Nations Climate Conference, which will take place in Copenhagen" and "a new basis for 'major cooperation' between the United States and China on climate change" was outlined, effectively deterring world leaders from reaching a strong conclusion on climate change mitigation beyond 2012.[13][14]


The two sources for the above are newspaper articles. These are subjective analytical pieces. This type of analysis should be explicitly attributed to the source material, e.g., "According to an article written in Der Spiegel, the US and China "joined forces" to prevent European nations reaching an agreement in Copenhagen." In my opinion, these particular analyses are not sufficiently important to be mentioned in the article's introduction. The introduction should present a brief overview of the article's content.

I've rewritten the two media pieces and placed them in a later section of the article. The Guardian piece was already referred to in the analysis section:


US Embassy dispatches released by WikiLeaks showed how the US 'used spying, threats and promises of aid' to gain support for the Copenhagen Accord.[128] The emergent US emissions pledge was the lowest by any leading nation.[129]


The first sentence of the above is inappropriate for the reason I gave earlier on. Analysis should be explicitly attributed to a source. The second sentence is not supported by the cited source. The emissions pledges made by different nations in the Copenhagen Accord are not easily comparable. This because pledges are made using different measurements, e.g., different base years. Additionally, the second sentence is implicitly analytical, i.e., an editor has added their own analysis to the article. This is unacceptable. It would be acceptable if the analysis was attributable to a source, e.g., "Source X criticized the US for making the lowest pledge in the Copenhagen Accord." Without attribution of analysis, it is, in my view, original research. Enescot (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

I wonder if anyone can work out why this talk page has never been archived? There are various archive bot magic runes at the top of the markup. I have tried debugging this stuff before, only to find it's way harder than it looks, and very easy to screw up leaving a big mess. Any clues gratefully received. --Nigelj (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the archiving bot How To? Seems like it might be helpful. I wouldn't set up automatic archiving, however, as there hadn't been a post here in two years before you posted. A manual archiving of the oldest posts would probably be best. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed. A combination of bad page naming, template duplication, etc seems to have sorted itself out. I found an "Archive 6" at the old page name too, which is now Archive 1, and what the bot automatically archived is at Archive 2. [stwalkerster|talk] 00:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you @Stwalkerster:. Well done for finding the root cause of the problem, and also for finding and fixing the stray "Archive 6". I know that getting rid of stuff is easy enough, but doing it in a consistent way that allows it all to be found, and searched, in the future is much more satisfactory. Thanks again. --Nigelj (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

NSA spying at Copenhagen

Snowden revelations of NSA spying on Copenhagen climate talks spark anger, published today in The Guardian. --Nigelj (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I've added some coverage of this to the article. --Nigelj (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Then you want to add this: "both the US and Chinese delegations were "peculiarly well-informed" about closed-door discussions."

Just to maintain NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.109.215 (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 65 external links on 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ IEA (2009-10-06), CO2 emissions from fuel combustion: highlights (2009), IEA
  2. ^ IEA (2009-10-06), CO2 emissions from fuel combustion: highlights (2009), IEA
  3. ^ UNFCCC (2009), Time series (Annex I): Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions with Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, UNFCCC
  4. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference_2009&oldid=331252609
  5. ^ http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/15/content_10661955.htm
  6. ^ http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/15/content_10661955.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference/Archive_2&oldid=1142398038"