[LINK] Internet enhanced meetings for post-Copenhagen

[Marghanita da Cruz]

Stephen Wilson wrote:
> The Copenhagen meeting had a chance of working.  My point is that 
> negotiating tough issues over the Internet has no chance at all of 
> working given the state of the techniology (not to mention the 
> unfamiliarity of the participants).
> 
> Roger, if you're impugning the motives of the majority of the Copenhagen 
> participants as having more to do with frequent flyer points than 
> genuine interest in climate change, then that's a level of cynicism that 
> is truly self defeating.
> 
> Plenty of very good people went with realistic hopes of a meaningful 
> outcome.  The failure of the conference can be attributed to many 
> complex factors, but surely nobody could contend that the result would 
> have been better if they used video conferencing and Google wave? 
> 
<snip>
At least if they were using google wave
and video conferencig, they wouldn't be
flying or driving their large vehicles.
Perhaps you would like to report on the
results of Kyoto....

Loss of Biodivesity, was the subject of 
an earlier CoP
>In 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, in Johannesburg, addressed biological diversity in Chapter IV, paragraph 44, of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. The Johannesburg Summit also endorsed the target to achieve, by 2010, a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at global, regional and national levels as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth, which had some months earlier been adopted by the sixth meeting of the CBD Conference of Parties (COP).
<http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/susdevtopics/sdt_biodiversity.shtml>

> [In 2009] This [Land Clearing] is the most severe* pressure, affecting about 60% of classes.
> Abatement is due to introduction of the NV Act and increases in reservation of significant areas of some classes.
> Intensification is due to coastal and urban development and expansion of plantations and cropping. 
<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soe/soe2009/chapter7/chp_7.1.htm#7.1.43>

After all it isn't the negotiation it is
the results that count .. more from the
PBS...
> RAY SUAREZ: At one point, the conference was looking for one victory that it could seize on and say, well, at least we got this done.
> 
> But everything was so, as you suggest, tightly interwoven, that there was no one thing that you could agree on while other things were still left to be carried out in the future. So, the money -- well, yes, Japan offered $15 billion right away. The United States offered an undetermined sum and promised to help raise $100 billion by 2020. But everything else was left undefined and unresolved.
> 
> Yes, the West agreed, the wealthy industrial nations agreed to targets, but they couldn't talk about near-term targets, only ones that are very far away, like 2050. And what you got the sense of was that people were thinking of CO-2 like it was a national asset, not asset, but something possessed nationally, like China's CO-2 would stay above China, instead of it being the world's CO-2 that, once it's belched out into the atmosphere, it kind of belongs to everybody and it's everybody's problem.
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec09/climate_12-21.html>

And as to familiarity, I thought that
was the whole point of Web 2.0 and
social networking, particularly in a
democracy.

Marghanita
-- 
Marghanita da Cruz
http://ramin.com.au
Tel: 0414-869202