As more and more research is released about the dramatic and sometimes sudden changes the Earth’s climate has experienced long before the Industrial Age, it has become clear that many of those who have gathered here have their climate belief system and they are unwilling to accept any challenges to it, and are not very interested in the realities of historical climatology.  The blinders they have put on allow them to continue to pursue their goals with a religious fervor.

The choice of Denmark as the location of these historic talks is of interest as well.  Denmark was  home to many of the Vikings that built wealth in the middle ages through pillage, conquest, and the settling of new lands that became available because of a distinct and sudden warming pattern called the Medieval Warming Period.  And yet Denmark is also home to multinational corporations and banks that have spent billions preparing to make billions more from the establishment of a cap and trade regime.

Denmark stands to lose if this new climate movement loses steam.  The windmills that dot the skyline here are a testament not only to the  dedication to the cause, but also the vast investment.

Windmills are good and we should invest in more and ensure they are part of our energy mix and energy solution. But we also need to look at affordable technology that is available and affordable now.  The U.S. needs to get religion about energy security and reliability.  Let’s start looking realistically at the problem and we can take realistic action.

This display by developing countries gets to the heart of the major obstacle facing the climate negotiators, which is what exactly is the role and responsibility of developing and developed countries if a truly effective international agreement to reduce global greenhouse emissions is to be reached.  Developing countries argue that historically the majority of emissions have come from developed countries as they industrialized their economies.   Therefore, developed countries bear the responsibility to more aggressively reduce their emissions. Further, there is an expectation that developed countries must financially assist developing countries in transitioning to low carbon technology and mitigating the impacts of climate change.

Developed countries worry that since developing countries are expected to account for over two-thirds of the emissions growth over the next thirty years, they must agree to binding reductions.  The rift between the U.S. and China highlights this divide.  The U.S. is demanding real reductions by China and third party verification of its reductions.  China is resisting both demands, as well as efforts to create a new status for emerging economies like India and China that would be separate from developing countries, opening the door to requiring mandatory reductions from them.

It is unlikely that these issues will be resolved when the negotiations conclude at the end of the week.  The role of developed and developing countries is sure to dominate the legislative debate in the U.S. when Congress takes up climate change legislation again after the New Year.

For more information, read about the 2009 CRWUA Annual Conference.

Click to learn more about the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, or visit the Consumer Energy Alliance for information on current energy and energy policy issues.

Click to read this op-ed and learn more about what an LCFS could mean for Montana and the United States.