Can the upcoming Copenhagen Climate Change Meeting offer realistic proposals for mitigating, terminating, or even reversing climate changes?  The almost certain answer is a resounding No. 

Most likely the discussions and final recommendations will be limited to the typical response by politicians; reduce emissions by 30, 40, or 50 percent in a distant year, preferably far in the future.  Nobody of the proposing and consenting representatives will have the foggiest notion anyhow what such a commitment might necessitate.  However, every representative of the many visiting delegations will go home with a feeling of accomplishment. 

After all, they just attended an important meeting, listened to many talks, and were reminded that the Earth could soon be confronted with a tipping point, a major climatic or economic event, after which mitigation will not be feasible any longer and after which only adaptation to a miserable future remains a realistic option.

Should world citizens not expect more and demand other, more promising, more inspired prospects for future generations and for their offspring?

Unfortunately, mitigation is expensive.  Additionally, only one single concept has been proposed that can indeed halt global warming and prevent resulting climate changes.  The Kyoto Protocol is not even about adaptation; it is all about capitulation to the continuing overheating of planet Earth.  Kyoto can only slow global heating.  Kyoto and its derivatives cannot stop it.

Copenhagen may result in agreements of imposing carbon taxes, utilizing carbon dioxide sequestration, retarding economic activities, restricting energy use, curtailing greenhouse gas emissions, and slowing global warming. 

Using a muscle car or an economy car, idling it in a garage, and closing the garage door to commit suicide delivers the same end result; death by blood poisoning.  Emitting fewer deadly gases temporarily does not affect the end result; only the time, leading to the same, certain death, changes.

The wealth of developed countries like the USA, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany is based on the very high, accumulative energy usage of their industries and people.  These countries have used immense amounts of fossil fuel energy to build huge infrastructures for their industries, transportation systems, information systems, energy supply systems, manufacturing facilities, and for day to day use by their businesses and citizens.

After decades of denying the effects of advancing industrialization and escalating energy use on the Earth’s climate, a vast majority of scientists and governments is beginning to admit that fossil fuel combustion is the root cause of global warming and climate changes. 

Consensus is building that the present level of fossil energy consumption is resulting in continuing carbon dioxide emissions, which in turn are resulting in increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere.  Endless discharges of carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels are much larger than the amounts that can be removed by natural processes like absorption in oceans and freshwaters. 

Any excess carbon dioxide production, which cannot be removed, stays in the Earth’s atmosphere and cannot be retrieved anymore.  The steadily accumulating concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide are changing the flows of energy from the Sun to our Earth and from Earth to Outer Space.  As a result, the Earth is slowly heating up.  Average global temperatures are increasing and will eventually lead to the death by overheating of many biological species and systems. 

The only viable solution for eliminating the threat of an incipient tipping or turning point is the immediate cessation of all fossil fuel burning!  Such a tipping point can manifest itself in a variety of disguises.  It may be a climatic event like e.g. a change in the path of the Gulf Stream, the slide of a huge ice slab into the ocean, or an economic crisis like e.g. the worldwide lack of economic resources for ending fossil fuel combustion and for replacing fossil energies with renewable and sustainable solar energies and biomass.

All presently proposed approaches for controlling global warming and climate changes are based on an ill conceived concept that is fundamentally flawed and is incapable of saving Earth from overheating!

The proof of this statement is rather simple.  Increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by excessive fossil fuel burning.  World economies must continue their growth; they cannot prosper without increasing their energy consumption by burning ever more fossil fuels.  Without continuing economic growth, world economies will not be able to implement a radical change in energy supplies by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energies.

There is no other choice; fossil fuel energy supplies must be replaced completely with energies from the Sun and from nuclear fuels!

Such a changeover is technically possible and can be accomplished as long as world economies are allowed to prosper and grow.  Only healthy economies, which are performing productively and are growing strongly, can provide the financial and industrial resources needed for changing global world energy supplies and ending fossil fuel combustion.

This changeover will be expensive and will require a long time for implementation.  World governments must agree to this solution soon.  The earlier the changeover is started, the more likely it is that this changeover can be implemented on time.  Saving energy without increasing energy costs will assist in making the change.  Rationing energy supplies and increasing energy costs will slow economies and will be counterproductive.

Adhering to the concepts of the Kyoto Treaty will sentence our Earth to a slow death by global overheating, inundation of coastal areas, and economic and cultural decay.

Copenhagen must wake up and must lay the foundations for a different, more promising and more prosperous future.

Most likely the discussions and final recommendations will be limited to the typical response by politicians; reduce emissions by 30, 40, or 50 percent in a distant year, preferably far in the future.  Nobody of the proposing and consenting representatives will have the foggiest notion anyhow what such a commitment might necessitate.  However, every representative of the many visiting delegations will go home with a feeling of accomplishment. 

After all, they just attended an important meeting, listened to many talks, and were reminded that the Earth could soon be confronted with a tipping point, a major climatic or economic event, after which mitigation will not be feasible any longer and after which only adaptation to a miserable future remains a realistic option.

Should world citizens not expect more and demand other, more promising, more inspired prospects for future generations and for their offspring?

Unfortunately, mitigation is expensive.  Additionally, only one single concept has been proposed that can indeed halt global warming and resulting climate changes.  The Kyoto Protocol is not even about adaptation; it is all about capitulation to the continuing overheating of planet Earth.  Kyoto can only slow global heating.  Kyoto and its derivatives cannot stop it.

Imposing carbon taxes, utilizing carbon dioxide sequestration, slowing economic activities, restricting energy use, and curtailing greenhouse gas emissions will slow global warming.  Using a large car or a small car for committing suicide by idling it in a garage does not change the end result; it only changes the time leading to certain death.

The wealth of developed countries like the USA, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany is based on the very high energy usage of their industries and individuals in the past and nowadays.  These countries have used immense amounts of fossil fuel energy to build huge infrastructures for their industries, transportation systems, information systems, energy supply systems, manufacturing facilities, and for day to day use by their businesses and citizens.

After decades of denying the effects of advancing industrialization and escalating energy use on the Earth’s climate, a vast majority of scientists and governments is beginning to admit that fossil fuel combustion is the root cause of global warming and climate changes. 

Consensus is building that the present level of fossil energy consumption is resulting in continuing carbon dioxide emissions, which in turn are resulting in increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere.  Endless discharges of carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels are much larger than the amounts that can be removed by natural processes like absorption in oceans and freshwaters. 

Any excess carbon dioxide production, which cannot be removed, stays in the Earth’s atmosphere and cannot be retrieved anymore.  The resulting, higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are changing the flows of energy from the Sun to our Earth and from Earth to Outer Space.  As a result, the Earth is slowly heating up.  Average global temperatures are increasing and will eventually lead to the death by overheating of many biological species and systems. 

The only viable solution for eliminating the threat of an incipient tipping or turning point is the immediate cessation of all fossil fuel burning!  Such a tipping point can either be a climatic event like e.g. a change in the path of the Gulf Stream, the descent of a huge ice slab into the ocean, or an economic condition like e.g. the worldwide lack of economic resources for ending fossil fuel combustion and for replacing fossil energies with renewable and sustainable solar energies and biomass.

All presently proposed approaches for controlling global warming and climate changes are based on an ill conceived concept that is fundamentally flawed and is incapable of saving Earth from overheating!

The proof of this statement is rather simple.  Increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused by excessive fossil fuel burning.  World economies must continue their growth; they cannot prosper without increasing their energy consumption by burning ever more fossil fuels.  Without continuing economic growth, world economies will not be able to implement a radical change in energy supplies by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energies.

There is no other choice; fossil fuel energy supplies must be replaced completely with energies from the Sun and from nuclear fuels.

Such a changeover is technically possible and can be accomplished as long as world economies are allowed to prosper and grow.  Only while economies are performing productively and are growing strongly can the resources needed for changing world energy supplies be provided without forcing the world into a lasting depression.

This changeover will be expensive and will require a long time for implementation.  World governments must agree to this solution soon.  The earlier the changeover is started, the more likely it is that this changeover can be implemented on time.  Saving energy without increasing energy costs will assist in making the change.  Rationing energy supplies and increasing energy costs will slow economies and will be counterproductive.

Adhering to the concepts of the Kyoto Treaty will sentence our Earth to a slow death by global overheating, inundation of coastal areas, and economic and cultural decay.