Did the U.N.'s IPCC set a horrific example by staging the Bali climate conference?

Question

“The U.N.’s ‘Bali High’ .December 2007 witnessed 15,000 climateers and media descend upon the paradise island resort of Bali for the 13th annual U.N. global warming meeting. The reason for much jet and limo travel — and other prodigious greenhouse gas generating activity associated with such a mega-conference — is relatively modest: setting the agenda and timeframe for a post-Kyoto treaty. Sure seems like something that could have been handled in a less carbon-intensive way — either by Internet and video conferencing or, if meeting is necessary, somewhere in North America or Europe where most key attendees are based.

The 15,000 politicians, activists, MPs, journalists, and civil servants from 180 countries who traveled to Bali for the talks emitted between 60,000 and 100,000 ton of carbon dioxide, according to estimates. This is not far short of what a country like Malawi or Chad emits in a year, the UN said yesterday. The greatest emissions resulted from flights to and from Indonesia, but extra air conditioning and car travel during two weeks of meetings added significantly to the carbon budget.

While all UN delegates and most European government delegates had their flights offset with financial investments in ‘schemes’ which buy up greenhouse emissions, it is not known how many other attendees tried to lessen their impact.”

Answer 1

So when the attendees emitted between 60,000 and 100,000 ton of carbon dioxide in the process of moving towards setting goals of, for example, 50% reduction of carbon emissions by 2050, what would be the net balance, an increase or a decrease over the prior state with no talks?

I'll take a wild guess and say that the carbon reduction will be somewhere on the order of a million times larger then the cost.  I don't get the imrpepssion that you care about the benefit, so I won't bother to estimate the exact benefit-to-cost ratio.

I hope they fly to Tahiti next, then Bora Bora, Maui, the Virgin Islands, and Timbuktu.  They can even clear a nice big patch of rain forest for a meeting and give every attendee a Humvee to take home, as long as they make progress towards an aggressive global carbon reduction plan.

Answer 2

Yeah, you would think they would eat their own dogfood.

Reminds me of the  "Earth Summit 2002" in Johannesburg, South Africa.  They talked about poverty and sustainable development.

"According to the British Sun newspaper, the 60,000 delegates dined on delicacies, including 4,400 pounds of fillet steak, 450 pounds of salmon, more than 1,000 pounds of lobster and shellfish, 1,000 pounds of bacon and sausages, buckets of caviar and piles of pate de foie gras.

"Two miles from the convention center lies one of Johannesburg's poorest slums, Alexandra, where tin shacks line the banks of the polluted Jukski river and children line up for a drink at open standpipes."

-- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1...

The Bali conference could have showed some leadership, by doing everything it could to teleconference and avoid appearing to be complete hypocrites.

But my observation of travel crack junkies, is that anything productive at these meetings is kind of far down the list.

On the bright side, at least they picked a topic no gov't is going to do anything serious about.  When the UN had the brilliant idea to drill wells in Bangledesh without first testing the water for arsenic, they ended up giving a lot of cancer to the people they were "saving".

Sometimes you have to look at these things "glass half full".

Answer 3

You obviously have no experience at meetings of this size, involving people from different countries, languages, and cultures.  Getting the attention of the media (hardly something that would occur using e-mail or video conferencing - which wouldn't even be possible for this many people) is just as important of a goal as anything else they accomplished, because this is an extremely important issue.

Answer 4

Yes.  Global warming appears to be a hoax.  When the UN stated in 2006 that global warming was a fact, they relied on a NASA report for the information on which to base that conclusion.  According to the NASA scientist who actually wrote the report, and unfortunately for the UN's credibility, the UN removed 2 paragraphs from the report.  The first paragraph that the UN removed  said that there was no evidence that greenhouse gases had anything to do with the climate changes we were seeing.  The second paragraph that the UN removed said that there was no evidence that human activities had anything to do with greenhouse gases.

But the UN didn't like that conclusion, so they did what too many people and organizations do when the facts don't fit their pet theories.  They simply removed and ignored the facts that disprove what they wanted to say.

The Bali Climate Conference is simply another attempt by the UN and other organizations to shove the global warming story down our throats, with no regard whatsoever for the effects the falsehoods they are spreading will have on generations yet unborn.  They should be ashamed of themselves.

Answer 5

For a subject of such alleged importance, the responses are "inadequate."  Yes, BB is accusing the alarmists of hypocrisy.  Why is hypocrisy so quickly excused, when the hypocrite is the alarmist?

BB is on target.  They COULD have done things differently.  The conference COULD have had a MUCH smaller carbon footprint.  The people preaching CO2 reduction COULD have made a powerful statement.  Something like,”Global warming is such an important issue that politicians will forfeit a publicly funded South Pacific boondoggle.”  Instead, the message was, "Woo Hoo!  Free Bali vacation!"  You want to prove that it is not a boondoggle?  Hold the conference is Oslo in January.

"Getting the attention of the media . . . is just as important of a goal as anything else they accomplished"  Anyone who reads newspapers or magazines is well aware that the media has reported on global warming ad naseum.  Is yet  another media circus really needed?

"How much carbon do you suppose the Bali conference emitted compared to a coal burning power plant? 15 minutes worth? A whole hour?"  Should I use that logic?  In my whole life, I won't emit as much as the visitors to the conference did.  Is this this a proper measure, or an excuse for hypocrisy?

"Al Gore has a big house, too."  Like 99% of Americans, my lifestyle will generate only a tiny fraction of Al's carbon footprint.  Why would someone concerned about carbon emissions fail to criticize Al?

How about the original question?  In your opinion, did the IPCC set a good example?  Is that what you expect from those who have concerns about global warming?

Answer 6

Al Gore has a big house, too.

None of which changes the scientific facts.  Global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.  The facts which, in other answers, you deny.

So this isn't a real question, but simply a really feeble attempt to cast doubt on global warming science.  And one which makes clear the fact that deniers have no valid scientific arguments.

Answer 7

No--they did not "set a horrific example."    People  still need to go places and do things.  And not doing things is not what environmentalism is about--except to the political right and a few crackpots.

The solutions to our environmental problems aren't to be found in such silliness. They require intelligence, innovation, and work-.  The kind of propaganda you are spreading originated in the false information issued by the fossil fuel industry.

The changes we need DO NOT involve "doing without"--but rather, "doing differently."  Not  cutting lifestyle--but using eneregy efficient technology that gives us MORE for our money. Not restricting energy, but producing it cleanly.  Not abandoning travel--but finding was to do so with less fuel use.

Thats what REAL engineers and scientists have been doing. todays aircraft use 20% less fuel.  That kind of thing--and not kooks whining about some people having a conference--is what will solve te problems.

Answer 8

No.  Have you ever tried to have a 15,000+ person video conference?

Didn't think so.

Answer 9

Reminds me of my employer's national paperwork reduction policy.Instead of pining  a copy on the bulletin board or e-mailing.They simply placed, 3 thousand copies on a table...bureaucracy at work.People just don't realize the lack of insight, governments and big business have.