Right now everybody's focused on Copenhagen: the United Nations Climage Change Conference started there on Monday.I'm unclear about the contours of the conference: I think the official meetings last for only two weeks, but that afterwards the negotiators will continue to work on an agreement. Is that the way these big global conferences typically work?
In today's Times, John Broder reports (here) that a major point of contention is deciding on the amount of money that industrialized nations will give to developing nations to help them reduce their carbon emissions:
The industrialized countries have proposed a relatively modest fund of about $10 billion a year for each of the next three or four years to help poorer countries adapt. But even that effort remains the subject of conflict over which countries should contribute how much, what body should oversee the spending and how to determine which projects qualify for finance.379. Which country is the most aggressive in terms of moving towards renewable energy? Is it one of the Scandinavian countries? France (with their large nuclear industry)? Or a country you might not expect, like Japan or South Korea?
380. How many American delegates are in Copenhagen? Is this the largest international gathering of the year? Or would there have been more people at the G-20 meetings?
381. Which of the renewable energy technologies currently gets the most federal investment money in the US: wind, solar, nuclear, or hydropower?
382. What percentage of the electricity used in Virginia is generated at the Lake Anna nuclear plant?
Sarah Palin has a poorly written and poorly argued op-ed in today's Post (here) in which she argues that the rush to control carbon emissions will negatively impact the global economy. She writes that "any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs." Is she freaking kidding?
