Climate change...what is going to happen when CO2 levels do not decrease...?

Well we are going to see since I too believe there is no chance of CO2 levels flattening out let alone reducing any time soon. That would take a massive shift in how we generate power. The most likely scenario for that would be a very large commitment to nuclear energy by most if not all major energy consuming nations.

Edit: Modest Proposal, it seems you have a very different view of international agreements. First, nations will show up regardless of how committed they are to whatever is on the agenda. You have to consider the negative optics of a nation "opting out" of a meeting.

Secondly, nations can even sign agreements yet not meet their commitments due to many reasons. They might simply have signed to appear in agreement at the time, their internal government may change afterwards, they may look at other countries who are also not meeting obligations, they may change their position, it might simply be low on national priorities, etc., etc.

Nothing going to happen really. To the Earth OR by way of International Agreement.

At 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere the contribution of CO2 to Global Temperatures is meaningless. At 0.05% it will be meaningless. And at 0.06 when we run out of fossil fuels it will STILL be meaningless.

And this is why there is no political will to actually change CO2 emissions.

Because CO2 emissions ARE cheap energy that Modern Civilization runs on. There is just no rational reason for political leaders to put their Nations at a disadvantage in the International economy.

It's all very simple once you understand that AGW is a RELIGION.

On a National level Politicians have ALWAYS used Religion to manage their own Societies. AGW is just a great excuse for Socialists to raise taxes & gain the much coveted social control.

Nationally 'Cap & Trade' would increase Obama's political control.

International 'Cap & Trade' would hand this power over to a UN committee.

It's the Church of England. Kings do not want to cede power to the Pope.

This is why YOU are supposed to BELIEVE. But the powers that be do NOT.

Do you think people like Al Gore and Barrack Obama BELIEVE?

Barrack Obama took a Jumbo Jet, plus decoy, plus fighter escort to the Copenhagen conference which he COULD have attended virtually.

Odd behaviour for a champion of carbon restraint?

It's like the Pope renouncing materialism then living in a palace.

It's like Al Gore giant carbon footprint.

The problem with an international agreement is it's trying to use Religion to TAKE power from those who've used it to GAIN power.

Nothing will happen to the Environment because AGW is Religion rather than Science. And Nothing will come from the Global conferences because it's a bunch of Atheistic Kings attending religious ceremonies for public display.

We're not trying to decrease atmospheric CO2 in the short-term (hopefully eventually technological advancements will make this practical in the future). What we're trying to do right now is slow and eventually stop the atmospheric CO2 increase, hopefully before it goes beyond about 450 ppm.

If our efforts fail, 'living with' the CO2 increase and associated climate change will be exceptionally difficult. It will require mass migrations as various regions such as the southwestern USA become essentially uninhabitable. It's easy to say 'parts of Canada will become more habitable, so people can just move there', it's a lot harder to actually do it. And there's really not much we can do to prepare for it in the meantime. It's going to be exceptionally costly. The Stern Review found that adapting to climate change will cost 5-20% of global GDP every year if we allow this scenario to happen. You're basically talking about a world where we're forced to devote most of our resources to this sort of adaption.

We really have no option but to try and prevent this scenario by reducing greenhouse gas emissions now. Copenhagen was basically a failure, but that doesn't mean future negotiations must be. And even though international agreements are challenging, individual nations are still taking actions to reduce emissions. Democrats in the USA are still working hard to put a price on carbon. China is taking steps to convert to more renewable energy. Europe already has a carbon cap and trade system in place. There's no reason to throw in the towel just yet.

Considering that international agreements actually are in favor of cutting CO2 emissions, I disagree with your assertion that there is no political movement and that CO2 emissions will not level off/decrease in the future. The Kyoto Protocol was a great example of international agreement, albeit the US decided to opt out (the only developed country that did).

I think it's also telling how so many countries come to these international meetings.

>>>Shouldn't we be concentrating on measures to live with..or even benefit from rising CO2 levels.

Hiding the problem does not fix it. Global warming could have drastic impacts on agriculture, weather patterns, oceanic life, migration patterns of animals, etc. that we cannot just so easily adapt to. Addressing the problem and trying to solve it is a much less costly approach that will save us a lot of time, energy and money in the long run as contrasted to just dismissing it and citing adaptation as the goal.

Seebob, Ottawa - points taken. I suppose I am in a way an optimist (erroneously) on current actions. However, I still believe that our focus should not be upon just adapting to a growing problem, but fixing it before the effects magnify.

I'm going to be very direct with you. Climate change is like a chain reaction- once it has started, it will not stop. Climate change is already occuring- how humans act will determine the extent to which climate change occurs.

Even if CO2 levels in the atmosphere were to flatten out immediatly, the process is already in motion and the temperatures will increase to rise over many decades, which means that, for example, the level of artic ice will continue to dissipate rapidly.

Having studied climate change deeply in my A-level studies, I PERSONALLY believe that we are now beyond the point of reducing CO2 levels. The damage is already done. Of course, it is necessary that we reduce CO2 levels so that the effects of climate change do not exceed the levels that we will experience in the near future. We must also learn how to live in a world in which its natural processes have been drastically altered.

I agree with your viewpoint to a certain extent, but I believe that drastic action is needed to curb the effects of climate change. We need to take action now to mitigate the effects of future climate change- this can only be achieved through a process known as geoengineering e.g. artificial trees on a mass scale that remove CO2 from the atmosphere

I am sick of this c02 thing. co2 is an inert gas that PLANTS need. CO, carbon monoxide is what you should be concerned about. the atmosphere has 78% nitrogen in it it is INERT also.

First, the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is pitiful.

Second, plants absorb more CO2 when more is available.

So, your worst case scenario is that plants grow faster, which isn't a bad thing, unless you're trying to maintain your lawn at the edge of the jungle.

CO2 will not decrease until the earth stops warming. The increased temperature acts as a catalyst that increases the rate of oxidation of the biomasses on land and in the sea. The result of oxidation is CO2 and water.

Man made CO2 Is one hundred times less than naturally produced CO2 and therefore has practically no impact on the overall levels of CO2.

CO2 levels were ten times what they are now, millions of years ago. It fluctuates up and down.

why is everything that is green, ends up being worse for the enviromnemtn