Summitry, solving international diplomatic disputes through summits, is claimed to have started by Versailles Summit in 1919. Not all summits achieve their objectives, however, something that is not usually conceded by the “developed countries” who are the major actors in decision making at such summits, since they foot the bill of the outcome. At the Copenhagen Summit this seems to be the case once again.

Global warming – measured with temperature differences between surface and atmosphere; land and ocean; and surface and ocean – is the increase in the average temperature of Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 °C in 100 years during the 20^th century where the scientist still could not reach a consensus on what temperature increase might be accepted – the acceptable level of warming are assumed to serve as a guideline for CO₂ reduction. Most of the observed temperature increase was very likely caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.

An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, probably including expansion of subtropical deserts. Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects include changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, species extinctions, changes in agricultural yields, water scarcity, and some other adverse health effects from warmer temperatures. The regions with temperate rises are projected to experience many deaths from heat exposure. Global warming also is expected to create economic effects such as income inequalities between and within countries and very volatile prices causing fast shifts among different markets.

The UN Climate summit recently held in Copenhagen had initially aimed at limiting temperature rises to 1.5°C and cut CO₂ emissions by 80% by 2050. Instead, after lengthy discussions, the summit only agreed to keep temperature rises below 2°C, but did not contain commitments for reduced CO₂ emissions that would be necessary to achieve that aim. One part of the agreement pledges US$ 30 billion to the developing world over the next three years, rising to US$ 100 billion per year by 2020, to help poor countries adapt to climate change after long discussions on the climate cash. But US$100 billion is only half the amount poor countries need and one of the most developed countries, Canada, refuses to contribute to this fund. Besides the main decisions, the agreement also set up a forestry deal which is hoped would significantly reduce deforestation in return for cash.

Countries such as China and India have merely promised to cut their amount of CO₂ emitted for each dollar of economic activity-carbon intensity, however, they refuse to commit to any absolute reduction targets with any good reason. Not much is expected from India where 400 million people have no access to electricity and 90 percent of the rural population burn twigs, leaves, cow dung and agricultural residue for cooking barely two meals a day.

On the other hand, U.S. has refused to increase its cuts by pointing to the political situation in Washington.

A real deal would have been so important for the world, the critics said; but the leaders of the developed countries have failed to deliver during the summit due to their worries for not being able to impose the promises to their countries. This summit have arisen the thoughts that the industrial development will continue serving the developed countries while less developed countries and the environment suffers from the pollution and the climate change causing loses in the agricultural production.

In conclusion, the most recent summit has shown that the solving international disputes through summits may not work if the citizens of the countries refuse to make concessions from biased use of the resources and do not support a fairer world.

If you’re shopping online this Valentine’s Day, you may want to check out Mr. Rebates for ways to save at your favorite stores. All you need to do is sign up at Mr. Rebates by clicking here, choose your favorite store to shop at and make a purchase. It usually takes 3-5 days for Mr. Rebates to credit your account.

If you have friends or family that would like to join Mr. Rebates, you can send them your referral link. You will get 20% of the rebates earned fro their sign up PLUS earn an extra $5.00 USD Valentine’s Day Bonus.

Why does Associated Content rejects articles? The following is one of the reason given by an Associated Content editor for rejecting an article for upfront payment:

“AC is building a unique library of online content, and this submission doesn’t differ enough in topic or breadth from existing content. Content on this topic is too common and widely available online.”

While I do understand the need to build a unique library of online content, I cannot understand why AC will still accept the same article for page view payment only. If the article is not unique enough for upfront payment, what makes the same article unique enough for page view only payments?

What to do with a rejected article?

If your article was rejected you could:

Rewrite it using a different keyword and/or keyphrases and resubmit it for upfront payment.

I had a few articles that was rejected by AC that I’ve rewritten and resubmitted. I was able to get upfront payment but sometimes the payment offer was so low that I decided it just wasn’t worth it.

Submit the article for page view only payment

Associated Content offers between $1.00 per 1000 views to $2.00 per page views depending on your “clout” level. While I do think it’s a good way to earn, I found that shopping around for a better offer is usually the best way to go.

Submit the article to a different content site

Since AC rejects articles for not being “unique” enough for their library, I it is best to try to use another online content library. I have submitted articles to sites such as Triond (50% adsense sharing revenue plus page view payments) and InfoBarrel (75% adsense sharing revenue) with much better results.

The story of human beings survival efforts starts with collecting fruits and other eatables from nature and continues through a stage at which they produce goods by using the resources of labor and nature. In the following time, they were able to produce some tools that helped them to produce easier and more which meant killing much bigger animals and

cutting huge trees to open cultivating areas, etcetera. The creativity in thought provided humankind with an advantage against nature to be more powerful and destructive.

Improving production tools caused higher levels of economic development, a comfort for human race to generate higher population which exhibits a logarithmic increase in time and need for a larger share in the world to be stolen from nature; however, nature sometimes sends warnings which are called “disaster” by people. These interdependent destructions reach higher levels while mankind is very determined to improve its techniques to produce more for the society in which individuals have a motivation that producing more than needs allows them to be more powerful. It can easily be remembered the idea of “Producing more than your individual needs” from the success factors of the industrial revolution and the principles of capitalism.

An interesting finding about the fight between humankind and nature is Malthusian Law which explains the relation between the population and economic development. In times of high population, due to the scarcity in resources, economic recessions bring about a decrease in population which means more people dies; in times of low population, nature allows humans to develop and breed higher population. Malthusian Law basically implies that a development with a production environment of destructive technologies cannot be sustained.

On the other side of the story, humankind is not only damaging nature around them, but also damaging the psychological nature of humankind. The progressivism in production and level of goods services (progressive economic development) is changing the attitudes of people and leading them to be more ambitious and more destructive to have a better welfare level in their individual lives; even though that may deteriorate social welfare by damaging nature around us. When adding the destruction in human nature to the destructive affects of economic development, a sustainable development which ensures that following generations also can continue this development becomes impossible.

In conclusion, if a sustainable economic development is desired, the history we have already experienced proves that the current situation will not lead us to sustainability. On the contrary, nature will resist humankind’s destructive development and even might destroy it with natural disasters. In order to have sustainability in development, we need to ensure that our production technologies are not destroying nature around us, nature of us and eventually humankind.