Copenhagen's Carbon Debt

How many greenhouse gas emissions does negotiating a climate change treaty take? David Biello reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[Crowd Noise] That's the sound of climate change negotiations—and CO2 being released. All this talking is a seemingly significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and not just because negotiators have traveled to Copenhagen from all corners of the globe.

Whether it be the jets of world leaders—or shutting down the city to proceed in motorcades—transportation contributes 25 percent of global emissions. Then there's the vital warm and cozy hotels to house us here in this wintry town. In fact, the government of Denmark estimates that this climate conference will produce in its two weeks the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of more than 600,000 Ethiopians.

The bulk of that is the more than 46,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide that comes just from all the flights into and out of Copenhagen airport. But the Danes have a plan. They've sent enough cash to Bangladesh to replace 20 old, heavily polluting brick factories with more modern facilities, which will lead to an annual savings of some 100,000 metric tons of CO2.

Of course, the only thing that would really justify all this "hot air" is a global, binding, verifiable, equitable agreement to combat climate change. But achieving that is a lot harder than buying a new brick factory in Bangladesh.--David Biello, from Copenhagen 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe