I own shares in coal for export ventures. The developing world is going flat-out with new coal fired power plants. No climate conferences are going to stop that. Exporting CO2 emitters by becoming non-competitive economically isn't going to do anything to stop CO2 either.
As far as I see the politics, there are only two practical choices they can make;
1. Create political environments which escalate the development of technologies to manage CO2 with the return on investment being able to maximise habitat, food productivity, food security, provide assurity of species longevity, ability to moderate natural climate change, renewable energy, and energy security.
2. Do nothing and manage the effects (both positive and negative) as they arise.
The bumbling reality has been, and probably will continue to be somewhere in between, but hopefully as humanity learns to deal with the issue the bumbling will decrease. Currently, the politics seems incapable of fulfilling option 1 on a global scale, but the risks involved in leaving it all up to option 2 are too great for most politicians to bear.
As it seems, many here would think that another 500 years of unabated CO2 emissions bringing about four digit atmospheric CO2 concentrations in record time, will have no significant adverse impacts. And, to a degree of reasonable risk assessment, I beg to differ, but mindful of media scare campaigns which are more about the politics and selling news than constructive planning.
