It just makes sense

The potential for a Copenhagen climate deal is apparently hinging on a formula by which rich countries would compensate poor countries for development that is less carbon intensive -- and the poor countries say it's only fair, because the rich countries got rich on cheap energy, i.e., burning fossil fuels.

Unsurprisingly, I agree that they have a point. The problem is, will the rich countries see the wisdom in ponying up? Unsurprisingly, I think the answer is NO.

Rich-poor divide could be Copenhagen climate 'deal-breaker'

While most officials remained positive about a climate deal being reached at the December 7-18 summit, [Jeremy] Hobbs' [executive director of Oxfam International] comments highlighted a growing concern that efforts to replace the Kyoto protocol could be hampered by the problems of securing agreement between developed and developing countries.

"Things are looking possible, but this is a potential spanner in the works," Hobbs said. "This could be a deal breaker."

Many leaders of developing countries at the conference pleaded for help to switch to cleaner energies, saying their countries were hardest hit by a crisis the developed world helped to create.

Now, when you read the following:

Cutting Non-CO2 Pollutants Can Delay Abrupt Climate Change, Solve 'Fast Half' of Climate Problem

which says:

"Cutting HFCs, black carbon, tropospheric ozone, and methane can buy us about 40 years before we approach the dangerous threshold of 2°C (3.6°F) warming," said co-author Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a distinguished professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego."

and it also says:

"Like black carbon, ground level or tropospheric ozone doubles as a major climate forcer and health hazard. It also lowers crop yields. A recent study reported that ozone's damage to crop yields in 2000 resulted in an economic loss of up to $26 billion annually. It is formed by "ozone precursor" gases such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, methane and other hydrocarbons, many of which can be reduced by improving the efficiency of industrial combustion processes. Reducing tropospheric ozone by 50 percent could buy another decade's worth of time for countries to start making substantial cuts in CO2."

The report also recommends biochar for carbon sequestration. Seems simple enough; grow plants, pyrolize them, bury them. Grow more plants, pyrolize them, bury them. Repeat as necessary. Someone just needs to bioengineer a super fast-growing tree that grows like a weed and can be cut and burned like a crop.

So give the developing countries clean energy technology and help them produce biochar. Seems simple enough to me.