Slashdot Mirror
UN Summit Strikes Climate Deal Promising "Damage Aid" To Poor Nations
Hugh Pickens writes writes "BBC reports that UN climate talks in Doha have closed, with a historic shift in principle agreed to by nearly 200 nations, extending the Kyoto Protocol through 2020 and establishing for the first time that rich nations should move towards compensating poor nations for losses due to climate change. Until now rich nations have agreed to help developing countries to get clean energy and adapt to climate change, but they have stopped short of accepting responsibility for damage caused by climate change elsewhere. 'It is a breakthrough,' says Martin Khor of the South Center — an association of 52 developing nations. 'The term Loss and Damage is in the text — this is a huge step in principle. Next comes the fight for cash.' U.S. negotiators made certain that neither the word 'compensation,' nor any other term connoting legal liability, was used, to avoid opening the floodgates to litigation – instead, the money will be judged as aid. Ronny Jumea, from the Seychelles, told rich nations earlier that discussion of compensation would not have been needed if they had cut emissions earlier. 'We're past the mitigation [emissions cuts] and adaptation eras. We're now right into the era of loss and damage. What's next after that? Destruction?' While the United States has not adopted a comprehensive approach to climate change, the Obama administration has put in place a significant auto emissions reduction program and a plan to regulate carbon dioxide from new power plants. 'What this meeting reinforced is that while this is an important forum, it is not the only one in which progress can and must be made,' says Jennifer Haverkamp, director of the international climate programs at the Environmental Defense Fund. The disconnect between the level of ambition the parties are showing here and what needs to happen to avoid dangerous climate change is profound.'"
With this, we see their real purpose.
Climate change.... Well, it's always changing, so the money will always have to flow. Another unending stream.
What a shock.
Dear Seychelles,
We are sincerely sorry that your small island nation has been covered over by the Indian Ocean.
Attached is a coupon for 10% off any Boeing or Raytheon product. Simply print the coupon and present it at your local dealership to redeem.
Best wishes,
The United States of America
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I want to know where all of this "compensation" is going to come from. Our debt to gdp ratio is approaching 100 percent and rising, and the Europeans aren't exactly in good shape either. I don't know how Europeans feel, but I think when there is a choice between maintaining social security, medicare, and the military or giving money to brown people in a foreign country, Americans will choose the former.
WikiLeaks reveals US bribes help stop climate action
What an idiotic comment. Rich countries have generally contributed to the problem far more than the rest, but the rest will (and are) facing the brunt if the problems. Sandy was bad, but others have had it worse. This principle has been around for decades but rich countries have dragged their feet in doing anything I even this latest deal doesn't amount to much. The charade is the rich countries pretending that they are concerned.
clear cutting the rainforest was a net co2 producer. Who will collect that fine?
Best off, just like I recall my grandfather to say... ,even if it is a round about way. Charity starts at home.
"Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S."
Because we know the only real agenda of the Mickey Mouse Club is for U.S. hating countries to manipulate and bleed the U.S.(although it's been handy to screw with Israel too)
Gosh, if so many countries get together and decide what other countries should do, well that just makes it official,yup,yup,yup.
That beautiful building could be used to house homeless, then it wouldn't be a total waste of time.
Let the poor and foolish countries be cared for by the rich and socialist countries China,Russia, S.A., Dubai, etc. That is their gig after all.
Pretty sure they are big offenders anyway
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Nope, it's take from the rich and give it to the richest individuals, but the money first needs to pass through the most corrupt countries in the world to make it untraceable.
There are two different stories here. One says that wealthier nations will offer humanitarian aid to disaster struck areas, the other claims that general compensation is due for damages. Two completely different things, and the actual facts of the matter seem to be more towards humanitarian aid.
This is why people think climate change is just a huge scam masquerading as an environmental cause.
It's like a situation where rich people are sending their sewage down the river to where the poor people live for 200 years, and when the poor eventually say "pay up for the damages", shortly before being completely immersed in the stuff, it's "class warfare". Yeah, it is in a way. But only because one side finally realized they were getting completely screwed over and decided to do something about it. If the alternative is for poor countries to keep getting steamrolled, then I'm all for "class warfare". This isn't a money grab, it's paying dues for services already rendered (i.e. the global atmosphere and oceans absorbing ~200 years worth of CO2 input from industrialized countries). We in the industrialized countries have been getting globally-subsidized mitigation of our pollution by being able to spread it out everywhere rather than having to contain it inside our own countries.
It's a by product of the UN requiring consensus from every nation to pass anything. The smaller nations know we're not going to stop increasing global carbon emissions (and maybe believe they can continue on mostly as usual) so hope they can get some money out of the process. And it's pretty convenient for the US as they can justify doing nothing on the basis of the UN being ineffectual. Meanwhile China says it doesn't apply to them (despite being the biggest global emitter) because they didn't get to poison the planet in the first place so they deserve their turn (In UN terms that's referred to as "equity"). I recommend http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U/ for the current numbers. Basically if we want a planet that looks remotely like the comfortable one we occupy now we'd need to peak carbon emissions soon (before 2020) and start reducing at unheard of rates. Instead most of the planet has no intention of stopping, some of the nations just want to get some money out of it, and a small group (15% of global emissions) are trying to cut their emissions by numbers that are a small fraction of what would be needed globally. We're pretty much guaranteed to blow through any manageable carbon trajectory in the next decade. Probably sooner because most of the news out of the climate scientists is bad and that they may have badly underestimated how sensitive the system is. Be thankful though, we'll basically get to watch mankind fumble their first highly probable global crisis (barring miracle discoveries or climate science being wrong in a good way) which should be entertaining. Given the current prediction is 4c by by 2050 (twice the "acceptably dangerous" level of 2c, 6c by 2100) we'll even get to see many of the effects start to kick in.
hypocrite. the use of coal and oil fueled western civilization and increased average human lifespan by over two times, Modern material, medicine, health, food, all the blessing of hydrocarbon fuel. you are alive and well fed because of it. without it you would likely be dead already.
yes, we need to go to something else with little pollution, like well designed nuclear power reactors. but the planet has been made better for humans by fossil fuel
science can be and has been "wrong", scientists welcome a better model or falsification of an accepted one. Letting scientifically ignorant politicians use science to push an agenda invoving restribution of wealth, that is folly.
These countries need to be dissolved and integrated with another. Things are just going to get worse. What's better, preserving a nations identity or preventing the inevitable extinction of it?
Oh, that works out all the time. Look at the history of, say, the Middle East and Africa. Historical political boundaries chopped up by England and France (with a little help from other largely European countries) starting before WWI and going on to the present day. Trying to make larger political entities from little ones doesn't actually usually work. The US, India and China appear to be the major 'success' stories using this schema. Russia, not so much.
It's a pretty slow, messy process and nobody has any sort of idea how to make it work. Not that the US hasn't tried.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You seriously need to learn some history, Germany and Italy would be a good place to start.
Also the origins of the word 'balkanization'.
There is only so long the third world can blame the Brits, especially if they are still using the British built railways.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Israel will die within 100 years. An average increase of 4 degrees C translates into a much greater increase over land because the earth is 70% covered by water and the temperature won't change as much over water. In the Mediterranean, that average 4C increase should translate into a 9C overland increase. Israel routinely hangs out above 36C during the summer. Israel routinely has 98% humidity in the summer. Humans cannot survive 100% humidity at 45C. I'd therefore expect that Israel will be effectively uninhabitable by humans in 2100, although obviously their humidity might change before then.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
What a hideous distortion. First of all the "First World" has been plundering sub-Saharan Africa for over five centuries, and second of all a good deal of the economic woes of the region are due directly to those policies.
Third; you're an ignoramus (and probably a crypto racist). There were sub Saharan kingdoms of a fairly sophisticated nature.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
We always judge others by ourselves. I suppose.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A short term improvement that directly leads to long term devestation is not a benefit. At any rate, the benefits of cheap hydrocarbons are now being outweighed by the dangerously ill effects.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
'We're past the mitigation [emissions cuts] and adaptation eras. We're now right into the era of loss and damage. What's next after that? Destruction?'
Obviously, the ultimate answer to this question is the same as for the Fermi paradox: greed.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Just like US elections, the majority voted to take money from the successful minority and have it given to themselves.
Mod parent funny!
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Countries paying an undefined compensation in proportion of their wealth won't solve anything. If we want to incentivize emission cuts, we should require countries to pay up (or receive aid) in proportion of their emissions. That's what the old emission credit system did, and while it wasn't perfect it was still much better than the current treaty. But that wasn't good for the radical greens, now look at what we've got as a result.
...whose old man [father] was into dirty coal, too.
Actually most people alive today would never have existed without the fossil fueled economies. Some might argue that this is bad for the species since so many are marginally independent at best, a la Heinlein. Consumers only...
is that "rich" countries are pretending that they are rich. Most appear to be insolvent and much of their educated populations are headed for extinction for failure to reproduce.
I'm thankful for them for several reasons, the least not being the burr they figuratively place under the saddle of certain mid-east nations.
The maintenance of a beautiful country that keeps it friendly for me as a u.s. American to visit. Krav Maga, small machine guns and sexy women. These are a few of my favorite things...
I agree what happens to Israel is karma, but for disobeying YHVH when originally told to eliminate those inhabiting the promised land to the last breath. In retrospect this would probably made today quite different. Sometimes pity really is a weakness,in spite of not, most of the time.
Nazis I won't consider part of the equation, since they would've gladly eliminated the local Islamic along with the Jews, both are Semitic.
As far as blowing taxes, I recall we aren't Constitutionally allowed to do much of anything outside of defending our own borders. This policing the ungrateful assholes of the world came along with the "New Deal" horseshit back when the Repubmocrat tyranny first conspired. None of it is our fucking problem and I don't want to hear anyones lame ass excuses about foreign business interests. That is why we set borders to begin with and outside investments are a worse GAMBLE than chances taken on domestic ones. Tough droppings.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
No, this is a take from the moderately well off and give to the wealthy and powerful under the guise of helping the poor. Some among the current poor will find a way to become wealthy out of this, but only so far as they help the currently powerful accumulate more wealth and power.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's one of the reasons I remain skeptical. Where there are billions, or trillions, of dollars to be made, you can be fairly sure the motives aren't going to be pure.
(and probably a crypto racist)
Probably? Crypo? You are being way too generous.
You can find a list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kingdoms_in_pre-colonial_Africa
"Fairly sophisticated" compared to what? Large cities, writing, legal codes, democracy, entire empires existed in the Mediterranean and Asia for thousands of years BC. The Olmec empire in the Americas started in 1500BC. What has sub-Saharan Africa produced that comes even close?
As the subject line notes, I'M SELFISH.
Allow me to elaborate.
I believe the world needs a 'reboot'. There is far too much wrong in the world that I think we need to start over.. not as cavemen, but the governments of the world need to be replaced, as does the allocation of wealth. I don't mean wealth resdistribution, as I am a capitalist, but the way things are now, capitalism can't work... too much control (patents, copyrights, barriers to entry) for people to bring themselves up. Too many roadblocks. Not to mention the problems (yes I consider them problems) of surveillance, too much government control, taxes, over-population, censorship and so many other ills of the world. Of course this could blow up in my face, but I do belive most of the world is corrupt and in need of rebuilding.
Secondly, as has been noted recently, it would appear that Russia and Canada could very benefit from climate change. As a Canadian, I would welcome some warmer weather, and I VERY resent having to pay someone, somewhere for alleged damage, without considering the good, for something that I can benefit from, and actually want. Notice that I'm not denying it, or skeptical of it... I am looking forward to it, and I hope I live to see it.
I also have a wife and 2 kids, including a 3 year old whom I love very much, but I fear for their future the ways things are now.
Call me selfish, but I want the world rebooted, and my home just a touch warmer ;)
Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity!
200 nations... but all the major ones will either be exempted by the new treaty (China, India) or won't accede to it (US, Russia).
A short term improvement that directly leads to long term devestation is not a benefit.
And what does that observation have to do with fossil fuels? Let us keep in mind that catastrophic AGW remains an unfounded fear and nothing else about AGW generates long term devastation.
It's interesting how these issues of climate change bring out some of the worst psychopaths in slashdot.
People don't deserve a horrible death just because they disagree with you. I find the sort of advocacy that the Koch brothers do, with their own wealth no less, to be admirable.
Letting scientifically ignorant politicians use science to push an agenda invoving restribution of wealth, that is folly.
Redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with AGW.
On the other hand having 99% of the resources and wealth of the planet in 1% of the planes populations hands makes no sense either.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
....was getting "free money".
How *exactly* does sending money to other nations help fight alleged climate change?
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
is here. Maldives encouraged to request assistance with infrastructure projects worth $50M, in exchange for supporting the US climate agenda.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
More precise modeling alows IPCC climate report to backstep from previous hysterical claims and hoopla that every recent unusual weather event was a harbinger of doom to come.
Sea level rise in next century, not even a meter. Hurricanes & sever storms, somewhat LESS of them. Arid areas, become slightly more arid and areas with frequent precipitation have somewhat more rain. Total temperature rise in next 100 years, 2 degrees C on top of the 1 degree C rise over 20th century.
In short, not a doomsday scenario, not the end of the world.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/science-hone-climate-change-warnings/story?id=17906408#.UMVJntHQQSk
All we need to do is invent a new fiat currency, convince the third world that it has value, and pay them in that. Problem solved.
But this is the ideal Libertarian solution, right? The equivelent of suing countries for exporting pollution, to force compliance through lawsuits. If this doesn't work, how can anything Libertarian ever work?
Learn to love Alaska
Science is never wrong. That's like saying the air is "wrong" because a storm damaged a building. "A scientist" can be wrong. But science is a process, not a destination.
Learn to love Alaska
On the other hand having 99% of the resources and wealth of the planet in 1% of the planes populations hands makes no sense either.
When you count debt, it's more like 150% of the "worth" of the resources in the hands of the top 1%. The poor would have to work 1000 years to get back to even. And bankruptcy won't wipe out much anymore, even if Trump finds it so convenient he's declared bankruptcy 5 times to protect his billions.
Learn to love Alaska
We tie their payments to their human rights, women's rights, religious freedom (to have or not to have), and free speech. Oh, you don't have those? Too bad.
No good deed goes unpunished.
One of the key predictions is shifts in agricultural zones. Sure, we'll still be growing grain in North America, but most of it will be in Canada, and history has lessons for those who think food security is nothing to worry about.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Growing more food in Canada, doesn't mean that enough food won't be grown in the US. US doesn't have the population that say, India or China has. That's what would come to my mind, if we were to speak of countries without food security.
Appeals to scientific textbooks are fallacious, but unsupported conjecture about a vast international pan-professional conspiracy corrupting every venerable scientific institution on the planet is not?