Slashdot Mirror
Paris Climate Change Talks Yield First Draft (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Negotiators at the UN climate talks in Paris released a draft of an agreement to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. No part of the draft has been finalized as many points remain in contention, particularly between developing countries and more wealthy nations. Laurence Tubiana, the French envoy for the talks, said: "We could have been better, we could have been worse. The job is not done, we need to apply all intelligence, energy, willingness to compromise and all efforts to come to agreement. Nothing is decided until everything is decided."
The article says they released a draft.
There's nothing new to comment on without it.
> Negotiators at the UN climate talks in Paris released a draft of an agreement to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions
emitted by pontificating politicians.
What wealthy nations? All western governments are deep in debt..
who else could we be? truth + mercy + justice,, in the moms we trust..
just like China agreed to stop cyber warfare on the US but last week a military company TACOM my family works for was fully breached by them.
for having no principles when they conflict with profits.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/8infnot.pdf
Article 3 section 1 looks like a multiple choice menu than an agreement.
Parties aim to reach by [X date]
[a peaking of global greenhouse gas emissions]
[zero net greenhouse gasemissions]
[a[n] X per cent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions]
[global low-carbon transformation]
[globallow-emission transformation]
[carbon neutrality]
[climate neutrality].
I want to know where the secret appendix to this treaty is. 95% of treaties these days are about trying to give a deep dicking to the average joe.
Yay. They made a report. That should mark a significant shift in how we do things.
China is the major polluter today. Let's see them give an inch. Basically, we shut down ours so that they can increase production.
The environmentalists are going to complain it doesn't go far enough and the politicians in all of the countries that matter are just going to ignore it or cheat it.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
At least the US and China are on board, or the US is until a GOP President is elected. Murdoch's media empire refuses to acknowledge climate change as a threat to mankind, so none of their Presidential candidates will either.
You can argue that the western Industrial Revolution kicked off the CO2 rise, but these days with static or negative population growth the 'wealthy' or 'developed' nations aren't the problem; it's the 3rd world shitholes like India, China, and places in Africa where they have zero environmental regulations and/or burn firewood that are messing things up now.
Aren't we done with White Man's Burden?
Here's the tl;dr of the draft:
All of the cuts must come from wealthy, majority-white countries.
China, India, Africa, and South America are all totally and completely exempt from any rules and may emit as much greenhouse gas as they wish.
How many times does the word "contribution" appear in the document?
It's a shakedown. That's a huge issue with the UN's "one nation, one vote". Smaller nations will vote to take from larger nations.
> I'm too lazy to read it, but does it even MENTION nuclear power?
Yeah, right. That's because you're not paid for that, you're only paid for shilling nuclear here.
The West in 1800 was also a shithole without environmental regulations. It managed to get wealthy and reach static population growth by burning coal and oil. India, China and Africa on on track to follow the same path. The problem is that we *don't* want them to follow the same path. That's why they need help.
To hold the increase in the global average temperature [below 1.5 ÂC] [or] [well below 2 ÂC] above preindustrial levels by ensuring deep reductions in global greenhouse gas [net] emissions; (
They are still emphasizing an extreme effort rather than a rational one. There are three obvious rebuttals to this. First, too many parties simply don't have an interest in this. For example, most oil subsidies come from countries whose economies have a significant dependence on exporting oil. Other large fossil fuel-consuming nations, particularly, the US, China, and India have long expressed disinterest in such levels of reduction.
Second, humanity doesn't generate greenhouse gases arbitrarily. Instead it is in pursuit of other priorities. From past missteps, I see strong indications that any serious attempt to meet the requirements of an extreme mitigation effort will result in a global-scale mess.
Third, we still don't have actual evidence that there is a serious problem. We just have, yet again, strongly worded assertions. It really should be a warning sign to everyone when the people pushing this aggressive strategy can't back their claims with facts.
>> Laurence Tubiana, the French envoy for the talks, said: "Nothing is decided until everything is decided."
Hmmm...where have we heard that before?
We don't have to, but we probably should to some degree. No matter how much any one country cleans up its own act, it still faces the consequences from the decisions of the rest of the world.
Of course helping doesn't have to mean throwing money at the problem that's likely to disappear into the pockets of corrupt leadership. It could be as simple as shouldering the R&D burden for find solutions that reduce pollution and then giving those away to the developing nations so that they minimize their environmental impact.
You can argue that the western Industrial Revolution kicked off the CO2 rise, but these days with static or negative population growth the 'wealthy' or 'developed' nations aren't the problem; it's the 3rd world shitholes like India, China, and places in Africa where they have zero environmental regulations and/or burn firewood that are messing things up now.
Aren't we done with White Man's Burden?
I think the issue is more that the West was able to grow and advance its economy because of industries that are highly polluting, and to prevent developing countries from utilizing these same industries will hamper their own growth and further resigning them to the fate of a 3rd World/developing country. Honestly, it's probably better/cheaper in the long run to have Western states pay to help clean up/negate the CO2 production of the developing states than to continue to give aid that is usually pretty ineffective and has a very destabilizing effect, because a lot of foreign aid gets diverted from its intended use and is regularly used to line the coffers of government officials, local/tribal elites, or warlords.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
China has 2363 coal power plants, and is building or has in plan 1171 more. That does not sound like a country reducing its CO2 emmissions (like the US where emissions are declining).
India has 589, and is building or has in plan 446 more.
If you would like a detailed report with references on China's energy politics and activity, go here:
http://www.thegwpf.org/new-report-the-truth-about-china/
You think China is the largest investor in renewables, they are also the biggest burner of coal and importer of oil.
So what?
Enlightened self-interest. Sheesh.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Just like Pelosi and every other time a politician said similar things, it's an indication of how most negotiated deals work. One doesn't need experience to understand this just a basic grasp of how things work in the real world.
In the case of Pelosi, anybody who passed US government 101 should grasp how much sense her statement actually makes. Same goes for "I was for it before I was against it" which also sounds bad out of context or with ignorance.
Analogy: Love the 1st movie but hate the movie trilogy.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
well USA generates about 17.0 metric tons per capita, where as India generates 1.7 metric tons per capita. So you dirty white idiots who are polluting the earth per capita more than anyone else better start walking to work, turning down your AC's and so on... It's not the White Man's Burden, the white man is the burden..
Even of all the INDCs (countries pledges to reduce CO2) are met, and the cuts are extended from 2030 to 2070...get this, ONLY 0.2 degrees C of warming will be averted by 2100 !
That's right, trillions of dollars and two tenths of a degree of warming is averted.
That's according to the UNIPCC "MAGICC" model used to model climate mitigation effects.
As Bjorn Lomborg wrote in his peer review paper details the actual temperature consequences of Paris if all goes according to their projections.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/17/lomborg-pushes-back-against-joe-romms-over-the-top-screed-about-the-true-vale-of-cop21/
This is a colossal wast of time and money.
They will be screaming for even more draconian cuts in a few years.
The whole enterprise is a socialist plan for wealth transfer from the indebted wealthy countries to the third world.
The UN Official Ottmar Edenhofer said in an interview the truth...this is about wealth redistribution.
-This does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know. (Interviewer)
-(Edenhofer) "Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War..... But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy"
while using tons and tons of c02
...has not been shown to be safe. So the burden of proof is on those who lean towards doing "nothing" (keep polluting).
The base of the oceanic food chain is at risk of shutting down, due to both acidification from CO2 and warming. That is serious Sh!t.
Preaching the gospel of unintended consequences in the market isn't very convincing when steadfastly trying to ignore the unintended consequences on our entire physical existence -- like money is more important than the biosphere.
Create a Market to Tax the rich companies and let China and India spew gigatons of REALLY NASTY stuff into the air.
Make sure USA and EU don't even put CO2 into the air. While they call it "Global" it is only the developed countries they want to screw.
Get the money out of them, pass it out amongst their friends.
back a few years ago they sold these things with a Negative? Charged Plate (better ones also had a Reversed Charged plate to zero the charge out after the air was cleaned) that did a decent job of getting the Gack out of the air in a room.
Could somebody build a few of these in City Size?? (of course being the poor fool that had to scrub the grids off every month would be nasty but...)
You got that right.
They only promise (for what that's worth) to reduce their carbon intensity (CO2 emissions per unit of GDP) by 2030-035, maybe.
And Obama takes this vague promise (that allows them to keep emitting more and more CO2 every year) as a victory.
What a chump, played like a fiddle by the Chi-coms.
They are building or plan to build 1100+ more coal plants !
Meanwhile, ISIS is laughing their asses off
You provide NO evidence of the base of the food chain failing. Indeed the base of the food chain is plankton, a plant that does better with more CO2 fertilizer. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/27/increased-carbon-dioxide-enhances-plankton-growth-opposite-of-what-was-expected/
And the ocean pH is just a scare from the alarmists. The ocean is so heavily buffered, you could NEVER make it acidic. It is pH >7 now, and it shall remain so.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/23/touchy-feely-science-one-chart-suggests-theres-a-phraud-in-omitting-ocean-acidification-data-in-congressional-testimony/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/25/ocean-acidification-natural-cycles-and-ubiquitous-uncertainties/
The first link is an amusing recent case of how warming alarmists lied to congress about ocean pH by omitting data -something the warmists are good at, faking the temperature data by tendentious adjustments. The second shows the historic pH is poorly known (so alarmist trends are poorly supported) and there is wide daily, seasonal variations, and the eco system does fine through these changes.
The ocean has warmed (due to its vast heat capacity -despite the yottaJoules scare message) only a few hundredths or thousandths of a degree in the past decades. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/04/rough-estimate-of-the-annual-changes-in-ocean-temperatures-from-700-to-2000-meters-based-on-nodc-data/
From 1955 to 2013, the ocean temperature increase is 0.004 degrees !
This is all about how the global elite do not want the poor people polluting their planet while they ride around in luxury cars and pump out children.
Exactly, this is even the heart of the problem. It's easy for governments and organizations to communicate about everyday "acts" or gestures" you can do to help but not only it is meaningless in the end : it's becoming outright fraud, not only as a cover for inaction but as an extension of the dominant, individualist neoliberal ideology.
It is like believing that getting rid of collective bargaining will help workers negociate better pay, safety and working conditions : that doesn't happen.
Let's take the problem of cars as an example. I propose a simple measure, ban cars more powerful than 100 HP or 100kW. Make them not even street legal. Doesn't change fuck all for 80-90% of the population (at least in non-US countries) and a perfect step to signify that no one deserve the privilege to waste so much energy on personal transportation.
There's likely fuck all chance for that to happen e.g. in the European Union (although it is the land of feel-good self-righteousness) and harm the Mercedes, BMW etc. industries (and turn Ferrari back into a racing-only house, etc.) moreover the famous, the rich and the over-spending middle class ones "need" their "glamorous", "manly" or "pedigree" vehicles. But we need not accept defeat before the fight.
What if CHINDIA has technology to covertly "export" their https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism