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."

8 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Wealthy nations? Where by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What wealthy nations? All western governments are deep in debt..

  2. Re:Where's the link to the draft? by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm too lazy to read it, but does it even MENTION nuclear power? Because any climate change plan that doesn't include nuclear as a major component of a carbon-neutral energy policy isn't worth using as toilet paper.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  3. still advocating for extreme mitigation by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I see this in the draft:

    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.

    1. Re:still advocating for extreme mitigation by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly the defeatism and lack of ambition is disheartening.

      Good. Are you going to worry about real problems now?

      There is plenty of evidence going back decades now that global warming is a serious issue.

      Good. Show the seriousness of the problem then. It's worth noting here that no one has yet shown that global warming has short term consequences or that it is an urgent problem. They have merely asserted these things.

      It is hard to address but to not even try is a serious dereliction of duty to our descendants. Is this a paid shill?

      Because you have yet to show that the extreme mitigation measures proposed are less of a dereliction of duty than doing absolutely nothing is. Remember current mitigation efforts are already remarkably ineffective and costly. We are already doing this and it is already a net loss for our descendants.

      But sure, I must be a shill.

    2. Re:still advocating for extreme mitigation by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The goal of keeping the rise below 2C is based on scientific evidence, the interpretation of which is widely accepted, that suggests any more than 2C will cause problems so severe we really don't want to go there. To suggest otherwise is just burying your head in the sand.

      I really don't understand the objections to this goal. Even if you are absolutely convinced that there is no climate change, or that it is natural and unavoidable, or that nothing bad will happen or whatever, it's still worth cleaning up the environment. Clearly Beijing has a smog problem, and clearly LA did have one and was able to fix it in a way that ultimately saved money and improved everyone's lives.

      It's undeniable that developing nations want to pollute as much as we did in the past, and that pollution will affect us as well. Doesn't it therefore seem worth trying to do some deals that push those countries towards clean energy, with help from developed nations to make it happen as quickly as possible.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:still advocating for extreme mitigation by CaptainLard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Second, humanity doesn't generate greenhouse gases arbitrarily. Instead it is in pursuit of other priorities.

      Care to provide examples of some non-arbitrary "other priorities"? Continued existence for the sake of existence surely meets some definition of arbitrary.

      As for evidence howsabout the following:

      - Green house effect. Easily demonstrated in a closed car parked in the sun. Check
      - CO2 is a green house gas. Surface of venus is hotter than the surface of mercury. Check
      - Warmer oceans mean stronger storms. Check
      - Warmer poles means melting land ice. Check
      - 40% of all humans live within 100km of an ocean....

      Arguing time frame is rearranging the deck chairs. If anyone cares about society as is, the sooner we reduce CO2 emissions, the better.

    4. Re:still advocating for extreme mitigation by james_shoemaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Arguing time frame is rearranging the deck chairs. If anyone cares about society as is, the sooner we reduce CO2 emissions, the better"

            So how are YOU reducing your CO2 emissions since you have decided it's such an important thing to do.

  4. advocating for (usless) extreme mitigation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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"