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."
> 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..
The draft and addendum .
The most dangerous drug
China is the major polluter today. Let's see them give an inch. Basically, we shut down ours so that they can increase production.
Absolutely. All too often when one of these stories pop up they don't have a link to the original document up for discussion.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
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.
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.
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'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.
Why are you so sure of that? Was it mentioned in another paper that you also didn't bother to read? That's the kind of informative discussion we need around here!
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.
China is only on-board because they don't actually have to reduce any of their emissions.
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.
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.
I believe that draft has found it's way over Minnesota and currently explains the unseasonably warm weather. With that much hot air could anyone expect any different?
Time to offend someone
"Shilling nuclear"?!?
Were you born a fucking an obtuse moron, or did you parents have to teach you?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't mention much in the way of specifics -- probably for the best, since specifying technologies from the outset is a wrong-headed way to do engineering.
The main message is: "here's where we want to be [low-carbon future, equity, etc.], and here are some committees and bodies we're going to form to report on everyone's progress."
I actually did take the time to look at it, and nope, no nuclear. Just a bunch of vague pie-in-the-sky bullshit. No real practical solutions, just repeating that man-made climate is bad and we must do something about it (the "something" being unspecified). Just some meaningless bullshit for countries that will affirm it wholeheartedly, but actually *do* fuck all.
Be it resolved that bad things are bad and good things are good.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
>> Laurence Tubiana, the French envoy for the talks, said: "Nothing is decided until everything is decided."
Hmmm...where have we heard that before?
We must do something about this crisis IMMEDIATELY! Let us form a committee to appoint a committee to decide how to decide what to do about this!
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
I actually did take the time to look at it, and nope, no nuclear. Just a bunch of vague pie-in-the-sky bullshit. No real practical solutions, just repeating that man-made climate is bad and we must do something about it (the "something" being unspecified).
That's actually a good capitalistic approach. Set a goal, and let the market figure out how to achieve it most economically. Why would you prescribe a particular mechanism?
Of course, in my not-so-uninformed opinion, a nuclear industry wouldn't even exist if not for government-sponsored research and development projects, government-sponsored insurance, and the promise of government-sponsored nuclear waste disposal (not that we have any good final disposal sites, anywhere on the world), because the free market would not bear the costs. Indeed, in Germany the energy companies now try to spin off their nuclear "assets", because they know that the reserves accumulated for decommissioning the plants are unlikely to be sufficient.
Stephan
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.
Microsoft Word
MS Office? I was unsure before, but now I know that we are doomed.
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
> 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.
If shilling nuclear on slashdot is a paid job, I want to know where I can sign up.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Don't get too excited. Slashdot's collective IQ has dropped so low that a large portion of people legitimately think the definition of a shill is "Someone who disagrees with me".
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"
That's actually a good capitalistic approach. Set a goal, and let the market figure out how to achieve it most economically. Why would you prescribe a particular mechanism?
That would be fine if they actually did that, for example a global cap and trade system would be a market based approach. Instead, they're just going to make vague statements of disapproval and wander off.
...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...)
That's actually a good capitalistic approach. ... Of course, in my not-so-uninformed opinion, a nuclear industry wouldn't even exist if not for government-sponsored X,Y &Z.
So are you advocating a market based approach or a government sponsored approach? We can combine both, or course. It is the outcome, after all, that counts. Is your adherence to free-market purity such that you could not conscience any government sponsorship in reducing carbon emissions?
Whether or not nuclear energy requires additional government stimulus, it's an important, (some would argue necessary) source alongside other non-carbon energy sources. I do wonder though, if coal, gas and oil were priced entirely eliminated from the equation, how the cost of nuclear would look.
For those looking to proven real-world solutions, the example of Ontario, (Niedersachsen, even if its local requirements might be met by wind, still burns coal) shows that we can eliminate the burning of coal using a mix of today's technology.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
That's actually a good capitalistic approach. ... Of course, in my not-so-uninformed opinion, a nuclear industry wouldn't even exist if not for government-sponsored X,Y &Z.
So are you advocating a market based approach or a government sponsored approach? We can combine both, or course. It is the outcome, after all, that counts. Is your adherence to free-market purity such that you could not conscience any government sponsorship in reducing carbon emissions?
I believe a market is a good tool to optimise resource allocation under given constraints. Ideally, we (via our government) would set the constraints and let the market find the solution. However, we don't have perfect markets. LLCs and stock companies (and death, indeed ;-) allow owners to go for short term profit and ignore long term consequences. Also, we have principal-agent problems. So I see some arguments for government regulation, and also for government intervention to curb nervous overreactions of the marktet.
I prefer setting realistic costs for natural resource usage, if via cap-and-trade or via fossil fuel taxes, to direct subsidies. If we let government pick winners, we will see more lobbying, and more pork going to experts in lobbying, not to experts in clean energy production.
I'm very doubtful about nuclear for a number of reasons, but in particular because I don't see it scale out. Maybe nuclear power plants can be safely operated by modern first-world countries (maybe not). But do you really want to see Nigeria, Burma, Iran, Somalia, Colombia, Iran, North Korea and the Principality of Sealand build breeder plants? I would definitely prefer a technology that is less risky and less centralised.
Stephan
I would definitely prefer a technology that is less risky and less centralised.
Who wouldn't? But risk management always involves trading off relative risks. One's attitude to the risks of nuclear energy should to be informed by the risks of human induced global warming. If Germany can deliver a 40% emissions cut by 2020 while carrying out a government mandated phase-out of nuclear power (and bearing in mind that in 2010 nuclear accounted for around 22% of Germany's grid), how much more could be achieved if nuclear were permitted to remain in the mix? As Fukushima shows, the damage wrought even by such a black-swan event is negligible in the face of the damage global warming can be expected to wreak.
I prefer setting realistic costs for natural resource usage, if via cap-and-trade or via fossil fuel taxes, to direct subsidies. If we let government pick winners ...
Quite.
Maybe nuclear power plants can be safely operated by modern first-world countries (maybe not). But do you really want to see Nigeria, Burma, Iran, Somalia, Colombia, Iran, North Korea and the Principality of Sealand [wikipedia.org] build breeder plants?
That does not seem the most persuasive argument in favour of 1st world countries shutting down their plants (potentially off-shoring them to poorer neighbours).
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
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.
The logical conclusion is that nuclear reactors and plants have to be owned, insured and operated by the State (which I've capitalized on purpose haha, but well any company or agency gets a capital letter too.)
There is not even any incompatibility with capitalism : about any country on Earth has a plural economy that involves the State or government, free markets and companies of varied size and kind, public agencies, panhandlers, self-employed individuals, employees, black market labor, crime, non-profits and even tasks like house keeping and gardening, and gifts.
Capitalistic approaches are likely to be needed and welcome : "cost reduction" is what real environmentalism should be about (e.g. spending $30k instead of $20k on a car is "green" according to the general media, but spending $500 on a bicycle is greener still. Guess which is cheaper)
The ideological rigidity that poses a threat is that in the camp of deregulate everything, privatize everything, free trade everything. "Freedom" indeed.
What if CHINDIA has technology to covertly "export" their https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism
A handful of cranks at WAWT
Compared to what? The handful of cranks at the IPCC? This is a classic ad hominem fallacy .
I will stop destroying arguments with labels, when people stop making arguments that can be destroyed with labels.