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."
What wealthy nations? All western governments are deep in debt..
The draft and addendum .
The most dangerous drug
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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"