Slashdot Mirror
A Typo Almost Derailed Paris Climate Deal (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader writes: On Saturday, world leaders completed an ambitious international agreement to address climate change. But when the officials received the first copy of what was supposed to be the final draft, a one-word mistake threatened to derail their progress. Part of the agreement involved language that encouraged wealthy nations to provide monetary aid to poorer nations in order to help transition to more sustainable systems. But the draft used the word "shall," which would have made it a legally-binding requirement. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pushed back on the change, noting that previous versions of the document had used the word "should" instead. Officials tried to quickly figure out whether the swap had been made intentionally. Ultimately, they classified it as a typo, and hurriedly prepared a corrected version of the document, which was adopted without incident.
go full on Republican retard.
They tried to pull a fast one...
Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
Diplomacy at work.
The two words had very specific meanings. The rest of the world wanted funding from the United States to be binding, the United States insisted that they should only be encouraged to provide funding.
And because of that change, the planet is safe now! Well, I mean it should be. Well, actually it won't because the EU keeps increasing their Co2 output every year, despite their claim that they want to reduce it.
So in other words, everyone just took private planes to Paris to fill a room full of hot air and Carbon Dioxide, all to produce a long document that obligates nobody to do anything. It's all a big show. And people wonder why trust in the gov't is so low.
This story perfectly illustrates why the climate agreement is completely useless.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Actual ( once secret) document
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf
The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation
established by Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention shall serve, respectively, as the Subsidiary Body for Scientific
and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation of this Agreement. The provisions of the
Convention relating to the functioning of these two bodies shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Agreement.
Sessions of the meetings of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary
Body for Implementation of this Agreement shall be held in conjunction with the meetings of, respectively, the
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation of the
Convention
What I find amusing is the comparison to everything being said and done about climate change and all those evil masterminds from scifi, fantasy, and comic books hell-bent on world domination by trying to manipulate the weather. It never works out well for them.
Thank God the toothless, non-binding agreement was saved!
I forgive him for much, because of this.
All along he suckered everyone - Yes, the US will do this, and that and the other. And then at the last minute when it was politically impossible for everyone to back out, he pulled a switcheroo on them, blaming a 'typo' (and who doesnt love to do that), and made the entire thing non-binding.
Sounds like more people need to read IETF RFCs.
http://usawatchdog.com/uncovered-government-docs-prove-chemtrails-real-dane-wigington/
who regulates this? where is the language in this 'deal' that enforces, guarantees, punishes, etc when parties arent complicit?
I am sure glad they have fully resolved the ISIS issue before moving on to save us all from climate change.
Negotiating a treaty between 100s of nations ... Children do that;
But then, you repeat yourself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1st Prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
2nd Protects the right to keep and bear arms.
3rd Places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, prohibiting it during peacetime.
4th Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate.
Worldwide communism. It's finally happening. What a time to be alive!
The worlds most useless word.
The whole climate change debate worries me. First I'm not a climate change denier nor am I asserting man cant change the climate. What worries me is when the right things get done for the wrong reasons it distorts the policy objectives. Climate change is not a threat to life on the planet. There have been previous brief (1000 year) warming periods with temperatures 3 to7 degrees warmer than today. such as the period 300 to 1100 AD. That period was a time of relative food abundance and population growth and even if it overlaps the dark ages it was a period cultural expansion. The key difference between now and then is how close we are to the resource limits of the planet. Back then we were not using every drop of water, and if crops didn't grow one place one could move. National boundaries were more fluid. So basically the difference with today is fragility.
I utterly discard the idea of some shallow island nations going under water as any sort of logical reason to curtail the economic development of a gazillion more people. Sand bar or reefs have always been an ephemeral place to stake a claim. They are impermenant by nature. If they flood in this modern time it won't have to result in death, just the ending of a nation state. Perhaps a shame culturally yes, but not something that hadn't happened many many many times. The difference today is we know it is happening. But those cultures will integrate into others like has always happened. All that is lost is a microcosm of soverignty. Yes it's emotionally and economincally painful for the families who live there. Would be nice to prevent it if that was possible. But it should not be a driver of the discussion.
WHile any one microcosm may not be important, at a larger scale there a very related issue is the driver. If crop growing regions and water supplies shift they may shift across national borders and that will create all sorts of strife. Crops may not evolve quickly enough. FLooding coatal cities doesn't mean we lose the shoreline it just means the shoreline moves inland. The problem is the time scale. Many large cities have evolved in place for centuries (millenia). uprroting these is going to be terrifically economically and resource intensive. Depending on terrain and fresh water and harbors they may have to go elsewhere not just shift. There will be tremendous upheaval world wide. Not all of it will be equally distributed pain. Some nations will benefit others will utterly fail. If all this happens in the space of a century it's going to be catastrophic in terns of world civilization.
Carbon fuels are the easy way to raise standards of living for all pre-industrila nations. The problem with using less carbon fuel unilaterally is that if everyone is not on board then as the price falls it becomes even easier for developing nations to import it. SO in the end it all gets burnt. We can quibble about if this makes it get burnt more slowly but I'd be surprised if were talking orders of magnitude in rates.
At the present time we see so many alternative energy projects labeled failures in the US. The DOE is ridiculed for funding Solyndra and the Spanish company that built the Mojva solar thermal. We see the Solar-PV industry gutted by cheap imported PV. Wind isn't working well with our current Grid, and with fracking there's little incentive to build grids in the boonies. The price point of Alagal or Cellulosic biofuels can't compere with $36/barrel. So we can expect every gov't investment in alternative energy to look terrible if you just look at it as a return on investment. Sadly that's how some politicians do. That's why the DOE gets beat up.
Yet we need these alternative fuels and energy sources if were going to stop using coal and gas.
Thus to avoid one has to use these even if they are not the cheapest. That's probably an easy sell in rich nations. But it's a sell based more on clean air, or not fighting wars for oil, and access to fresh water: e.g. your nuclear plan and your electric c
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I watched as some in the media applauded this agreement. It's simple to get agreement when everyone realized that you've got a completely unenforceable document. One that will bring change only to those who willfully wanted it anyway. I'm putting my money on no meaningful outcome...nothing that impacts climate change, or any action on the part of the U.S., China, or Russia. Call me back in five years and we can see if I'm Nostradamus.
Just another day in Paradise
Shame they can't just run `svn blame climate_change.doc` and figure out who's trying to be tricky...
From the title here: "A Typo Almost Derailed Paris Climate Deal"
To "derail" something implies that it was on the rails. It never was, and it still is not. The only thing these parties of this "agreement" have "agreed" upon is that they'll make a big dog-and-pony show for their political constituents. Mr. Kerry: declaring oneself to be responsible and caring does not make one so.
The U.S. is currently the second largest source of CO2 emissions
Is that true per capita, or only because the United States has the fourth biggest population? The 2013 chart in Wikipedia's article places the United States in what amounts to a statistical tie with Canada, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Kazakhstan (~16 t/p/year), with the United Arab Emirates emitting more (~21 t/p/year). If you think per capita figures are unimportant, that just gives the EU a free pass because it is a confederation of theoretically independent countries rather than a federal state.
and the number one source of CO2 emissions of all time.
I don't know how you define "all time". If Kosovo were to complete its secession from Serbia tomorrow, would it have zero cumulative emissions? A chart covering 1970 through 2013 puts UAE at twice the emissions per capita of the United States over that 44-year period.
None of this means squat until or unless the NIMBY's and their leaders in the supposed 'environmental movement' admit they've been wrong for the last 50 years & let Nuclear energy takes its rightful place as the clean energy source of choice for the world. By withholding support..in fact by actively fighting against the use of Nuclear energy use I blame the likes of Greenpeace & others like them for the current situation.
The intention of the summit was to provide an unenforceable agreement so that current administrations around the world could claim they "care and are doing something".
Here we are with all nations in agreement and yet in the US, we still have deniers that insist that warming isn't real. The US needs some serious education for adults as we have so many ignorant people roaming about.
Do the US Constitution’s treaty powers take precedence over other Constitutional rights or vice-versa?
What if the US signed a treaty with Mexico to ban all private ownership of firearms.
am is are
was were
be being been
have has had
do does did
can could
shall should
will would
may might must
just
When they literally have to fix an "agreement" so that it isn't enforceable, is it really an agreement?
Maybe it would be better termed a "wishlist".
Because countries nowadays comply with international law.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Give them US solar panels, wind turbines, and battery systems instead.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
2) Protects the state right to have a millitia organised and armed to protect the state. NOT any pissant who wants to play Dirty Harry.
Go read the changes from the original draft. You'll see that bit about the well regulated militia (National Guard? Police?) was VERY SPECIFICALLY thought over, therefore insisting that it is meaningless is to declare that anything else in the document is meaningless. Such as the rest of the 2nd.
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
People will pick the statistic that works best for their situation, including placing restrictions to limit the numbers to a hand-picked subset which they will then toss freely (without clarification of the applied caveats), and make it seem their numbers apply to the general case even though they don't.
This is actually the exact same thing advertisers do all the time. Try watching a commercial and then ask yourself what they really said versus what they wanted you to think they said. ("None proven better" = we're all the same, often used for medicines; "Most powerful engine in its class" = what is "its class? Who are they comparing it against"; "Best fuel economy in its class" - did you know a PT Cruiser used to be considered an SUV by its manufacturer so it was being compared against Ford Expeditions and Chevy Suburbans for fuel economy?; etc.)
Seriously, why not just do the obvious little things and call it good enough?
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
That isn't a typo. That is intentional.
What language is the agreement written in? Sure, it can be translated; but there must be one language which is the 'officlal' version. If you have more than one you run into problems because the two never precisely agree.
And how does a government of a country agree to an agreement written in a foreign language?
How the hell do we continue to write legislation (and agreements) without using git?
git blame Paris_Accord.txt
This would tell you everything you need to know about who changed that word.
Can someone please tell lawmakers that this is a solved problem? I keep seeing stories that like "someone slipped in a rider to this bill, but we don't know who did it". Don't know!? What the hell are you talking about? How can you possibly not know?
If they were, they would have just replaced 'shall' directly with "won't". Because we all know unless it *IS* legally binding, they won't do it.
I'm too old an cynical to think otherwise, sadly.
Here is what James Hansen has to say about it. Even that is probably not enough though; a fee on CO2 may have some effect in the developed world, but the rest can not afford it, and will not accept such limitations. Even the terrible consequences looming are nothing next to the abject poverty that billions are subjected to daily. As bad as burning coal is, inexpensive fossil fuels still offer a desperately needed improvement in their lives, and it is not right to deny that to anyone in such circumstances. (It is also better than burning wood, as many "environmentalists" would have us do.)
The only practical way forward that results in rapid decarbonization, is to offer the developing countries a cheaper option, before the countless gigawatts of planned coal fired capacity are actually built. We know that nuclear can rapidly displace coal, as it has done so in the past in a number of countries. China is ramping up conventional nuclear, and developing advanced reactors. Newer mass produced LFTR or Thorcon reactors will make nuclear energy even cheaper and safer yet. See also Thorium: energy cheaper than coal for details.
These summits which result in plans too cowardly to even mention the words carbon dioxide or nuclear are perverse. Until nuclear is at least acknowledged and proposals are on the table for encouraging development and deployment of advanced reactors, they are a total waste of time.
First, lets toss out any enforcement issues and look at just the language. If your boss gives you a signature form to sign stating that "You should go talk to HR about benefits" it's a suggestion and hey, maybe you will get some better benefits or save a few bucks if you do. There is nothing really binding there, and you would probably think "wow, my boss is forced to prove he gave us a suggestion or really playing CYA.
Alternatively, if your boss gives you a signature form stating that "You shall go to HR to discuss your benefits" it's a demand, and if you don't do it there will be some form of repercussion. This is not him covering his but, this is him making a demand and you are agreeing with the demand by signing the form.
Whether or not you could be fired, fined, demoted, etc.. for not following what you signed is not at question. That one word "should" vs. "shall" makes a huge difference.
I am with GP, there is no way this was a "mistake" but intentionally done. It was an attempt at pulling a fast one on people. Even if there is no binding punishment, the rhetoric "they failed to keep their pledge/promise/bargain/etc.." is damaging and can be used as leverage.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
They wanted to see if they could sneak it by.
...does not make it a legally binding requirement. Passage by two thirds of the Senate makes it a legally binding document.
A bunch of poor, backward, poorly-run countries were demanding that fee as part of the "deal". They made no effort to hide the demand and a bunch of the lunatics at this conference tried to insert it into the deal, but it became obvious that the item in question might upset the talks. That "Shall" language and the dollar amount were well-publicized before and during the talks, but guys like John Kerry ended-up pushing to strip-out binding language that would make it so the deal would have to be ratified as a treaty "back home". These globalist clowns all wanted the good PR and the fine dinners and fancy photos even if they had to jettison all enforceability to get them.
This was just a bunch of countries, many of which sit atop enormous quantities of natural resources and have populations who could be far more productive and wealthy if only their evil governments would get out of the way, instead deflecting blame for their problems onto rich counties and then demanding a form of global socialism where rich somewhat functional countries would hand money to backward countries in exchange for nothing, thus enabling the dysfunction to continue in those backward countries.
It would never have done anything more than enrich evil leaders of evil governments. Like all socialism, you can shift money around for a while to hide the problems (I'm looking at YOU, British NHS as you eat things like the UK military, effectively shifting costs to your US ally who is expected to maintain a military big enough to defend the US and also its allies - you're an oft-used but bad example of socialist "success") eventually you run out of other people's money while subsidizing bad behavior (in the case of the climate talks, that would be nasty little dictators and bananna republic authoritarians. As with all things, you get more of what you pay for.
Lots of talk about the cost of inaction how about the cost of action? It would cost $400 billion to make Australia a 0 carbon economy. Applying the same figure to the US population the cost is 5.5 trillion dollars. Spread over 10-20years it's quite achievable.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries (only) after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.
In short, if it's an actual, binding treaty, the President must have the Senate approve it. This is a clear and deliberate constraint on Presidential power imposed by the US Constitution.
If it's in any way binding in international law, it's a treaty.
Ergo: it's either meaningless or a dead-letter, no matter what the suits say.
-Styopa
Not according to the constitution, but that hasn't stopped politicians from trying.
Some progress is better than no progress. And, agreements like these contain more shalls than shoulds, so even though this particular point was compromised on it doesn't mean the whole agreement is compromised. Something good came out of it, and it is about making little steps at a time. That's diplomacy in action, and it is really the only way things like this can get done. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
The real problem is pollution, but it has been re-labelled as global warming to the layman or average person global warming is something they cannot comprehend or understand, global warming is an academic problem a political problem - not a problem like pollution. The issue should simply be labelled as pollution discussed as stopping, not reducing but stopping, then it would get buy in from all people. And as such the polluters can be named and shamed. Something like "you have been polluting the atmosphere" as opposed to "you are contributing to global warming" it simply does not have the same impact.
That is way the term "Global warming" was coined by the polluters so they could continue to pollute, while having the attention drawn away from them, the name is a diversion, the net result may be that the we have global warming but the cause is and will always be pollution - in whatever form it takes.
Stop pollution - stop global warming.
Maybe the editor was a Steinbeck fan.
What is a "green" environmentalist on the outside but a "red" communist on the inside?
This climate change summit is just an excuse for poor nations to demand more and more money from wealthier nations. They will claim this is to build "green" energy sources and provide accommodations for those displaced by the effects of climate change but in reality it will just line the pockets of the dictators that run these backward hell holes.
This summit is a bunch of watermelons getting together to make themselves look like they are going to save the world from the knuckle dragging troglodytes that actually built the buildings, farmed the food, and drilled the oil that made this summit possible. The solution to this problem isn't taking from the rich and giving to the poor, as if the wealthy nations don't already send billions of dollars to poorer nations every year. The solution is more freedom.
I believe a large part of the poverty in these poor nations is dictators stealing from the populace. People that don't have the freedom to benefit from their labors tend not to work very hard. People that are not free to defend their own property and lives from thugs and the government (but I repeat myself) cannot build up the wealth needed to create a functioning economy.
(In case anyone is confused about what I mean by defending life and property I mean that people are permitted to arm themselves with effective tools of self defense, and carry them freely no matter where they go. Given the technology we have today that means firearms, but just being able to carry a sword or club may be sufficient.)
Most of all people need to be free to take advantage of the most abundant energy resource we have on this earth. That means nuclear power. As it is right now any nation that wishes to develop nuclear energy must be granted permission to do so by those that have already developed it. This "non-proliferation treaty" is supposedly about preventing the development of nuclear weapons but it has effectively only prevented the development of peaceful nuclear power. Those nations that have the desire to obliterate their neighbors under a radioactive mushroom cloud will not be deterred by such a treaty. Those that wish to provide their children with food, warmth, shelter, and education are being held back. These nations must choose between a certain death by not burning oil and coal, or the possibility of living by doing so.
The only way to avoid this dilemma is nuclear power.
Wind and solar power is nice for wealthy nations to experiment with since they already have benefited from centuries of burning coal and decades of nuclear power. Current wind and solar technologies are too expensive for these poor nations to have that luxury. They will either have to develop nuclear power, burn coal, or continue living a second class existence.
I get so frustrated with these watermelons. They claim to be so righteous and helpful but in reality all they are doing is spending other people's money on things that do nothing to address the real issues that brought them to the summit. I have little doubt that this is by design. If they actually solved the problem then that means these "elites" will no longer remain in power. That is because the people they claim to be helping will be free enough to not have to go to these "elites" to ask for more of their "help" in the future.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I wonder how many times "should" appears in the TPP.
Want in on the TPP? You _shall_ accept overbearing copyright laws.
Want in on the Paris Climate accord? You _should_ not pollute.
Priorities.
Fortunately, good diplomacy reverted it to spineless poetry.
That puts you in the same category as counties that don't give a shit. A better comparison would be with western Europe. Same or better quality of life, similar range of climates, but much lower emissions.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
After all, fully implementing all features and requirements/targets of COP21 would reduce the global temperature in the year 2100 by only 0.05 deg C. About 25% of the error tolerance for global temperature in the first place. Essentially, COP21 is a "feel good" agreement - it does nothing other than redistribute tens of trillions of dollars.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Imagine Kerry arranged for the typo to be made, giving him a chance to (re)establish a nuance in definition for the wording, implicitly freeing the country from being obligated. I dont believe what i just said, but its a good story that would suit House of Cards..
Hivemind harvest in progress..
I'm really not surprised. I watched this live (I live in Europe) with a terrible translator for CNN (Note to CNN: Fire him, I could use Google translate faster...) The last speaker was more worried about lunch than he was with the agreement....something like: it is very important that we all go to lunch we must go to lunch we will pass out the agreement while we are eating lunch but we must adjourn right now for lunch....some of that could have been the translator, but it was obvious that a meal break was more important than the agreement. Also listening to the other speakers, the French delegate actually said that we could stop global warning today by signing the agreement...another somehow worked "think of the children" into his remarks...I believe Mother Nature is going to do whatever the hell she wants with this planet, we are strictly riders here, one might as well stop the tides.
"If stupid things work...then they are not stupid."
japan is building 60 new coal plants. So is South Korea
http://in.reuters.com/article/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Try googling Holocene Climate optimum. learn something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 C and summer of 2 to 6 C in northern central Siberia).[1] The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2]
He did not say the whole planet was warmer which is what your limited understanding is based on. temperatures changes varied by location. but the average changes were enormous.