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.
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.
This story perfectly illustrates why the climate agreement is completely useless.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This "accord" or "agreement" will never work, anyway. Nothing is binding and all nations will do what is best for them ... which is manufacturing, industry, and pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Sending all these people for a vacation in Paris was a complete and utter waste of time.
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.
And because of that change, the planet is safe now!
I think you probably know better than that. The fact that we have actually been able to agree about a somewhat clear wording is remarkable, especially when you consider how far away everybody was from each other in Copenhagen. But of course, if it was only up to what the governmets' negotiators were able to do, then it would indeed be nothing - what makes this rather more hopeful is the fact that business has come on boards to agreat extent, and that there is optimism about a way forward, that may even mean new business opportunities. It isn't going to be easy - nobody imagines that, but we may have crossed a watershed now, and it just might be that we finally begin to move in the right direction.
Because allowing warming to continue until rain belts are seriously altered isn't going to lead to mass starvation, wars, migrations, and yes, lots of fucking death.
CO2 traps energy in the lower atmosphere, and it interacts with seawater to alter the ocean's pH levels. The more we puke out, the worse both these things get. This isn't even controversial, no matter how many Koch talking points you spew. Using fossil fuels is just plain bad for everyone.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's more of "evil eye" punishment. If you flake, then other countries can point to that if they flake on something else when called on it, or embarrass you a bit. It's not binding, but one can lose some UN credibility. Some nations are bothered by that more than others. Some nations want more international respect and recognition, while some care little.
Table-ized A.I.
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
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.
Destroyed? Because forced handouts to failed states has anything to do with reducing emissions? No, this is rebuffing to rent-seeking under guise of international climate change treaty. Western countries could agree to pay 100% of GDP and the world would be as f*(&ed on climate change.
Emission reductions are key critical component, not cash handouts.
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.
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".
Waste of time from whose point of view? From their point of view, it was very valuable. Getting drunk together, spending some quality time doing nothing useful, heh, my dream vacation! :(
Oh, you meant from Average Joe's point of view? Meh, who gives a fuck about Average Joe...
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Honestly, I can't argue with an agreement, but I still think it's mostly worthless.
Stopping this at two degrees is a pipe dream. It's worse than that, it's delusional. We need to certainly halt the increase of CO2 emissions, but the reality is that everything bad that will happen at over two degrees *going to happen*.
We need to start preparing for evacuations and projects to deal with rising sea levels. We need to consider "superdroughts" and how to cope with them.
Those people in the Marshall Islands who are trying to stop having their country become part of the ocean? Already too late. Find them somewhere to go.
I think we need a realistic plan to control CO2 emissions which does not set ridiculous feel-good targets that no one will ever meet, and instead understand that if there is going to be change, we can adapt to it.
This is not to say that we should stop trying to switch to better sources of energy production. That needs to keep moving forward. No one really wants to keep burning using fossil fuels forever and there will continue to be steady progress on that front, but steady will not be revolutionary.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls... but on the off chance that you are ignorant and not just an angry little elf.
He didn't go "full on Republican retard" - he knew he could not get a binding treaty past the Republican-controlled Senate. This forced him to sign an agreement that is non-binding. If that single word had been allowed to pass, it would have triggered a Senate vote and inevitable rejection of the entire agreement.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The only thing all nations seem to agree on is that they need a document about AGW that doesn't have any requirements other than that they produce reports every five years discussing why they haven't done anything to fix the problem.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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".
yet the criminals still had no problem acquiring them from outside sources
No problem? It's a hell of a thing to get a gun in the UK. Yes, criminals can and do get them - but not your low-level drug dealers who do the majority of the shooting in the US. They can't afford them. You had to very carefully word your language to make it true, but even so it is extremely misleading.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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! --
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)
Frankly, with the money problems the US has, its debt, etc. I don't understand why we're sending any money to outside countries.
We should shut that fucking money pump off right now....and examine to see if any of them are truly justified. I personally can't think of any...possibly some medical help here and there, but that's about it.
No need for us to be paying out foreign aid.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Indeed. You don't contribute to charity while you are carrying a balance on your credit cards... Writing checks to foreign governments seems a bit stupid when we are hemorrhaging money at home.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Seeing angry trolls (swearing, assuming debating points are from shills) like this get modded to +5 insightful tells me all I need to know about groupthink when it comes to climate change.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
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?
Because the only thing that ever counts is your freedom. Other peoples' freedom from being shot, well fuck them, they're not as important as little ol' you.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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?
there are laws in place for that.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
im a responsible muslim, i didnt blow up anyone...
see how that works???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
in other words, the agreement has no legs to stand on, and never would, so it was as i said, nothing but an excuse for rich people to go on vacation on the taxpayers dime
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
CO2 traps solar energy. Period. That isn't even the least bit controversial.
That is true.
That you're too stupid and infantile, and frankly just plain cowardly, to admit that vomiting hundreds of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in the space of three centuries is irrelevant to the effects of such actions.
You're angry, but this is where you lose people and defeat the point of your argument.
You can be 100% correct and it still doesn't matter unless you can get the majority of the world to agree with you.
Example:
"Statement: The world needs to leave the bulk of the remaining oil, coal, and natural gas in the ground."
I imagine you would agree with the above statement. Fair enough. Now how do you go about making that happen? Without starting WWIII?
It isn't about theory and science, it is about the reality of people's daily lives. You simply cannot ask people to turn their lives upside down because of this. They won't do it. You'll have a revolt on your hands.
So the trick is to figure out what you CAN do and what you CAN'T do, when it comes to real people and real lives.
In truth? I think we passed the point of no-return decades ago. This problem had to be addressed back in the 70s, we're probably far too late to stop it now, sad to say.
Note: That doesn't mean we should do nothing. Of course we should. I'm all for moving towards a carbon reduced future with more wind and solar and less oil/coal/natural gas. It will help, it just won't be enough.
It's not really charity. It's more a bribe.
Ok, so being that you are not a US citizen and not living in the US....
I'd say you have almost up to 0.000% to say in the matter then.
Apparently you're glad to be where you are and are quite happy with the laws there, I'm happy for you.
But you have absolutely NO say in how we do things here in the US. You're opinions on this are meaningless, as are mine about your country.
You may have your opinions, but you really don't need to try to sway how we live here at all...none of your business.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
You don't contribute to charity while you are carrying a balance on your credit cards...
Really? If you live your life in such a way that you waste your money, you solve the problem not by reigning in your own excesses, but by taking from the poorest?
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
It isn't about theory and science, it is about the reality of people's daily lives. You simply cannot ask people to turn their lives upside down because of this. They won't do it. You'll have a revolt on your hands.
There are hundreds of millions of lives on the line. People will have their lives turned upside down either way. They may not choose the smaller upheaval now to avoid the larger upheaval later, but that does not mean we should stop trying to convince them.
Telling them not to worry, the Titanic is unsinkable is a disservice.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Fighting climate change will not save any lives... It will merely change life expectancy for some. So will mitigating climate change. There is no free lunch in here. We can't magically stop using carbon based fuels without repercussions that are known to be severe. The debate isn't over whether the climate will change, it is if the mitigation is worse than the problem.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
I didn't say one way or the other what I believed, but your angry response is why you're a troll. Thankfully you are down to a +3 mod now, and commenting further will help mods adjust accordingly.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Freedom sometimes requires getting shot every once in awhile. Or did George Washington not go to war for freedom?
Besides, no one is claiming people should have the freedom to shoot other people, but rather they should have the freedom to own a firearm. Equating owning a firearm with shooting people is the worst reducto ad absurdum.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
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.
The debate isn't over whether the climate will change, it is if the mitigation is worse than the problem.
Sadly I think very few people are even having that debate yet...
And when they do, will they consider all the middle grounds in between doing nothing and everything?
Mitigation isn't an all-or-nothing thing.
...does not make it a legally binding requirement. Passage by two thirds of the Senate makes it a legally binding document.
People will have their lives turned upside down either way.
Maybe, but more likely their future children will...
I'm in my 40s, I likely won't live long enough for any of it to matter. People already don't save for retirement, don't plan for the future, and you're asking them to worry about the year 2,100.
The vast majority of the people alive today, won't be, when all the "bad stuff" is supposed to happen.
They may not choose the smaller upheaval now to avoid the larger upheaval later, but that does not mean we should stop trying to convince them.
Convince of them of what? That they need to stop driving, move into small houses, and turn off the AC, or something bad will happen in 50-100 years?
You will never get very far with that augment. You might well be correct, but you aren't going to get anyone to listen if that is your sales pitch.
No actually, in the numbers I was looking at, suicide was listed separately from homicide. Even Wikipedia has a page on this topic... here take a peek, they have references to their information sources and they broadly agree with my ballpark figure. 0.06 gun homicides per 100000 population in the UK (2011) compared to 3.55 gun homicides per 100000 population in the US (2013). Considering violent crime has been generally falling in both countries, the two year difference in the measurements should bias in favour of your argument and it still shows nearly a 60:1 ratio.
List of countries by firearm related death
Even allowing for crap in the stats, bad data the gap is still very large for two civilized countries. Do you really honestly believe that the ready availability of guns in the US has no contributing effect here?
Not a ~complete~ lack of guns, sure. But it is significantly more difficult (and expensive) for criminals to get guns in places that have had long-standing gun bans in place. The police sometimes post pictures of seized weapons here in Australia (taken from criminals who were using them illegally) and they are usually (a) very expensive to acquire and (b) ancient (WW2-era pistols etc.), falling apart or otherwise in very in poor condition. Only ever rusty old pistols or shotguns. Hardly the sophisticated, modern rapid fire weapons available in the US.
It's true that if you ban guns only criminals will have them. But as the decades roll on and more of the few remaining illegal weapons get discovered and removed from the market by police, they get more and more expensive - out of the reach of the vast majority of petty criminals.
Australia is lucky of course that it's an island which makes it comparatively easy to stop new weapons getting into the country too (since there's only a finite number of places where goods can come into the country, all of which are monitored). Gun bans would be significantly less effective in a country with a more porous border I imagine (i.e. long land borders like the US and Europe).
That's great, but I wasn't replying to you.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
fair enough points i thought you were trying to use the other numbers anti gun people love to use.
as far as posting "firearm related death" i think the more important number is where it lines up with total number of death. , IMO 3 out of 100K (without knowing if its an innocent victim or 2 gangbangers no less) is a number I and many americans are comfortable with. And by that I dont mean we celebrate the number, but that the number is still on the decline while gun ownership has done nothing but go up.
Does it really matter if someone kills you with a gun or a knife? in the end you are still dead
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
i'm not sure they're empowered to make empty promises.
where's the money come from? saying we will provide funds to help less developed nations transition to cleaner alternatives sounds nice, but i don't think it's in the constitutional authority of the executive to promise money not budgeted by the legislature. the administrations already on shaky ground with these kinds of deals that sidestep congressional approval to a degree. I don't think they'd have any standing, especially with open-ended commitments.
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.
david deutsch at an almost entirely tangential ted-talk made an excellent point.
he felt we're already too far gone at this point. doing nothing would be a catastrophe, stopping emissions today, to the level necessary would also constitute a catastrophe of a different nature. At this point, it may be worth losing sight of the box entirely for a solution.
space mirrors :) or something similarly ludicrous. But we might be at the point where anything reasonable would be even worse.
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
Absolutely, climate engineering will almost certainly be implemented. It is unfortunately infeasible to make a working space solar shade.
Unfortunately climate engineering is unlikely to solve ocean acidification, and it will likely alter weather patterns dramatically.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
I think you underestimate people. Anyway, I have no influence on the argument. If the reality is that something bad will happen in 50-100 years, then that is what we have to tell people. What else could we do, lie to them?
Not that I think the problems are 50 years away. Rainwater flooding was practically unknown in Denmark 15 years ago, now it happens every year.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
My owning guns, and those of the rest of us responsibly owning and using guns do not pose a threat to anyones' right to not get shot.
Criminals that use guns to shoot someone illegally are what is a problem and there are laws against that.
Personally, I'd prefer to have my own guns to allow me to protect myself from possible criminal attack. The police are NOT there to stop or prevent crime, it is up to me to defend myself in my home. Being that 911 emergency calls in the New Orleans area can take up to and over an hour in some parts....doesn't give me any warm fuzzy feelings about not needing something to potentially defend myself.
People have a right to not get stabbed, or beaten over the head too...want to restrict access to knives, and baseball bats too?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
1) There's no problem
2) There might be a problem, but some say it isn't a problem, so let's wait and see
3) There's a problem, but other things are more important
4) There's a problem, but it's way too expensive to fix
5) There's a problem, but it's too late to fix
The 5 stages of denial...
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
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.
It's lousy diplomacy. I discussed how things could have gone better here.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Perhaps America needs to drop the national ego a bit and look to the rest of the world, see what policies have been shown to work, and adopt them. Rather than just dismissing all the lessons learned elsewhere as not American and therefore not worthy of acknowledgement.
Don't bother talking sense to the True Believers, they're emotionally committed, mostly deranged and using the wildly-exaggerated "issue" as a political tool against their opponents, who, of course, are evil and worse than Hitler.
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.
Freedom comes with risks. There are inherent risks in all freedoms. Should we take them away in the name of safety because someone might be harmed or should we accept that there will be problems? I'd rather not base our legislation on cowardice and fear. You, obviously, don't agree and, fortunately, you lack the capacity to take away my liberties. Powerless and scared is no way to go through life, son.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You don't contribute to charity while you are carrying a balance on your credit cards...
Really? If you live your life in such a way that you waste your money, you solve the problem not by reigning in your own excesses, but by taking from the poorest?
You must work for the music/movie industries. In no way is "not giving money to party X" the same as "taking money from party X".
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
You argued with an idiot. The key lesson is to learn to not argue with idiots. It saves you time and frustration.
I imagine that you thought you were proving something other than that. Well, you have proven something. Albeit not what you intended. You've shown that I am not so good at following my own ideas concerning arguing with idiots.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Err... Sorry about that. I sold and retired with a few dollars in 2007. My "collection" is a bit embarrassing as there are quite a few that I've never even fired. ;-) I also had a "thing" for the AR-15-style firearms for a while. I still do, they're lovely plinkers, but I can only account for fewer than a half dozen of the number sold. If emails from my friend are to be believed (and they usually are) that number will probably grow a bit when I return home this spring.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Using fossil fuels is just plain bad for everyone.
Except for those using the fossil fuels.
You want to solve this problem? You want people to stop burning fossil fuels? There is a simple solution to this, give them a better option.
By "better" I don't mean "this won't raise the sea levels in 100 years" but "this is cheaper than what you use now". People don't burn fossil fuels because they are dicks to the environment, they burn fossil fuels because it gives them food, shelter, transportation, warmth, information, and entertainment. You seem confused on why people continue to choose fossil fuels over alternatives.
Do you know what physicians call alternative medicine that is effective? They call it "medicine". Why are wind and solar considered "alternative energy"? Because it's not as effective as coal. If it was as cheap, reliable, and plentiful as coal then wind and solar would no longer be "alternatives" would they? We do have an alternative to burning coal that is cheap, reliable, and carbon free. Well, it's as "carbon free" as wind, solar, or hydro. It's called nuclear fission.
We figured out how to make nuclear fission work for us as reliably as coal decades ago. In the mean time we figured out how to make it safer and cheaper than any other energy source we have. The only thing holding it back is politics.
So long as burning fossil fuels is more beneficial than anything else we will continue to burn them. If you don't like it then you'll just have to deal with the "lots of fucking death" it causes. Nothing speaks louder than money. We can live a carbon free life without having to wear sweaters indoors and putting solar panels on the roof like President Carter wanted us to. Telling people they have to live in a cold house in the winter and sweat through the summer is going to lose every time.
Nuclear fission is our future, or it's ugly sweater day all winter long.
Waiting for wind and solar to be as cheap and reliable as nuclear power is now is just causing more of the "lots of fucking death" that you seemingly so vehemently want to avoid. It's nuclear fission or "lots of fucking death", thinking we have another option is insanity.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Destroyed? Because forced handouts to failed states has anything to do with reducing emissions? No, this is rebuffing to rent-seeking under guise of international climate change treaty. Western countries could agree to pay 100% of GDP and the world would be as f*(&ed on climate change.
Emission reductions are key critical component, not cash handouts.
Who modded this down? Can't handle the truth, huh?
Wealthy nations that are emitting the carbon paying the nations affected by it does not solve the problem. What will solve the problem is putting that money towards efforts to actually reduce the carbon output.
I say we put that money towards building nuclear fission power plants. Oh, and don't build them like Chernobyl. Build them with liquid fuel, passive safety systems, high efficiency turbines, air cooling (so we're not using freshwater that could be better used for drinking or irrigation), and breeding of fuels.
Not that we'd build another Chernobyl anyway, that's just bad business. But it seems I must say this or some knucklehead will reply with how every nuclear power plant ever built has blown up and irradiated millions. Oh, wait, they haven't. What we did have is hundreds of decades old nuclear reactors operate with perfect safety records but a handful failed spectacularly so now there are seemingly millions of people that will piss themselves if anyone mentions "nukular" within earshot. It's not like hydro dams never failed. People never fall from windmills. Solar panels never electrocute or start fires. Nope, all that stuff is safer than nuclear fission... except when it isn't.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
as opposed to anything with teeth that you would bitch about because you might have to actually man up and clean up after yourself. Face it kid, you just like complaining since it gives you some sort of attention.
i.e. I don't want to do anything that might harm my privileged life. Is a bunch of people drown that serves them for not haveing the foresight of being born well to do.
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!
That is mostly true.
It could make a difference is by changing public opinion and discourse. This will make it more politically likely for countries in Europe or elsewhere to institute tariffs for imported goods that relied on high CO2 emissions to be produced (for example). Countries that don't care about CO2 will nevertheless avoid power sources for which they may be penalized later on.
I'm in my 40s, I likely won't live long enough for any of it to matter.
If you are in your 40s and live to sometime in your 80s I don't think there is any doubt you will serious complications from anthropogenic global warming in your lifetime. Effects are already being felt in places but they're still subtle enough for the most part at this point that most people can still get away with ignoring them.
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..
funny thing that... if no-one has guns, they're pretty hard to steal.
Funny that, in the UK they banned guns and yet the criminals still had no problem acquiring them from outside sources. It is even more useless when a city or state tries to ban guns. In no place that has "banned" guns is there a lack of guns for criminals.
Criminals with guns are rare, criminals with working guns are very rare and criminals with working guns that have ammunition are rarer still.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Why?
Remember, we LEFT Europe (Great Britan) at the beginning because we didn't want to be GB lite.
We are founded upon doing what we want and see no reason to really change that. So far, the majority of us still like it that way.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
hrm, maybe genetic engineering of super algae.
i mean, honestly, there was a time when all that CO2 was in the air... it won't really kill us, it's just we kind of like where are coasts are right now. nothing inherently wrong with fossil fuels, that some cancer cure can't fix... we just need to figure out a way to put that shit back into the ground after we extract all the sweet sweet energy out of it.
i mean. i think david deutsch's point was basically, we gotta science our way out of this one. maybe genetic engineering or something with an economic incentive. the government could try to fund stuff in the "just so crazy awesome it could work" category.
something like, i don't know, make a super hardy algae that produces simple sugars and proliferates like a fucking champ and pair it with fish farms. just gotta make sure we don't jurassic park ourselves.
Nothing is going to happen in the next 40 years that would be worse than the changes I would have to made today to try and stop it from happening.
And of course, it is worth pointing out that the vast majority of people would have to make those changes, or I'm just hurting myself for no real benefit.
It is the tragity of the commons, we are all going to pay for our inability to use a shared resource well.
We need to stop all foreign aid, that would significantly reduce greenhouse gasses!
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
Obviously, we're not going to give up fossil fuels cold turkey. Unfortunately, this is probably going to push the temperature change past the 2K people are hoping for, but that's life. Or something.
This treaty has no teeth, but it's a worldwide agreement that there's a problem that we should be doing something about. That's not going to help right now, but it might make mitigation measures more palatable down the road.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you read note 17 of the agreement, even if every nation did everything in the agreement, it wouldn't hold temps to 2 C.
With the agreement, we likely would hold just under 3 C by 2100, and that is with everyone taking part.
Mitigation won't be enough, adaptation has to be part of it. We need to work on both.
When Europe goes 100 years without a government going out of control on them, we will consider if their method has been 'shown to work'.
Until that date (which I make to be about 2085-2090) shut the fuck up and be glad NATO still has your back.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
i mean, honestly, there was a time when all that CO2 was in the air...
No, there was not. Not at the same time, anyway. The carbon was bound in minerals, inaccessible to the biosphere.
If we wait long enough, that will happen again. Volcanic activity brings limestone into contact with water or air, and CO2 is bound until the level is lower. Alas, "long enough" means at least millennia.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
meh, bleh, looked it up,
meant after the lava stage, initially; but probably should revise that to since plants have been around, after you know, oxygen became a thing, it's been going up and down but down is the general trend. you've got stuff like upwards of 2000 ppm during some of the dino periods.
my point was our, for lack of a better term, evolutionary predecessors didn't choke on it. I don't think we'll choke on it either.
reshape the world, but we won't be dead. May never reach the same level again without easy access to similarly exploitable energy density to grow up with... but that's a problem for future theoretical me and his future friends.
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."
Yup. We're screwed. We are not going to get enough people to do enough fast enough to limit the change. This accord, even with no teeth, will help make reduction of fossil fuels more acceptable.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes