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.

Comments

A typo my ass...

[messymerry]

They tried to pull a fast one...

From binding to useless in one "typo"

[Anonymous Coward]

Diplomacy at work.

Perfect Illustration

[phantomfive]

This story perfectly illustrates why the climate agreement is completely useless.

Re:Perfect Illustration

[QuietLagoon]

This story perfectly illustrates why the climate agreement is completely useless.

The climate agreement is useless because the US energy industry has purchased Congress and has been seeding disinformation for decades.

.

Re:Perfect Illustration

[aethelrick]

Hrmmm... isn't that kinda like saying, "why should I stop shitting on the pavement, other people do it?". Someone has to make a start! Also, somebody needs to provide energy in a sustainable clean manner that isn't fossil fuel. Isn't this a massive opportunity for the true capitalists out there to steal a march on the energy market? It strikes me that governments and businesses should be getting behind research into new clean electricity-centric nuclear power plants, like the LFTR. I guess whoever figures out a way to wean themselves off of fossil fuel first is going to redefine their economy (and maybe grow it hugely selling cheap energy to the rest of us?)

Again and Again

[SuperKendall]

Negotiating a treaty between 100s of nations ... Children do that;

But then, you repeat yourself.

Re:Sad to see Kerry...

[MightyYar]

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.

Agreement, or wishlist?

[hsthompson69]

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".

Re:Why fast ones are a bad idea

[fahrbot-bot]

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.

You *do* realize that much of the coastline around the world is at or about the same elevation above sea level as places like the Maldives and that there are many large cities (including first-world cities), industrial complexes and military bases, etc... on the coastline - right? And you *do* realize that a rising sea level will very negatively affect *those* cities, complexes and bases too - right?

Re:Sad to see Kerry...

[ganjadude]

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