Slashdot Mirror
Earth Day: 175 Nations Sign Historic Paris Climate Deal (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: World leaders from 175 countries signed the historic Paris climate accord Friday, using Earth Day as a backdrop for the ceremonial inking of a long-fought deal that aims to slow the rise of harmful greenhouse gases. The deal sets a target of limiting global warming by 2100 to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F), as compared to pre-industrial levels. To accomplish that, each nation sets its own target for reducing emissions and updates that mark each year. Friday's signing sets a record for the number of countries signing an agreement on the first available day, the Associated Press reported. The old record goes back to the Law of the Sea in Montego Bay, which was signed by 119 countries in 1982, according to AccuWeather. Signing the accord is only one step in the process. The leaders must now go back to their home countries' governments to ratify and approve the agreement, which could take months or years. The deal goes into effect once 55 countries representing at least 55% of global emissions formally join.
signing a piece of paper != actual results
Yeah, it's historic how well these deals fail to accomplish anything.
Unless the rural parts of the US stop sending useful idiots to Congress we'll never be able to implement it and if we don't then there's zero chance that China does and the two of us represent about 45% of current GHG emissions.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
175 Nations Sign Historic Paris Wealth Redistribution Deal
Seriously, the Earth is warming because of natural cycles. There's been ten times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in prehistoric times and the Earth was only a few degrees warmer than it is now. Our carbon emissions aren't even scratching the surface.
I just shoveled a fuck ton of snow. In late April, no less. How can there be this much snow this late in the winter if there's any such thing as global warming?
to ratify and approve the agreement, which could take months or years
More likely "never". You want seriously think 175 legislatures can agree to something?
Climate change is a lie designed to get you to pay carbon taxes while reversing the industrial revolution (for you).
Forget the 1%. The top 100 wealthiest families in the world are using crap like this to enslave you. They need to be shot.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
Where I live, temperatures are *already* 10-15 degrees above average. Couple that with all of the earthquakes we've had the world over lately and it's easy to see we have an extremely serious problem on our hands that we need to deal with TODAY, not by year 2100.
You know, if signing non-binding treaties had any effect on the climate, we could have set the global thermostat to anything we wanted by now.
So this Earth Day, The Daily Caller News Foundation takes a look at predictions made by environmentalists around the original Earth Day in 1970 to see how they’ve held up.
Have any of these dire predictions come true? No, but that hasn’t stopped environmentalists from worrying. From predicting the end of civilization to classic worries about peak oil, here are seven green predictions that were just flat out wrong.
They are still waging their corrupt drug war in appeasement to the world's tin pot dictators. Whatever they are doing on climate can be no less corrupt. Fuck them all sideways!
Viva México!
The Man Made Climate Change Agenda is a global scheme by the Rothschild banking family so that a universal tax can slowly but surely be introduced through tip-toe legislation that will eventually tax all forms of C02
The IPCC is a totally discredited organization that lied about their data with their infamous Hockey Stick Graph. Immediately the NOAA and NASA was replaced with the NOAA and NASA as the front-men to push the false Science in this agenda.
Even today the weather channel founder slams UN climate claims stating the 'Basic theory failed'... Understand who the UN are , how they were formed, and why they were formed (global government agenda).
More and more people are waking to the political and financial agendas behind why this agenda is being pushed by the usual gang of idiots.
It's a feel good scam.
To quote RNZ,"New Zealand's target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 11 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 remains conditional on aspects of the Paris deal that have not yet been nailed down, namely that there are functioning and transparent carbon markets in place."
Add that to our the recent Morgan Foundation report labelling New Zealand a climate change cheat for dealing in dodgy Carbon Credits, the utter failure of our government to rein in our dairy industry and the widespread degradation of the environment here we are not really doing anything except making the rich richer.
What I don't get is that they are still, local bodies included, happily building infrastructure on land that their own people tell them will be be flooded or underwater in fifty years. They don't care, they don't believe, and they don't want to deal with it.
I reserve the write to mangle english.
has finally begun!
Wake me up later when something important happens. The fine article says: "The non-binding treaty, approved in Paris in December after years of U.N. climate negotiations, aims to slow the rise of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, blamed for putting Earth on a dangerous warming path." A "non-binding treaty" doesn't actually do anything, other than create photo opportunities.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
I live far enough above seal level that I will be dead of old age long before the ocean sweeps me away. The rest of the world can deal with it. Sick of hearing about it, sick of sending money for 0 fucking results.
because the United states of merkin kind will just ignore it like all treaties they don't like.
Do they want to "slow the rise of harmful greenhouse gases"? Or, do they want to limit "global warming by 2100 to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F), as compared to pre-industrial levels"?
I think the latter is more desirable, and the former is not the best way to achieve it. However, there is no scientific consensus that either are more desirable than any of a host of alternatives.
Nevertheless, it seems they have made their futile decision.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Hopefully, CONgress will nix this one again.
What is needed is for America (if not every nation) to put a tax on all consumed goods based on where the worst part comes from (and with America, it should include our states). In doing this, it makes ALL nations bring their CO2 way down and keep it down.
The hard part is that it needs to be based on REAL NUMBERS, such as what OCO3 would give us, and a smart normalization, which would be CO2 per $ GDP.
If America, who is the world's largest importer, was to do this, it would force all nations to drop their emissions to being equal or better than nations like Sweden (who is one of the lowest emissions). In addition, it would force China to HONESTLY clean up.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
First Lady Michelle Obama didn’t accompany her husband on the first leg of his trip, opting instead to fly separately.
We’re losing count of how many planes, helicopters and vehicles are involved, but it looks like somebody’s trying to make the carbon footprint too large to calculate so as to ward off any charges of eco-hypocrisy.
And tomorrow, Earth Day, we’ll all be lectured about climate change.
Don't you think it's past time to finish the job, get off the 300 year dino juice addiction, and invest in cleaner power - solar, wind, wave, nuclear, whatever - so we can have our cake and eat it too, without getting poisoned in the process?
We "get off the dino juice" when doing something else has a better price/performance ratio.
Screwing around with the market to try to make that happen artificially just results in people finding ways around your screwing around.
Meanwhile: Ground-based solar is starting to cross-over versus grid power for stationary loads in sunny (and especially rural) areas - even without government subsidies and market fouling. Wind is to, for grid loads (and small wind has been cheaper than grid for some sites since before electrification.) Several approaches to fusion have the possibility that one might become game changer in the next couple decades. Space-based solar may also be becoming practical, thanks to technological advancement cutting the cost to orbit.
I could go on.
I fully expect the Invisible Hand to guide us to non-fossil-fuel energy sources well before the exploitable fossil fuels run out (in a few centuries at the current rate) or distort the environment dangerously. Assuming, of course, that government intervention, ripping off the public in the name of environmentalism, doesn't crash the economies and technological development needed to make it happen.
After that economic disaster scenario my second-tier concern is more a crash into another ice age in about 150 to 400 years than about "global warming".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I don't think you know what you're talking about, AC.
If you have ever visited China, one this is "clear", growth is China is severely limited by use of Coal. They urgently need to switch to some other form of energy that doesn't invoke killing their own population. Hopefully they will adopt something that also stops breaking the biosphere but that's not their goal, it could just hopefully be a fortunate site effect .
We know the remaining steps:
Corporations declare clean-up 'too hard'.
USA and China gives concessions to the country's biggest polluters
Rest of world refuses to hold the USA accountable, or sanction China
Rest of world refuses to pay clean-up costs when USA and China pay nothing
Nothing gets done
And they put tons and tons of CO2 in the air to get to their Paris junket!
Hypocrites.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
That they all were willing to burn all that fuel in their private jets, drink all that champagne and eat goose-liver and caviar shows how important the environment is to them!
I cannot speak for other countries but Alberta, Canada has just instituted a serious carbon taxation regime in which as of Janiary we will pay essentially double for every gigajoule of natural gas we consume to heat our homes ..this will amount to 500 dollars or more per year and those on the lower end of the economic ladder will get rebated and others will be paying the full amount. As well there will be an increase in gasoline and diesel taxes at the pump of about 6.5 cents. Unlike those that criticize our province we are actually doing something about our carbon future. As well we are hoping to finance our new green technology such as solar and wind through this carbon taxation which will cost us billions and we voted in a governmentt who did not surprise us with this carbon tax but was voted in because of it. Add that to the additional federally mandated green Initiatives signed by Justin Trudeau at the Paris Conference and this country will be a leader in decarbonization. Considering we are a very cold country, we will have to sacrifice a lot more than Europeans and the United States to make it happen. I will sign in anonymously just to show that anon is not necessarily an energy dinosaur
Ppl that really want to see CO2 drop.
Please consider what is REALLY going on.
China's numbers are based on what China's gov tells you.
The west's numbers are based on real measurements.
Because of OCO2, china recently admitted that their coal burning was some 17% MORE, which is a HUGE amount.
BUT, according to OCO2, it remains lower than what it appears.
OCO3 is coming, along with a new sat from Japan. Both will measure in absolute values. China is scared to death of these sats. Why? Because they measure in ABSOLUTE VALUES AND ARE HONEST.
China's emission is much closer to 1/2 of the world's total, not 33% as they claim. Look at the graphs and data that OCO2 produces.
BUT, there is a way to fix this. America can puts an increasing tax on consumed goods based on where the worst sub-part comes from ( either nation and States ). In doing this, it will encourage production, and sub-parts to come from only good areas. Why? Because America is the world's largest importer. IOW, we can impact the world's economy, as well as by dropping the production in bad places, it will improve the air quickly.
In addition, this has to be true CO2 levels. So we use satellites to measure. There are 2 up there now, with oco3 coming later this year. Oco3 will give accurate emission levels of the world.
Then we need a decent normalization. The current pish is emissions / capitia. Worst idea going. All of the ppl's individual choices amount to nothing in terms of emissions. IOW, we do not control it. It is business and gov that do. As such, emissions is far more tied to GDP. And to keep nations from manipulating their money, we use co2/ $ GDP.
With the above, it would reward goods made in low emission areas, while taxing those goods that use even parts from high emissions. Nations and states like Sweden, France, and California would have a major up since their emissions / $GDP is low. OTOH, Obviously China would be at the bottom. They have more than 1TW of electricity being produced by coal. OTOH, if they quit investing into new coal plants and instead put their money into Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Nuke, hydro, they could clean up in 10-20 years.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Thus spoke the wise
Might you words be heard
2C is already a done deal.
It'd pretty much take an overnight cessation of all fossil fuels to keep it at 2C and that's not going to happen.
Slashdotters might like to look up anoxic events and wonder if there will be enough of us left to consider global warming issues when sea levels start rising enough that people notice.
The _only_ way to get enough cheap energy to replace fossil fuels is nuclear energy. Wind and solar might just be able to match correct electrical demands but that''s less than half of total carbon generation. Moving to electric heating and transportation has to be taken into account.
He and that article are talking about snowfall being rare in Britain. How dumb are you?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.