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.
If the urban parts of the country would stop sending morons to Congress who oppose nuclear energy based upon pseudo-science we'll never be able to implement it.
But just look at how successful Volkswagen has been at lowering their emissions! Surely these signatures are working wonders!
If Americans stopped voting for morons from [insert geolocation], that yield to [insert big interest group], and represent [insert koolaid party], things might actually get done in the actual interest of the people. Until then, the divide and conquer is working out quite nicely.
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
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?
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.
Nope, cities have much lower resource needs per-person than either suburbs or rural areas. If you want to argue that there should be about 90% fewer people that's one thing, but to say it's the cities fault that we consume resource then you're simply wrong.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Even if China did implement it, each country sets their own targets so China will likely do nothing anyway.
Also, to clarify, the US is only ~15% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. China is 30%.
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.
Also to clarify, the US population is only 4.38% of the world population. China is 18.72%.
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.
Nope. Cities rely on rural, the opposite does not apply. What I am saying is that to work out the resource usage of a city you need to factor in the rural area that supplies it.
I reserve the write to mangle english.
Jesus fucking Christ what is this obsession with nuclear power. Yes, it's part of the solution, but nuclear power still requires nonrenewable resources in the form of radioactive elements to actually work.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The wealthy don't pay taxes. Ever. Taxes are for you and me. Any tax that's imposed anywhere on the food chain will be passed down to us.
The wealth will own the carbon exchanges and make money off every transaction. It's yet another way to suck the life out of an economy at your and my expense.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
I think history would indicate quite the opposite. The rise of urban dwelling was largely because having centralized centers for commerce and administration were to key agricultural success.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Jesus Christ. AGW is based on scientific observations, not on some elite trying to take over the world. From what I can tell, a large chunk of the elite actually have significant fossil fuel interests, and it is that elite that manipulates morons like you.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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'm going to go out on a limb and predict that this Paris climate deal will not sit well with Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot.
No sir, they're not going to like it one little bit.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Urban per person CO2 emissions 7 metric tons vs rural 19 metric tons annually
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
And thank God, here in America they don't have to.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Big snowstorm here, too. About 6 inches so far and still going strong. Should be a great powder ski day tomorrow.
(However, I am not so stupid as to equate weather with climate.)
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Brother, you might as well be arguing about Italian neo-realist films of the 1950s with my cat. You're never going to make any headway and it just annoys the cat.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Nuclear is a hell of a lot closer to infinite than dino-juice, Australia alone has 1.1M tonnes of Uranium that is easily recoverable (under $80/kg). At 2.2GWh\kg for complete consumption that's almost as much all of the worlds known gas and oil reserves combined.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Just because the average temperature of the earth has increased overall, it doesn't mean you will see a higher temperature where you live. That's like not believing in an average increase in the crime rate because you haven't experienced crime personally.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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
None of which we use for power. our only reactor is for creating medical isotopes or somesuch.
So this is pretty misleading. The reason China's emissions are so high compared to everyone elses is that everyone else has moved their production to China. That Sony Playstation your buying is produced in China, so although it's emissions are going up, its actually because of the consumption of Europe and the collective West. Which is to say, China may be emitting, but it is emitting on everyone's behalf. Seconldy, China's per capita emissions are MUCH lower than the US - about 25%. Thirdly, China implemented the most effective emission program ever - the one child program. Historically, the country lease likely to ratify international conventions is the US (because of its congressional approval system). The reason Japan pulled out of Kyoto was because its main economic rival - China - wasn't a signatory. The US sets a bad example for everyone by not ratifying these things, yet insists on being involved.
Urban per person CO2 emissions 7 metric tons vs rural 19 metric tons annually
Okay, so you have direct production. How much of those 19 tonnes is produced in raising agricultural products consumed by urban residents versus rural residents? And is that net production, or is it gross production failing to account for the uptake of CO2 by growing crops? Single-value statistics are incredibly vague; points deducted for failing to show your work.
If you think for one moment that the carbon tax paid by a company owned by someone in the 0.1% is going to be absorbed by the company, reducing the amount of money it makes for the owner, instead of being passed down to the end consumer in the form of higher prices, then you're sadly confused about the way that the 0.1% got there.
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.
No one in the west believes they are part of the the 99.9%.
Where do you live? I know, I know, the only place that counts
How can I believe the scientists who claimed snowfall would be a thing of the past
Would you name a few, with citations?
Without co2. YOU DIE.
Without water you die, too. Can I immerse you in water for an hour or two?
You are a damn Luddite; increasing world economic development is directly tied to increases in all measures of human welfare and quality of life.
I wouldn't normally have bothered with a bullshit rant like that, but this bit of misinformation needs to die:
If you increase the co2 levels to 1000ppm, vegitation will double its growth rate
That's not even remotely true. Plant growth is limited by any number of factors including water, sunshine, a whole range of soil nutrients, pests, symbiotes, genetic factors etc. You can double the CO2 all you like, but if irrigation is an issue like a lot of the US and desert belt counties, you won't increase yield. Much of Europe is limited by sunshine, not CO2.
What you will get is more CO2. Even if vegetation did double its growth rate then CO2 levels would still net increase, and so would the greenhouse effect. So would ocean acidity, and so would all the other consequences we're trying so hard to avoid.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
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.
You know what we're all paying for, and have been since the industrial revolution started? Health costs. $180B every year in the US, just from coal power alone. The externalised costs of fossil fuels get paid by the weak and infirm, not just the poor.
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?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
And you base all this on science, or what some guy with unclear motives has told you, or just your gut feeling?
Because the science is pretty clear on all this. The "hockey stick" paper is just one of thousands that are pointing to the same future.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
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
To be honest I understand the concern with uranium fusion. Its part of the weapon enrichment cycle and Chenobyl and Fukushima have left a bad taste in the mouth, even if Fukushima really wasnt as bad as made out , and chenobyl (which WAS a genuinely bad turn of events) had more to do with the failings of a reactor (positive coeficient) design we simply dont make anymore for obvious reasons.
Thorium seems like the obvious way forward here. Its super abundant. The waste products have lifespans in the tens rather than tens-of-thousands of year half lifes, and should we derp up again, its not going to have the same meltdown characteristics which uranium reactors can.
It'll just take a bit more research. But not like Fusion which STILL seems like its decades away from being even remotely useful.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
you won't increase yield
Exactly. A field can only grow so much crop. The growth cycle is basically fixed, it takes X days from planting to harvest. The fruit is not ripe more early. Only the "over all" planet grows a bit bigger, that is all.
Higher CO2 levels are useful in a green house. For stuff like tomatoes and salad. Not for Apples or Grain in the "outside". Sure, Salad, Tomatoes, Cucumber, Aubergine etc. would profit from higher CO2 levels, but the amount is neglectible unless you are a farmer and want to live from it. For a normal person having them in a garden there is no big difference.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You say that you are not a troll, but then you link to a troll video. It makes the bogus claim that Bill Nye wants to Clinton to become president so she can get the DOJ to start filing criminal charges and imprisoning global warming skeptics. He then refers to the interview in which he did not mention Hillary Clinton, nor anything about her directing the DOJ to do anything. He did not mention skeptics, and was only talking about company executives who produce the anti-science FUD that they know is incorrect (just like the Enron and tobacco execs).
Here is what else it gets wrong. The word "denier" is not reserved for discussions about holocaust, and to suggest other wise is just being manipulative. But being offended by that term doesn't stop him from calling liberals "fascists". It doesn't stop him from saying that the leftist, tyrannical government will start imprisoning THEN EXTERMINATING Christians!! He then reveals that it is all being directed by Lucifer. Being called a denier seems rather tame compared that vitriol.
I could end there, but there are other lies in the video that need correction. The claim that the leaked emails from Climategate showed that the data had been fabricated and fudged gets traced back to a the choice of a single word in one email. Pretty flimsy. According to NASA, the term global warming was first used in a 1975 paper entitled "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?". Both terms were used together right from the start.
Then there is the ultimate of trolls - 1998. The initial claims were that it was getting colder since 1998, then it was that the warming had stopped, and now the deniers have to say that there is "no significant warming" since that year. And yet the temperature records keep getting broken. And why are people so focused on that one period? If you look at the temperature graphs since modern records began, it is easy to find other periods when the graph levels out, and even goes down substantially. Those periods have never signaled the end of the warming trend. I can't imagine that anyone who uses this claim has not seen a similar graph to the one that I linked above, so why do they think that looking at such a short time frame will be indicative of any trend. The answer must be that they either want to mislead us or they are genuinely stupid and are willing to cherry-pick any data that they can find to match their preconceived ideas.
Where does this idea that returning to an agrarian society is necessary or even suggested by any mainstream body as the solution? Even Greenpeace's radical Energy Revolution doesn't propose that, quite the opposite in fact. Cheap, clean energy for all without wars over resources.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Sure, but you have to mine it, refine it, transport it and secure it. Then you have to build nuclear plants to a high standard, run them safely for decades and finally decommission them and somehow deal with the high level waste. Or, you install renewables which are cheaper at every stage and much lower risk.
Nuclear just isn't competitive any more. It doesn't matter how many times people point to the advantages, investors and governments just don't want to pay for it in most cases.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Or, you install renewables which are cheaper at every stage and much lower risk.
Solar isn't, but wind is about even with nuclear now, at least in the US...
But the real issue is that those costs don't include storage, which wind/solar will require, but nuclear will not...
Perhaps one day we'll have mass scale storage at cheap prices, but until that day, the choices are burn dead dinos or build nuclear.
Climate change is a lie designed to get you to pay carbon taxes while reversing the industrial revolution (for you).
1. Why would I be paying a carbon tax? Carbon taxes are paid by the entities that emit carbon dioxide
2. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? If CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, why is this not demonstrated experimentally?
3. What is causing the present climate change if not our greenhouse gas emissions? Cite the relevant paper.
Forget the 1%. The top 100 wealthiest families in the world are using crap like this to enslave you. They need to be shot.
Why would the top 100 families want a carbon tax? How are we enslaved if someone else pays a tax?
But the real issue is that those costs don't include storage, which wind/solar will require, but nuclear will not...
How do you suppose cars will work on nuclear energy without storage ?
And they put tons and tons of CO2 in the air to get to their Paris junket!
Hypocrites.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
100% True. Plus you have to realize that all resources consumed by the city have to be transported in. I've looked at a few studies regarding city vs rural resource usage and pollution and they regularly misunderstand and/or misattribute resource usage.
If 90% of meat/grain/food consumption is in cities - where 90% of humans reside - then 90% of the production costs - including wastes and transportation/fuel - should be included on the 'city' side of the ledger, but it's often not.
Most city dwellers don't realize that if the shit were really ever to hit the fan in a TEOTWAWKI-type situation, they'd be the first to die. Resources like food/water would dry up before they managed to walk out of the city.
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.
Actually, nuclear requires a great deal of grid adjustment and accommodation, in fact, a plant can be shut down for weeks just because it doesn't have anywhere to dump its power.
Nuclear power simply runs resistors to turn that energy into heat if needed.
You can scale up and down the power output as needed by spinning large resistors.
Of course, that is wasteful, you could likely find a business that would be willing to take wildly swining power, such as a electrolysis plant.
How do you suppose cars will work on nuclear energy without storage ?
That has nothing to do with it...
The storage on cars is required regardless of power source, otherwise the cars run on gas.
The storage is needed for fixed locations such as homes and businesses.
Nuclear doesn't require this, it can run 24/7 without complaint, but wind and solar cannot.
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
http://michellemalkin.com/2010...
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.
1. Why would I be paying a carbon tax? Carbon taxes are paid by the entities that emit carbon dioxide
Those entities don't emit carbon dioxite 'just becuz' they want to. The emissions are a byproduct of things they produce for you. You'll pay the tax indirectly no matter how you feel about it.
Those entities don't emit carbon dioxite 'just becuz' they want to. The emissions are a byproduct of things they produce for you. You'll pay the tax indirectly no matter how you feel about it.
- OR I can buy the product from someone who doesn't emit Carbon Dioxide and therefore doesn't pay the Carbon Tax.
Probably you are not aware that people have a brain region connected to religious 'feelings'.
I used 'feeling' for the lack of a better word in my mediocre english.
Many sins where committed in the name of religions. But bottom line the sins are commited by people.
I frankly don't care what people believe as long as the behave like human beings.
If there were not religions to be abused by 'leaders' they would find something different.
I hate the Christians for destroying cultures, like the Maya and actually the Teutons and the Vikings etc. so that we now have to dig and need PhD.s and research programs to figure anything usefull about them.
But for 'your deity' sake, if you ... or someone ... want to believe in a deity that is your/his business.
Don't mix up the King of Spain who introduced the inquisition with christianity.
You say e.g. islam did mothing good? No idea, Islam is a religion.
The muslims living in Spain rescued the country. The roman had it deforestated that the whole peninsula was about to become a desert. Without the irrigation and terracing techniques the muslims introduced, the country we call Spain today would be an insignificant poor area on the level of Morocco or Ethiopia.
Also I would suggest to refresh your school knowledge: words like Nadir, Algebra, Algorithm are arabic. The numbers you use are: arabic. Most of the stars in the sky have Sumerian/Babylonian or Arabic names. Yes, they were named long before they became muslims, but anyway. People tend to mix up race/language/religion. Every arab is a muslim .... actually: no.
Every religious guy is a jackass or nutcrack? Actually not. Did I suffer from religion? Yes. But with 14 I could leave mine and skip religion classes in school. Spent my time in the computer room, learning UCSD Pascal and Assembler ... if I would not have been 'forced' to have religion classes, I would had not been able too skip them with 14 and jump into something I was interested in.
The cruelty in Arabia, especially against women, has nothing to so with religion. If you could wipe out religion, out of the minds of all involved, they still would treat women like animals, kill, rape and maim them. It is 'culture'. Lack of ethic development, not religion, is what makes people do bad things.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
People need to stop vote for morons. Period.