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.
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.
Also to clarify, the US population is only 4.38% of the world population. China is 18.72%.
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.
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.
So ignore the environmentalists. Look at what the scientists are saying. But of course, that's hard and gives you an answer you don't want, so better to construct a strawman for your small mind to knock down.
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)
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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"?
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.
Considering that co2 is tied to business and gov decisions, why is co2/$gdp a bad metric? Ppl do not do the bulk of the choices.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And they put tons and tons of CO2 in the air to get to their Paris junket!
Hypocrites.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
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.