India Ratifies The Paris Climate Change Agreement (npr.org)

"India just ratified the Paris climate deal -- bringing it extremely close to taking effect," reports the Washington Post, calling India the world's fourth-largest producer of greenhouse gas. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes NPR's update on the Paris agreement: It will not become binding until it's ratified by 55 countries that contribute a total of at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The 55-country requirement has already been fulfilled -- India is No. 62 -- but...the current signatories account for about 52 percent of global greenhouse emissions, according to a statement released by the U.N. on Sunday.

India currently produces about 4.5 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions [and] has set a goal of producing 40 percent of its electricity with non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. India also promised to plant or preserve enough tree cover to act as a sink for at least 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide, and has called on the U.S. and other fully developed countries to share technologies that help decrease emissions.

Comments

Counterproductive reasoning

[Errol backfiring]

... 55 countries that contribute a total of at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions

So, in effect, 55% of the countries should pollute more to get an agreement working to pollute less. And, off course, every country that does not wait for the agreement to take effect and starts pollution reduction now is spoiling it for the rest.

Stupid rules like this are why only politicians believe the climate agreement actually helps to achieve something.

Re:Yeah, that'll be why its 400C on Venus

[Bongo]

Hey I'm no scientist, but don't they say Venus' atmosphere has very high pressures and lacks water and Mars is 95% CO2 also? IOW, there's more to it.

They also say that right-wing Margaret Thatcher back in the days was one of the first leaders to talk about climate change, as it would help boost nuclear and so destroy the coal industry and so get rid of all those pesky striking left-wing miners (who just wanted to put bread on the table) and that by citing "science" then no politician would be able to counter the argument.

But then it wouldn't be the first time that people at the top levels of institutions used their position to make political trades and basically continue that long established human tradition of corruption at the top. Hey we grow a lot of grain in big agribusiness, let's get the government health agencies to recommend grain as the core staple everyone should be eating. And we're starting to see, fifty years later, how that turned out.

So excuse my ranty tone but whether I'm right or not isn't the point, the point is if you just go by what the media and politicians and professional organisations are telling you to believe... well that's not scientific. The truth may set us free but the truth is very hard to obtain.

I'm actually pro nuclear which puts me in the odd position of hoping that the public continues to buy into the narrative of catastrophic man-made climate change even though it looks to be on very shaky factual foundations, and at this point, even though many just counter that "everyone agrees" and "there's a consensus" and the "evidence is overwhelming" etc., which are all mostly people repeating a mantra of points which they themselves would not have been able to verify, so I'm actually having to side with group-think of religious proportions, just because I'm in favour of nuclear (but I'm not in favour of crippling the developing world, which thankfully will continue to develop regardless of what Westerners tell them they should be doing.)

Yes science requires extreme discipline and smarts and training, and that's also why it is so easy to bluff. I can't believe how often laypeople talk about science as if it is this incredibly disciplined and double and triple checked endeavour where no error can remain hidden. The people who practice science are very smart which also means they can be very smart about how to protect their research and fluff over the flaws. I'm sure many fields are continuing with a high level of integrity, but that is no guarantee all fields are doing it right. Too often we hear there's a consensus, yet what we should really be being told is "how do they know that?" Why all the emphasis on "consensus" and not on "how they know" ? The lame rebuttal is that the public is too stupid to understand.

The future belongs to Africa, China, India, and hopefully they will press on with nuclear regardless of green protests about radiation and green desires of some sort of utopia of sustainable farms (poverty).