Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Canada (1.95% of the percent of global greenhouse emissions) is supposed to ratify the agreement later this week. With the liberals having the majority of seats, this should easily pass. Not enough to bring it to 55%, though.
A little earlier we were told that the US is no. 4 on the list of polluters (sic) in the post[1] on reservoirs as a source of greenhouse gases.
So which is it?
[1] https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
It's years to late and even if it where ratified by the required number of countries there is no mechanism to force compliance and no targets from previous treaties have even come close to being met
Can we just admit we don't care about children and get on with the business of enslaving them and destroying the planet for our own limited comfort without pretense of ethics or morality
Obviously its just going through a natural climate cycle however, that temperature obviously has nothing to do with its atmosphere being composed of CO2. [/sarcasm]
And before anyone says its simply because its closer to the sun, Mercury is even closer than Venus yet its colder.
Remember when "acid rain" was the #1 environmental problem? - No? - Neither does anyone else under 40 because Reagan and Thatcher pushed for (and won) a global cap + trade treaty on sulphur emissions. Besides, if climate treaties don't make a practical difference, why has the coal industry spent the last 30-40yrs doing everything it can to sabotage them?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You absolutely nailed it. Spot on!
What about just having MORE countries ratifying?? BTW the EU hasn't ratified yet but is almost certain to do so.
So, don't worry. The treaty will become effective soon. And yes, it will reduce the greenhousegas emissions.
The problem is that emission control costs money, and this in turn means that your products get more expensive. So if you care about your environment but some other country does not, your industry is no longer competitive and corporations will move to that other country where they can produce more cheaply.
It's yet another prisoner's dilemma.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's yet another prisoner's dilemma.
There's no warden here, just physics. And the prisoners have other options in this particular scenario, like killing other prisoners who are mucking up the numbers.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I look forward to you piping your tailpipe into your car to prove your point.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>> call on west to "share" tech
Not a problem, it's on sale now.
>> Er...we really meant "give"
Thought so.
Fact: cows create methane through flatulence ...
Fact: Indians don't eat cows
Fact: Therefore, India does not factory-farm cows
Fact: Therefore, India produces far fewer cows than places that mass-produce beef
Fact: therefore, Indians really are not particularly responsible for global warming
Oh FFS, there is actually someone on /. who needs an explanation for Prisoner's Dilemma? Really?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As does water vapor, which is why it's a greenhouse gas
Lots of water vapour in the air also tends to condense and form clouds, which are white and reflect energy away from the Earth. The greenhouse effect happens when shorter wavelengths (which can penetrate carbon dioxide) hits the ground and are re-radiated as infra red. The IR is then unable to radiate into space because of the greenhouse gasses. If you have a lot of white clouds in the air, then the energy is simply reflected. This causes cooling, which causes the air to be unable to gold as much water vapour, which causes rain, and the system largely balances with respect to water vapour.
Not quite so simple. Clouds also reflect thermal infrared, and so they have both warming and cooling effects. Whether the sum is warming or cooling depends, among other things, on the cloud altitude. The first-order effect is that clouds reduce the day/night temperature swings.
Last I heard the prevalent theory was that if you continue long enough down that road you get enough weather to flip you over into an ice age
That's one of the predictions.
A while back, there was a hypothesis that climate warming could affect thermohaline circulation, cutting off one of the mechanisms circulating heat northward from the equator, and hence triggering a northern-hemisphere glaciation ("ice age"). I don't think anybody was able to come up with a reasonable model showing this happening, though, so nobody credits that hypothesis right now. It was never a "prediction"; it was a hypothesis that never got well accepted (except by Hollwood, which will take any excuse to make a disaster movie.)
Trust me, CO2 will kill you too. Just ask anybody who ever got trapped on a sunken submarine... oh wait, you can't - that's the point.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Modern, well tuned, car tailpipes won't kill you. Not enough CO.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It certainly will, at high enough concentrations for a long enough time. But breathing exhaust gas won't prove that, because the carbon monoxide will kill you long before the CO2 becomes a problem.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Dude, I'm trying to help GP win his richly deserved Darwin Award. Show some charity.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The article says that the U.S. has joined the agreement, but that is not actually true. Obama has not even submitted this agreement to the Senate to START the process of the U.S. joining it. Until the Senate ratifies it, this agreement is not legally binding upon the U.S.. If other countries want to bind themselves to an agreement based on the assumption that all future Presidents and Congresses will honor Obama's word on this treaty, that is up to them. But if they do so, they are being foolish because the reason Obama has not submitted it to the Senate is because he knows the Senate will reject it (just like a previous Senate rejected the Kyoto accords...even without them being submitted that Senate voted 99-0 on a statement opposing the Kyoto Accords).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If methane is not burned, is it still a greenhouse gas?
The U.N. (useless nations) have no way to enforce it. It's a piece of paper, that they will hail as a way to "save the planet", but, most nations will ignore/cheat anyway.
What about just having MORE countries ratifying?? BTW the EU hasn't ratified yet but is almost certain to do so. ... can't remember.
The EU ratified last week. Or was it two weeks ago
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
FTA: "The United States officially ratified the Paris climate agreement in September. Of the top 10 global emitters of greenhouse gases according to the 2015 Paris conference, only the U.S., China and India have submitted their ratification documents. Among the top global emitters of greenhouse gases, the 28 countries of the European Union — which is counted as one entity for the purposes of the treaty — and Russia have yet to officially agree to the plan."
So they have not officially ratified the treaty yet but have pledged to do so from the start..
The difference is important because that means that the 28 countries of the EU are currently not counted in the 55% rule. So as soon as the EU paperwork is in (and I can't imagine the EU leaders going to the conference on oktober 7th without having officially ratified) the 55% rule will have been reached and the treaty will come into effect.
Clearly India hasn't been subjected to enough black-ops false-flag terror attacks to convince them of the foolishness of this course of action.
Or maybe they just, y'know - want the world to be a better place.
Requiem for the American Dream
Yeah. You see libturds everywhere, because you're incapable of nuanced thinking.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Your argument consists of two parts:
(1) a statement that doctors misdiagnosed you, therefore experts are idiots. The previous poster has commented on this.
(2) a statement that many years ago the Institute of Forecasters criticized the global circulation models as not being verified as methods of forecasting.
Looking at what the Institute of Forecasters publishes articles about, it seem that they mostly have expertise at economic forecasts, with a few outliers such as forecasting television ratings and forecasting election results. The author of the most recent paper on climate prediction is a professor of "management science" and his postdoc, also in management science. I don't see much in the way of publications showing that they know anything about physics or about climate.
Their most recent publication (Robert Fildes and Nikolaos Kourentzes, "Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change," pp 968-995, International Journal of Forecasting Volume 27, Issue 4, October–December 2011) doesn't seem to be as negative as you suggest, and the conclusions, described in the paper as "tentative and limited," are mostly that the predictions need to be analyzed and verified. Despite this being a not very controversial recommendation, it is debated by two follow-on commentary papers (by Patrick E. McSharry and Noel S. Keenlyside). It seems that the Institute of Forecasters argue about climate prediction but don't actually have a consensus opinion.
The way science is done-- as opposed to management-science "forecasting"-- is that you compare your hypothesis to the null hypothesis. In the case of climate science, the null hypothesis is strongly ruled out. If you want to disbelieve climate science, the correct way to do it is come up with an alternative hypothesis that fits the evidence and makes predictions. So far that alternative hypothesis has failed to materialize.
As I said before: the EU officially ratified the treaty (meanwhile) 2 weeks ago.
If there is still paper work to do as in handing in documents, I don't know.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And as I said before: officially? No.
Proof: the ratification was just announced. And through this (again: as I said before) the treaty is now in effect.
Through the addition of the 28 EU countries the 55% limit has been surpassed.
Ah you are right, :D
I missread the announcements on www.spiegel.de, they announced "they would ratify it soon" and I only read the headline and assumed they had ratified it.
There was a long discussion about the fact that the EU was so late, I only read that
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Ah you are right.
Indeed ;-) :-))
Allways. Please remember that