Slashdot Mirror
Paris Climate Change Agreement Enters Into Force (theguardian.com)
The Paris agreement on climate change enters into force on Friday, marking the first time that governments have agreed legally binding limits to global temperature rises. From a report on The Guardian: The passage of the accord -- the fruit of more than two decades of often tortuous international negotiations on combating climate change -- was hailed by nations and observers around the world. Under the agreement, all governments that have ratified the accord, which includes the US, China, India and the EU, now carry an obligation to hold global warming to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels. That is what scientists regard as the limit of safety, beyond which climate change is likely to become catastrophic and irreversible. Countries have put forward commitments on curbing carbon emissions under the agreement, but a report on Thursday found those pledges would see temperature rises significantly overshoot the threshold, with 3C of warming. Environmental groups urged governments to do more.
I honestly read that as farce.
that are merkins will just ignore it and fail to ratify it into law and carry on consumning and consumming. Some of them will also claim its Jebuzzes will!
Actually it's not. As the president does not have the authority to ratify a treaty for our country.
The "hot air" we should worry about are the empty promises, as always.
From TFA ...to which I'd add: while the framework is allegedly 'binding', I can't for the life of me find any consequences for breaking the pledges, so is a "legal framework" meaningful without punishment?
"The carbon emission curbs put forward by countries under Paris are not legally-binding but the framework of the accord, which includes a mechanism for periodically cranking those pledges up, is binding. "
(Recognizing, of course, that a lack of actual enforcement mechanism is precisely why this 'agreement' exists in the first place...it's just nice words with nothing behind it.)
-Styopa
Anyone that has the ability to do any critical thinking... Aside from her (claimed) lady-parts, her second claim to be the next president are, in no particular order:
- It's her turn
- She's not Trump
Ken
I wish I could say that was true. But, I want to make clear to you the training that federal employees receive in terms of law: They are told there are four types of law: statute law, case law, treaties, and executive agreements.
There is no distinction made at all, except for the primacy of treaties and executive agreements. So, whatever the actual status (and the Supreme Court made some decision back in the 70s validating Executive Agreements), the people working for the government think they are law.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Funny, all those adjectives describe Hillary perfectly. Lying, yes. Racist, yes. Narcissist, yes. Egomaniac, big fat yes.
You won't get much reaction on slashdot, it's a climate change denial echo chamber.
Oh I don't deny there is climate change. Is it AGW? I don't know, and I don't care. I'm a realist. Either way if the stats are true, it is politically impossible to do anything about it (short of a war and/or massive decimation of either population or economy which I don't favor).
IMHO we should stop wasting time/money trying to stop it because that is simply a quixotic goal. We should simply spend our time/money to adapt. If you want to call me a denier, fine. Even if we caused it (and I'm agnostic on the "A" part of it), it doesn't really matter and we shouldn't argue about it. Go sue me.