Governments 'Not on Track' To Cap Temperatures at Below 2 Degrees: UN (reuters.com)

Governments are not on track to meet a goal of the 2015 Paris agreement of capping temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) before the end of the century, a United Nations official said on Sunday ahead of climate-change talks in Bangkok this week. From a report: Patricia Espinosa, head of the Executive Secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which steers the climate talks, said both the public and private sector need to act with urgency to avoid "catastrophic effects". The Paris climate agreement, adopted by almost 200 nations in 2015, set a goal of limiting warming to "well below" a rise of 2 degrees C above pre-industrial times while "pursuing efforts" for the tougher goal of 1.5 degrees C. "1.5 is the goal that is needed for many islands and many countries that are particularly vulnerable to avoid catastrophic effects. In many cases it means the survival of those countries. With the pledges we have on the table now we are not on track to achieve those goals," Espinosa told Reuters in a telephone interview on Sunday in Bangkok.

Comments

We're hosed

[Anonymous Coward]

And we didn't even need the not-so-very-objective and not-so-very-honest(!) UNFCCC to figure that one out.

We did too little when we could back in the 70s and now we're too late and we're hosed. In fact, all the world is hosed.

This is one guaranteed to be lasting legacy. Hope you're proud of it.

Re: We're hosed

[Anonymous Coward]

And if we had spent the R&D money back in the '70s to boost renewable, sources of energy that don't emit greenhouse gases, we'd be much further along the process.

If we'd actually tax companies for their emissions and the effects to mitigate those emissions, we'd be a lot further along.

In general, too many places have done too little because ti would cost those in power money, even though it was other individuals that ultimately shoulder the consequences.

Re: We're hosed

[WindBourne]

Actually, we CAN stop it now. We just have to quit adding fossil fuel plants, esp coal, and then add only clean ; wind, solar, hydro, Geothermal, nuke. But that will not happen.

Re: We're hosed

[Anonymous Coward]

We can make it happen, but have to put younger people for president who know other, modern economy than only fossil based.

Re: We're hosed

[renegadesx]

This is Government, which is run by partisan politicians.
The right wont accept solar and wind and the left won't accept nuclear.

Re: We're hosed

[b0s0z0ku]

The French government did great in picking a nuclear energy policy in the 70s and using highly standardized reactors. Far better than the mess in the US or Asia, where every plant is a white elephant.

Re: We're hosed

[CaffeinatedBacon]

Don't be like US, all out coal is grandfarthered in. You can't have any.
Americans per person still get more of their electricity from coal than Chinese people do. Even though you closed a bunch of plants, and China opened a bunch too.

You are so blinded by your fixation on coal that you don't even understand the scale of the problem. Even if China took as much coal as they use to make electricity. Put it in a big pile and set it on fire for no reason. China's percapita emissions would still be less than America's.
(America's emissions are just so much higher per person. You continually hide behind the fact your country is 1/4 the size.
Imagine your outrage if Canada and Australia pointed their fingers at you for polluting so much because you are bigger. That's essentially what you are doing with China.)

But they aren't doing that.
They are using a little bit more coal per year for electricity. (The % of electricity coming from coal is decreasing.) And using less coal for other industrial uses. So the amount of coal is slowly going down anyway.
Not increasing massively like you always claim (lie about).

Re: We're hosed

[jrumney]

Please explain how shale oil and hydraulic fracturing count as "sources of energy that don't emit greenhouse gases".

Re:We're hosed

[Opportunist]

We're already at stage 4? That developed quickly, just weeks ago we still had discussions in phase 2.

For those unfamiliar with them, the 4 stages of climate denial:

1. There is no climate change.
2. Ok, there is a climate change, but it's normal, not man made.
3. Ok, it is man made, but it's been warmer before, so no problem.
4. Ok, it is a problem, but it's too late anyway.

The beauty is that, no matter what stage we're on, we needn't do anything about it.

Re: We're hosed

[Applehu Akbar]

What benefited France most of all was a policy of simply not listening to yammerheads and just plowing ahead with construction. That's how we need to approach it: develop a legal principle that "I don't like it" does not give you standing to argue court cases over technology.

Re: We're hosed

[guruevi]

We did but then Greenpeace decided that "nuclear is bad" and so we're now stuck with gas, oil and other options that are way worse.

Re: We're hosed

[Luckyo]

Shale is literally the primary reason for natgas switch in US. In shale production, methane is the "undesirable consequence of extraction process" which used to do nothing but cause severe risk of catastrophic explosion. Which is why it's generally flared off in a safe fashion.

And now, it's increasingly captured instead, and then transported to CCGTs which are rapidly replacing other burner plants in US, because transport over short to medium distances via infrastructure that is rapidly being built up as we speak is very cheap. And in process, halving CO2 emissions for the same energy produced (look at the emissions per energy produced on methane vs coal for example).

The main reason why US is actually better than countries like Germany in reducing the emissions in spite of vocal declarations of the latter and lack of such declarations on the part of the former is the natgas switch. And this is a trend that is set to continue for quite a while. So if you're an environmentalist who's primary concern is global warming, shale is something you should be championing, not something to fight against.

But modern environmentalism has nothing to do with that. It's now a strange religion that mostly combines elements of primeval nature worship (wasn't it great when people weren't here to destroy the nature?) and plain anti-human tendencies (humans are a blight on this planet and it will be better when they're all gone). Those that are actually working towards goals to reduce emissions, i.e. nuclear power generation industry, are some of the most persecuted by the environmentalist movement because they make a great case against those two tenets.

Re: We're hosed

[dehachel12]

Since when is it the government's job

Do some research on the amount of money spent on the oil wars in the middle east. The government did the oil industry's bidding.

Give me a break

[WindBourne]

Paris, like Kyoto, was a joke. It did nothing to address real emissions. Until an accord is implemented that brings all nations down together, nothing will improve. things will become worse because massive numbers of coal plants are being added while idiots defend it.

Re:Give me a break

[rtb61]

The Australian coal mining thing is not what it seems, actually more likely a scam. So borrow tons of money, especially from government to build new coal mine and power station, build it all up, sell it and then when it can't not compete because of pricing pressure from natural gas and watch it all go belly up because of course the profit comes from developing and selling it and then betting it will go bankrupt (privatise the profit and socialise the loss). No sure how far that model spreads into Indonesia or Poland but it likely is an element, just the normal psychopathic way of doing business.

Yeah, coal is screwed and Trump was playing pump and dump with his buddies (talking up coal so his buddies so sell out before it all collapses and the public ends up wearing the bankruptcies). It is pretty clear now, that most of the attacks on renewables had no basis in reality and were straight up PR=B$ attacks paid for by the fossil fuellers to keep the profits up and fuck everyone and everything else.

Re:Give me a break

[Kjella]

Those who think we can reduce total emissions are delusional.

1. The world population is growing
2. More people get access to electricity/cars
3. As they get richer, they use it more

That we're making cleaner power and cleaner cars is only reducing that impact a bit. There's a billion Indians wishing they were rich enough to run AC. It's more like do you want 2x or 3x today's emissions, not how big the reduction will be.

That boat sailed ...

[CaptainDork]

... 40 years ago.

We passed the deadline and there's no catching up.

So it is written, so let it be done.

Tell that to the anti-nuclear body

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd rather have climate change than nuclear power. Apparently climate change isn't a major issue and it's much more important to prevent the development of nuclear power and to block the construction of more modern nuclear power plants.

Stage 5

[Anonymous Coward]

Psssst - there's another stage: The Democrats could've stopped this twenty years ago, why didn't they do nothing?

Re:Go fuck yourself caffeinated bacon/crimson tsun

[LynnwoodRooster]

China emits twice the CO2 as the US. I'm not sure how that translates into the US being worse. Supposedly, the climate doesn't care about how much CO2 each person emits individually, it's the entire total that matters. And right now - that is China. Unless you want to create CO2 rations for everyone? How about wealth rations? Food rations? Time rations?