Slashdot Mirror
Nearly 200 Countries Agree On Global Climate Pact Rules After Impasse (reuters.com)
"Nearly 200 countries overcame political divisions late on Saturday to agree on rules for implementing a landmark global climate deal," reports Reuters. "After two weeks of talks in the Polish city of Katowice, nations finally reached consensus on a more detailed framework for the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to limit a rise in average world temperatures to 'well below' 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels." From the report: Before the talks started, many expected the deal would not be as robust as needed. The unity which underpinned the Paris talks has fragmented, and U.S. President Donald Trump intends to pull his country - one of the world's biggest emitters - out of the pact. At the 11th hour, ministers managed to break a deadlock between Brazil and other countries over the accounting rules for the monitoring of carbon credits, deferring the bulk of that discussion to next year, but missing an opportunity to send a signal to businesses to speed up their actions. Still, exhausted ministers managed to bridge a series of divides to produce a 156-page rulebook - which is broken down into themes such as how countries will report and monitor their national pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions and update their emissions plans.
Not everyone is happy with everything, but the process is still on track and it is something to build on, several ministers said. Some countries and green groups criticized the outcome for failing to urge increased ambitions on emissions cuts sufficiently to curb rising temperatures. Poorer nations vulnerable to climate change also wanted more clarity on how an already agreed $100 billion a year of climate finance by 2020 will be provided and on efforts to build on that amount further from the end of the decade.
Not everyone is happy with everything, but the process is still on track and it is something to build on, several ministers said. Some countries and green groups criticized the outcome for failing to urge increased ambitions on emissions cuts sufficiently to curb rising temperatures. Poorer nations vulnerable to climate change also wanted more clarity on how an already agreed $100 billion a year of climate finance by 2020 will be provided and on efforts to build on that amount further from the end of the decade.
Climate is changing. Apparently it only matters what Germany thinks. They will get no support from trump. He will probably shred the executive summary live on Twitter. Maybe they want to send some tart to try and change his mind
So... What's in the agreement?
-What are the legally-binding requirements for each country?
-how will it be determined whether or not they are meeting the requirements?
-and how will they be punished, and by whom, if they are found to be in breach of the requirements?
Why does the summary contain none of the info? What kind of "journalism" is this?
They donâ(TM)t really want what is in the agreement - they want something else they wonâ(TM)t say so expect it to fail
and poor people who used them for shopping, carrying lunches and trash have to buy plastic bags now to throw their trash away.
They mean well, but there is always a catch.
Same with health care solutions. They mean well, but there is always a catch.
Ooops, I farted. Wonder how much that will cost me under the new agreement.
“From now on, my five priorities will be: ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition and ambition,” it said
No climate agreement without both China and the US can work. Trump will be gone but China won't budge.
I shall now quote Al Gore: there is no controlling legal authority.
What he said when busted for very illegal campaign finance violations. Google it.
Donnie, the con man
Was a lying empty soul
With a Putin pipe, a Pinocchio nose
And a scam made out of coal..
I don't think socialism means what you think socialism means.
Go get an education.
I just bought a sports car and paid $1300 gas guzzler tax.
Hello? If it is a gas guzzler I pay more for every mile I drive already going to the pump more often due to lower mileage.
And did my $1300 go to anything useful? No. Straight into some useless social program for The War On XYZ. Poverty? Drugs? Illegal immigration?Some other stupid shit no one in government actually wants solved?
Lots of luck with that. $100 billion? Call me when we spend more on AGW than the military.
Carbon, the real rich people's cryptocoin.
Trump did what needed to be done, in their hate for the US, for him in particular, they have united. How it works out in the end still remains (Kyoto was passed in 1997 after all).
The other thing to remember is these "treaties" further surrender Sovereignty to international bodies. From Terrorism to censorship and banking systems, it amazes me how much power smaller countries have and expect over larger .. You're out of your mind if you believe they would conceed such power themselves.
Source: Canadian with a leader who is sworn feminist above all.
I live in hot ass Florida with all those hurricanes! And it's aggravating to see Chewbacca in Star Wars with all that fur! It makes me feel even hotter!
And as we can see, my argument PROVES that Global Warming is a Hoax because Chewbacca has all the fur and he couldn't have it if the Global Warming Hoax wasn't real!!
I know. Aim high. This is aiming for the moon with a slingshot. Unless China decides to not build more coal power plants, this is all completely moot. We can't even get developed nations to not increase CO2 emissions, let alone reduce them. $100 billion is $12.50 per person on this planet. That buys you 10Wp of solar panels or a 10Wh battery or a charge controller. Or, not and. You can barely run a smartphone on that kind of power (because a 10Wp panel produces 10kWh per year, which is roughly 1W average. That's less than a percent of the electricity consumption of a frugal person in a developed nation. $100 billion is fucking peanuts. This charade is insulting. Like you think we're stupid enough to believe this is going to work.
Only capitalism can solve those problems. And going to church on Sundays.
Somehow, I can't really see "we decided to put off making the decision required to end the impasse until next year" as making progress toward resolving the impasse....
Using that logic, we can truly say that we've resolved the AGW issue in its entirety at this point, and so nothing else needs to be done....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I drive a gas guzzler. In fact I've been driving it since 2006.
Thing is, I work from home and only have to drive to the office once a month. And while I do have to use it for practical purposes and such (groceries, etc), I'm not the type to putz around driving "for fun" on weekends. It's 12 years old, and the odometer just turned 86,000km early this year. A tank of gas typically lasts me a month and a half.
I have a neighbor driving a Prius, and he got a tax credit for buying a hybrid. His car has burned a lot more gas (thus emitted more CO2) in the 4 years he's had it than mine did in 12.
Think about this.
Whatever floats your boat. Bring rubbers, 'cuz you know you're not going to be the first one who has paid them for their "services".
Did anyone actually read it? It doesn't actually say anything.
I love the line about "Exhausted ministers". It must have been a rough two weeks of partying with hookers.
Oligonicella is a fucking moron, noted.
Quit slacking and install some race parts on your motor.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There's nothing new here. A bunch of backward, corrupt, failed states, many of which are very rich in natural resources but unable to take advantage because of corruption or moronic political ideologies (Venezuela ring any bells?) have all agreed that successful nations owe them money. These failed countries have been haggling over how to divide-up the cash they demand from the successful countries but they have now had a breakthrough and have resolved some of the arguments about how to divide the loot.
This matters how???
They only get money to divide if the successful countries are stupid enough to provide it. Notably, the PEOPLE of the successful nations are never consulted on whether they want to join these insane pacts or pay out these unjust ransom demands - it's always rich globalist bureucrats and politicians (the John Kerry sort) who have never personally worked to get money who are the ones in the successful countries pushing this drivel.
would it be a good idea? This is stupid. Whoever posted it should be ashamed of themselves.
only matters what China does now, and in a few decades also what India does. Irrelevant what the rest do, irrelevant what the USA does.
"No climate agreement without both China and the US can work."
What do you mean by work? Is this what the agreement is about?
They're poor for a reason. Don't hire them, they suck.
If you want useful work, hire someone with a history of doing useful work.
Candidate number one: Mopped floors, took care of the building, helped people, nice, always on time....great guy.
Candidate number two: Developed advertising apps, was an arrogant prick, did nothing to better the lives of well, anyone. Waste of skin.
Market value does not necessarily equate to value to society. Well, consider this: most professional basketball players make a shit load more than STEM workers. I guess that means playing basketball is more useful than STEM work.
And most emergency service workers - those who actually save lives - make significantly less than your typical STEM worker - like those working on ad software for facebook, Google, Yahoo!, and other waste of skin professions.
#1 is a Janitor I know and I'll take him over any one of you. He ads more to this society than any arrogant asshole STEM worker who thinks his moronic company is doing wonders for this world.
No where in the article are the words natural gas, nuclear or economy.
It's an obvious scam when real-world solutions are excluded, solutions such as changing coal plants to natural gas or adding nuclear power. You see this when there's no mention of the economic impact.
Troll, what kind of person do you think enjoys exerting "control" over how societies generate and use energy? That is such a mindless, stupid conspiracy theory, it doesn't even make any sense.
I don't respond to AC's.
The price for the gasoline at the pump is largely subsidized by the government, and doesn't account for any of the pollution. You're not paying for much of the true cost of the pollution you're generating with that gasoline at the pump.
I don't respond to AC's.
Lol, exactly his point! When you can buy the best women a country has to offer for the price of a cup of coffee that is a failed country / culture.
Not to beat this horse dead but currently in the news as prime example is Venezuela of course. Normal middle class women started crossing the border to work in whore houses over a year ago to feed their families back home. Socialism doing what it does best! Ruining lives.
...for breaking those rules. Is there any?
I didn't RTFA because I've had enough since Kyoto of empty, meaningless virtue-signaling where states promise the sun, sky, and moon but don't accomplish shit. Every single "Climate Summit" results in the same thing: platitudes, much back-slapping, mealy-mouthed statements about what 'should' be done....and 5-10 years later, we find nobody's hit their targets, and nothing happens.
-Styopa
Climate Change? Brought to you by Marxist, Inc.
'nuff said.
BS. Absence of a tax to pay for things you think people should is not the same as presence of a subsidy.
Still an improvement. I've heard 'them' claim a tax on gasoline was a subsidy. Not just some random /.er, a citation counted gas tax as subsidy.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I feel like you're trolling me. Goal: cap global warming at 2 degrees. To attain goal, cooperation of China and US are required.
I've read about a dozen articles now, and every single one talks about there being a final agreement (some say a "rulebook") and talks in broad contours about the contents, but not a single one suggests that anyone has a copy of what was actually negotiated/agreed upon. That's more than a bit interesting given the broad range of documents that routinely get leaked to the press and the stupefyingly broad worldwide implications of this particular document.
No one asked me if I agreed with limiting hypothesized temperature increase. Maybe I want the temperature to go up, to open up land in northern Canada and Antarctica.
Who are you all to decide what the world temperature is supposed to be. You don't have any evidence to show that is the best temperature to be at nor what the long term affect on the planet would be if the temperature is held constant.
So where do I lodge my protest?
Stop with making sense...it doesn't need to be that way. Jump onboard some lofty goals which have no discernable way to measured.
The price for the gasoline at the pump is largely subsidized by the government, and doesn't account for any of the pollution. You're not paying for much of the true cost of the pollution you're generating with that gasoline at the pump.
Perhaps, but neither would the government, at least here in the United States, be receiving nearly as much tax revenue if people couldn't afford to drive to work. Those of us who burn that gasoline to produce economic output are a net benefit to the society in ways that are fully accounted for either. It's like the old song, sometimes you don't know what you've got till it's gone.
The US Treasure lays out all of the oil/gasoline subsidies here:
https://www.treasury.gov/open/...
I don't respond to AC's.
We gotta do it ourselves, through science we need to make the biggest polluters redundant and unattractive.
[($)]
Yes, us alpha males will dominate there women. The beta cuck locals will be forced to watch and then eat out are cream pies. Occasionally I will let those faggots suck my cock.
Until we stop 100% of addition fossil fuel plants, CO2 will continue to climb.
In addition, we did to require that no additional coal is burned than what we currently do.
And if Nat Gas replaces coal, then again, it should be no more than 90% of CO2 from the old coal plant.
IOW, no additional burning of fossil fuel, while at the same time, when new places replace old ones, the new plants should either burn slightly less coal, or nat gas that is less CO2 than the coal that it replaces.
And no, this agreement does NOTHING for this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Claiming America is good, when everyone knows they are one of the worst.
Per person you are twice as high as Europe, China, India, just about every major country. And you continue to get worse!!
Until we can get Americans down to the levels of similar developed countries, we have no hope of stopping this. But all the WindBournes of this country don't even think they are part of the problem.
They used to pat themselves on the back for decreasing a tiny bit, (but still twice as dirty as most). Now they can't even do that anymore.
It's an utter disgrace.
It would be tricky to vote out socialists in the USA as none are in power.
Busted in the sense of not even charged?
You seem to be assuming if everyone cycled or walked to work taxes couldn't be generated by other means, which seems an odd assumption. However, if there was much less traffic fewer taxes would be required to expand and maintain road networks. Some network would still be required for goods, emergency vehicles, and to cycle on, and for other purposes, so it's not like you would eliminate taxes to maintain roads.
Another factor that might reduce taxes is reduction in pollution causing respiratory issues. Poorer people tend to live in more polluted areas, so it adds cost to Medicare and Medicaid. You could argue that people will live longer and collect more welfare, but then someone who doesn't have a chronic respiratory illness can and can walk across the room is more likely to be able to find work.
Uh I was responding to a Canadian. Please stay on topic.
Amusingly I got down voted for the truth. If you want a stable economy do not vote for socialists and other leftist trash.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
This gigantic scam is going to end eventually, when the mini ice age hits us. Then the fraudsters will claim that the measures they forced on us were responsible for 'saving the planet'. Their models have been wrong every time up to now, what makes us think their current models are correct?
is the sole administrative head of all these climate agreements. Some of you are an intelligent enough to understand how the word 'Monopoly' applies to this, even who it benefits and what the real goals are. Some of you are not.
America per capita is still twice Europe, still twice China.
You should do more, because you are the biggest problem.
Are going to be in for a real surprise once the climate changes from the Grand Solar Minimum we have entered become undeniable.
Per person Americans use twice the CO2 as Chinese people. Maybe pull your head out of your ass and take a look around at the real problem...
America is the 2nd biggest total emitter, and currently emits 2x the per person that China does. It most definitely matters what Americans do.
But as long as they think like you and WindBourne, that it is some one elses fault, you will never change your filthy ways.
What a sham ... signers of the Paris treaty didn't follow up with their promises. What makes one think this one will be any different.
Meanwhile, China and India continue to blast out all the CO2 they want under the excuse they need to grow their economy. While the US is chastised even though it is reducing CO2 emissions.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
"How will they enforce this?"
"By power politics of various types, ranging from cloak and dagger actions to full blown warfare."
If it is impossible to make a law that binds soverign countries, explain how international law exists and does actually enforce things right this day, including, for example, the rules against gassing innocent civilians which international law prosecuted Saddam for a few years back. You may have heard of it. Unless it wasn't translated into russian for you.
It means that it will be ineffective.
China is responsible for the most CO2 output in total numbers and the US is responsible for the most CO2 output per capita.
Without those two showing intent to take a step in the right direction there is very little anyone else will be willing to do.
Sure, Belgium can do their part and reduce their output somewhat, but what good does that do if the US increased their output with twice as much?
This new agreement still does not required any reductions in CO2 or particulate emissions from China or India. It's a sham.
With another good laugh.
Sit out do not sign let the other countries housing 2/3rds of the population get up to EU, US, Canadian air pollution levels.
India, China, Brasil, Indonesia need to get near to current EU air pollution levels as measured in the 5 largest cities before the EU, US, Canada do anything.
2/3rds of the planet has done very little and wealth transfers from the EU/US to other countries won't help enough.
My country's kids are not responsible to pay future taxes for another country's lack of planning, failure to save, failure to regulate, failure to enforce/enact pollution laws, ...
Better than the other one.
Still lists business expenses as subsidies, rather than the difference in present value between expensing and amortizing. Lots of industries have those kinds of rules.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I call bullshit on your claims. 10K/year is pretty common for a commuter, you are sitting at 7k, that is VASTLY more driving then you claim. If we assume you get 20 mpg and you have a 15 gallon tank you would be filling it every two weeks. Your neighbor would need to be driving an absurd amount to even come close to how much CO2 you have wasted with your gas guzzler.
Until selfish Americans cut their usage down to similar levels as the rest of the developed world, there is little point.
Why not practice what you preach and clean up your own yard first. Why do you think you are entitled to twice the CO2 as other developed countries, to say nothing of the developing countries you continually complain about. (who are 1/10th your level per person).
I guess my point was that as long as some countries are reducing and giving a good example by doing so, then the agreement they signed, to hopefully help cap global warming at 2 degrees, is working to help reduce global warming.
Suppose your basement just started flooding. You setup a pump to empty the water at a rate of 1 liter per second. Then someone else sets up a pump to fill your basement at 2 liters a second.
In that context your pump is still helping reduce the damage, it's still working.
The US wont do that. Despite years of this, the US has actually met all their co2 targets, despite not signing on to most of them. Years of fearmongering has left you actually believing we can double our co2 output. Craaaaaazy talk.
America per person makes twice the CO2 as the EU, twice the CO2 than China even, about 9 times as much as India.
Did you fall on your head when you were little or are you just like WindBourne, and want to keep denying who the real culprits are?
No so it's worthless. Until we can force America to pollute only as much as China and the EU it's pointless patting each other on the back for nothing.
An American produces as much CO2 as a European and a Chinaman added together.
Just remember America is the 2 liter a second pump making it worse and China and the EU are the 1 liter a second pump. Which pump do you want to turn off first? Per person an American pumps out the same CO2 as a European and a Chinaman combined.
Despite all the back slapping and congratulations, America is still twice as bad as the EU and China per person.
You need to halve American CO2, just to be as dirty as the Chinese...
Maybe you missed the memo, busy denying I suppose, but the US CO2 is increasing again. Which is pretty bad considering per capita you are one of the worst countries on Earth.