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.
Some of those bags, a tiny fraction, are used for carrying lunches or taking out trash or whatever. Most just find their way to landfills. Now you have to intentionally buy the bags you're specifically going to use. I see that as a win. Go boo hoo back to "I hate change" shack.
You could have posted them as well, but didn't, instead standing and displaying your self-assumed virtue for all to see.
"Without poor people, who will do the work?"
Our economic systems requires poverty to function. In order to fix one, you gotta toss the other.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Legally binding? Who is going to enforce it? China and India, both massive polluters, are classified as 'developing nations' - how many nations are really enthused about paying their contribution of the $100B to poor, poor, China? Heck, both China and India sent craft to the Moon this month.
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.
The fuel tax increase did not happen in a vacuum. Macron's government reduced taxes on the wealthy. The contrast between reduced taxes for the wealthy and increased taxes for ordinary people added to the motivation for the yellow jackets.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
China won't have fusion and neither will we.
Sustained fusion that releases significantly more useable energy than it
takes to get and keep going on the surface of this planet ain't gonna happen.
Even with room-temperature superconductors (which we almost certainly WILL see).
The oil, coal and gas that supply our baseline load will eventually run out.
Solar, wind and wave will never be enough for the world's expanding population.
Fission is the only answer and it can be made as safe as we want it to be.
All the fusion wastes since 1945 wouldn't even _begin_ to fill 1 cubic kilometer.
The sooner we realize this and get started the better.
Wasting precious chemical feedstocks like coal and oil just to boil water is dumb.
Mac
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.
The EU will make its energy users pay more and more for their energy. More EU nation tax to pay and less quality of life for people all over the EU. More EU energy taxation.
India and China will keep on using coal/energy imports to provide low cost power to their own nations to advance with. Winning.
The USA will have low cost power and grow its own industrial base. Low cost exports and jobs for the USA. Winning.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
But none of the actions you mention caused the reaction. Fuel tax however did. Don't forget that international coverage didn't really start until Yellow jackets got really big.
And what caused it was the fuel tax. Sure, once the fire was lit, and started burning in a manner visible to people outside the Yellow jacket protests, you started getting many jumping on the bandwagon (citation: that idiotic, self-contradictory manifesto some members released).
But what got people to the breaking point and over it wasn't taxes on the wealthy, nor the contrast. What got the people to the breaking point and over it was the fact that they could no longer afford a reasonable lifestyle outside major cities because fuel costs got too high.
There are over a hundred posts on this article. Not one of them either links to the rulebook text nor contains any quotes of part of the rulebook text, nor has claimed to have read it.
Gee. Maybe that's because it's HARD TO FIND.
I read TFA. It does not have a link to the text. I went to the official cop24 website. It does not either. I googled the topic. I cannot find the text anywhere.
Have YOU read it? I think not.
This isn't about spoon feeding. This about someone asking a reasonable, on-topic question, in good faith, and which the other posters probably would also be interested in seeing answered, and then, being treated incredibly rudely for no reason.
And furthermore, it continues to be my opinion that you, in particular, should become a volunteer firefighter. You know it's the right thing to do.
How is it going to be enforced?
The same way that the nuclear ceasefire between 1945 and now has been enforced.
The countries that signed this understand the consequences of not meeting their obligations, so we rely on them to act in their own best interests. Unfortunately there is one important country missing from the table that is still in denial due to corrupt politics that places politicians squarely in the pockets of oil corporations and religious zealotry that dismisses the opinions of scientists, ruled by a wannabe dictator who signs away any progress made by his predecessors without even seeking the backing of his ineffective government. It is truely amazing that such countries still exist in the 21st century, but sadly that is the world we live in.