Nearly 200 Countries Agree On Global Climate Pact Rules After Impasse (reuters.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nearly 200 Countries Agree On Global Climate Pact Rules After Impasse (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Sunday December 16, 2018 @04:16AM from the come-together dept.

"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.

194 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

200 sheep went bah bah by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:27 · Score: -1, Troll

200 sheep went bah bah
1. Re: 200 sheep went bah bah by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  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
2. Re: 200 sheep went bah bah by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  No climate agreement without both China and the US can work. Trump will be gone but China won't budge.
3. Re: 200 sheep went bah bah by mrclevesque · 2018-12-16 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  "No climate agreement without both China and the US can work."
  What do you mean by work? Is this what the agreement is about?
4. Re: 200 sheep went bah bah by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  I feel like you're trolling me. Goal: cap global warming at 2 degrees. To attain goal, cooperation of China and US are required.
5. Re: 200 sheep went bah bah by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 15:33 · Score: -1
  
  Here's what they really meant with "work":
  https://youtu.be/HL1UzIK-flA
6. Re: 200 sheep went bah bah by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-17 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  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?
7. Re: 200 sheep went bah bah by mrclevesque · 2018-12-18 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  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.
8. Re: 200 sheep went bah bah by mrclevesque · 2018-12-18 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  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.
9. Re: 200 sheep went bah bah by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-18 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  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.
10. Re: 200 sheep went bah bah by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-18 14:24 · Score: 0
  
  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.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2018-12-16 04:31 · Score: -1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Politicians sitting around making decisions with o by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:32 · Score: -1

While my countrys economy is falling. I live in the freezing cold nation called Canada. This is as stupid as Boston banning plastic bags. Guess I now need to buy garbage bags for the first time in my life. Btw, How much emissions to grow pot for all the losers smoking it.
No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:35 · Score: 0

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?
1. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:38 · Score: -1
  
  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?
  Oh, stop with the petty details. The important thing is the appearance of doing something, and for some countries how much money they can get.
2. Re:No details? by AmiMoJo · 2018-12-16 04:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The agreement is legally binding. It sets out how countries will meet their climate goals, and how poorer countries will get financial assistance to do it. For example it sets up rules on carbon trading between richer and poorer nations. It also sets out the legal consequence for climate change and how they will be enforced, and the way that compliance will be measured.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  You could have posted the details. Instead you are distracting everyone by posting a useless sarcastic joke, and the actual details will never be posted. You are a bad person. I hope you become a volunteer fireman.
4. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  How is it going to be enforced? EU army will invade offending country?
5. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  That's just restating the question. You haven't answered anything.
  What are the legal consequences for climate change?
  How will they be enforced?
  How will compliance be measured?
  Quite fucking around and just answer the damn question already.
6. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Strongly worded letters.
7. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  How is it going to be enforced? EU army will invade offending country?
  There will be sharp words, finger pointing, and threats. You know, political enforcement. Then there will be mounds and mounds of cash for lawyers to battle it out endlessly.
8. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  The agreement is legally binding. It sets out how countries will meet their climate goals, and how poorer countries will get financial assistance to do it. For example it sets up rules on carbon trading between richer and poorer nations. It also sets out the legal consequence for climate change and how they will be enforced, and the way that compliance will be measured.
  Well, its all 'set out' then. I mean, in legal terms, being 'set out' is some serious shit.
9. Re: No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  Those are a dime a dozen
10. Re:No details? by Oligonicella · 2018-12-16 05:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You could have posted them as well, but didn't, instead standing and displaying your self-assumed virtue for all to see.
11. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe, you know, I asked the question because I want to know the answer, on account that I don't already?
  It used to be that the internet was a place where knowledge was exchanged and people learned things. I guess that's dead now because of people like you.
12. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 06:04 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The agreement is as legally binding as the Kellogg-Briand pact.
  From what I can tell, there are no actual new commitments. The existing non-binding Paris agreement targets remain nominally in-effect.
  The new agreement provides advice on how a country should self-measure their emissions such that the measurement procedures have some consistency to them.
  However, if a country decides to not to follow that advice, there is literally nothing that will be done about it.
  Furthermore, if they measure the emissions properly, but emissions are in excess of the Paris agreement emissions targets, there is literally nothing that will be done about that either.
  Furthermore, none of reports have to be delivered until 2024, at the earliest.
  This is what I was able to tell based on some articles I found. As for all I can tell the text of the actual agreement is secret and no one has ever read it, not even those who wrote or signed it.
  If this is not the case, and you have access to either the agreement or a decent summary thereof, you would have posted it already.
13. Re:No details? by AmiMoJo · 2018-12-16 06:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The agreement requires countries to submit data on their compliance to the UN. It states how such data is to be collected. They rules are designed to prevent cheating and of course countries will monitor each other, e.g. any country with climate science satellites or nearby ground stations can tell if there is cheating going on.
  Every country must set targets regularly and they must always be lower than the previous ones.
  Enforcement is via the usual UN mechanisms. So for example when the UN enacts sanctions they are widely respected and cause the subject of the sanctions great problems and economic loss. In this case it would probably not be sanctions but would be justification for tariffs or international lawsuits or complaints through the WTO.
  In theory a country could just decide to not go along with the agreement. Well, the US already pulled out of Paris. But in practice there will be consequences, and as we have seen in the past countries do tend to make a genuine effort to comply and meet their goals (including China which exceeded its last very aggressive target, and even the US which is being driven by states despite the federal government's position).
  Put it another way, if you think people and nations only behave well because they are forced to by law and the threat of legal sanction or military force then you must not have looked at recent history.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
14. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not the original poster but have got to say that the sense of entitlement of people like you borders on the mentally insane. Do you expect everyone around you to spoon-feed everything like that to you, too? How about you Google something for yourself for once?
15. Re:No details? by chrism238 · 2018-12-16 06:28 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  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.
16. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  "It is not intended to work. It is intended to produce guilt."
  --The Fountainhead
  Probably a paraphrase. But the final step is, of course, in finest Underpants Gnomes fashion... "Profit!"
17. Re:No details? by Luckyo · 2018-12-16 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  He asked about enforcement, not litigation. Interstate enforcement is done primarily through power politics of various types, ranging from cloak and dagger actions to full blown warfare.
18. Re:No details? by Luckyo · 2018-12-16 07:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  >Put it another way, if you think people and nations only behave well because they are forced to by law and the threat of legal sanction or military force then you must not have looked at recent history.
  Could you specify which parts of recent history prove this point? I can cite off the top of my head several major items where this statement debunks your argument.
19. Re: No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 07:41 · Score: -1
  
  Sounds like a wealth transfer scheme to attack white majority countries, and funnel their success to uneducated tribal thugs who never actually create anything except rape and war.
20. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  "Enforcement is via the usual UN mechanisms"
  What mechanisms does the UN have and what country is going to submit to these mechanisms? Who enforces these mythical UN mechanisms? Is it the same people who enforce international law?
  The 5 permanent members of the US security council have never and will never allow the UN to tell them what to do. None of these climate "agreements" contain any substance or details on how a country should go about lowering their carbon footprint. This new agreement basically says that every country will supply the UN information on their efforts. And are people blind to the fact the countries will never release any information if it makes them look bad. It also agreed to pay $100 billion dollars to the small countries deemed to be effected by climate change. And carbon credits are just another way of leveling taxes on the countries with the largest industrial base. US carbon emissions have been declining over the past 20 years. The alternative energy sector is the fastest growing industry in the US. The use of alternative energy has also been rising every year. And the US is accomplishing this without any treaty or international interference. Back in the real world we will never bee able to reverse global warming. We can perhaps slow it down but that is about it. The world continues to admit that the biggest danger to environment is run away population increases. Although the good news is we won't need to worry about global warming because WW3 will decimate the global population and give the few survivors more important things to worry about. We will just have to hope that those re-creating civilians would do a better job the second time around.
21. Re: No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  But Amimojo told us it is LEGALLY BINDING1!!
  Oh heavens to Betsy if Amimojo was wrong about something for the first time ever!!1!1
  This place cracks me up. I am so glad we provide a safe haven for crackpots like Amimojo to harmlessly spout stupid shitwhile the adults run the world.
22. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe, you know, I asked the question because I want to know the answer, on account that I don't already?
  It used to be that the internet was a place where knowledge was exchanged and people learned things. I guess that's dead now because of people like you.
  If you want the answer, read the effing document instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you and spoon feed you.
23. Re:No details? by grungeman · 2018-12-16 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  And if that doesn't help there will be outrage. That will show em.
  
  --
  
  Signature deleted by lameness filter.
24. Re: No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  Well, it certainly is not legally binding on those countries which are not a member of the pact. Like, China or the United States. Maybe not India either.
25. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 09:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
26. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  Yet per person 1/2 and 1/8th as bad as the USA...
  In other words it would take a Chinese person and 4 Indians added together to produce as much CO2 as 1 American.
  Stop pretending to be better when you are far far worse.
27. Re: No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  If its so hopeless, think of all the wasted effort to write that for no good reason. Why even bother breathing?
28. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 12:34 · Score: 0
  
  > So... What's in the agreement?
  > Why does the summary contain none of the info?
  I will distill it down for you to the essential point:
  You, and all other little people, will pay more!
29. Re:No details? by jrumney · 2018-12-16 13:50 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  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.
30. Re: No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 21:05 · Score: 0
  
  Excellent, where can I purchase them, as I need to complain about some things, and this seems very cost-effective.
31. Re: No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 21:07 · Score: 0
  
  Or, more likely, trade policies.
32. Re: No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 21:10 · Score: 0
  
  I am so glad that no majority white countries have started any wars in the last century and a bit.
33. Re: No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 21:16 · Score: 0
  
  Perfect is the enemy of the good.
  And just because YOU think it is intended to create guilt doesn't make it so. It may also be intended to have those nations that created the problem help prevent the same things happening in other nations for MUTUAL benefit. Or you could play a version of Prisoner's Dilemma in which defection conveys only a TEMPORARY advantage.
34. Re: No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 21:33 · Score: 0
  
  It has been widely reported in the press as legally binding.
35. Re:No details? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 21:33 · Score: 0
  
  How is it going to be enforced? EU army will invade offending country?
  By nature.
  Follow it or suffer the following natural disasters.
  They are going to cause more damage than any invasion possibly could.
36. Re: No details? by ravenshrike · 2018-12-17 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Not true. Sufficient motivation in the form of money might very well lead to the invention of atmospheric processors that when large enough ones are built and powered with nuclear power could reduce total CO2. Of course that would require massive amounts of capitalism and nuclear energy, both things that most enviroweenies find taboo.
37. Re: No details? by Luckyo · 2018-12-17 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  The idea that trade policies are a functional tool of enforcement is more or less a correct one, when such polities can be backed by physical force to a significant enough degree. That's why it works on individual level, and tends to fail miserably on interstate level, where there is no authority with force to compel members to agree to it.
38. Re: No details? by hawkfish · 2018-12-17 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Not true. Sufficient motivation in the form of money might very well lead to the invention of atmospheric processors that when large enough ones are built and powered with nuclear power could reduce total CO2. Of course that would require massive amounts of capitalism and nuclear energy, both things that most enviroweenies find taboo.
  I suppose I'm an "enviroweenie", but I fail to see how "capitalism" can solve the carbon reduction problem. What exactly are the industrial uses of the captured CO2? Greenhouses? Plastics? Remember that the amount we would have to remove is roughly equivalent to the amount we have dug up in the last 200 years and we can only drink so much soda...
  I'm all for doing this - nukes and all - but there is no way there is any kind of business model that can take this stuff and turn it into useful materials in sufficient quantities. The energy cost is just too high and the uses are too small. It's going to have to be done as a public remediation project (the mother of all SuperFund sites.)
  If someone can come along and build a viable business out of this, then all power to them, but if it just consists of skimming at the public trough, then we might as well do it without the private sector overhead. It's going to be expensive enough as it is.
  
  --
  You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
Re: 200 NAZIS went Heil! Heil! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:38 · Score: -1

Join JOin Join Join Join JOIN Join Join Join JoiN Join
Join JOin Join Join Join JOIN Join Join Join JoiN Join
l . . lnazina l . . l . . . l . . l . . . lnazinazinazi . . . l . . l . . . l . . l nazinal . . l
The The THe The The The THE The The The ThE
The The THe The The The THE The The The ThE
l . . lnazina l . . l . . . l . . l . . . lnazinazinazi . . . l . . l . . . l . . l nazinal . . l
NaZi Nazi Nazi nazi Nazi NaZi Nazi nazi Nazi Nazi
NaZi Nazi Nazi nazi Nazi NaZi Nazi nazi Nazi Nazi
l . . lnazina l . . l . . . l . . l . . . lnazinazinazi . . . l . . l . . . l . . l nazinal . . l
PaRTY! PARTY! PaRTY! PARtY! pARTY!
PaRTY! PARTY! PaRTY! PARtY! pARTY!
Only One Thing Needed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:39 · Score: -1

More Fossil Fuels! Clean! Efficient! Fossil Fuels! Petrol, coal, and methane! It is Nature, from God, and if you love God, you love Nature and all it has to offer. Buy it! Smell it! Live it!
Yours,
The Pertroleum People - From God
1. Re: Only One Thing Needed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  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?
2. Re: Only One Thing Needed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Only capitalism can solve those problems. And going to church on Sundays.
3. Re: Only One Thing Needed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re: Only One Thing Needed by HornWumpus · 2018-12-16 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  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'
5. Re: Only One Thing Needed by DogDude · 2018-12-16 08:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re: Only One Thing Needed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  BS. Absence of a tax to pay for things you think people should is not the same as presence of a subsidy.
7. Re: Only One Thing Needed by HornWumpus · 2018-12-16 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  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'
8. Re: Only One Thing Needed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  Stop with making sense...it doesn't need to be that way. Jump onboard some lofty goals which have no discernable way to measured.
9. Re: Only One Thing Needed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 13:23 · Score: 0
  
  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.
10. Re: Only One Thing Needed by DogDude · 2018-12-16 14:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The US Treasure lays out all of the oil/gasoline subsidies here:
  
  https://www.treasury.gov/open/...
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
11. Re: Only One Thing Needed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 21:51 · Score: 0
  
  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.
12. Re: Only One Thing Needed by HornWumpus · 2018-12-17 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  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'
13. Re: Only One Thing Needed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-17 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  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.
Eat the rich by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:42 · Score: -1

This is nothing but redistribution of wealth. Fuck the socialists.
1. Re: Eat the rich by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  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
2. Re:Eat the rich by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think socialism means what you think socialism means.
  Go get an education.
Chile banned plastic bags too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:47 · Score: 0, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2018-12-16 05:07 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  We could, you know, actually do something about poverty?
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
2. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by mspohr · 2018-12-16 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Or they could use something called a "lunchbox" and something called "reusable shopping bags" just like many people do.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
3. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by SumDog · 2018-12-16 05:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by Oligonicella · 2018-12-16 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  We already are. Seems you believe that if it hasn't been totally eradicated, nothing is being done.
5. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Reverse progress is what we're seeing. No more school lunches. Far fewer grants for college education. Rather than fix urban blight, we have cities approving new construction projects for upper middle class gated communities.
6. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by fustakrakich · 2018-12-16 06:11 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "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!”
7. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by HornWumpus · 2018-12-16 06:17 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  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.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
8. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by fustakrakich · 2018-12-16 06:30 · Score: 2
  
  :-) Ah yes, fuck the poor!
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
9. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by HornWumpus · 2018-12-16 07:05 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  No need. They've fucked themselves more than enough.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
10. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  You don't get it, the point isn't even whether its good or bad, its having other peoples ideas of what's good for the world thrust on you. I can think of hundreds of ways to reduce pollution, but they would affect on person or another. Its all good when the law is on your side, but I'm guessing you don't like it when it isn't. This has nothing to do with boo hoo. How do you like Uber again?
11. Re: Chile banned plastic bags too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 07:35 · Score: -1
  
  Poverty rates worldwide have plummeted by over 45% in the past twenty years.
  Poverty rates in Canada and the United States are even lower, with less than 0.1% of the population being homeless (compared to 20% worldwide).
  Your breathless leftist narratives are a lie.
12. Re: Chile banned plastic bags too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  Anecdotes. Actual facts and statistics say otherwise.
  Fuck off, Trumptard.
13. Re: Chile banned plastic bags too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  The CO2 levels would drop much more dramatically from SumDog not being allowed to use an electronic device to fuck around wasting time on slashdot than giving me free (as if the cost was not already a hidden cost in my bill) grocery bags.
  So step up, live the way you say, do the right thing, shut down your computer and never come back here again.
  Oh wait, that would be terribly inconvenient for YOU!
  Prick.
14. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by cb88 · 2018-12-16 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Having lived in brazil for a few years... using shopping bags for trash has nothing to do with poverty it is just what is done. During a week the average brazilian home produces somewhere between 3-4 grocery bags of trash. They don't have bins /dumpsters they have a little rack usually on a pole just so smaller dogs can't reach it that they throw the bags on and the trash truck picks them up off of that.
  
  Also as an American in Brazil, we produced probably double the trash or more than our neighbors...... not really sure why either, but I put it down to different habits and lifestyle.
15. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  "Why don't the poor stop being poor through buying things?" --mspohr
16. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  Reverse progress is what we're seeing. No more school lunches. Far fewer grants for college education. Rather than fix urban blight, we have cities approving new construction projects for upper middle class gated communities.
  But if the poor become less poor, then the rich become comparatively less rich. The majority of politicians are relatively rich. Why would you think they would pass laws and Acts that make them comparatively less rich?
17. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by fustakrakich · 2018-12-16 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Well you're right. If you don't sell your soul, you're pretty much fucked in this world.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
18. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  Wow SUMDOG, you must have a really clean house, composting all your garbage.
  Wish I could do that from the 20th floor where I live.
19. Re: Chile banned plastic bags too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 13:08 · Score: 0
  
  Why would you buy a lunchbox or a reusable bags? They're trivial to make yourself out of a huge variety of freely available materials. -PCP
20. Re: Chile banned plastic bags too by Type44Q · 2018-12-16 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  In Soviet... China, the trash eats the dogs?
21. Re: Chile banned plastic bags too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 20:00 · Score: 0
  
  So the poor being poor is the fault of the poor. You do realise that most people who are poor work, and that if their work wasn't worth more than their pay they wouldn't have that work. Therefore, most poor people are doing useful work. If you look at productivity gains over the last forty years, they are doing more useful work than forty years, but for the same pay per hour, more or less.
22. Re: Chile banned plastic bags too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 20:07 · Score: 0
  
  Having other people's concept of what is good is how the world works. Some people think raping women, killing people, or stealing cars is OK, but society says this is unacceptable. There are rules which are an unwarranted imposition, such as rules criminalising homosexuality, but banning plastic bags to reduce landfill doesn't really infringe particularly on anyone's human rights, so I don't see a particular issue. In an ideal world it wouldn't be required, but that's not a world we live in.
23. Re: Chile banned plastic bags too by ravenshrike · 2018-12-17 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like in the shithole which is San Fran which surprise, surprise had a massive hepatitis outbreak after plastic bags were banned?
24. Re:Chile banned plastic bags too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-17 18:55 · Score: 0
  
  But if the poor become less poor, then the rich become comparatively less rich. The majority of politicians are relatively rich. Why would you think they would pass laws and Acts that make them comparatively less rich?
  If your brain is still working well enough to read this: kill yourself.
I know it's easy to double-count sometimes... by SqueakyMouse · 2018-12-16 04:47 · Score: 1

...but this is ridiculous!

“From now on, my five priorities will be: ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition and ambition,” it said
Control by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:51 · Score: -1

You can't control something you can't measure.
Re: Legally binding? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:55 · Score: 1

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.
200 soon to be failed countries by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 04:57 · Score: -1

The USA will out compete all these contries that have baught into the global warming hoax conspiracy. I look forward to travilling to those shit holes and paying their wealthyist women a couple of USA dollars to be my escorts.
1. Re:200 soon to be failed countries by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  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".
2. Re: 200 soon to be failed countries by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  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.
3. Re: 200 soon to be failed countries by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 14:53 · Score: 0
  
  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.
It's a snow job! by Sponge+Bath · 2018-12-16 04:59 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Donnie, the con man
Was a lying empty soul
With a Putin pipe, a Pinocchio nose
And a scam made out of coal..
'well below' 2 degrees Celsius? by fredrated · 2018-12-16 05:01 · Score: 1

Lots of luck with that. $100 billion? Call me when we spend more on AGW than the military.
Re: Politicians sitting around making decisions wi by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:05 · Score: -1, Troll

Stop listening to the lying media and vote out the socialists.
Blockchain this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:10 · Score: 0

Carbon, the real rich people's cryptocoin.
Unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:12 · Score: 0

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.
1. Re:Unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  Sovereign states are equal in status. When unified behind a common cause, people often tend to give some of their say-so for the benefit of all. Common rules ensure fluid and easy international trade and predictable policies that create new business opportunities and reduce the costs.
2. Re:Unpopular opinion... by HornWumpus · 2018-12-16 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Equal? No. Just childishly wrong.
  Sovereign states are sovereign. That is all. 'Equal in status' is far too broad.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
3. Re:Unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  Not every country is a Bermuda or a Puerto Rico.
4. Re:Unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  In fact, not any country is Puerto Rico.
You tell'em Francois! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:20 · Score: 2, Funny

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!!
Impossible goal. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:21 · Score: 0

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.
After impasse? by CrimsonAvenger · 2018-12-16 05:27 · Score: 1

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"
1. Re:After impasse? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  > 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....
  At least it calmed down the French. A tiny bit.
  Just wait until some of the population in the more vocal/violent countries start protesting the money-grab.
The article says nothing at all by magzteel · 2018-12-16 05:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
1. Re:The article says nothing at all by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  Watched over by John Podesta and the kids he abused trafficked by Clinton's Haitian sex trafficking ring
Oligonicella is a fucking moron, noted. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 06:11 · Score: 0

Oligonicella is a fucking moron, noted.
Ha. Poor countries agree to loot the rich by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 06:28 · Score: 0

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.
1. Re:Ha. Poor countries agree to loot the rich by Luckyo · 2018-12-16 07:22 · Score: 2
  
  Most people missed it, but we just had a major event that told us exactly where the breaking point of people of a major Western country that is widely invested in cutting CO2 emissions is.
  Yellow jackets. That increase in fuel taxes to fund fighting global warming was too much for the people.
2. Re:Ha. Poor countries agree to loot the rich by whoever57 · 2018-12-16 07:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yellow jackets. That increase in fuel taxes to fund fighting global warming was too much for the people.
  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!
3. Re:Ha. Poor countries agree to loot the rich by AHuxley · 2018-12-16 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  France needs to extract a lot of tax money from its citizens. Wonder what France has to pay for with all its new attempts at extra tax collection?
  Who in France needs more and constant support from the French tax payers?
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
4. Re:Ha. Poor countries agree to loot the rich by Luckyo · 2018-12-16 08:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:Ha. Poor countries agree to loot the rich by whoever57 · 2018-12-16 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's like saying that building a pile of wood, then adding gasoline didn't cause a fire and the only thing that caused the fire was lighting it.
  Revolutions are never entirely about the final event just before the revolution.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
6. Re:Ha. Poor countries agree to loot the rich by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 21:42 · Score: 0
  
  Macron is also yet another right wing populist without actual solutions. (Seems to be a thing going around these days.)
  The increase in fuel taxes would have worked out better if people had been given an alternative.
7. Re:Ha. Poor countries agree to loot the rich by Luckyo · 2018-12-17 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  This seems to be the problem in descriptors. Traditional left wing is socialist and globalist. Traditional right wing is capitalist and nationalist.
  So how do we rate Macron, who's globalist and capitalist? Those who are far enough on the left to classify "right = bad" classify him a right winger because of his economic policy. Those far enough on the right to classify "left = bad" classify him as a left winger because of his internationalist policy.
  Can we simply agree that correct descriptors in this case are "globalist and capitalist", i.e. an amalgam of traditional left and traditional right?
8. Re:Ha. Poor countries agree to loot the rich by Luckyo · 2018-12-17 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't make the claim you're implying I made. Intentional misunderstanding of a clearly outlined point is the last defence of someone who doesn't have any arguments left.
9. Re:Ha. Poor countries agree to loot the rich by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-18 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  Got people to the breaking point and over it, can be two separate things. You even said as much yourself, twice in fact. Other guy is right. It didn't happen in a vacuum.
  They were at the breaking point before, and the last push got them over it. That last push by itself wouldn't have got them there and over it with nothing supporting it.
So? If they all agreed to jump off a cliff... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 06:37 · Score: 0

would it be a good idea? This is stupid. Whoever posted it should be ashamed of themselves.
1. Re:So? If they all agreed to jump off a cliff... by fredrated · 2018-12-16 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  We are ashamed of you and your ilk.
doesn't matter by iggymanz · 2018-12-16 06:41 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:doesn't matter by jd · 2018-12-16 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  China will likely have fusion in the next 10-15 years, since it, oh, spends money on science. Maybe earlier, if Europe decides to pool resources with it. Which it may well do.
  If China does, India will have no choice but to switch to fission for energy or sell up to China. It can't compete on diesel or oil.
  The EU will remain important, but you're right, nobody else will. Competition against a technologically advanced society is pointless.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
2. Re: doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  Oh guck off techno guy. Fusion isn't coming, just like flying cars.
3. Re:doesn't matter by Luckyo · 2018-12-16 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Fusion on Earth surface remains 50 years away, just as it was 50 years away 50 years ago. It's the eternal conundrum, where solving one problem appears to result in finding an even larger problem that wasn't foreseen. Essentially all wealthy countries already invested in it. It remain unfeasible with current technology and materials.
4. Re:doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  irrelevant what the USA does.
  The USA is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world. I would hardly call that "irrelevant".
5. Re:doesn't matter by HornWumpus · 2018-12-16 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  You can build a fusion reactor in your home lab, many people have. Making one net energy positive is the tricky part.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
6. Re:doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  Senile old man with yahoo email account yells at world as it passed him by 20 years ago.
7. Re:doesn't matter by Cutterman · 2018-12-16 08:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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
8. Re:doesn't matter by AHuxley · 2018-12-16 08:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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"
9. Re:doesn't matter by Luckyo · 2018-12-16 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  The kind of cold fusion you're talking about is utterly irrelevant for the topic being discussed. It's like saying that interstellar travel is easy because you can make a rocket in your garage.
10. Re:doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes, the "don't look at me or my country, we don't want to do any work, pay anything, or participate in anything that wasn't our (my) idea."
  Good stuff. It gets relatively wealthier countries off the hook, it makes a good soundbite, and it appeals to the Deplorables. And that's what this comes down to, really. Deplorable logic for Deplorables.
  By all means, let's not talk about how developed countries contribute to pollution. Let's not talk about how many countries will have IP and industrial capacity that will be needed to transition to greener economies. Let's not talk about how it's impossible to forge international consensus without the participation of most of the countries of the Earth. People have an innate idea of fairness that will prevent action and international agreements without it.
  Yet somehow, "China and India" are going to do this on their own, and "no one else matters", so you can dismiss the issue and continue living exactly as you have been. You don't even have to make easy and inexpensive changes! You win!
11. Re:doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  It is and I have!
  Just waiting for my Jan 1st launch window
12. Re:doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  [citation needed]
13. Re:doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  China will have fusion if someone else invents it first so they can steal it. They aren't exactly an innovative culture.
14. Re:doesn't matter by iggymanz · 2018-12-16 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  nonsense, the Sun puts out enough energy on the Earth for over 10,000 civilizations. We have effecient enough collection devices and storage tech, and the UHVDC lines to distribute energy across continents. A mere 100 square miles of solar collector would power the USA.
  we don't need fission any more. using uranium is just dumb now.
15. Re:doesn't matter by drinkypoo · 2018-12-16 23:52 · Score: 0
  
  Don't you have anything better to do than to troll with this nuclear playboy bullshit? Base load is a myth and storage is getting cheaper a hell of a lot faster than nuclear is getting safer.
  "All the fusion wastes since 1945 wouldn't even _begin_ to fill 1 cubic kilometer."
  Neither would all my flatulence if you made it into a solid. Does that mean you want to suck my farts? If the nuclear waste were all in one safe place we wouldn't be having this conversation, but it is stored in pools next to reactors all over the planet.
  Once you figure out to how to make it as safe and clean as you claim it could be today, you can pick up your Nobel prize. Until then, you're just one big example of [citation needed].
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I agree!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 07:04 · Score: 0

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.
1. Re:I agree!!! by HornWumpus · 2018-12-16 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck with your janitor employing tech venture.
  You understand that nobody is going to invest and why?
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re: I agree!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  You think you set up a straw an but you failed.
  Yes, the NBA player is more valuable to society than random salaried STEM worker.
  Why? Because they help thousands of others have jobs and keep the economy moving. If you shutdown the NBA and put a few hundred athletes out of business then tens of thousands would be looking for new jobs. If you fired the same number of random STEM, very few outside their immediate circle would notice.
  It is noble of you to spend all that outside of work time with your janitor (yeah, right like you ever do that outside 9-5), but in the context of providing value to society, his contributions are minimal.
3. Re: I agree!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Good luck in your world without janitors.
4. Re: I agree!!! by HornWumpus · 2018-12-16 08:00 · Score: 2
  
  I hire based on value of work. GGP pretends he hires based on 'value as a human being'. He's deluded to think he can know, but 'virtue signaling moron'.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
5. Re: I agree!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  You are also signalling you are one of those worthless pieces of skin he mentioned.
  +1 vote for you being a worthless human being, assuming you aren't just a trollbot.
6. Re: I agree!!! by fustakrakich · 2018-12-16 11:46 · Score: 2
  
  Sounds like you *talk to the animals*, but I never said you have to hire bad workers, You're just expected to treat all people humanely regardless of their economic worth, if you want to be considered something other than a sociopathic animal looking for a fast buck.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
7. Re: I agree!!! by HornWumpus · 2018-12-17 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  This whole discussion started with 'if you want useful work, hire someone with a history of doing useful work'.
  You choose to disagree with that. Using a janitor as an example. BTW Janitors do useful work, it's just paid for shit as anyone could do it.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
8. Re: I agree!!! by HornWumpus · 2018-12-17 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not 'society'. I hire based on value to _me_.
  Never trust anyone who claims to be a judge of 'value to society'. Especially nolife, worthless to everyone including themselves, trolls.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
9. Re: I agree!!! by fustakrakich · 2018-12-17 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  This whole discussion started with 'if you want useful work, hire someone with a history of doing useful work'.
  No, that's where you started. I started by saying you need poverty to get people to wipe your ass for you. You took it another direction.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
10. Re: I agree!!! by fustakrakich · 2018-12-17 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not 'society'.
  Like it or not, yes, you are... until you cease to interact and leave. You're are not in isolation.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
11. Re: I agree!!! by HornWumpus · 2018-12-17 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Wiping ass is good money for the incompetent. All supply and demand. Some of the best paying mechanic work is working on trash trucks. It's the 'trash juice' they get to roll around in that makes it better paid.
  People need to eat. Duh. Doesn't change a thing about how useless most poors are.
  The ones that stay poor are too good to wipe ass. Why they're still poor and why wiping ass is relatively well paid.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
This is about control not climate change by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 07:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

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 by DogDude · 2018-12-16 07:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Troll by HornWumpus · 2018-12-16 09:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  They're generally called 'watermelons'. Green on the outside, red to the core.
  Same old same old, but they've changed their public reasons for 'smashing capitalism'. Just boring and lame, but they don't have much left to base their arguments on.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re:Troll by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  I can name 2 out 5 co-workers who live for the moments they can exert "control" over their fellow man. I would submit that the desire to control how societies generate and use energy is built right into our DNA.
Re: 200 conservative NAZIS hate the WORLD by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 08:17 · Score: -1

We need to exterminate shitty smelly parasites hindu-chimps, that are breeding like cockroaches. Heil Hitler.
It's not the rules, it's the punishment by argStyopa · 2018-12-16 08:36 · Score: 1

...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
1. Re:It's not the rules, it's the punishment by soccerisgod · 2018-12-16 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  This is more of the same. More rules that everyone will blissfully ignore. No punishment for anyone. Why do you think so many countries agreed? Because it's just a feel-good empty gesture, nothing more.
  
  --
  If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
2. Re:It's not the rules, it's the punishment by Shotgun · 2018-12-17 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well, a good number agreed because there was a payout of $100 billion mentioned.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Climate Change? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 09:36 · Score: 0

Climate Change? Brought to you by Marxist, Inc.
'nuff said.
So where's the agreement? by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-12-16 10:00 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:So where's the agreement? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  Who would read 150 pages of crap? Well, it must be long. It contains all the exceptions for the companies who donated to the right people :)
I protest by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 11:13 · Score: 0

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?
Cant depend on the leaders. by wolfheart111 · 2018-12-16 14:22 · Score: 1

We gotta do it ourselves, through science we need to make the biggest polluters redundant and unattractive.

--
[($)]
again, another joke by WindBourne · 2018-12-16 16:01 · Score: 2

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.
Only joke is you WindBourne by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 20:29 · Score: 0

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.
Re: Politicians sitting around making decisions w by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 20:45 · Score: 0

It would be tricky to vote out socialists in the USA as none are in power.
Re: Legally binding? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 21:24 · Score: 0

Busted in the sense of not even charged?
Re: Politicians sitting around making decisions by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 21:58 · Score: 0

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.
No such thing as 'global warming' by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 22:03 · Score: 0

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?
Anyone noticed how the UN by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 22:24 · Score: 0

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.
US CO2 is going up stop the lies WindBourne by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 22:25 · Score: 0

America per capita is still twice Europe, still twice China.
You should do more, because you are the biggest problem.
Stupid countries by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-16 23:17 · Score: 0

Are going to be in for a real surprise once the climate changes from the Grand Solar Minimum we have entered become undeniable.
1. Re:Stupid countries by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-17 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  Dickhead.
Unless Americans half CO2 to meet China you mean by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-17 00:30 · Score: 0

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...
per person America is among the worst of the worst by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-17 01:01 · Score: 0

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.
Another agreement many of the signers will ignore by johnlcallaway · 2018-12-17 01:08 · Score: 1

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.
So you have answered the question. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-17 01:10 · Score: 0

"How will they enforce this?"
"By power politics of various types, ranging from cloak and dagger actions to full blown warfare."
So how does the law work internationally? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-17 01:13 · Score: 0

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.
China and India still not limited by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-17 01:59 · Score: 0

This new agreement still does not required any reductions in CO2 or particulate emissions from China or India. It's a sham.
Nothing like starting out the week by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-17 02:29 · Score: 0

With another good laugh.
Best option for EU, US, Canada, ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-17 05:56 · Score: 0

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, ...
Unfixable until America cuts in half to match EU by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-17 11:01 · Score: 0

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).
America isn't reducing fuckwit. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-18 12:47 · Score: 0

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?
Does it make US cut 1/2 down to EU China levels? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-18 12:50 · Score: 0

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.
Yet USA is twice as bad per person... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-18 14:37 · Score: 0

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...
Re:Another agreement many of the signers will igno by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-24 01:55 · Score: 0

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.