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.
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
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
:-) Ah yes, fuck the poor!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
>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.
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.
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!
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'
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.
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.
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'
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.
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.
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!”
The US Treasure lays out all of the oil/gasoline subsidies here:
https://www.treasury.gov/open/...
I don't respond to AC's.
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.