13 ms·
Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris
- goalieca 11y agoAs a canadian, I'm so glad that these discussions were held after the election.
- RodericDay 11y agoSame.
- agumonkey 11y agoI heard a bit about it in the news, the previous government was very much against this bill, is that it ?
- grobbles 11y agoNot at all. The previous government was against binding agreements that did not bind China or India or other developing nations (for reasons that we've seen as China has exploded into the most significant polluter), and which actually might have been negative to the actual cause. Kyoto, for instance, would have been devastating to the environment, however much it might have been illusory of progress. So right now you see a lot of Canadians who villainized the previous government celebrating what sounds like it is effectively nothing. The new Canadian government sent 388 delegates to Paris, the vast bulk having nothing to do with negotiations and just enjoying the photo ops and a vacation junket, which was more than the United States, more than the UK, more than Australia. Indeed, it was more than all of those countries combined. I don't mean to politicize this, but there is a detached "words versus action" argument that appears when Canada comes up and it is deeply disconcerting.
- marcusgarvey 11y ago>The new deal will not, on its own, solve global warming. At best, scientists who have analyzed it say, it will cut global greenhouse gas emissions by about half what is necessary to stave off an increase in atmospheric temperatures of 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That is the point at which scientific studies have concluded the world will be locked into a future of devastating consequences, including rising sea levels, severe droughts and flooding, widespread food and water shortages, and more destructive storms. >But the agreement could be an inflection point in human history: the moment at which, because of a huge shift in global economic policy, the inexorable rise in planet-warming carbon emissions that started during the Industrial Revolution began to level out and eventually decline. So, is this really cause for celebration? This last paragraph reads as though there's no agency here. We agreed to half of what's necessary. Not to mention VW-type sleights of hand that mean we're not doing what we've said we would do in the past, when things were less dire.
- adrtessier 11y agoI'm willing to remain optimistic on this front, because even if nothing meaningful is accomplished with this specific accord, it does not rule out more in the future. Getting all of these nations on board to do something about climate change (even if that simply means acknowledging its presence and their contributions to it) is a step in the right direction toward solving the problem meaningfully. The wheels of international politics turn slowly without economic or military consequences to fuel them, and sometimes (unfortunately) as the lowly ones we have to take what we can get.
- avar 11y agoI'm getting more optimistic too, but I remain worried that there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between scientists and the bureaucrats. Science will find out that within some small error bar we need to do exactly X, but bureaucrats see everything as a negotiation and will negotiate some number smaller than X. Now we're still slowly getting boiled to death (bad) albeit at a slower rate (good).
- 11y ago
- dan-silver 11y agoAre there details about how this will affect regulations in the US?
- SixSigma 11y ago11,000+ people die each day from burning renewable fuels http://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornlomborg/2015/12/12/when-politicians-speak-their-minds-facts-still-matter/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornlomborg/2015/12/12/when-pol...
- reitanqild 11y agoHow is this relevant? At least also mention how many are hurt or killed by kerosene..
- SixSigma 11y agoRead the link and find out, that's what the links are for.
- hospes 11y agoIt says they die from burning wood or dung. When scientists say we need to move away from fossil fuels to renewables, they are not suggesting to move to wood and dung, so your argument is irrelevant.
- xCathedra 11y ago> As a result, all language in the accord relating to the reduction of carbon emissions is essentially voluntary. The language assigns no concrete targets to any country for emissions reductions. Instead, each government has crafted a plan detailing how they would lower emissions at home, based on what each head of state believes is feasible given the country’s domestic political and economic situation. I fail to see how this summit differs from previous summits without anything being legally binding.
- agumonkey 11y agoFor what it's worth, the joy from the attendance on the final verdict felt like this time it mattered.
- Systemic33 11y agoThe participants will add $100M yearly from 2020. That doesn't seem insignificant, and I think part of the thing about the deal is that it puts a public focus on green development -- WORLDWIDE.
- bjelkeman-again 11y agoJust like international development money in Europe has been moved to pay for handling refugees from war locally and military action in Syria, it is a risk that this pledge just becomes recycled money from this previous pot of money. (International development funds were about $130BN in 2014.) And countries like the Netherlands and Finland have been cutting back their spending recently, quite dramatically, if they just spend what they used to spend they could claim they have done their part already, without actually adding anything. (They will add $100 billion, not million.)
- blondie9x 11y agoThis had to be added due to those in Congress paid off by Koch brothers to deny anthropogenic climate change. They are abhorrent to any effort to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/senate-blocks-obamas-climate-change-rules.html?_r=0 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/senate-bloc... Getting everyone on board is a huge win and setting targets of 1.5C (max 2C) will help humanity stand together against the threat of climate change.
- HiLo 11y agoA coherent, baseline platform that ratchets up in intensity every 5 years and forces the hand of domestic politics (rather than simply allowing them to block intnl agreements) seems like a positive, I'm not sure why everybody is so entirely cynical.
- vram22 11y ago5 years is way too low a frequency, IMO. Edit: s/to/too
- Brakenshire 11y agoI think that's just about right personally. Any more and it would be too infrequent to be useful. Any less and it would get lost in the noise of the media cycle. It's important when these things happen that there's a sense that the whole world is watching, and international reputations can be impacted depending on how countries behave.
- vram22 11y agoI agree somewhat with this point of yours: >It's important when these things happen that there's a sense that the whole world is watching, and but my reason for saying that every 5 years is too low a frequency, i.e. it should be more frequent, like once in 2 or 3 years, was because 1) a lot can be done in 2 or 3 years, and 2) more importantly, I'd think that reviewing progress (or regress) should not be left for as large a gap as 5 years - so as to be able to either hasten progress or slow/stop regress more often, if needed, considering the huge importance of the issue. Cf. recent live example - Chennai (and Tamil Nadu state) floods in India. Huge damage and loss. I should mention that I am not a climate expert; saying the above as a layman.
- Brakenshire 11y agoYeah, it is a bit difficult to say either way. You could well be right.
- 11y ago
- phkamp 11y agoWe'll see on monday when the stock exchanges open if this agreement actually matters. If Oil/Coal companies tank: Yes If not: No Always follow the money.
- tosseraccount 11y agoWasn't an agreement well known in advance? Shouldn't this have already been baked into stock prices?
- mikeyouse 11y agoAnd since oil prices are near 10-year lows, I think it seems the market's reacting.
- phkamp 11y agoI don't think anybody doubted they would sign something in Paris, and that is baked in, but the actual content wasn't known until after market close on friday. Professional traders will have diversified away from fossil stocks due to the uncertainty, but on monday they will either jump back in, or stay even further away, depending on their take on the agreement.
- TaylorSwift 11y agoYes, crude oil is at record lows.
- tosseraccount 11y agoApparently not. $12.45 in 2115 dollars in 1998 is the low. http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical...
- shoo 11y agoin local politics I hear about plans to buy out large polluters (here we have coal-powered electricity generation). they're usually variations on: 1. a big pile of (typically public) money is given to the most polluting companies 2. in return those companies exit the industry i don't think such policies are a great idea, but they might be an example of action that would (i) be actually progressive re: greenhouse emissions, and (ii) might make the share price of such a company go up, supposing the pay out were large enough. this little thought experiment aside, the heuristic of following the change in the market is probably a reasonable one.
- tosseraccount 11y agoIs this a treaty? If so 2/3rd of the U.S. Senate must concur. Should be an interesting, spirited debate.
- blondie9x 11y agoNo, this isn't a treaty see my comment above on why it was worded the way it was to avoid Congress ratification. Our country will now join the world to fight climate change, with or without the Senate. This is huge because more of Senate is deeply indebted/paid by Koch brothers.
- forrestthewoods 11y agoNo fossil fuels between 2050 and 2100? I am unimpressed. I have a better plan. Here's how to reduce worldwide carbon emissions by 44% in 15-25 years. Step 1) Replace all coal power plants with nuclear plants Step 2) There is no step 2
- pan69 11y agoIt almost seems like the most practical solution at this point in time. Even though "green" energy has come a long way over the past few decades, it's not going to power the industries that cater to our comfy lives. There are certainly downsides and problems with nuclear power, waste is coming to mind and safety seems to be the other. I think that if we built nuclear power plants today they will be a lot safer and cleaner than the ones we used to built in the 60's and 70's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EviEN0ScOwg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EviEN0ScOwg
- jbandela1 11y agoI fail to understand the ambivalence not to mention hostility towards nuclear power. If people really believed that climate change was as dangerous as they say they believe they would be fully on board. Even a Chernobyl type incident once a year over the next 30 years would be preferable to the consequences of unchecked global warming.
- tim333 11y agoI guess if you are a green enthusiast you'd go for solar and batteries and if a skeptic you'd go for gas/coal. So there's a narrow group who like nuclear. Another thing that surprises me is how few people actually cost up different options on reducing CO2. I've given some money to reforestation projects and the CO2 saved per dollar is about 1000 times as effective as getting solar panels but no one seems interested in running the numbers.
- CuriousSkeptic 11y agoI think there was a mention in one of the ipcc reports where they actually ran the numbers and concluded that no amount of terraforming (be it forests, algae, and some other hypothetical "negative" emission approaches), even ignoring economical or technical feasibility, would be able to stop or reduce ghg concentrations.
- nsns 11y agoIt's indeed just a spectacle, political theater, but it is based on a wide-ranging acknowledgment of man-made climate change, which is of great importance.
- clumsysmurf 11y agoNot encouraging. “The current text is weaker than the final agreement that came out of [the failed] Copenhagen [summit in 2009]” http://www.thenation.com/article/scientists-warn-paris-climate-agreement-needs-massive-improvement/ http://www.thenation.com/article/scientists-warn-paris-clima... "James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks 'a fraud'" http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-han...
- shoo 11y agoClimate Action Tracker [1] provides a summary of all pledges, and per-country assessments. They have a recent post regarding the Paris agreement [2]. > As the CAT has previously noted, the national mitigation contributions, now associated with the Paris Agreement, would lead to a median warming of around 2.7°C by 2100 (a full range of 2.2-3.4°C, which means there is a likely chance of holding warming below 3°C, temperature would continue to rise after 2100). > Compared to the 3.6°C by 2100 warming that is projected to result from current policies, the climate pledges submitted in the INDCs lower warming by about 0.9°C – but only if all governments fully implement their pledges. [1] http://climateactiontracker.org/ http://climateactiontracker.org/ [2] http://climateactiontracker.org/news/257/Paris-Agreement-stage-set-to-ramp-up-climate-action.html http://climateactiontracker.org/news/257/Paris-Agreement-sta...
- gdubs 11y agoThis is a big deal. Is it perfect? No, far from it. Politics is -- as the famous saying goes -- the art of the possible. This is what was possible today. If you've been following closely, then you know we almost had no deal. My hope is that the emissions targets (low by what the scientific community wants to see) are tough enough that they will mandate significant investments in new technology. When clean tech becomes profitable (optimistically cheaper via subsidies), then it may become easier to sell the world on ratcheting-up the targets before we run out of time. As others have mentioned, I will be watching the market reactions with cautious optimism.
- zouhair 11y agoNothing will change as long as Capitalism is the force leading the World. All these summits mean nothing when all that matters is the results for the next quarter then the next.
- Brakenshire 11y agoThere's a big difference between Capitalism in general and completely free-market, unregulated Capitalism in particular. The market is an amazing instrument for technology development, if we had priced in the externalities of carbon twenty years ago, as originally planned at Kyoto, Capitalism would already be half way along to solving the problem in the same relentless way that it always pursues profit.
- tim333 11y agoYeah, CFCs got banned and the ozone hole went, you don't hear about acid rain any more, lead in petrol got banned, DDT got banned and so on in spite of Capitalism, so there's hope.
- zouhair 11y agoThat's not comparable. When they got rid of CFCs they just replaced it with something else. Now we need to stop making stuff, stat.
- zouhair 11y agoThis would be great if the big corporations couldn't lobby politicians.
- sktrdie 11y agoIsn't China communist?
- umanwizard 11y agoIn name only.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoSo for what is the $100B to be used? Does this amount to the buying of carbon indulgences?
- connoredel 11y agoSo, is man-made climate change solved? If the whole world agrees that we will all collectively take steps to reach an agreed upon level of temperature rise in 100 years, what else is needed except to do it? The rational thing to do is stop funding more and more studies, stop having summits, and just do what we all said we would do: carry out the plan. The whole world has agreed they are satisfied with the future climate this deal will bring us. If Congress legislated tomorrow that all gun sales and manufacturing were to be banned, and all existing guns should be collected and melted down, then should we still spend time and money researching gun violence and lobbying for stricter gun laws? I think everyone would agree that would be a waste of time because gun control is inevitable given the plan to ban them. Why does it feel like funding additional climate studies and appointing more bureaucrats won't stop like it would for the gun control example?
- classicsnoot 11y agoI think it is time that we as a species faced a few hard truths: 1) Nothing short of a dark age will reduce human emissions to a non factor in climate shift 2) Climate shift was always inevitable. It has happened before; it will happen again. The only thing we have done is hasten it... maybe. 3) All global efforts in regards to climate shift should be pointed at adapting to the changes, safeguarding threatened species (or collecting the requisite genetic data to one day rebuild them), and ensuring our specie's evolutionary March into the future. We shouldn't be designing green houses; we should be learning how to live underwater and underground. We should be planning for the Great Inland Migration. We should be hardening and burying all infrastructure. We should be decreasing energy and material waste for efficiency reasons, not feel-good reasons. This nascent cataclysm is not a fire, it is a flood. The metaphorical waters will rise and recede over thousands of years. No one in the future will give a flying fuck about Priuses or carbon credits. They will either praise us for building the tools and protocols byvwhich they survive, or curse us for thinking we could fight the inevitable. Our kind showed up at the end of an ice age. Let's not circle jerk ourselves to extinction in the face of another. Assessing past faults is pointless. We must adapt our collective civilizations to a dynamic future for which we are biologically and technologically I'll equipped.
- tim333 11y agoEven if you buy the hypothesis that climate change can't be stopped, the sea level rises would be something like 1 or 2m / century. More a case of get your grandkids to build their houses a quarter mile inland than a mad panic. Funnily enough global sea levels rose about 90m over the last 10,000 years and people hardly even noticed. You used to be able to walk from England to France where the channel now is.
- classicsnoot 11y agoYou are seriously suggesting that a 7 billion plus population is going to just roll with a level of increase that quickly like it is nothing? So I guess you feel that all of this 'forestall global warming' is hullabaloo... Most of the world lives at or below sea level. If 2 million 'refugees' can cause an unprecedented crisis, what do you think will be the effect of entire islands, countries, and regions mass migrating Inland will be?
- T3RMINATED 11y agothe Irony, they came to talk about "Global Warming" i bet not a single one took Public Transportation to the conference - but instead they all flew in with their Private Jets and furthermore destroyed our beautiful planet
- alphaBetaGamma 11y agoPhotos of the event: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop21/enb/12dec.html http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop21/enb/12dec.html
- oneJob 11y agoI wish I could sit down with every person on this thread and devote as much time as required for me to hear out their position and me to make mine. But, since I can't and since the info is already out there, I'll just say, please, pleaseeeeee go educate yourself. Humanity has just about built the infrastructure to lock in 2 degree temp increase. We are talking about a matter of years, not a decade. We are talking about locking in, not higher probability. Yet, there is uninterrupted talk of growing our economies (but little talk of reducing the wealth gap). If our economies are to continue growing. If we continue to be an extraction oriented species. If we continue to spend tens of billions a year searching out new fossil fuel reserves when we can't use half of those we already know of without pushing the 4-6 degree threshold..? Nature, will go on. Some portion of humanity, will go on. It's not the end of the world. Just the end of the world as we know it. If today everyone ditched their cars and used public transit and bikes, we shut down the airlines, and became vegan we'd be most of the way there. Switch to organic farming and cradle-to-cradle manufacturing would almost surely get us the rest of the way there. Yeah, I know, that's not going to happen and people don't want it to. My point is simply, the solution is not some black magic or future technology. The solution is simply a choice. edit: for cradle-to-cradle, see... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle-to-cradle_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle-to-cradle_design
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago>If today everyone ditched their cars and used public transit and bikes, we shut down the airlines, and became vegan we'd be most of the way there. One of these things is not like the others: shutting down airlines is an actual regulatory action. The others are lifestyle choices (and for what it's worth, I overwhelmingly just use public transit and my bike). >Switch to organic farming and cradle-to-cradle manufacturing would almost surely get us the rest of the way there. I'd like it if you could explain "cradle-to-cradle manufacturing", but I'm very skeptical that organic farming would actually help. Last I heard, even when you account for the subsidies paid to make industrial farming cheap, organic farming is still more resource-intensive than industrial farming. Further, again, last I heard, lifestyle changes on the part of individuals have far less impact on resource usage than policy changes in major industries.
- colordrops 11y agoWhat is the shortest text available that takes raw data and first principles and deductively walks to the inevitable conclusion of anthropogenic global warming and its dire consequences? I absolutely need this to convince my conservative relatives. I would also be interested for my own edification since my current belief in global warming is mostly based on faith in the scientific community, and I'd rather understand it myself.