10 ms·

>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 hal

>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 ago
I'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 ago
  I'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).
  - adrtessier 11y ago
    Sadly, the "bureaucrats", or politicians are the ones in the right, and the scientists are not. In little scientific echo chambers like Hacker News, we generally put science and rationality above human emotion. Unfortunately the world at large is not a technocracy, a good majority of people see science as an equivalent worldview to religious dogma, most are not particularly educated, and they primarily live to create their own families and provide them with sufficient resources for evolutionary success. With things like climate change, you are attempting to change a mass behavior of people that often do not see the change as being in their best interest. This requires both negotiation on a regulatory level, as well as a lot of new level-setting within those communities. It is extremely possible that the best we will ever get is to be slowly boiled to death until it's too late to fix it.
    - avar 11y ago
      Yes I realize what it takes, but as Feynman quipped "nature cannot be fooled". At some point the piecemeal dilution of what we actually need to do will come back and bite us badly. No amount of negotiation between the hypothetical scientist and the bureaucrats about not cutting down the last tree on Easter Island that doesn't 100% go in favor of the scientist will come out well. The trees will still be extinct.
  - andreasklinger 11y ago
    > a good majority of people see science as an equivalent worldview to religious dogma Is this also common outside of the US?
    - yongjik 11y ago
      It's more ridiculous. I've seen people claim that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the West to stunt economies of developing countries. Now only if they could talk to global warming "skeptics" in "the West" and engage in some kind of verbal death match...
      - 11y ago
corin_ 11y ago
It's cause for celebration as better than many expected to happen, but for sure many reasons to still be both skeptical about implementation and the results even if targets are hit. It's progress, at least.
SapphireSun 11y ago
Reading it more closely, the nations are required to reconvene every 5 years to report on progress and discuss the next round of tightening. So it's a partial victory with a ratchet mechanism. The mechanism isn't guaranteed to work, but as the consequences of global warming become more impacting, urgency will increase.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  Note that the ratchet won't start clicking until 2030. There is a real risk of countries postponing increases in emission cuts until then. Hopefully they won't. Another interesting point is wrt. financial aid to developing nations. IIUC, developing nations will not be compensated for damage due to climate change, but they will receive funding for efforts to cut their emissions while continuing to develop.
vlehto 11y ago
The VW scam was actually better for climate. Their engines released less CO2 and more NOx as a trade off. NOx is bad for humans and has slight cooling effect. CO2 is not dangerous and has heating effect. "Less polluting" can mean several completely different things. People often don't get this.
- chadzawistowski 11y ago
  NOx also contributes to acid rain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
- scott_karana 11y ago
  Do you have a source for the "less CO2" part?

adrtessier 11y ago

I'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 ago
I'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).
- adrtessier 11y ago
  Sadly, the "bureaucrats", or politicians are the ones in the right, and the scientists are not. In little scientific echo chambers like Hacker News, we generally put science and rationality above human emotion. Unfortunately the world at large is not a technocracy, a good majority of people see science as an equivalent worldview to religious dogma, most are not particularly educated, and they primarily live to create their own families and provide them with sufficient resources for evolutionary success. With things like climate change, you are attempting to change a mass behavior of people that often do not see the change as being in their best interest. This requires both negotiation on a regulatory level, as well as a lot of new level-setting within those communities. It is extremely possible that the best we will ever get is to be slowly boiled to death until it's too late to fix it.
  - avar 11y ago
    Yes I realize what it takes, but as Feynman quipped "nature cannot be fooled". At some point the piecemeal dilution of what we actually need to do will come back and bite us badly. No amount of negotiation between the hypothetical scientist and the bureaucrats about not cutting down the last tree on Easter Island that doesn't 100% go in favor of the scientist will come out well. The trees will still be extinct.
- andreasklinger 11y ago
  > a good majority of people see science as an equivalent worldview to religious dogma Is this also common outside of the US?
  - yongjik 11y ago
    It's more ridiculous. I've seen people claim that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the West to stunt economies of developing countries. Now only if they could talk to global warming "skeptics" in "the West" and engage in some kind of verbal death match...
    - 11y ago

corin_ 11y ago

It's cause for celebration as better than many expected to happen, but for sure many reasons to still be both skeptical about implementation and the results even if targets are hit. It's progress, at least.

SapphireSun 11y ago

Reading it more closely, the nations are required to reconvene every 5 years to report on progress and discuss the next round of tightening. So it's a partial victory with a ratchet mechanism. The mechanism isn't guaranteed to work, but as the consequences of global warming become more impacting, urgency will increase.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago
Note that the ratchet won't start clicking until 2030. There is a real risk of countries postponing increases in emission cuts until then. Hopefully they won't. Another interesting point is wrt. financial aid to developing nations. IIUC, developing nations will not be compensated for damage due to climate change, but they will receive funding for efforts to cut their emissions while continuing to develop.

vlehto 11y ago

The VW scam was actually better for climate. Their engines released less CO2 and more NOx as a trade off. NOx is bad for humans and has slight cooling effect. CO2 is not dangerous and has heating effect. "Less polluting" can mean several completely different things. People often don't get this.

chadzawistowski 11y ago
NOx also contributes to acid rain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
scott_karana 11y ago
Do you have a source for the "less CO2" part?