Yes of course this non-agreement will need strong follow up. China has already been shown as not reporting accurately and the US congress is not spending much if anything on bribes. This agreement is basically worthless or worse, after all a lot of carbon was emitted in getting it.
a 'non binding act with no enforcement is a waste of paper
This rush to get something...anything... drawn up is a 'look like I did something by Obama'.
Climate Change is still a highly debatable situation with scientists on both side of the issue
As it stands presently in this pact it is merely a redistribution of wealth rich nation (USA) to poorer nations and an excuse for European Socialist Countries and USA to add new regulations that can then be taxes.
This rush to get something...anything... drawn up is a 'look like I did something by Obama'.
Climate Change is still a highly debatable situation with scientists on both side of the issue
As it stands presently in this pact it is merely a redistribution of wealth rich nation (USA) to poorer nations and an excuse for European Socialist Countries and USA to add new regulations that can then be taxes.
2
Why does the most-respected newspaper in the US continue to devote an entire section of its paper to a product that is the single-biggest contributor to climate change, at least in this country?
As readers and commenters, we can vote for fewer new cars, new highways and parking lots by staying away from this section of the newspaper. I'm sure the Times could come up with some low-carbon activities to write about.
As readers and commenters, we can vote for fewer new cars, new highways and parking lots by staying away from this section of the newspaper. I'm sure the Times could come up with some low-carbon activities to write about.
3
The NYTimes could provide a critical voice of support for climate action by recognizing the environment is integral in nearly all human activities that are the focus of their reporting. Shallow coverage, followed by more extensive coverage of organized political events and the occasional natural event accompanied by (admittedly outstanding) landscape and animal photography, does not constitute deep reporting. Even in the style sections, there is no evidence of environmental awareness and its implications for the fashion and home goods industries. This is THE most important issue of your lifetime. Step up, and do the work that needs to be done.
2
After the Paris Climate Change accord, "now comes the hard part."
Right! Democrat lawyers are already licking their chops at all the new law suits they can file against American industry.
Right! Democrat lawyers are already licking their chops at all the new law suits they can file against American industry.
4
Paris 2015 Happy Sustainability I love new world
The key word is "hope." This isn't real which a number of people have pointed out. It reminds me of the establishment of the League of Nations after WWI to maintain peace. That worked out well. WWII was even more destructive than WWI.
So how is China going to meet any standards when they just relaxed the 1 child per family rule in late 2013? Now they can procreate even more future pollution generators on a huge population base. They alone will probably kill all progress from the rest of the countries combined.
The US sending any money for reparations to other countries is stupidity. At least in the case of India and China they charted their course which included a huge population increase which alone puts a major burden on the earth for centuries in every measure including CO2 emissions. In that context they need to pay the rest of the globe what their long term impact will be over centuries.
In the meantime we only fund mental health in the VA system for our returning soldiers at $7.5 billion per year.
This will get crushed in Congress and frankly it deserves to be crushed. We can't walk into these meetings with an open wallet and an eager but dumb look on our face. This is just an event for other countries to steal from the American public. Some countries spent a few hundred bucks on a plane ticket and they are going home with promises of millions/billions. Only when the US is in the room can this happen.
We need new leadership.
So how is China going to meet any standards when they just relaxed the 1 child per family rule in late 2013? Now they can procreate even more future pollution generators on a huge population base. They alone will probably kill all progress from the rest of the countries combined.
The US sending any money for reparations to other countries is stupidity. At least in the case of India and China they charted their course which included a huge population increase which alone puts a major burden on the earth for centuries in every measure including CO2 emissions. In that context they need to pay the rest of the globe what their long term impact will be over centuries.
In the meantime we only fund mental health in the VA system for our returning soldiers at $7.5 billion per year.
This will get crushed in Congress and frankly it deserves to be crushed. We can't walk into these meetings with an open wallet and an eager but dumb look on our face. This is just an event for other countries to steal from the American public. Some countries spent a few hundred bucks on a plane ticket and they are going home with promises of millions/billions. Only when the US is in the room can this happen.
We need new leadership.
5
Only with Obama in the room can this happen
3
Without a mechanism to reverse human population growth these steps just won't matter. Humans are the problem and there are simply too many on the planet now. Rather than lifting their one-child policy, China should be challenging the rest of the world to embrace this extremely difficult but necessary step.
1
not to worry. disease and famine will take care of this.
"The Paris Climate Pact Will Need Strong Follow-Up"
Luckily, there's no way it will get even weak follow-up, and everybody knows it.
I love carbon! My plants love it! And it's only 0.04% of the atmosphere right now, way below where it was when the dinosaurs were here. If we want the dinosaurs back -- and who doesn't? -- we gotta get that back at least to 0.1%... maybe more like 0.25%.
I have a model that shows that if we can get carbon back to 0.25% of the atmosphere, all of our agricultural problems would be gone forever, the rain forests would flourish again, and there would be fewer hurricanes. And the best news? I didn't need to add an automatic hockey stick feature OR fraudulently altered temperature data to make it work!
Go Carbon! Go Plants! Go Rain Forests!!!
Luckily, there's no way it will get even weak follow-up, and everybody knows it.
I love carbon! My plants love it! And it's only 0.04% of the atmosphere right now, way below where it was when the dinosaurs were here. If we want the dinosaurs back -- and who doesn't? -- we gotta get that back at least to 0.1%... maybe more like 0.25%.
I have a model that shows that if we can get carbon back to 0.25% of the atmosphere, all of our agricultural problems would be gone forever, the rain forests would flourish again, and there would be fewer hurricanes. And the best news? I didn't need to add an automatic hockey stick feature OR fraudulently altered temperature data to make it work!
Go Carbon! Go Plants! Go Rain Forests!!!
7
My thought is that the elites that attended this party in Paris who are patting themselves on the back will have egg on their faces in ten years time, meanwhile the "scientists" will be studying the periodic table to see which element to blame the next crises on, the last few decades have been rough on carbon, nitrogen maybe? Hey, everybody's got to make a living, right?
8
December 15 2015
For the love of our Earth - to quote:
"In order to live off a garden, you practically have to live in it."
~Frank McKinney Hubbard
"Anybody who wants to rule the world should try to rule a garden first."
-Gardening Saying
www.quotegarden.com/gardens
JJA Manhattan, N. Y.
For the love of our Earth - to quote:
"In order to live off a garden, you practically have to live in it."
~Frank McKinney Hubbard
"Anybody who wants to rule the world should try to rule a garden first."
-Gardening Saying
www.quotegarden.com/gardens
JJA Manhattan, N. Y.
2
So, the Paris Climate Pact will "assure future generations a livable world"? Please, hold the drama. The only way such carbon controls will ever have any meaningful impact on global temperatures is if they are globally enforced -- and the only way to do that is with one-world government. So, unless you progressives are ready to take over the world (and keep in mind that you'll need guns for that, so don't be too quick to ban them), this agreement will amount to just about nothing as far as our climate is concerned -- while it can be assured that strict adherence will do a lot in terms of lowering standards of living all over the world. Humans in the past have adapted to even warmer global temperatures than those predicted by the climate alarmists -- as well as much cooler (remember the ice age?). No doubt they will do the same in the future.
4
COP21 failed to address 2 interrelated factors in its solution to climate change:
1. The nature and technical limitations of renewable energy sources--intermittancy and storage, respectively.
2. Human behavior--As long as people expect on-demand, uninterrupted energy 24/7/365, rain or shine, in order to maintain an affluent and convenient lifestyle, fossil sources will be primary with renewables as supplemental.
My point: Blaming fossil energy industries as the only bad guys accomplishes nothing. They are simply meeting our demand to service our energy guzzling lifestyles. As long as we pay, they will provide. Perhaps we ought to reprioritize our values and behavior to accommodate a renewable energy world.
The exepectation that the solution to the climate crisis is a soley a technological matter is delusional and destructive.
1. The nature and technical limitations of renewable energy sources--intermittancy and storage, respectively.
2. Human behavior--As long as people expect on-demand, uninterrupted energy 24/7/365, rain or shine, in order to maintain an affluent and convenient lifestyle, fossil sources will be primary with renewables as supplemental.
My point: Blaming fossil energy industries as the only bad guys accomplishes nothing. They are simply meeting our demand to service our energy guzzling lifestyles. As long as we pay, they will provide. Perhaps we ought to reprioritize our values and behavior to accommodate a renewable energy world.
The exepectation that the solution to the climate crisis is a soley a technological matter is delusional and destructive.
4
Agree 100%. We're in the (very small) minority I'm afraid.
The new agreement requires regular and transparent reporting of every country’s carbon reductions. This is crucial because the pledges at the heart of the agreement are voluntary and unenforceable.
-------------------------------
As is the reporting. It takes a great leap of faith of a willing blindness to think that this means anything at all. Given Obama's track record, I am going with williing blindness.
-------------------------------
As is the reporting. It takes a great leap of faith of a willing blindness to think that this means anything at all. Given Obama's track record, I am going with williing blindness.
3
This "agreement" will not see even one enabling bit of legislation.
Obama will try some Executive Orders, which will likely be successfully challenged, but that's about it.
All in all, it was an event for Politicians to eat expensive food, drink expensive wine and champagne, maybe get some "companionship", and then hold a press conference where they can crow about themselves.
Even Jim Hansen says it was a sham.
Obama will try some Executive Orders, which will likely be successfully challenged, but that's about it.
All in all, it was an event for Politicians to eat expensive food, drink expensive wine and champagne, maybe get some "companionship", and then hold a press conference where they can crow about themselves.
Even Jim Hansen says it was a sham.
5
Politicians congratulating themselves for solving a problem that doesn't exist while we pay for their first-class five-star food and carbon-consuming air travel: what a scam!
6
How about the $100 billion that primarily the U.S. is supposed to hand over to India, China, Malaysia, etc. on an annual basis? It's truly asinine. This countries are already taking our jobs and have more money to spend than we do.
1
The agreement is worthless, promises everything, enforces nothing. Following it up is nothing but political muttering with zero effect on the real world.
1
That is cute. They came to an accord to do nothing, showing, by the way how seriously they take the climate change nonesemse. This has been the Obama mantra from day one, all show and no go. This accord isn't worth the paper it is written on. I know, the Times knows it and even Barack Obama knows it.
3
What the world needs is a massive world wide Manhattan style project. What we got instead is in the soap box derby class.
1
The editorial statements: "The behavior of individual governments will be critical in determining whether the world moves forward with clean-energy technologies" is truly naive. It is NOT the behavior of individual governments, but the behavior of multi-national corporations who determine how these governments regulate, invest and incent.
Until we see the USA drop all the tax incentives (depletion allowance, MLPs, etc.) that has made oil & gas exploration so profitable and in turn fossil fuels relatively cheap to other energy, then we know that no behavior has changed.
The whole facade of a Climate Pact among the world governments fails to address the amazing power of global corporations. If they were serious, then the Exxons, Duponts, Shells and Rosneffs of the world should have been signatories to a Climate Pact. Without them, the Pact is merely a piece of paper to let politicians feel good about themselves.
Until we see the USA drop all the tax incentives (depletion allowance, MLPs, etc.) that has made oil & gas exploration so profitable and in turn fossil fuels relatively cheap to other energy, then we know that no behavior has changed.
The whole facade of a Climate Pact among the world governments fails to address the amazing power of global corporations. If they were serious, then the Exxons, Duponts, Shells and Rosneffs of the world should have been signatories to a Climate Pact. Without them, the Pact is merely a piece of paper to let politicians feel good about themselves.
5
Everyone active in the financial community watches China and knows that their basic economic data is suspect. Whether this is by design or because they are a young world economy, the data is notoriously bad. They may provide a lot of "transparency" but will this allow anyone to tell what is really going on?
1
It's time for President Obama and the Democrats to step up and aggressively push for a carbon tax and maybe even shut down the government if they don't get it.
Unfortunately, I think the only thing we will get is more subsidies for the Democrats' crony capitalists in the wind and solar industries.
Unfortunately, I think the only thing we will get is more subsidies for the Democrats' crony capitalists in the wind and solar industries.
1
This is nuts. My hope is that future archaeologists will find this copy of the NYT, and see that at least one person, one "Malcolm Beifong," was not taken in by the Climate Change hysteria. "Yes, there were some people back during the Paris Summit and all those other ridiculous meetings which we now know were absurdly foolish, who understood the difference between pollution and greenhouse gases, who were not freaked out by CO2, who knew the sensitivity of climate to that benevolent gas was not significant, and who, besides which, saw the obvious signs of a politically based fraud that were there for everyone to see." Yes, that's what will be written.
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
3
The hard work needs to begin to make the climate accord real within the policies of the USA. First we have to set human rights standards to any transfer of dollars to third world countries. Second we have to not fund any countries that are not considered friends and allies of the USA. After that we have to eliminate countries that are ruled by tyrants and dictators from receiving financial assistance. Then any countries that has Islamists preaching violent Jihad are non starters to finance public works projects.
We also need not to fund countries that exceed a certain corrupt index level, because all that will happen is that the money will be stolen. What does bring up countries like India and China. So we dare not take unilateral action on climate change without making sure that they are cutting their emissions also. The hard work is living within our international standards with this accord and not throwing out 100 years of USA international relations and human right standards to finance a few solar panels! Selling our sole to live up to a weak climate agreement is next to insanity.
We also need not to fund countries that exceed a certain corrupt index level, because all that will happen is that the money will be stolen. What does bring up countries like India and China. So we dare not take unilateral action on climate change without making sure that they are cutting their emissions also. The hard work is living within our international standards with this accord and not throwing out 100 years of USA international relations and human right standards to finance a few solar panels! Selling our sole to live up to a weak climate agreement is next to insanity.
Anyone listening to Sec Kerry from Paris wailing about the "threats" of "climate change" and our need to cut back should read the New Yorker profile this week documenting his expansive collection of mansions (Boston, Nantucket, Georgetown, Pittsburg,...), the 7 million dollar yacht, the private jet travel, and other baubles. As with so many of the Paris attendees, he has a 0.01% "carbon footprint".
4
The Paris Climate Pact is tantamount to a New Year's resolution to exercise every day and lose weight. Sadly, such vague intentions are what passes for policy. The devil is in the details, and quite honestly Obama, Hillary, and all the other "progressives" have made no actual proposals that will achieve these goals.
So let me know when there is an actual proposal. Until then, stop the self-congratulations by hypocritical progressives.
BTW, I prefer republican silence to progressive hypocrisy.
So let me know when there is an actual proposal. Until then, stop the self-congratulations by hypocritical progressives.
BTW, I prefer republican silence to progressive hypocrisy.
1
Why is it there is no mention of the $100 billion contribution by the developed countries to developing countries in accomplishing the goal - in this editorial - even though that is the point which made the other countries to sign. Also not mentioned is the fact this can start in 2020 - instead of now. See the Pact signed and report the major facts. items 54 [page 8 of 31] and item 115 -p16 of 31[ ...--Resolves...a concrete road map to achieve the goal of jointly providing US $ 100 billion annually...] -WHO IS GOING TO ENFORCE THIS... LET US ALL WAIT FOR UNCLIMATE COP2030. Cheers to Marian and the poetry...in the comments.. watch for the '21st century Global Anthropogenic Warming [GAW] convective model' which would talk about all energy conversions including renewables warming the limited mass of atmospheric air...by us
1
Reading the comments already posted is a rather depressing, especially as few if any mention something that we American voters can do in 2016 -- clean the climate change deniers out of Congress and state legislatures and make sure that we have someone in the White House who is seriously committed to fighting climate change in all of its manifestations.
Meanwhile, my family has avoided eating meat for years and had had solar panels installed on the roof of our home.
Edd Doerr
Meanwhile, my family has avoided eating meat for years and had had solar panels installed on the roof of our home.
Edd Doerr
2
I'm with you on not eating meat, Edd, but because it's basically disgusting and not because of, for example, sad little polar bears floating away on an ice floe because it got too warm in Alaska. Solar panels, too, are not a bad idea and all the sustainable energy R&D that's going on now is a good thing. The Problem is that Climate Change is giving responsible environmentalism a bad name. So if you want to be depressed about something, that would be it.
3
Hurrah, President Obama has just saved the planet with an unenforceable, idiotic and soon to be mothballed climate agreement. (See Kyoto Protocals.). What a monumental waste of money, time, and carbon based fuel used to transport all of the self-righteous world "leaders" to Paris.
I believe Obama and Kerry had much more important things to work on other than a useless agreement. Terrorism, ISIS, stagnant economy, Iran, 10% U6 unemployment rate, illegal immigration and poverty come to mind.
I hope none of the Paris Confrence attendees injured themselves patting their own backs after they signed the "voluntary" agreement.
I believe Obama and Kerry had much more important things to work on other than a useless agreement. Terrorism, ISIS, stagnant economy, Iran, 10% U6 unemployment rate, illegal immigration and poverty come to mind.
I hope none of the Paris Confrence attendees injured themselves patting their own backs after they signed the "voluntary" agreement.
6
The Devil is always in the details, that's for sure. There was a telling article in this mornings LA Times about how a lowly "commissioner" at the LA Port gave China Shipping a pass on having to comply with all the anti-pollution requirement that it was by law supposed to be implementing, telling them they wouldn't be fined by being out of compliance.
The Port of LA is one of LA's biggest polluters and emissions producers, yet somehow they live by their own rules. How many other private or polluting entities are there out there that are happy to just brush off anything that the Paris Pact has to say in order to keep its business constituency happy and profitable?
Symbolically, there was probably a lot of love in that meeting room in Paris, but in the world outside words prove cheap and real action has to take the form of something far greater than just wishful thinking by jet-setting diplomats sipping champagne.
The Port of LA is one of LA's biggest polluters and emissions producers, yet somehow they live by their own rules. How many other private or polluting entities are there out there that are happy to just brush off anything that the Paris Pact has to say in order to keep its business constituency happy and profitable?
Symbolically, there was probably a lot of love in that meeting room in Paris, but in the world outside words prove cheap and real action has to take the form of something far greater than just wishful thinking by jet-setting diplomats sipping champagne.
2
This is going to be as meaningless as all the other climate change conferences.
All it amounts to is a chance for a bunch of elites to enjoy a few days in an exotic location.
All it amounts to is a chance for a bunch of elites to enjoy a few days in an exotic location.
4
The Paris agreement is a step on the right direction, but much remains to be done and the agreement only addresses the fossil fuel contribution to climate change. It is imperative that we deal with ALL of the concomitants of climate change, such as environmental degradation, toxic waste buildup, deforestation, soil erosion and nutrient loss, biodiversity shrinkage, the contribution of meat consumption to global warming, and increasing sociopolitical instability and violence. Virtually unmentioned in all this is the factor of human overpopulation, tripled since WW II to over 7 billion. The US government's 1974 (sic!) National Security Study Memorandum 200 report covered much of this in detail and recommended universal access to contraception and the legalization of abortion, Mysteriously, however, the NSSM 200 report was, though signed by President Ford and National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, "classified" and buried until shortly before the 1994 Cairo UN population conference and then ignored. Were it not for the 1.5 billion abortions worldwide since 1974, world population today would exceed a mind-boggling and unsustainable 9 billion.
We have a lot of work to do, not only on the hard work of fighting climate change but also of making contraception and abortion universally accessible, but making women's rights universal and countering the anti-contraception and anti-abortion efforts of misogynist conservative religious leaders.
Edd Doerr (arlinc.net)
We have a lot of work to do, not only on the hard work of fighting climate change but also of making contraception and abortion universally accessible, but making women's rights universal and countering the anti-contraception and anti-abortion efforts of misogynist conservative religious leaders.
Edd Doerr (arlinc.net)
1
Politics generally requires compromise, and what these politicians in Paris don't get is that you cannot compromise with physics. Earth has a tremendous energy imbalance right now (equal to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima size atomic bombs every day, 365 days a year. That is how much extra energy the Earth is absorbing daily). Unless we get atmospheric CO2 concentration below 350ppm the planet will continue to heat dangerously.
At 1C we are already seeing catastrophes, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was deemed to be irreversibly collapsing last year, ice all over the planet is melting and the oceans are heating and destabilizing other great ice sheets.
Because of the 40 year lag between a climate forcing and our feeling the effect, due to the thermal mass of the world ocean, the effects we are feeling now are the result of emissions from the 70s. And emissions have increased exponentially since then.
We are also seeing numerous amplifying feedbacks, albedo from ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and massive wildfires; the Earth is starting to wrest any possible further human control of the climate away.
We're about out of time on this, if not already and leaders are still acting as if this is not a planetary emergency.
At 1C we are already seeing catastrophes, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was deemed to be irreversibly collapsing last year, ice all over the planet is melting and the oceans are heating and destabilizing other great ice sheets.
Because of the 40 year lag between a climate forcing and our feeling the effect, due to the thermal mass of the world ocean, the effects we are feeling now are the result of emissions from the 70s. And emissions have increased exponentially since then.
We are also seeing numerous amplifying feedbacks, albedo from ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and massive wildfires; the Earth is starting to wrest any possible further human control of the climate away.
We're about out of time on this, if not already and leaders are still acting as if this is not a planetary emergency.
4
you know the Antartic Ice Sheet's melting had nothing to do with "global warming" right? It was due to volcanic activity under the sheet. Good try though.
2
There's been no increase in volcanic activity to account for the rapid increase in melting there.
Erik,
Antarctic ice has been at record high extents lately, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
"Meanwhile, sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent reached its maximum extent on September 22 at 20.11 million square kilometers (7.76 million square miles). This is 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average extent, which is nearly four standard deviations above average. Antarctic sea ice averaged 20.0 million square kilometers (7.72 million square miles) for the month of September. This new record extent follows consecutive record winter maximum extents in 2012 and 2013. The reasons for this recent rapid growth are not clear. Sea ice in Antarctica has remained at satellite-era record high daily levels for most of 2014."
https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sea-ice-continues-low-while-antar...
Antarctic ice has been at record high extents lately, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
"Meanwhile, sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent reached its maximum extent on September 22 at 20.11 million square kilometers (7.76 million square miles). This is 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average extent, which is nearly four standard deviations above average. Antarctic sea ice averaged 20.0 million square kilometers (7.72 million square miles) for the month of September. This new record extent follows consecutive record winter maximum extents in 2012 and 2013. The reasons for this recent rapid growth are not clear. Sea ice in Antarctica has remained at satellite-era record high daily levels for most of 2014."
https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sea-ice-continues-low-while-antar...
1
The Paris Climate Pact will be ignored, probably world-wide, but certainly here in the States.
Obama, Kerry, Fabius & Co showed the forsight, leadership and diplomatic skills to understand the situation and get the most out of an impossible situation: 195 countries agreed on a way forward with a path toward improvement. Given the circumstances this is a significant achievement and reason for hope.
that said, more support from home would have strengthened America's leadership position and possibly improved the outcome. American troglodytes aren't just bad for America, they are bad for the world.
that said, more support from home would have strengthened America's leadership position and possibly improved the outcome. American troglodytes aren't just bad for America, they are bad for the world.
Unfortunately, the climate scientists from the IPCC also tell us that there is roughly a plus or minus 50% degree of uncertainty with respect to how a given level of greenhouse gas emissions translates into a given temperature increase. Thus, even if we aim at limiting the temperature increase to 2 degrees may cause the world to end up at 3 degrees. Therefore, the risks of damage due to climate change are significant even if the commitments of the parties to COP21 were doubled.
This article strikes a very positive attitude towards an agreement that was described by NASA's former lead climate scientist, "James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks 'a fraud'. The former Nasa scientist criticizes the talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, as ‘no action, just promises’".
And meanwhile according to the IMF we are subsidizing fossil fuels globally at 10m USD a minute, greater than the spending on health by the world's governments.
Does anyone else see a problem here?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-...
And meanwhile according to the IMF we are subsidizing fossil fuels globally at 10m USD a minute, greater than the spending on health by the world's governments.
Does anyone else see a problem here?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-...
2
It is easy to dismiss the Paris agreement as nothing more than lofty promises and goals. However, the Paris is the product of a movement with a momentum. Think of what the Washington March was to the Civil Rights Movement -- a communal expression of support for a cause. Paris is like that. It is not a binding agreement to reduce emissions. As a collective expression, I suppose it is "historic."
The problem for environmentalists will be to keep the ball rolling when there are so many other things on people's minds. Stopping a pipeline or a coal plant here or there just isn't going to amount to a hill a beans given the magnitude of what is necessary to curb warming. The very existence of the agreement, which does not require a policy review for five years, may make it harder for the movement to gain traction. In the meantime, EPA's rules will go to the Supreme Court and who knows what will happen there. Judged as a policy measure to stop warming, Paris is hardly historic.
The problem for environmentalists will be to keep the ball rolling when there are so many other things on people's minds. Stopping a pipeline or a coal plant here or there just isn't going to amount to a hill a beans given the magnitude of what is necessary to curb warming. The very existence of the agreement, which does not require a policy review for five years, may make it harder for the movement to gain traction. In the meantime, EPA's rules will go to the Supreme Court and who knows what will happen there. Judged as a policy measure to stop warming, Paris is hardly historic.
Have you heard of the massive gas leak in Aliso Canyon? It gets almost no coveraage but has been happening for awhile. It should be headline news but I haven't seen any coverage of it. Here's link to a video of it.
http://www.porterranchlawsuit.com/
http://www.porterranchlawsuit.com/
I can't wait for the day when corporations like the Koch brothers oil empire get sued for the destruction they cause. And even if the suit fails, the fallout will spread because a business eventually does have to respond to public pressure. The best news will be when the price of alternative energy keeps falling way beyond oil and coal. It is already getting lower and lower. The investors will flee oil and coal and then even gas companies. Those that are forward looking will jump ship early and move into the new energy sector. Those like the Kochs will go broke. No tear will be shed from me.
"This is an agreement built firmly on science,"
I sincerely doubt the NYT editorial board have the credentials or scientific background to defend this assertion. The notion that central control politicians can adjust the climate to their liking is nothing more than silly.
I sincerely doubt the NYT editorial board have the credentials or scientific background to defend this assertion. The notion that central control politicians can adjust the climate to their liking is nothing more than silly.
16
When 99% of scientists agree, I think it's solid. Or we can stick our heads in teh he sand like many of the commenters. Don't worry God will save us.
I am old enough to remember the scientists on the left predicting the "coming ice age" in the '70's and early '80's. It warms my heart just remembering Jimmy Carter talking down to use in his cardigan sweater with the blazing White House fireplace behind him. His warming was that we needed to drastically cut fossil fuel (oi and coal) consumption and save them for when the ice age hit. When that scam and the research dollars failed, the left turned 180 and claimed global warming would kill us. When in doubt, follow the money as this is all that "climate change" is about.
4
@Bill,
How did I know someone would make the 99% assertion. The fact is the 99% assertion is misleading to the point of being a lie. Climate change as it exists in the minds of "progressives" is a set of 6 or more hypotheses. The 97% means that 97% of scientists believe in at least one of the hypotheses for example the trivial hypothesis that climate changes with which few disagree. Less than 50% believe in them all as "progressives" do, so you have been mislead.
How did I know someone would make the 99% assertion. The fact is the 99% assertion is misleading to the point of being a lie. Climate change as it exists in the minds of "progressives" is a set of 6 or more hypotheses. The 97% means that 97% of scientists believe in at least one of the hypotheses for example the trivial hypothesis that climate changes with which few disagree. Less than 50% believe in them all as "progressives" do, so you have been mislead.
1
Yes, plenty of follow up, especially to be sure not a penny of US taxpayer funds is given to any part of the agreement. The dirty little secret that no one will talk about is the 12,000 new employees the UN is planning to hire to shuffle the paper created by the agreement, cost is estimated at $3 billion a year. The idea that there is any truth in the agreement, or actual reporting to be done, tells you that the con is on. Remember, this agreement was put together by politicians, all dishonest and corrupt. No wonder they are cheering. They can't wait for the cash to start following.
9
Mnny who either against the accord or against Obama are saying that it has no teeth, that it can't be enforced. Those people should say how they would enforce it. Liken it to the description of E.L. Doctorow wrote: as if one is driving at night: all one has to do is get to where the headlights show, and proceed from there until you get to your destination.
Michael S. Culen, Berlin, Germany
Michael S. Culen, Berlin, Germany
China gets to build as many new coal plants as they want.
No actual enforcement of any of the provisions in the Paris Treaty....oh, excuse me, it's NOT a treaty.
Therefore the next Congress and President are free to do whatever they want.
Yeah! Obama really "saved" the world.
No actual enforcement of any of the provisions in the Paris Treaty....oh, excuse me, it's NOT a treaty.
Therefore the next Congress and President are free to do whatever they want.
Yeah! Obama really "saved" the world.
15
"...195 nations agreed on a plan that they hope will reduce the greenhouse gases warming the atmosphere and assure future generations of a livable world. Will it? Yes, or probably, or maybe, but only if the countries that promised to reduce their emissions honor those pledges and agree to improve significantly on them in the years to come."- THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD
Note all the qualifications. Reduced to its essence: The 195 pledges are as real as the entire illusion—a fanciful conceit of the rich that places the bulk of the burden on the poor.
Obama's Paris smoke and mirrors were as convincing as his silly Pentagon pose yesterday with his captive props: world-class generals whose advice the armchair community organizer refuses to take.
The magnitude & frequency of Obama's acts of irreversible damage to America vary inversely/exponentially with his time left in office.
There once was a king named Obama
Who confused CO2 with Osama
He banished all carbon
He gave nukes to Tehran
He cured global warming with nuke winta
A despot can do a lot of damage in 13 months & a deluded one blinded by his own imagined brilliance will.
The latest Paris brew
Terror infused with CO2.
Apocalyptists. Nukes. Fusion
Café au 'bama's delusion.
Note all the qualifications. Reduced to its essence: The 195 pledges are as real as the entire illusion—a fanciful conceit of the rich that places the bulk of the burden on the poor.
Obama's Paris smoke and mirrors were as convincing as his silly Pentagon pose yesterday with his captive props: world-class generals whose advice the armchair community organizer refuses to take.
The magnitude & frequency of Obama's acts of irreversible damage to America vary inversely/exponentially with his time left in office.
There once was a king named Obama
Who confused CO2 with Osama
He banished all carbon
He gave nukes to Tehran
He cured global warming with nuke winta
A despot can do a lot of damage in 13 months & a deluded one blinded by his own imagined brilliance will.
The latest Paris brew
Terror infused with CO2.
Apocalyptists. Nukes. Fusion
Café au 'bama's delusion.
5
Thanks to the New York Times for your excellent, thorough coverage of the climate conference. Your recognition of the critical importance of this issue is appreciated.
6
A simple question of Supply and Demand
DEMAND elimination of use of fossil fuels. That's easy to say.... harder to do because..
SUPPLYING the energy that will be needed to replace that eliminated is going to be be the really tough part and don't say... "solar, wind, etc" because they won't make a dent in that which will be needed. Dare I suggest.... nuclear??
DEMAND elimination of use of fossil fuels. That's easy to say.... harder to do because..
SUPPLYING the energy that will be needed to replace that eliminated is going to be be the really tough part and don't say... "solar, wind, etc" because they won't make a dent in that which will be needed. Dare I suggest.... nuclear??
5
The whole concept of reducing carbon emissions, as presented here, is a complete abstraction. Lofty rhetoric about saving the planet *sounds* so noble.
But, what will need to be done is not abstract, but very real. "Nations" may agree on broad goals, but it will be individuals who will pay those quite concrete costs.
Keeping the discussion as statistical benchmarks obscures what that will mean to each person's lifestyle. And what *will* individuals do when their energy use is restricted or costs for energy intense items, like gasoline, become too onerous to maintaining their standard of living.
That's the discussion that we should be having. Not the pointless, reductionist, absurd - do you want to save the planet, or not..
But, what will need to be done is not abstract, but very real. "Nations" may agree on broad goals, but it will be individuals who will pay those quite concrete costs.
Keeping the discussion as statistical benchmarks obscures what that will mean to each person's lifestyle. And what *will* individuals do when their energy use is restricted or costs for energy intense items, like gasoline, become too onerous to maintaining their standard of living.
That's the discussion that we should be having. Not the pointless, reductionist, absurd - do you want to save the planet, or not..
3
To me, the whole denier thing feels biblical. When does media finally fully embrace science rather than pander to the ignorant? While The Times has provided respectable coverage, there are still many holes, beginning with the understanding that the 2nd highest provider of revenue to the US Treasury behind taxes is in the form of oil and gas leases. It's time we move away from enabling duplicitous Republicans the room to "doubt" the science while of course feeding on support from the very industry their doubt benefits and move into an era where anyone that publicly supports such nonsense is ridiculed so heavily they'd stand a snowball's chance in NYC yesterday of propagating overt disinformation.
5
I detect a careful and willful avoidance in your remarks, Mr. Lovell, of the emerging elements of climate science that the emotional ballyhoo over temperatures and CO2 emmissions has been based on remarkably incomplete and artificially manipulated data.
In my part of the scientific world, conclusions derived from limited data and/or derived from that that has had to be "adjusted" to account for the unknown, the unknowable;and, yes, the inconvenient has only limited validity, and dubious "truth".
In my world, skepticism of rigged studies is GOOD SCIENCE.
In my part of the scientific world, conclusions derived from limited data and/or derived from that that has had to be "adjusted" to account for the unknown, the unknowable;and, yes, the inconvenient has only limited validity, and dubious "truth".
In my world, skepticism of rigged studies is GOOD SCIENCE.
4
One doubts the science when the science is such that doubt is warranted.
When scientists and their studies refrain from manipulating data for whatever reason conclusions might well be drawn.
However, when such manipulations, for whatever reason, are relied on for conclusions, a true scientist...and the not-so-science-oriented observer...is wise to remain skeptical.
I know that I am not smarter or more prescient than mother nature. Do you, sir?
When scientists and their studies refrain from manipulating data for whatever reason conclusions might well be drawn.
However, when such manipulations, for whatever reason, are relied on for conclusions, a true scientist...and the not-so-science-oriented observer...is wise to remain skeptical.
I know that I am not smarter or more prescient than mother nature. Do you, sir?
3
Forget what "nations" will do in the future. It will be up to the socially responsible businesses & citizens of the world to each do their part now, rather than wait for recalcitrant bureaucrats to do anything.
I think the NYT corporation should take the lead in eschewing *any* use of fossil fuels immediately. Run your offices, printing presses, etc. on only solar & wind. Use only electric delivery trucks, ( but, of corse, never electricity from coal plants).
The inspiration of that commitment would create a cascade of action that could sweep across the planet, before any governments ever get their act together.
I think the NYT corporation should take the lead in eschewing *any* use of fossil fuels immediately. Run your offices, printing presses, etc. on only solar & wind. Use only electric delivery trucks, ( but, of corse, never electricity from coal plants).
The inspiration of that commitment would create a cascade of action that could sweep across the planet, before any governments ever get their act together.
8
It would be interesting, wouldn't it, if the NY Times were to investigate and to publish data on their carbon footprint and how is compares, say to that of the fisherman or the farmer.
That should be good for a laugh.
That should be good for a laugh.
6
Agreement on the scientific reality basis of climate change along with having a CO2 reduction goal and time table among the majority of nations of the world is progress. But Republicans do not agree that the climate is changing and if it is they do not accept that humans had or have any impact on climate change. With 5% of the planet's people and 22% of the Earthly nominal GDP, America can either lead by negative or positive example.
2
"The delegate also added language that the increase be limited even further, to 1.5 degrees if possible".
The French government had a big lit sign on the Eiffel Tower which read: 1.5 degrees.
And what do our dear science denying Republicans do? They stay stumm, which is when it comes to insulting everyone on the planet usually not their forte.
I hope that the accord reached in Paris by all the advanced and not advanced countries alike will be a major subject tonight during their debate in Las Vegas la la land.
Their childish answer 'I am not a scientist' doesn't fly any more.
The French government had a big lit sign on the Eiffel Tower which read: 1.5 degrees.
And what do our dear science denying Republicans do? They stay stumm, which is when it comes to insulting everyone on the planet usually not their forte.
I hope that the accord reached in Paris by all the advanced and not advanced countries alike will be a major subject tonight during their debate in Las Vegas la la land.
Their childish answer 'I am not a scientist' doesn't fly any more.
2
because nothing says debate about foreign policy and terrorism better than a discussion about global warming. You do realize debates have topics, and this is about as far from it as you can get, right? Or is it just about trying to "win" against those evil republicans?
Climate change IS foreign policy. What else do you call the huge assembly of world leaders coming together and hacking out a plans for all?
And once climate change affects the poorer nations ever more, the stream of refugees today out of the war torn Middle East will look like a small puddle compared to a deluge to come.
And once climate change affects the poorer nations ever more, the stream of refugees today out of the war torn Middle East will look like a small puddle compared to a deluge to come.
3
The entire discussion of the Paris Climate Pact misses one fundamental fact: This is not about temperature - it's about people. People determine the fate of the Earth, and, right now, "we the people," which includes myself and all other homo sapiens on this lively water planet we call Earth, are oblivious to the scale of our problems and the utter intractability of their solutions.
We are a complex global community of seven billion citizens. This collective has inertia, and will take much more energy than a few thousand words on this Accord to make any kind of meaningful - and lasting, shift.
We think change has happened. It has not. Only rhetoric. The buy-in has to occur at the levels of identity, relationship and culture, which has NOT been discussed whatsoever.
We are a complex global community of seven billion citizens. This collective has inertia, and will take much more energy than a few thousand words on this Accord to make any kind of meaningful - and lasting, shift.
We think change has happened. It has not. Only rhetoric. The buy-in has to occur at the levels of identity, relationship and culture, which has NOT been discussed whatsoever.
4
No... People do not dictate the fate of the earth.
History has shown that living beings are mere supporting players. Mother Nature has the lead, and those that forget that salient fact are doomed to be punished for their failure.
History has shown that living beings are mere supporting players. Mother Nature has the lead, and those that forget that salient fact are doomed to be punished for their failure.
5
The Paris climate agreement is one of those feel good moments that the liberal left loves, lots of hugging, fulsome self-praise and endless quantities of hot air produced by windbags seeking attention.
The problem is that much like the treaty conceived in the suburbs of Paris at Versailles ninety-six year ago it is fatally flawed. It lacks an enforcement mechanism with teeth, the only means of making the agreement worth the effort.
Also, it lacks political realism in that the national legislatures of highly developed countries like the USA will not ship vast quantities of tax generated moneys to developing states to help them lower their carbon footprint particularly when those developing states are largely ruled by corrupt, often vicious oligarchies that are nothing less than organized criminal syndicates.
The problem is that much like the treaty conceived in the suburbs of Paris at Versailles ninety-six year ago it is fatally flawed. It lacks an enforcement mechanism with teeth, the only means of making the agreement worth the effort.
Also, it lacks political realism in that the national legislatures of highly developed countries like the USA will not ship vast quantities of tax generated moneys to developing states to help them lower their carbon footprint particularly when those developing states are largely ruled by corrupt, often vicious oligarchies that are nothing less than organized criminal syndicates.
5
I am afraid it is one of those feel good moments the left loves precisely because it avoids the hard work of getting consensus, working the details and making sure things can be executed. Obama in particular loves to work by fiat and leave the hard work to others. In this case, Congress and the American people are nowhere near as far along as Obama and Kerry, and there is no chance the US Congress or people will support $100 billion to help undeveloped (corrupt) countries cope with climate change. Money down a rat hole to allow Obama and Kerry feel good and claim success by spending money.
13
The hard part?
No. The impossible, delusional part.
Wake up "progressives". ISIS doesn't care about your treaty-lite.
Wake up NYT readers!!
No. The impossible, delusional part.
Wake up "progressives". ISIS doesn't care about your treaty-lite.
Wake up NYT readers!!
1
The Paris event was not unlike an Obama campaign event. He sounded as if he were an expert, made lots of unenforceable promises and left everyone there feeling really good. Supporters are already convincing themselves his achievements are tangible.
The good news is this time Obama stands no chance of being elected -- and being on the line -- for actual delivery.
The good news is this time Obama stands no chance of being elected -- and being on the line -- for actual delivery.
1
Paris is over? What a heartless statement!
Paris meeting on climate nonsense is over, and now nothing will be done because nothing was required to be done at the conference.
This was Obama's item off his bucket list, and does not represent America's participation in any pact. If the representative of 'we the people' are not going to be asked to come on board, this is a cruel joke perpetrated on the gullible liberals.
Paris meeting on climate nonsense is over, and now nothing will be done because nothing was required to be done at the conference.
This was Obama's item off his bucket list, and does not represent America's participation in any pact. If the representative of 'we the people' are not going to be asked to come on board, this is a cruel joke perpetrated on the gullible liberals.
6
the entire conference was doomed to failure and will never because India, China and Russia will never ever agree to an enforceable treaty. What the USA does is irrelevant because it will make no difference. of course, it really doesn't matter as there has been no warming now in 18 years and the theories of the global warmers are falling apart with every day there is no warming. One of these days the pretending will stop.
4
If anyone thinks the "pledges" from developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (hailed widely by the amen choir press) is anything more than a desire of these governments (mostly undemocratic and full of corruption) to demand transfer payment from the developed economies (to misuse/skim/scam and steal a vast majority of these funds) I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale !!!!!
6
Well considering that most of the developing world was stripped of their resources - usually by the end of a gun or cannon by the "first world nations" which exist today - there should be a transfer of payments.
2
Thanks for acknowledging the true agenda of the climate debate - redistribution of wealth. Once people realize that is what this is all about it will go nowhere.
2
@Andre
"transfer of payments" - Translation - "raising taxes on people other than myself"
It's pretty obvious that a large component of the "climate change movement" is a Trojan horse for concentrating power and liberty into corrupt UN type institutions in which the socialist agenda can get the traction it can not get in democratic elections.
"transfer of payments" - Translation - "raising taxes on people other than myself"
It's pretty obvious that a large component of the "climate change movement" is a Trojan horse for concentrating power and liberty into corrupt UN type institutions in which the socialist agenda can get the traction it can not get in democratic elections.
1
The commitments may be voluntary and non-binding legally, but they represent the strongest possible moral and ethical obligation that could possibly be placed on those in public and private sector leadership roles.
Future generations of humans outnumber those alive today by many orders of magnitude, and their lives have to be included in all climate and planning modeling going forward. Threatening their survival is a battle that we will not win.
Compliance failures will lead to a rapid escalation in the ongoing climate bloodbath : a deliberate 'ratchet' of value destruction in order to induce better judgment and decision-making.
The process starts with denial, ends with acceptance.
Future generations of humans outnumber those alive today by many orders of magnitude, and their lives have to be included in all climate and planning modeling going forward. Threatening their survival is a battle that we will not win.
Compliance failures will lead to a rapid escalation in the ongoing climate bloodbath : a deliberate 'ratchet' of value destruction in order to induce better judgment and decision-making.
The process starts with denial, ends with acceptance.
1
"One way to make sure countries stick to them and improve on them is regular public disclosure."
There's a lot of wishful thinking in that sentence. Internet shaming might work on Facebook, but not in Beijing or Delhi or Jakarta. Certainly not in DC either.
There's a lot of wishful thinking in that sentence. Internet shaming might work on Facebook, but not in Beijing or Delhi or Jakarta. Certainly not in DC either.
4
You say that "The goal [of the Paris climate accord] is to bring down pollution levels so that the rise in global temperatures is limited to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), beyond which the most disruptive consequences of climate change — widespread drought and flooding and the dying-off of species, for instance — will kick in." However, a number of new, credible scientific papers claim otherwise--that the most devastating impacts will occur under the 1.5-2 C target. Obviously, it is critically important to get the science right before we fall into the Pollyanna trap of thinking the problem has been solved with the caveat that there is compliance. I'm a social, but not a climate, scientist, but I hope the NYT will look into this and provide the opinions of credible scientists on this issue. It's one we cannot afford to get wrong.
2
This agreement, and those that celebrate it, define the word naïve.
5
Without Congressional support, nothing will be done in America to make this pact a meaningful one. Which means that, if USA is doing diddly squat, the president has no leverage to insist that others to the vague, meaningless pact do anything. India and China are not going to slow their economic growth by abandoning coal and fossil fuel.
If you want to be a conspiracy theorist, you could argue that this global warming hysteria is nothing short of brazen attempt by developed nations to keep developing nations poor and where they are.
Much ado about nothing accomplished.
If you want to be a conspiracy theorist, you could argue that this global warming hysteria is nothing short of brazen attempt by developed nations to keep developing nations poor and where they are.
Much ado about nothing accomplished.
5
"The Paris Climate Pact Will Need a Strong Enforcer"
I suppose the shaming police will be vigilant. In this Paris season of good will, I wonder how it is that leaders did not pledge not to blow up the world with their nuclear weapons, give Crimea back, free Tibet, stop exporting assault weapons, stop espionage, and other trifles. One is reminded of Montana's experiment with good will in their "reasonable and safe" speed law. The police tried to "follow up", but found they couldn't catch the Ferraris. Surprisingly, no one ever admitted to speeding, and some accused the police of legalistic judgmentalism. The bodies kept piling up. Finally, a new administration was voted in. Up went the bare signs, and none of them said "please." The fatality rate plummeted. Like they say in the White House: "the Canadians are good folk, but until the Russians and Chinese become like them, we best keep our centrifuges clean, and our plutonium dry."
I suppose the shaming police will be vigilant. In this Paris season of good will, I wonder how it is that leaders did not pledge not to blow up the world with their nuclear weapons, give Crimea back, free Tibet, stop exporting assault weapons, stop espionage, and other trifles. One is reminded of Montana's experiment with good will in their "reasonable and safe" speed law. The police tried to "follow up", but found they couldn't catch the Ferraris. Surprisingly, no one ever admitted to speeding, and some accused the police of legalistic judgmentalism. The bodies kept piling up. Finally, a new administration was voted in. Up went the bare signs, and none of them said "please." The fatality rate plummeted. Like they say in the White House: "the Canadians are good folk, but until the Russians and Chinese become like them, we best keep our centrifuges clean, and our plutonium dry."
1
"But the strength of that signal will depend heavily on whether governments are willing to promote such investments while removing the tax subsidies that favor dirtier fossil fuels — perhaps to the point of embracing carbon taxes."
With the price of oil under $40 per barrel, fossil fuel subsidies must cease and carbon taxes put in place to effect a meaning transition to renewables. But we don't have to wait for Congress to act (although we should be doing everything possible to elect a new Congress that will act responsibly.)
Each one of us can set an example for Congress and send a strong signal to the marketplace by consuming less. Yes, population growth is an important element of the problem. But it's been the wanton consumption habits of advanced and advancing countries that has created the problem. Look in the mirror, American consumers, and see the match that has sparked the ravages of the Anthropocene and the sixth extinction event. Buy less. Stay home, walk, bike, but don't drive or fly. "It's the ECOLOGY, stupid!"
With the price of oil under $40 per barrel, fossil fuel subsidies must cease and carbon taxes put in place to effect a meaning transition to renewables. But we don't have to wait for Congress to act (although we should be doing everything possible to elect a new Congress that will act responsibly.)
Each one of us can set an example for Congress and send a strong signal to the marketplace by consuming less. Yes, population growth is an important element of the problem. But it's been the wanton consumption habits of advanced and advancing countries that has created the problem. Look in the mirror, American consumers, and see the match that has sparked the ravages of the Anthropocene and the sixth extinction event. Buy less. Stay home, walk, bike, but don't drive or fly. "It's the ECOLOGY, stupid!"
1
merely a handshake for the cameras then back to business as usual
3
France's 4 per 1000 initiative which was introduced at the COP 21 is one of the best ways that individuals can contribute to climate change mitigation. 125 countries signed on, and will attempt to sequester .4% carbon into agricultural soils through regenerative farming practices. Moving carbon from the air to the earth through photosynthesis, and then keeping it there through organic practices, can help bring carbon levels to within the 350 PPM level in 10 to 20 years. As individuals, we can make this happen by buying organic and opposing the industrial chemical farming that is killing the microbes in the soil that sequester the carbon from the plants. Here's an article by Debbie Barker and Michael Pollan that shows how it works:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2015/12/04/fe22879e-990b-11e5-89...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2015/12/04/fe22879e-990b-11e5-89...
1
The NYT is pushing an agenda that scientific data from satellites shows is false. This reminds me of the 50 years of "saturated fat " is bad for you group and now we find out there never was a single study whose data supported a relationship between cardiovascular disease and consumption of fat. NOT ONE STUDY EVER which explains why risk is lowered on the Atkins type no carb diet. This climate debate is exactly the same. Settled science? only in the minds of those trying to get the money.
7
STRONG FOLLOW-UP to the Paris Climate Pact will happen one way or the other. The countries will either adhere to their goals or ultimately be destroyed by global climate change. Change will mean following two Chinese precepts: 1) The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step, and 2) the alternative is Death By A Thousand Cuts. Let them be a warning especially to the Chinese and the US, the two top polluters. Along with fighting ISIS, we must join together and fight global climate change with the same sense of urgency. The consequences, otherwise, will be the end of the Earth as we know it. Think about the millions of refugees from the Mideast alone and multiply that by hundreds of millions or even a few billion.
15
What a joke? The US can not comply and will still exist.
1
More than follow-up, we need new social norms about burning carbon. It must become socially unacceptable to be a climate denier. It must be socially unacceptable to have an uninsulated home. It must be socially unacceptable to drive inefficient cars. We've done it with smoking, and we can do it with fossil fuels.
33
So according to you, people are no longer entitled to their opinions and everything scientists spout must be treated as "fact".
Personally, I'd rather it became socially unacceptable to stick your nose into other peoples' lives.
1
Climate denier? What does that mean? Do you mean that I deny there is such a thing as climate. You have a religious fervor over a pseudo-science, which when tested by scientific means proved false in every measure. Please stop calling me a denier when you really mean heretic.
1
If the repercussions from a hundred years of fossil fuel burning were static and somehow everything that is moving in a new perilous direction was put on hold, then PERHAPS we could get on top of our game and return to planetary balance.
However, as we all know the extreme climate episodes we most likely have created continue to eat up whatever gains we might make in bringing emissions under a global control.
Crop failures, shifting agricultural zones, and migrations resulting from climate stress factors will play into the soon to be impossible scenario of getting the third world and developing countries on board to reduce emissions. It is already every nation for itself and that's not going to change with global food shortages and rising waters.
Recently the media published beautiful night photos of cities ablaze with millions of kilowatts of electrical energy. How will we tell these megacities that this is so wasteful that it must stop?
The simple truth of world consumption is excessive overreach. We clearly don't care if we leave a wasteland for future generations. If we did, we would not be where we are now.
Talk to me about conservation, careful husbandry of resources, consideration for our fellow man and the creatures riding this planet with us.
If we can't get China to stop importing elephant tusks and tiger bones, how would we ever get them to cut back on coal. Visit Beijing to breathe some refined air and understand what these people will endure to succeed.
However, as we all know the extreme climate episodes we most likely have created continue to eat up whatever gains we might make in bringing emissions under a global control.
Crop failures, shifting agricultural zones, and migrations resulting from climate stress factors will play into the soon to be impossible scenario of getting the third world and developing countries on board to reduce emissions. It is already every nation for itself and that's not going to change with global food shortages and rising waters.
Recently the media published beautiful night photos of cities ablaze with millions of kilowatts of electrical energy. How will we tell these megacities that this is so wasteful that it must stop?
The simple truth of world consumption is excessive overreach. We clearly don't care if we leave a wasteland for future generations. If we did, we would not be where we are now.
Talk to me about conservation, careful husbandry of resources, consideration for our fellow man and the creatures riding this planet with us.
If we can't get China to stop importing elephant tusks and tiger bones, how would we ever get them to cut back on coal. Visit Beijing to breathe some refined air and understand what these people will endure to succeed.
2
The cost of the fuels needs to be in their price. But any proposal -- regardless of how it ends -- that starts with the price of gas rising, has no chance in today's USA. We'll once again have to assemble a multi-thousand-page tangle of rube-goldberg deception & subsidy to work around our inability honestly face arithmetic. I'm already dreading the Affordable Carbon Act "exchanges".
1
A few days ago, I wrote that one of the missing ingredients in reading about the climate change meeting was getting us citizens more involved. I quoted from Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural address “Ask not what your country can do for your, but what you can do for your country.” I mentioned the involvement of Californians in making sacrifices to help with the drought over the summer. I heard nothing from the NY Times editors. I still hear nothing about what we, as citizens, should do. Fly less, drive less, and stop eating meat. I await serious talk about how we as world citizens should start changing our lives to help with climate change
1
To gain more support, we might stop ridiculing anyone who has legitimate questions. The debate is not over. It hasn't really begun -- assuming two sides to a debate.
You heard it here first--the Climate Pact is a complete and total farce--a waste of time, money and energy. It relies on individual countries monitoring themselves and acting against their own national self-interest to achieve a goal that supposedly serves the entire globe. There is no monitoring, no enforcement, no penalties--and no way to measure if it is actually achieving anything. On top of that, it almost completely exempts some of the biggest offenders--like China and India--who are building dozens of new coal-burning plants each year.
The good new is...the citizens of Western nations will get to see their hard-earned tax dollars squandered--as they are sent to 3rd world nations--to help them achieve THEIR climate objectives. How much of that will be wasted in bureaucracy, inefficiency and complete graft? How much of this will end up in the coffers of despots, consultants and government officials? Answer: most of it.
The good new is...the citizens of Western nations will get to see their hard-earned tax dollars squandered--as they are sent to 3rd world nations--to help them achieve THEIR climate objectives. How much of that will be wasted in bureaucracy, inefficiency and complete graft? How much of this will end up in the coffers of despots, consultants and government officials? Answer: most of it.
4
The latest Paris brew
Terror infused with CO2.
Apocalyptists. Nukes. Fusion
Café au 'bama's delusion
Terror infused with CO2.
Apocalyptists. Nukes. Fusion
Café au 'bama's delusion
4
There would have been real shared responsibility at COP21 if nations had been at least discussing an equitable carbon budget. It is clear that the carbon space is very limited and that such budget would be needed to proceed equitably as was strongly argued by India, SouthCenter, and Group of Friends with its secretariat at the University of Catalonia. In last instance such budget would result in accepting an individual tonnage of CO2e per person in each particular country.
Since the fall of 2008 I have been proposing the idea of a carbon-based international monetary system with its monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person, so that a nation’s seriousness in decarbonization becomes reflected in the value of its currency. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of this monetary approach to the looming climate catastrophe are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net.
Since the fall of 2008 I have been proposing the idea of a carbon-based international monetary system with its monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person, so that a nation’s seriousness in decarbonization becomes reflected in the value of its currency. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of this monetary approach to the looming climate catastrophe are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net.
What the GOP candidates should say to a man (or woman) tonight: Don't worry, America, when I am president, this Paris 'agreement', along with the Iran 'agreement', will be shredded.
We will frack, we will open federal lands for oil exploration, we will build the Keystone pipeline, and these things will put terror-enablers Saudi Arabia out of business. Now THAT is leadership.
We will frack, we will open federal lands for oil exploration, we will build the Keystone pipeline, and these things will put terror-enablers Saudi Arabia out of business. Now THAT is leadership.
6
If only they and their denier compatriots could be sequestered to some portion of the planet that was allowed to suffer the consequences of their obstruction without fouling where the rest of us live. Of course, only a fantasy.
However, it always perplexes me why these people don't consider the impact on their children or grandchildren. I do, and I fear for what my sons will be facing--particularly as mine seems to be the generation that has failed to put in place changes that will save them from sharing a fetid, cancer-inducing, hot cesspool with the GOP candidates. Truly a fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies to say nothing of the people I love most in this life.
However, it always perplexes me why these people don't consider the impact on their children or grandchildren. I do, and I fear for what my sons will be facing--particularly as mine seems to be the generation that has failed to put in place changes that will save them from sharing a fetid, cancer-inducing, hot cesspool with the GOP candidates. Truly a fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies to say nothing of the people I love most in this life.
The dilemma this project imposes on us stems from the relationship between costs and benefits. If we succeed, our environment will not deteriorate but remain in its current condition. While this would rank as an achievement of monumental importance, its promise cannot fire the imagination the way a prediction of a markedly improved climate could. Our lives won't improve; they simply won't get worse.
This means we will measure progress in negative terms. The seas won't rise, or at least, not as fast. Dramatic alterations in precipitation levels in some parts of the world will fail to materialize. People want to see improvements for their sacrifices; maintenance of the status quo might seem a poor payoff.
These benefits, moreover, will accumulate over a period of decades, perhaps too slowly to seem real to the current generation. The costs, on the other hand, will appear on the global balance sheet immediately. The switch to renewable fuels will create many new jobs, to replace those lost in the fossil fuels industry, but it seems unlikely that the process, involving different skills, will simply shift the same workers from one industry to the other. The losers will draw little comfort from climate stabilization.
These problems, while not insurmountable, do require a creative approach with the capacity to win the approval of the party representing the temporary losers in this struggle, namely the GOP. It is idle to expect longterm success without them.
This means we will measure progress in negative terms. The seas won't rise, or at least, not as fast. Dramatic alterations in precipitation levels in some parts of the world will fail to materialize. People want to see improvements for their sacrifices; maintenance of the status quo might seem a poor payoff.
These benefits, moreover, will accumulate over a period of decades, perhaps too slowly to seem real to the current generation. The costs, on the other hand, will appear on the global balance sheet immediately. The switch to renewable fuels will create many new jobs, to replace those lost in the fossil fuels industry, but it seems unlikely that the process, involving different skills, will simply shift the same workers from one industry to the other. The losers will draw little comfort from climate stabilization.
These problems, while not insurmountable, do require a creative approach with the capacity to win the approval of the party representing the temporary losers in this struggle, namely the GOP. It is idle to expect longterm success without them.
One of the reasons that the Paris agreement couldn't be more specific as to nature of the sacrifices involved in trying to reduce man's contribution to the world's trend of rising temperature is because those sacrifices can be severe.
The Annual Outlook put out by the U.S. E.I.A. , http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf , spells out in detail what we're faced with. Specifically, referring to Fig.36, p.26 of the report it shows the CO2 emissions predicted for various energy consumption scenarios. Of those, its clear that the greatest reduction in emissions produced comes about from low economic growth globally while the greatest emissions occur under high economic growth. The reason for this is that the make-up of energy sources will not significantly change over the next few decades (Fig.18, p.15; Fig.31, p.24). Fossil fuels will be our main source of energy for generations to come.
That means that the only practical throttle that we have to reduce emissions is to reduce economic activity to its lowest level. Perhaps currently rich nations might be able to do it, but developing ones simply have no margin for falling back and staying there.
That's a conundrum. We believe political stability and democracy grows best under higher economic growth. To now impose a low economic growth to achieve emissions targets raises social instability issues that are significant.
The Annual Outlook put out by the U.S. E.I.A. , http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf , spells out in detail what we're faced with. Specifically, referring to Fig.36, p.26 of the report it shows the CO2 emissions predicted for various energy consumption scenarios. Of those, its clear that the greatest reduction in emissions produced comes about from low economic growth globally while the greatest emissions occur under high economic growth. The reason for this is that the make-up of energy sources will not significantly change over the next few decades (Fig.18, p.15; Fig.31, p.24). Fossil fuels will be our main source of energy for generations to come.
That means that the only practical throttle that we have to reduce emissions is to reduce economic activity to its lowest level. Perhaps currently rich nations might be able to do it, but developing ones simply have no margin for falling back and staying there.
That's a conundrum. We believe political stability and democracy grows best under higher economic growth. To now impose a low economic growth to achieve emissions targets raises social instability issues that are significant.
2
Read the current article by Elizabeth Kolbert in "The New Yorker" about Miami Beach if you want to understand how resistant Americans are to facing up to global warming, even as the water rises around their ankles and hubcaps. And their Republican politicians are the worst of the worst deniers (we are talking about you Marco Rubio).
3
This article excludes the US, I would assume. The Washington gopshop is convinced that global warming is in no way connected with fossil fuel burning. They rule the roost, because our deranged electorate puts them there. Once there they do as their fossil-fuel funders pay them to do. Now, those are the facts!
2
Yes, of course, a pact is only as good as its implementation. And yes, I think the US faces the most obstinate opposition from within of any of the signatories.
Only here do we have a highly active set of right-wing industrialists whose fortune rests on fossil fuels and who are hell-bent on preserving their income stream.
It's money, not philosophy, that dictates one's belief in climate change. The deniers would deny the next generations a chance to somewhat mitigate the consequences of man's dirtying of the universe--just to preserve their profits. They've gotten away with it so far, but as another editorial here points out, it's "a bunch of Republicans against the world."
I have no idea if the US can hold up its end of the agreement, which is why 2016 is so critical. Are we going to joint the community of man by committing to sanity with how we handle our environment? Or will we allow a small bunch of billionaires--with their paid, controlled lackeys in Congress-- to thwart a physical phenomenon that's gathering steam and poised to reach a tipping point?
Only here do we have a highly active set of right-wing industrialists whose fortune rests on fossil fuels and who are hell-bent on preserving their income stream.
It's money, not philosophy, that dictates one's belief in climate change. The deniers would deny the next generations a chance to somewhat mitigate the consequences of man's dirtying of the universe--just to preserve their profits. They've gotten away with it so far, but as another editorial here points out, it's "a bunch of Republicans against the world."
I have no idea if the US can hold up its end of the agreement, which is why 2016 is so critical. Are we going to joint the community of man by committing to sanity with how we handle our environment? Or will we allow a small bunch of billionaires--with their paid, controlled lackeys in Congress-- to thwart a physical phenomenon that's gathering steam and poised to reach a tipping point?
3
Without any remorse for their historical role in polluting the planet if the rich powerful nations could successfully transfer this burden on to the poor developing countries and extract from them the emission reduction targets, would it be difficult for them to force the major part of the follow up actions on the Paris climate accord too on the latte?
Agreed totally - the rich nations already ruined the environment. Then to turn around and point fingers at India and China was complete hypocrisy. That said - China realizes their own citizens with means will leave if they don't clean up their act. In reality - that is the main reason they are joining. They don't want to lose their knowledge workers.
1
"These pledges will get the world only halfway to the 2 degree goal. Yet they were enormously important."
This is so important because it is a start.
We still need to do Part II, for the 2 degree goal.
We still need to face that even 2 degrees will cause real trouble. Already agricultural zones are moving North, and we are barely into that 2 degrees.
Of course we've seen the most sensitive crops react first. All across Europe, grapes have been moved North, wine making has had some important changes already. That is the canary in the gold mine, and it died. We've been warned.
In the US and Canada, forests are shifting North. Basic crops like wheat and potatoes are changing their seasons and creeping North. In Africa, subsistence farmers across a wide zone are in trouble. This is part of what stressed Syria before the fighting, and part of the more general Middle East water shortages that are even pushing Israel despite all its advantages.
Yet the 2 degrees have only begun, and we have not even agreed on Part II to get to 2 degrees.
Yes, finally acting over the whole world is "monumentally important."
Don't stop now. Get the other half of 2 degrees. Then plan on how to live with 2 degrees. Also start thinking of the costs of slipping -- that will put the costs of NOT slipping into the proper perspective.
The costs of dealing with 2 degrees, and the much greater costs of failure, are the best insurance that we will do what is needed, hence my insistence on that focus.
This is so important because it is a start.
We still need to do Part II, for the 2 degree goal.
We still need to face that even 2 degrees will cause real trouble. Already agricultural zones are moving North, and we are barely into that 2 degrees.
Of course we've seen the most sensitive crops react first. All across Europe, grapes have been moved North, wine making has had some important changes already. That is the canary in the gold mine, and it died. We've been warned.
In the US and Canada, forests are shifting North. Basic crops like wheat and potatoes are changing their seasons and creeping North. In Africa, subsistence farmers across a wide zone are in trouble. This is part of what stressed Syria before the fighting, and part of the more general Middle East water shortages that are even pushing Israel despite all its advantages.
Yet the 2 degrees have only begun, and we have not even agreed on Part II to get to 2 degrees.
Yes, finally acting over the whole world is "monumentally important."
Don't stop now. Get the other half of 2 degrees. Then plan on how to live with 2 degrees. Also start thinking of the costs of slipping -- that will put the costs of NOT slipping into the proper perspective.
The costs of dealing with 2 degrees, and the much greater costs of failure, are the best insurance that we will do what is needed, hence my insistence on that focus.
12
It’s true that for the first time, a means exists for keeping focus on the commitments of 195 nations, not to enforce compliance but to serve as a benchmark for further negotiations, on beyond what they SAY they’re willing to do to what they ACTUALLY do; and to analyze how the commitments might be actionable despite economic damage in implementing them. Developed nations in 2009 committed to transferring $100 billion per year by 2020 to developing nations, but haven’t made a lot of progress in getting there; but they’ll need to and add substantially to the pot to see any real change.
But the premise to this editorial is valid: for Paris to have real impact a lot remains to be done by way of follow-up. That includes analyses that chart the political and economic barriers in each of the signatory nations to satisfying commitments, and development of joint means to lower the barriers. Some organization will need to take charge of doing that, as the various nations are expected to develop their own means of satisfying their commitments – without a central organization, that will last only until the height of the barriers becomes evident.
Then, another conference and huge effort is needed to agree on developing the means not to beat back the engines of climate change but to LIVE WITH THE EFFECTS. Those means need to be tackled on a global basis, because some will require evacuation and resettlement of peoples from venues that soon enough may be uninhabitable.
But the premise to this editorial is valid: for Paris to have real impact a lot remains to be done by way of follow-up. That includes analyses that chart the political and economic barriers in each of the signatory nations to satisfying commitments, and development of joint means to lower the barriers. Some organization will need to take charge of doing that, as the various nations are expected to develop their own means of satisfying their commitments – without a central organization, that will last only until the height of the barriers becomes evident.
Then, another conference and huge effort is needed to agree on developing the means not to beat back the engines of climate change but to LIVE WITH THE EFFECTS. Those means need to be tackled on a global basis, because some will require evacuation and resettlement of peoples from venues that soon enough may be uninhabitable.
3
Monitoring of the Paris climate agreement will undoubtedly prove to be just as useful and effective as our monitoring of the Iran nuclear deal.
We could save money by combining the two.
We could save money by combining the two.
9
The NYT and other progressive voices are steaming ahead full speed to act as though the paper signed in Paris has meaning. From a governmental perspective, however, the Paris accord is meaningless. President Obama knows he cannot pass his beloved cap and tax plan through Congress and it is doubtful that his attempts to accomplish the same thing through EPA regulation will pass judicial muster. The Paris accord was written to circumvent the Constitutional limits upon executive power. It makes it appear that there is an agreement, but Obama cannot unilaterally bind our government or the American people to anything, much less a zero-growth/carbon-less future enforced by the UN.
Progressives will now argue that we have to do this or we have to do that because of the Paris accord. In reality, we don't have to do anything -- not even faithfully report our emissions. The Paris accord carries no legal force whatsoever. We are not going to injure our economy, while allowing China and India to grow their emissions. And we are not going to use billions of US taxpayer dollars to fund climate reparations for third world countries. Obama and Kerry are congratulating themselves for negotiating a pretty and flowery nothing.
Progressives will now argue that we have to do this or we have to do that because of the Paris accord. In reality, we don't have to do anything -- not even faithfully report our emissions. The Paris accord carries no legal force whatsoever. We are not going to injure our economy, while allowing China and India to grow their emissions. And we are not going to use billions of US taxpayer dollars to fund climate reparations for third world countries. Obama and Kerry are congratulating themselves for negotiating a pretty and flowery nothing.
50
I understand how you may lean towards being a cynic regarding this agreement, really, what's in it for a resident of Arizona - hell, you already live in a desert? For most of the rest of us we do have something to lose - our inhabitable environment. Eventually we will win this argument, hopefully in time to make a real difference.
I am no scientist but I am smart enough to at least listen to them and try to determine who makes sense and who doesn't. IMO the deniers my all be ostriches. I agree, there have been times when the majority of "science" had it wrong - the flat earth believers are a great example. Times and science have come a long way since then - when the earth was thought to be flat there was no reasonable way to disprove it without risking falling off. Today, we have the ability to look at the world from afar, to see it more clearly, to measure, to monitor, and with computers, to test alternatives scenarios. Our ability to get things right is beyond anything scientists in the past could even dream of. So where does that leave us today?
Today, the overwhelming opinion of scientists is that mankind's impact on our environment is negative, accelerating, and will result in major environment danger if not stopped (and hopefully reversed). Most of the countries on our planet have accepted the proposition of negative man-made climate change. The U.S. is still debating - and along political party lines. This issue is too important to be swayed by politics.
I am no scientist but I am smart enough to at least listen to them and try to determine who makes sense and who doesn't. IMO the deniers my all be ostriches. I agree, there have been times when the majority of "science" had it wrong - the flat earth believers are a great example. Times and science have come a long way since then - when the earth was thought to be flat there was no reasonable way to disprove it without risking falling off. Today, we have the ability to look at the world from afar, to see it more clearly, to measure, to monitor, and with computers, to test alternatives scenarios. Our ability to get things right is beyond anything scientists in the past could even dream of. So where does that leave us today?
Today, the overwhelming opinion of scientists is that mankind's impact on our environment is negative, accelerating, and will result in major environment danger if not stopped (and hopefully reversed). Most of the countries on our planet have accepted the proposition of negative man-made climate change. The U.S. is still debating - and along political party lines. This issue is too important to be swayed by politics.
13
Mr. McCoy: I don't doubt that many Americans want to address climate change. Unfortunately, few of them understand or have been fairly advised of the economic consequences of doing so. Americans believe that cap and trade is some type of board game; not a conscious plan to tax fossil fuels out of existence. Few understand that the future under this accord would be higher rates of unemployment, and life in tiny homes and tiny cars. Few understand that giving progressives control over energy will provide a legal platform for all manner of centralized planning and wealth redistribution, beginning with an assault on the hated American suburbs. And most importantly, few understand that Obama, the ultimate American apologist, would happily bargain away our future prosperity for "fairness" to the developing world and the false promise of less energy-related conflict.
If the American people want to go down this road after being fully advised of the consequences, fine. But that is why we have a Constitutional process for passing and reviewing laws. It is with the ultimate arrogance that Obama would try to transform life as we know it by circumventing that process. He fails to understand the difference between being President and king.
If the American people want to go down this road after being fully advised of the consequences, fine. But that is why we have a Constitutional process for passing and reviewing laws. It is with the ultimate arrogance that Obama would try to transform life as we know it by circumventing that process. He fails to understand the difference between being President and king.
3
He could bring it to Congress if the GOP loses both the House and the Senate next year. Everyone should be thinking ahead to the outcome of the '16 elections. As always the SCOTUS appointments are critical, but so is the composition of Congress. If the US fails to keep its promises to this accord then India, China, Brazil, etc. will drift off and claim that the agreement has been made null and void, allowing them to return to a high-carbon energy pathway. We cannot allow that to happen.
1
Climate change is just one part of the whole complex of human effects on the world, which probably is going to define a new geologic era. Part of the problem is just the scale of the human project, which includes overpopulation. We have not even begun to discuss this; there are no politicians or parties, universities, institutes, etc who will even mention population. We have a long way to go.
Trying to avoid a catastrophic rise in temperature is certainly worth doing, but the mentality seems to be "Let's solve global warming and then we can get back to quietly strip-mining the planet." In fact we are performing a massive multi-faceted experiment on the planet with little regard for possible negative results.
Trying to avoid a catastrophic rise in temperature is certainly worth doing, but the mentality seems to be "Let's solve global warming and then we can get back to quietly strip-mining the planet." In fact we are performing a massive multi-faceted experiment on the planet with little regard for possible negative results.
10
I don't imagine that anyone is fooling themselves into thinking we'll return to strip mining if/when the climate is stabilized. What aspect is the experiment on the planet? How we get at natural resources now or what we will hope to achieve by stemming the rise of carbon in the atmosphere?
It's ironic that the "strong scientific core" touted here by the Times' editorial board hasn't yet been able to pin down the amount of emissions allowed to keep us under the 2C temperature threshold.
According to the UN's climate organization, the IPCC, in its latest AR5 scientific review, for each doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the world's surface temperature will rise as much as 4.5C, or as little as 1.5C. To put this best scientific information in context, if the world continues with "business as usual" emissions, making no cuts at all, we will reach that doubling of CO2 in about 80 years.
If the low end of the "climate sensitivity" range is correct, that will result in a temperature rise of only about 1.5C, so we will have already achieved our goal without any reductions needed!
If instead the high end value of climate sensitivity is correct, we have *already* increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere well past temperature increases of both 1.5C and 2C, so we are lost!
It's a strange sort of "scientific core" that can't even tell us if our goal has already been met, or if it's already too late.
According to the UN's climate organization, the IPCC, in its latest AR5 scientific review, for each doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the world's surface temperature will rise as much as 4.5C, or as little as 1.5C. To put this best scientific information in context, if the world continues with "business as usual" emissions, making no cuts at all, we will reach that doubling of CO2 in about 80 years.
If the low end of the "climate sensitivity" range is correct, that will result in a temperature rise of only about 1.5C, so we will have already achieved our goal without any reductions needed!
If instead the high end value of climate sensitivity is correct, we have *already* increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere well past temperature increases of both 1.5C and 2C, so we are lost!
It's a strange sort of "scientific core" that can't even tell us if our goal has already been met, or if it's already too late.
4
Meh! Might as well do nothing.
1
I think there needs to be more focus on global population as in the long run population is the primary driver of the major issue the human race is facing. Most of the population growth is occurring in third world nations so the immediate effect is small due to very low standard of living, but as those nations develop (like china and india) there is a pretty much guaranteed exponential increase in consumption.
It is important to address this now because shrinking populations are untenable to the rich due to their focus on neverending growth at any cost. Therefore we should make sure sustainable development includes sustainable population change.
It is important to address this now because shrinking populations are untenable to the rich due to their focus on neverending growth at any cost. Therefore we should make sure sustainable development includes sustainable population change.
10
Congress should tax carbon and use the proceeds to reduce the payroll tax.
1
So what exactly has China agreed to? For that matter what has any country agreed to?
7
The effect of China is minuscule on the grand scale of what rich nations have done for 150 years. Those same rich nations should just lead by example. They will catch up like they do in everything else. Especially as they realize the healthcare costs of a poor environment.
Something that China appears to have agreed to, is to peak their CO2 emissions by 2030. I suspect that this really caused them quite a bit of agony, since I seem to remember that their long-term economical targets called for a peak a bit later, 2034:ish - add to this that I guess they'd have preferred to have been allowed a couple of years of additional margin for industrial phase-out.
While the decrease in emissions is generally aligned with China's overall goal of transiting from mass manufacturing to a postindustrial services/etc, decreasing that time from 20:ish years to 15 years would be no small feat; we're talking about the worlds' main manufacturing economy with 1B+ people.
What I haven't really understood, is what will happen to the manufacturing (and related emissions) that China will outsource. For instance, has the BRIC countries projected a proportional increase in emissions?
While the decrease in emissions is generally aligned with China's overall goal of transiting from mass manufacturing to a postindustrial services/etc, decreasing that time from 20:ish years to 15 years would be no small feat; we're talking about the worlds' main manufacturing economy with 1B+ people.
What I haven't really understood, is what will happen to the manufacturing (and related emissions) that China will outsource. For instance, has the BRIC countries projected a proportional increase in emissions?
Not quite. For instance, China is reported to have poured as much concrete in the years 2009-2013 as the US in the whole of the twentieth century. China, and the rest of the developing world, already have a large environmental footprint, which is growing much faster than that of the rich countries.
1
How do we have 'strong follow-up' with Mitch-joined at the hip with fossil fuels-McConnell at the helm? He has NO intention of funding anything that has to do with Climate Change. Moving forward will take tremendous public pressure. Maybe we can get Jon Stewart on the case; he is great at shaming the TP/GOP Congress. Maybe he can save the planet:-))
You state with this that the oil industry and their surrogates in Congress want to change the law to export oil. Not needed, but worth doing in exchange for A
Carbon Tax to fund/subsidize renewables. This is the one thing that is needed, a big push towards zero emissions, not cap and trade. Encourage solar, bring the price of hybrids down and the mpg up. This would be meaningful action. Not more talk--Zero Emissions.
Carbon Tax to fund/subsidize renewables. This is the one thing that is needed, a big push towards zero emissions, not cap and trade. Encourage solar, bring the price of hybrids down and the mpg up. This would be meaningful action. Not more talk--Zero Emissions.
1
All the self congratulation and editorial hyping for what?
This agreement, even if signed (it is not yet), even if ratified (it is not yet), has absolutely no binding provisions for specific reductions of CO2 emissions on any country, nor does it contain any enforcement mechanisms.
It is simply a document that says, we have this general goal to limit the earth's warming, and every five years we will publish an individual "goal".
It is like a drug addict agreeing to the "goal" of using less drugs, and agreeing to every 5 years update his goals of how much less he will try to use. No hard limits. No consequences for not reaching the goals.
That is a lot of noise for nothing concrete.
This agreement, even if signed (it is not yet), even if ratified (it is not yet), has absolutely no binding provisions for specific reductions of CO2 emissions on any country, nor does it contain any enforcement mechanisms.
It is simply a document that says, we have this general goal to limit the earth's warming, and every five years we will publish an individual "goal".
It is like a drug addict agreeing to the "goal" of using less drugs, and agreeing to every 5 years update his goals of how much less he will try to use. No hard limits. No consequences for not reaching the goals.
That is a lot of noise for nothing concrete.
10
To all the naysayers such as yourself and many of the commenters that argue nothing has been accomplished, nothing could be further from the truth. This agreement is not saving the planet, it is literally saving ourselves. The earth itself will keep all the nations honest by reminding us on a daily, monthly, yearly basis what failure to heed the warnings will bring.
What this problem needs is a sustained attention (accomplished!) to implement the already existing solutions in country after country. Automobiles contribute the lions share of CO2. Hybrids, electric cars, new hydrogen cars (soon) are of the utmost importance. Solar farms, are springing up at a brisk pace with complementary battery storage. Wind farms, tidal farms, geothermal, biomass, garbage into energy (twofer) are all viable now and springing up...slowly. Hence, the agreement to usher in this new age of energy with forethought, conviction, and rapidly.
What stands in it's way is apathy like the sentiments you expressed above. This is an all citizens on deck moment. The solutions are here, we need to stop throwing stones at progress like Paris. First step, maybe. But progress builds on itself. We need to stop listening to the dying fossil fuel industry, they are handing out mental anvils like candy. Here is a thought for them as well. Use your current profits to transition into the clean energy market as your carbon profits fade. That's called being a leader.
What this problem needs is a sustained attention (accomplished!) to implement the already existing solutions in country after country. Automobiles contribute the lions share of CO2. Hybrids, electric cars, new hydrogen cars (soon) are of the utmost importance. Solar farms, are springing up at a brisk pace with complementary battery storage. Wind farms, tidal farms, geothermal, biomass, garbage into energy (twofer) are all viable now and springing up...slowly. Hence, the agreement to usher in this new age of energy with forethought, conviction, and rapidly.
What stands in it's way is apathy like the sentiments you expressed above. This is an all citizens on deck moment. The solutions are here, we need to stop throwing stones at progress like Paris. First step, maybe. But progress builds on itself. We need to stop listening to the dying fossil fuel industry, they are handing out mental anvils like candy. Here is a thought for them as well. Use your current profits to transition into the clean energy market as your carbon profits fade. That's called being a leader.
17
So the fact that we're are feeling really good about ourselves and our intentions is the real "victory" in Paris.
Yeah Obama!
Yeah Obama!
1
It is not the cure-all but we would be worse off without it! As James Hansen has said, it doesn't go far enough. But it is a critical first step. We in the US are now so accustomed to divided and dysfunctional leadership that we are rendered speechless when we actually see it happen anywhere. This agreement felt tantamount to a miracle to me.
It is not enough, but an important first step upon which we must build--and quickly! A few high fives of celebration are fine and deserved but it should also hearten and galvanize those who believe that we are in great peril to push for further coordination and reduction of carbon in the environment.
It is not enough, but an important first step upon which we must build--and quickly! A few high fives of celebration are fine and deserved but it should also hearten and galvanize those who believe that we are in great peril to push for further coordination and reduction of carbon in the environment.
19
This is nothing more than Geopolitical lip service. Having seen what countries like Sweden, and Ice Land are doing used to give me hope for the rest of the planet. Cheap oil and our non committed Legislatures are only going to help drown more polar bears.
2
Iceland has a lot of geothermal and hydro power for a tiny population. It's not a model for the rest of the world.
2
I'm so happy about this agreement. This is one of those moments when our words and our decisions have great consequence. In one direction lie discord, chaos, greed, and destruction. In the other, the promise of greater cooperation, prosperity, and a better Earth.
The importance of remaining true to the words and the spirit of this pact cannot be overstated. I pray that we find the ways necessary to hold on to the cooperation that created this agreement, and to make good on its promise.
The importance of remaining true to the words and the spirit of this pact cannot be overstated. I pray that we find the ways necessary to hold on to the cooperation that created this agreement, and to make good on its promise.
We'll see how the agreement works out, but I think the best way for Western nations to combat climate change, in addition to what they are already doing, is to move to fairer trade instead of free trade by requiring imported goods be manufactured in ways and with energy and other inputs that would be allowed in the importing nation.
This makes money the enforcing mechanism which everyone understands and also prevents or at least makes it more costly for western nations from deliberately or inadvertently offshoring their pollution to meet their targets.
This is important because what is happening under the status quo is western nations tighten their environmental controls and then manufactures off shore production to third world nations with lax environmental controls, which generally results in a net increase in pollution/global warming due to the lower standards of the producing nation as well as increased transportation costs.
This makes money the enforcing mechanism which everyone understands and also prevents or at least makes it more costly for western nations from deliberately or inadvertently offshoring their pollution to meet their targets.
This is important because what is happening under the status quo is western nations tighten their environmental controls and then manufactures off shore production to third world nations with lax environmental controls, which generally results in a net increase in pollution/global warming due to the lower standards of the producing nation as well as increased transportation costs.
2
This deal isn't binding and won't be ratified by the Senate. Everyone is so excited when in reality it's just another agreement with no force. Our planet needs radical action which nobody will provide.
3
Now public education is vital. Educate, don't legislate.
The public must be educated on three subjects;
1. Conservation of energy which will reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions in both homes and power plants that generate electricity used in homes and businesses. The fossil fuels you use at home to heat and the electricity from power plants you use to cool emit large amounts of pollution. By weatherizing homes and businesses which means to seal air leaks and add insulation, you reduce energy use and YOU SAVE YOUR MONEY.
2. Everyone loves "New and Improved" products. Look into new ways of generating the electricity you use right there at your home or business. Solar is now remarkably lower in price. Ten years ago, I purchased a 50 watt solar panel for 360 dollars. I recently bought another 50 watt panel for only 90 dollars. Even smaller Wind power generators are available for homes and businesses. Shop around like you would for a new Computer or Television.
3. Use less energy. My slogan; "Is It ON?, Turn It OFF! Wherever you are, at work or home, learn to stroll around now and then and turn things off. There is no need for many rooms in a house to be lit up if you are in a single room. Drive less. Ride a bike, or walk, live longer!
I implore President Obama to use the pulpit often like Roosevelt did radio broadcasts to join the great American family to teach them these important steps and what to do for the good of the nation.
Conserve
Turn things off.
SAVE MONEY!
The public must be educated on three subjects;
1. Conservation of energy which will reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions in both homes and power plants that generate electricity used in homes and businesses. The fossil fuels you use at home to heat and the electricity from power plants you use to cool emit large amounts of pollution. By weatherizing homes and businesses which means to seal air leaks and add insulation, you reduce energy use and YOU SAVE YOUR MONEY.
2. Everyone loves "New and Improved" products. Look into new ways of generating the electricity you use right there at your home or business. Solar is now remarkably lower in price. Ten years ago, I purchased a 50 watt solar panel for 360 dollars. I recently bought another 50 watt panel for only 90 dollars. Even smaller Wind power generators are available for homes and businesses. Shop around like you would for a new Computer or Television.
3. Use less energy. My slogan; "Is It ON?, Turn It OFF! Wherever you are, at work or home, learn to stroll around now and then and turn things off. There is no need for many rooms in a house to be lit up if you are in a single room. Drive less. Ride a bike, or walk, live longer!
I implore President Obama to use the pulpit often like Roosevelt did radio broadcasts to join the great American family to teach them these important steps and what to do for the good of the nation.
Conserve
Turn things off.
SAVE MONEY!
6
"Now comes the hard part."
So, basically you are saying that not much of substance was accomplished in Paris and the real work remains.
So, basically you are saying that not much of substance was accomplished in Paris and the real work remains.
6
To call Obama a hero for what he did at Paris is quite strange. From 1987 until Obama, the global consensus was that the world needed a binding treaty on carbon to avoid collective suicide bombing basically, Kyoto. Under Bush, the US opposed this, but the paradigm was in place; the US and China were just holding out. In Copenhagen, Obama did what Bush could never have dreamed of accomplishing: breaking the global consensus, mostly by using threats to peel off Brazil, South Africa, and a couple other major countries from the treaty camp into the non-binding camp by threatening to cut aid and take other punitive measures, as has been well-documented in Ciplet, Roberts, and Khan's Power in A Warming World from MIT Press. Obama's achievements culminated in a non-binding self-congratulations extravaganza in Paris, sponsored by polluters. But even if the non-binding Paris agreement is followed, we're still in 3-4 C territory. Paris is a mass suicide pact made by psychopaths, and millions will die because of their greed. There is $20 trillion in the ground, and there is no way that the owners of the world's resources are just going to leave it there. As Chris Hayes has pointed out, the only time there was an expropriation of property on this scale was the abolition of slavery, and I'm not holding my breath waiting for the abolition of the right to own resources. No future for you. No future for me.
The voluntary pledges and rounding error funds agreed upon in Paris are the equivalent of:
"Hi, my name is Carbon, and I'm a growing global disaster."
Too bad our Congress hasn't made it to step one.
"Hi, my name is Carbon, and I'm a growing global disaster."
Too bad our Congress hasn't made it to step one.
Yes, it is a mornumental achievement, but it needs hard works to reach the goal. Big obstacles include US Congress, in particular Republicans, they don't believe in global warming and align with the fossil fuel industries.
The most notable is former President George W. Bush.
The most notable is former President George W. Bush.
The commitments are voluntary, non binding and therefore there is no enforcement mechanism.
Climate impacts sadly are likely to get much worse before we see mandatory goals with some kind of serious economic sanctions for countries that don't meet GHG reduction targets.
Given the political realities in each country & the need for energy at the cheapest price possible, perhaps this agreement is the best the world can achieve today. You can always hope it will work out in a positive way, but we generally know which hand fills up first.
I think all of us in some way have to let the market and our politicians know we want clean renewable energy sooner not later.
Climate impacts sadly are likely to get much worse before we see mandatory goals with some kind of serious economic sanctions for countries that don't meet GHG reduction targets.
Given the political realities in each country & the need for energy at the cheapest price possible, perhaps this agreement is the best the world can achieve today. You can always hope it will work out in a positive way, but we generally know which hand fills up first.
I think all of us in some way have to let the market and our politicians know we want clean renewable energy sooner not later.
I foresee large corporations making huge profits off the new regulations. Don't get me wrong -- I think it's a good thing that the 195 nations pledged to reduce greenhouse gases, although I'm pretty sure it's too late, but I'm just a born cynic who has lived many decades and seen how these things go.
We can use markets to achieve carbon reductions. I'll use oil as an example but the same principles could apply to coal and natural gas.
Currently, the world consumes about 95 million barrels of oil/day. There is a surplus of only 2 to 3 million barrels which has pushed prices below $40. That shows that only a 3% reduction in consumption has a huge effect on price. We can use that market dynamic to our advantage.
If a tax was imposed to set the price of one gallon of gas to $3, that would provide a great market incentive to use less gas. As the price of gas fell the tax would increase. If gas cost more than $3, the tax would go away, protecting consumers from undue hardship. The incentive to use less gas remains as it is provided by the higher market price. Use a quarterly price average to set the tax.
The tax money would be used to fund a renewable build out. The less gas we use, the lower the price of gas and the more money would be made available for renewables.
Enforcement could be made with trade agreements. We wont buy your stuff if your nation doesn't participate. Europe and the US are the largest consumers. We control the purse strings. China and India will have to come along.
By pushing conservation, we can create a price differential that will generate revenue for new sources of energy, while not sending everyone to the poor house. The incentive to conserve always remains regardless of market price.
Currently, the world consumes about 95 million barrels of oil/day. There is a surplus of only 2 to 3 million barrels which has pushed prices below $40. That shows that only a 3% reduction in consumption has a huge effect on price. We can use that market dynamic to our advantage.
If a tax was imposed to set the price of one gallon of gas to $3, that would provide a great market incentive to use less gas. As the price of gas fell the tax would increase. If gas cost more than $3, the tax would go away, protecting consumers from undue hardship. The incentive to use less gas remains as it is provided by the higher market price. Use a quarterly price average to set the tax.
The tax money would be used to fund a renewable build out. The less gas we use, the lower the price of gas and the more money would be made available for renewables.
Enforcement could be made with trade agreements. We wont buy your stuff if your nation doesn't participate. Europe and the US are the largest consumers. We control the purse strings. China and India will have to come along.
By pushing conservation, we can create a price differential that will generate revenue for new sources of energy, while not sending everyone to the poor house. The incentive to conserve always remains regardless of market price.
17
Gas prices in recent years hit $4/gallon, not just $3/gallon, without a major reduction in gasoline usage, so it's unlikely that your proposed $3/gallon price for gas would significantly reduce gas usage.
Gas is already $7.00 a gallon in Europe. Do you want to make that $10?
Here's what happens if we don't at least try to meet these goals: 4C is only part of the way to 6C, which would be business as usual without any of those magic wands like realistic CCS (carbon capture and storage: have you thought about the volumes required, and the fact that industry doesn't want it because it costs too much! And what is cost? Time passes ...)
So here's 4C: ( http://fisnua.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/4-degrees-hotter.pdf )
- turn swaths of southern Europe to desert
- double sea level rise, to 3 meters by 2100
- unleash carbon "time bomb" from Arctic (permafrost and such) feedbacks
- make half the world uninhabitable
- kill off 85% nof the Amazon rainforest
As noted, these are not quite the worst case, but this is what scientists haven't been saying about the costs of inaction.
It's time to stop listening to unskeptical "skeptics": they got nuthin'
Honestly, despair and apathy are just laziness in disguise, which is why I refuse to freak out, having known the above for the better part of 10 years now. Awake, arise, shine on ...
So here's 4C: ( http://fisnua.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/4-degrees-hotter.pdf )
- turn swaths of southern Europe to desert
- double sea level rise, to 3 meters by 2100
- unleash carbon "time bomb" from Arctic (permafrost and such) feedbacks
- make half the world uninhabitable
- kill off 85% nof the Amazon rainforest
As noted, these are not quite the worst case, but this is what scientists haven't been saying about the costs of inaction.
It's time to stop listening to unskeptical "skeptics": they got nuthin'
Honestly, despair and apathy are just laziness in disguise, which is why I refuse to freak out, having known the above for the better part of 10 years now. Awake, arise, shine on ...
31
You forgot to mention that tropical diseases move north as the climate warms. In New England, we can't really walk in the woods any more without spraying our clothes with Permethrin (an insecticide). Kissing bugs carry Chagas, ticks carry Lyme and other nastier parasites, and mosquitoes carry EEE.