Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Government Science

Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak 145

Posted by samzenpus from the too-little dept.
An anonymous reader writes with news that a global climate deal seems to be on the horizon. "A global deal to combat climate change in 2015 looks more likely after promises for action by China, the United States and the European Union, but any agreement will probably be too weak to halt rising temperatures. Delegates from almost 200 nations will meet in Lima, Peru, from Dec. 1-12 to work on the accord due in Paris in a year's time, also spurred by new scientific warnings about risks of floods, heatwaves, ocean acidification and rising seas. After failure to agree a sweeping U.N. treaty at a summit in Copenhagen in 2009, the easier but less ambitious aim now is a deal made up of 'nationally determined' plans to help reverse a 45 percent rise in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak More

Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak

Comments Filter:

  • What did China promise? (Score:3)

    by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Sunday November 23, 2014 @02:12PM (#48444673)

    The agreement allows China to continue building coal-powered plants, expand its economy and cement its place as the world's leading polluter -- perhaps even doubling its output until 2030 or some year around that time, when China's carbon emissions are expected to peak.

    At that point, the Chinese promise that they will implement some vague action plan at some vague point in the future. All we need to do is trust them. The agreement contains no binding language requiring any goals to be met.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by 0123456 ( 636235 )

      Exactly. China promised to do nothing, other than make Obama look like a dumb-ass.

      As for a 'UN Climate Deal', they'll announce a glorious new agreement in 2015 that doesn't require anyone to do anything unless anyone else does. And the only people who'll actually do anything will be Obama and the suicidal EU nations.

      • The deal is actually the opposite. America doesn't really need to do much to meet Obama's target. The natural market-driven growth of renewables will do it, so long as the GOP doesn't play pick the winners and losers by slapping regulations. (*cough* Kansas *cough*). It may well cost the US consumer $0. China, on the other hand, is deploying huge amounts of new energy, and will fundamentally need to shift their plan in order to have emissions peak in 2030. But they want to do it anyway, since -- pollution,

      • China promised to do nothing, other than make Obama look like a dumb-ass.

        Obama didn't promise to do anything either. Under American law, no international agreement is binding unless it is ratified by the Senate. Chance of that happening in this case: 0%.

        What Obama "promised" is what America is on track to accomplish anyway. Vehicle fuel efficiency is rising. Shale gas is replacing coal. Electricity consumption is falling, as people go from incandescent to CFL to LED, and CRT to flat screen.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Exactly. China promised to do nothing...

        And yet their green energy generation capacity is skyrocketting faster than many other countries in the world. In other news the Denmark didn't make any major green energy promises either but now derives 40% of its energy from Wind. As always actions speak louder than words.

        So let's look at action then:
        US renewables growth last year was 16% China's was 28%
        Ok ok so there's a size difference between the two:
        US increased by 8 millions of barrels of oil equivalent, China increased by 9.6m.
        So they are putting in

  • The only way to reduce carbon emissions is to improve our technology to the point that non-emitting technologies are cheaper than emitting technologies. Electric cars, etc.

    The reason politicians won't come to a meaningful agreement is because the population doesn't want it. Most people aren't willing to give up their car (or even double the price of gas) for the sake of global warming.

    It would be easier to get everyone to agree to switch to nuclear energy than to agree to meaningful limits on CO2 emiss

    • It would be easier to get everyone to agree to switch to nuclear energy than to agree to meaningful limits on CO2 emissions

      Even though going nuclear is the only practical solution, I don't think it's any easier - you have decades of people devoted to scaring people about anything nuclear, and those groups are still around piping that tune - even to the clear detriment of the earth and environment. They just are too afraid to do anything else.

      even in countries that actually want to do something about CO2 (l

      • plenty of smarter countries have a full-on nuclear program, too bad the USA isn't one of those.

        • And most of those are trying to move away from nuclear.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

          US investors are free to pump money into new nuclear capacity if they want to, but they don't. Too expensive, and if government funding gets cut they might never see a profit. There are also a multitude of things that can go wrong (not just meltdowns, things like premature ageing or the discovery flaws that are costly to fix) so it's a fairly risky investment. The countries that are building new capacity all offset the risk with government subsidy.

      • Exactly my point, if even GERMANS can't be rational about this there is no hope for anyone.

        The German people have been systematically zombified on this and other issues. They are getting fed a lot of propaganda, they've been led around by people like Hermet Kohl and Angela Merkel for so long they just don't know any better.

        • they've been led around by people like Hermet Kohl and Angela Merkel for so long they just don't know any better.

          Angela Merkel has never led anyone anywhere. She just waits to see which policy is going to be most popular, and then she jumps in front of it.

          • Wow. The mark of a true "leader". Following "consensus". Good thing she wasn't in charge of Germany in the late 1930s.

      • Nuclear power's biggest problem is how expensive it is. In the US right now new nuclear power plants can't be built without federal loan guarantees and the liability coverage of the Price-Anderson Act. As wind and solar continue to drop in price it's going to be difficult for nuclear to compete in the long run.

      • The government is the last holdout against nuclear power. It is the only thing preventing us from going to 100% carbon free pollution free energy tomorrow. Even though it is safer than flying in an airplane, far safer than riding in a car or crossing the street, our government is run by environmental quacks who would like to prolong the non-problem to be able to control and manipulate gullible sheeple like they did with the Obamacare fiasco. So it won't be solved anytime soon even though it could be. If
    • Actually it's the politicians who don't want it.

      I've never met anyone who can argue successfully against action on climate in an open debate. The whole denialist movement is merely a desperate papering over of the fact that a small number of people don't want to do anything about climate change.

      Why?

      Well, generally they can't even articulate that.

      Very few people actually fall into this category, fewer still sincerely believe that rhetoric, the problem with dissonance is that it is hard to keep straight

      • I've never met anyone who can argue successfully against action on climate in an open debate.

        Well, since you are being the judge of 'successful,' I'm not surprised you've never seen that. You are no different than most people in that you don't like to lose your own argument.

        In the case of climate change, people and politicians are happy to help the environment. You will rarely see a politician who says he wants to hurt the environment.

        It's only when you get down to specific propositions that people object. How much are you willing to help the environment? Are you willing to double the price of

        • I'm in favor of 'doing something,' as long as it doesn't negatively effect me.

          Burning coal is "doing something" and it is negatively impacting everyone..

        • Well, since you are being the judge of 'successful,' I'm not surprised you've never seen that.

          I'm using fairly standard criteria - said criteria being based your ability to provide verifiable proof of your assertions. What did you think? That mere rhetoric would convince us?

          • I'm using fairly standard criteria - said criteria being based your ability to provide verifiable proof of your assertions. What did you think? That mere rhetoric would convince us?

            I don't think there's anything that will convince you. If someone provided proof, you would find a way to explain it away.

            • Well, you'll never know unless you or one of your buddies actually post some proof, some day.
              • Here's the real problem:
                Every time someone proposes a solution to climate change, people don't want it. It's not just politicians. That was the fact that started the thread, and it still stands.

                Sure, if 'do something' means turning off your lights when you leave the room, people favor it. When it comes to doubling the price of gas, people don't.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by khallow ( 566160 )

        I've never met anyone who can argue successfully against action on climate in an open debate. The whole denialist movement is merely a desperate papering over of the fact that a small number of people don't want to do

        Why should we care about what you think "successful" means? Use of the term, "denialist" indicates you aren't serious about debate. But I'll put forth a serious argument in case you decide to change your mind.

        I grant that there is global warming and it probably is due in large part to human activities, particularly, greenhouse gas emissions and albedo changes. But there are plenty of problems going from that to asserting that we should act on it, particularly, the recent calls for reducing human carbon d

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dave420 ( 699308 )

          You simply saying that all the research into AGW is poor and that it's all spun etc. doesn't make it so. You really are a denialist, and it's tragic that you are so caught up in this game you can't even use your own brain. You are a real human being who has handed over their thought processes to others. Again - it's tragic.

          I could point you to many sources which show you're wrong, but I've seen others do just that and you still come back as if those interactions never happened.

          • Tragic is having grown adults look at the Great Lakes freeze solid and not thaw completely until late June of this year and claim the planet is "hotter than its ever been before" despite record breaking cold. It has not been that cold since 1912.
            When you can deny actual observed reality because an "authority" told you to disbelieve reality you will believe anything you are told by that authority no matter how false it is. You lose the argument by hollering "denialist" at anyone that doesn't go along with

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by khallow ( 566160 )

            You simply saying that all the research into AGW is poor and that it's all spun etc. doesn't make it so.

            Indeed. I've described the sort of problems (not at all a complete list I might add) that do make all that research in AGW poor. It's those problems, not my words that are at issue here.

            I could point you to many sources which show you're wrong, but I've seen others do just that and you still come back as if those interactions never happened.

            I require evidence not sources. So many people just don't get that dropping links is not the same thing as providing evidence. The key property of evidence is that it allows me to distinguish between hypotheses, such as between "climate change requires us to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050" and "we know which sid

          • You simply saying that all the research into AGW is poor

            The predictions are poor. Or do you just ignore the studies that have shown that the computer models don't match reality?

        • Why should we care about what you think "successful" means?

          You've engaged in fallacy. Nobody cares about your feelings. If you can post proof of your numerous assertions, then post it, otherwise your assertions remain in the realm of paranoid delusion. e.g:

          First, the evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is poor. The data sets gets really tenuous once you get further in the past than an actual temperature record (about 150 or so years ago). And actual measurement of global mean temperature is much more recent with satellite measurements. The most important parameter in climatology today, the temperature forcing of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels is unknown to at least a factor of 3 (1.5 C per to 4.5 C per is current IPCC estimate).

          So essentially you are saying that in fact, the situation could be MUCH WORSE than what is predicted by current models. And this would motivate us to not take action on climate change why?

    • The problem is the people in general. They do not want to be inconvenienced, burdened, overly taxed, or told they have to go without something they are already taking for granted while wealthy and rich people gets to still enjoy it. It is a step backwards in society from any rational sense of reality.

      This is why the governments who are concerned should not be trying to force more expensive tech onto people, they should not be trying to tax them in hopes that someone will get fed up and create a better alter

  • News Flash: the Republicans are taking control of the Senate in January.

    • It requires a 2/3rds majority of the Senate to approve a treaty. The Republicans have had enough seats to block any treaty for a long time, and have done so in the last few years. Putting the Republicans in the majority doesn't change their ability to block treaties.

  • The freaks are really posting today.

    • You see a lot of that on some websites when hot-button issues like climate change are discussed. For example, on Ars Technica there are almost always brand-new accounts posting the same old denier crap on every AGW thread; most likely a popular nut site like Drudge or WND will post a link, or someone in their forums.

  • So let me get this straight:

    Delegates (ie, representatives and their entourages, servants, security, family, etc) from 200 nations will all be taking their private jets to a city located in a subtropical desert during the summer, where they'll sit around for a week in luxurious air conditioning discussing an agreement that they may decide to agree to a year later when they all travel by private jet to Paris to do it all over again.

    And we're expected to take these people seriously when it comes to what they

  • There will be no strong environmental law as long as American corporations have the same rights as human beings. Holy Profit trunmps the environment--and everything else.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khallow ( 566160 )

      There will be no strong environmental law as long as American corporations have the same rights as human beings.

      There are two problems with this claim. First, it doesn't follow. Strong environmental law is not at all precluded by corporate personhood or rights of anyone. Second, corporate personhood doesn't mean that corporations have the same rights as human beings. What rights they have are deemed necessary in order for the human members of the corporation to exercise their rights. So by the construction of the legal fiction, corporate personhood grants exercise of a limited subset of human rights.

  • CO2 will continue to rise as long as we stay with per capita normalization, which is based on estimates in nations like China and India, combined with ignoring nations like China and India.
    The fact is, that CO2 emissions is NOT tied to ppl, but GDP. As such, normalization needs to be based on emissions per GDP.
    In addition, many nations love to cheat on information about estimates. What is needed is a single means of measuring all over the world. That is what OCO2 will bring us. It can measure CO2 flowing

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close