COP21 - Paris Climate Conference

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

So for the what about China crowd - looks like their changes may have actually led to reduction in global carbon emissions last year - http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...d_in_2015.html

I don't know, but wasn't it mentioned that China under reported on their carbon last year.

I could be wrong, but I remember hearing it in the news not that long ago.

[PeteMoss]

I don't know, but yes seems likely a lot of countries would under report if they are the ones doing the measurements.

[PeteMoss]

I do wonder if the horrible pollution issues in these countries will speed up their move to clean energy. I have no idea of the health policies in India or China but it can't be great for the economy if everyone is sick or having lung issues due to it.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I do wonder if the horrible pollution issues in these countries will speed up their move to clean energy. I have no idea of the health policies in India or China but it can't be great for the economy if everyone is sick or having lung issues due to it.

That's the next step for China, with a massive buildout of nuclear, wind and solar. But the first step has always been widespread and reliable access to cheap energy which results in a massive increase in quality of life and standards of living as well as enabling the economic/industrial/technological base for cleaner but more expensive forms of energy.

And except in countries rich in hydro, that source of cheap energy is almost always coal.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Locke

I was fairly convinced of Global Warming but then I noticed a billboard on the side of the highway imploring me not to be coerced by climate change liars.

It was by the 'Friends of Science.'

Friends of Science wouldnt lie to me right?

www.friendsofscience.org

LOL I saw one of these on Highfield road today

[troutman]

Everything Senator Ted Cruz said about climate change in this NPR interview was wrong.

Below is an annotated transcript of that interview with my [bracketed] responses to the consistently false scientific claims made by Senator Cruz. Effectively, every single scientific point he made was wrong – a classic “Gish Gallop” of long-debunked talking points of those who dispute the unambiguous scientific evidence of climate change. In these bracketed annotations I have provided a few hyperlinks to each of the myths he repeats.

http://scienceblogs.com/significantf...HRgOgg.twitter

The Latest Embarrassing GOP Attacks on Climate Change Science

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...s_further.html

[troutman]

Arnold on Climate Change:

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/11/arno...e_change_plea/

And I found this very interesting:

Renewable energy is great for the economy, and you don’t have to take my word for it. California has some of the most revolutionary environmental laws in the United States, we get 40% of our power from renewables, and we are 40% more energy efficient than the rest of the country. We were an early-adopter of a clean energy future.

Our economy has not suffered. In fact, our economy in California is growing faster than the U.S. economy. We lead the nation in manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, entertainment, high tech, biotech, and, of course, green tech.

California’s thriving clean energy economy

https://www.edf.org/climate/californ...energy-economy

[Weitz]

But don't mention the disaster that is the California Oil Fields!

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by troutman

Renewable energy is great for the economy, and you don’t have to take my word for it. California has some of the most revolutionary environmental laws in the United States, we get 40% of our power from renewables, and we are 40% more energy efficient than the rest of the country.

I'm not sure how he gets 40%; in 2014 it's only ~26% of electricity:

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electric...tem_power.html

[Senator Clay Davis]

Draft of the final agreement

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...raft.html?_r=0

[blueski]

Non--binding. Total waste of tax payer money. Huge amount of carbon to fly them all over there. But nice photo ops and sweet boondoggle for the politicians.

[rubecube]

Wow that's ridiculous.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Wow that's ridiculous.

According to article 21 it wont even go into force until 30 days after at least 55 parties accounting for at least 55 percent of emissions sign. The only teeth are for the tiny developing nations that would receive financial support, so the United States, China, and India, among others, will see no real complications from just signing and doing whatever they want.

There's no mandatory national goals, no incentives or penalties. It "notes" in article 17 that they're not going to actually reach the global goal of the agreement. It's a pot luck lunch agreement, each country sets their own goals and how they want to reach them and the only harm if they don't set very ambitious goals or fail to reach them is a bit of political egg on their face fifty years from now. The environmentalists of course tout this as a massive victory, but it's really just taking existing national initiatives and calling it a global effort.

The parliaments of some of these countries will refuse to ratify it once the lobbyists have done their work, the list of such countries being led by the USA. The rest like China and Russia will simply falsify their emission data.

[dino7c]

lol what a joke

[CaptainCrunch]

This has been the problem with all of these meetings. They come up with great photo ops and they talk about agreements as if they mean everything. But they're non binding.

You're never going to get nations like India or China or the States to sign off on anything that's going to harm their economy or their economic growth.

At this point because they need to be seen as doing something grand they put out these un-achievable agreements then whine when nobody agree's to them.

At this point, the smart strategy is to ask for bite sized pieces that aren't as large and silly and then make it binding.

But yeah, this conference was another massive waste of time and money, and sent 300 Canadian delegates on a nice European vacation. Its another event that had a massive carbon footprint.

[Fuzz]

Maybe they should start tying smaller agreements to trade deals. You want access to our markets? Cut your pollution. They seam to be able to make trade deals binding.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Maybe they should start tying smaller agreements to trade deals. You want access to our markets? Cut your pollution. They seam to be able to make trade deals binding.

That will never happen, China would never allow it.

Nor would America.

[MelBridgeman]

Congrats JT

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-c...sday-1.3356882

Canada is once again in the climate bad books, winning a so-called "Fossil of the Day Award" at the climate talks in Paris, a prize long associated instead with the days of the previous Conservative government.

#realchange

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Congrats JT

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-c...sday-1.3356882


#realchange

Good? I don't care about the stupid fossil award, but good for not pinning Canada to that trap. Proving any sort of climate change negative affects would be a legal quagmire and a financial money hole.

Your beach eroding away and water flooding your town? Time to get compensation! Except maybe it's because you removed a sand bar protecting your town. But hey, lets go after Canada! To hot? Maybe Canada should pay for air conditioning resorts in the desert. It's in the treaty!

Loss and damage is a horrible idea. We have to all learn to adapt, every country is going to have issues.

[CaptainCrunch]

I was reading again, and wish that I would have kept the link, that the Liberals went to this conference with Harpers reduction numbers that go to 2030, I think, going off of memory.

So either Harper was a staunch environmentalist, or a realist in terms of reduction targets, and the Liberals agreed with that.

When you look at that, the 300 delegates being sent over and Trudeau's boost that Canada's back yet continuing the same old thing, he came across to me as a little foolish.

Even the results of this conference were the same old, with a agreement that has no way of binding.