Earth Day: 175 Nations Sign Historic Paris Climate Deal (usatoday.com) 138
An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: World leaders from 175 countries signed the historic Paris climate accord Friday, using Earth Day as a backdrop for the ceremonial inking of a long-fought deal that aims to slow the rise of harmful greenhouse gases. The deal sets a target of limiting global warming by 2100 to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F), as compared to pre-industrial levels. To accomplish that, each nation sets its own target for reducing emissions and updates that mark each year. Friday's signing sets a record for the number of countries signing an agreement on the first available day, the Associated Press reported. The old record goes back to the Law of the Sea in Montego Bay, which was signed by 119 countries in 1982, according to AccuWeather. Signing the accord is only one step in the process. The leaders must now go back to their home countries' governments to ratify and approve the agreement, which could take months or years. The deal goes into effect once 55 countries representing at least 55% of global emissions formally join.
Re: (Score:2)
But just look at how successful Volkswagen has been at lowering their emissions! Surely these signatures are working wonders!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that this Paris climate deal will not sit well with Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot.
No sir, they're not going to like it one little bit.
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
If the urban parts of the country would stop sending morons to Congress who oppose nuclear energy based upon pseudo-science we'll never be able to implement it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus fucking Christ what is this obsession with nuclear power. Yes, it's part of the solution, but nuclear power still requires nonrenewable resources in the form of radioactive elements to actually work.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
Nuclear is a hell of a lot closer to infinite than dino-juice, Australia alone has 1.1M tonnes of Uranium that is easily recoverable (under $80/kg). At 2.2GWh\kg for complete consumption that's almost as much all of the worlds known gas and oil reserves combined.
Re: (Score:2)
None of which we use for power. our only reactor is for creating medical isotopes or somesuch.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but you have to mine it, refine it, transport it and secure it. Then you have to build nuclear plants to a high standard, run them safely for decades and finally decommission them and somehow deal with the high level waste. Or, you install renewables which are cheaper at every stage and much lower risk.
Nuclear just isn't competitive any more. It doesn't matter how many times people point to the advantages, investors and governments just don't want to pay for it in most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you install renewables which are cheaper at every stage and much lower risk.
Solar isn't, but wind is about even with nuclear now, at least in the US...
But the real issue is that those costs don't include storage, which wind/solar will require, but nuclear will not...
Perhaps one day we'll have mass scale storage at cheap prices, but until that day, the choices are burn dead dinos or build nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
But the real issue is that those costs don't include storage, which wind/solar will require, but nuclear will not...
How do you suppose cars will work on nuclear energy without storage ?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you suppose cars will work on nuclear energy without storage ?
That has nothing to do with it...
The storage on cars is required regardless of power source, otherwise the cars run on gas.
The storage is needed for fixed locations such as homes and businesses.
Nuclear doesn't require this, it can run 24/7 without complaint, but wind and solar cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, nuclear requires a great deal of grid adjustment and accommodation, in fact, a plant can be shut down for weeks just because it doesn't have anywhere to dump its power.
Nuclear power simply runs resistors to turn that energy into heat if needed.
You can scale up and down the power output as needed by spinning large resistors.
Of course, that is wasteful, you could likely find a business that would be willing to take wildly swining power, such as a electrolysis plant.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest I understand the concern with uranium fusion. Its part of the weapon enrichment cycle and Chenobyl and Fukushima have left a bad taste in the mouth, even if Fukushima really wasnt as bad as made out , and chenobyl (which WAS a genuinely bad turn of events) had more to do with the failings of
Re: (Score:1)
You should not swear using the name of your savior.
Unless you are an Atheist.
If you are an Atheist, you should not swear using the names of deities of other peoples religions.
That is simply disrespectful.
Yes, I'm an Atheist. And I honour people who have in my eyes that "mental illness" that they need "believes in super natural beings".
Re: (Score:2)
Probably you are not aware that people have a brain region connected to religious 'feelings'.
I used 'feeling' for the lack of a better word in my mediocre english.
Many sins where committed in the name of religions. But bottom line the sins are commited by people.
I frankly don't care what people believe as long as the behave like human beings.
If there were not religions to be abused by 'leaders' they would find something different.
I hate the Christians for destroying cultures, like the Maya and actually the
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, cities have much lower resource needs per-person than either suburbs or rural areas. If you want to argue that there should be about 90% fewer people that's one thing, but to say it's the cities fault that we consume resource then you're simply wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
I think history would indicate quite the opposite. The rise of urban dwelling was largely because having centralized centers for commerce and administration were to key agricultural success.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
100% True. Plus you have to realize that all resources consumed by the city have to be transported in. I've looked at a few studies regarding city vs rural resource usage and pollution and they regularly misunderstand and/or misattribute resource usage.
If 90% of meat/grain/food consumption is in cities - where 90% of humans reside - then 90% of the production costs - including wastes and transportation/fuel - should be included on the 'city' side of the ledger, but it's often not.
Most city dwellers don't re
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Informative)
Urban per person CO2 emissions 7 metric tons vs rural 19 metric tons annually
Re: (Score:2)
Urban per person CO2 emissions 7 metric tons vs rural 19 metric tons annually
Okay, so you have direct production. How much of those 19 tonnes is produced in raising agricultural products consumed by urban residents versus rural residents? And is that net production, or is it gross production failing to account for the uptake of CO2 by growing crops? Single-value statistics are incredibly vague; points deducted for failing to show your work.
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, cities have much lower resource needs per-person than either suburbs or rural areas.
This is nonsense.
Re:Meaningless (Score:4, Informative)
Even if China did implement it, each country sets their own targets so China will likely do nothing anyway.
Also, to clarify, the US is only ~15% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. China is 30%.
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Informative)
Also to clarify, the US population is only 4.38% of the world population. China is 18.72%.
Re: (Score:3)
How long? (Score:2)
to ratify and approve the agreement, which could take months or years
More likely "never". You want seriously think 175 legislatures can agree to something?
Re: (Score:2)
The wealthy don't pay taxes. Ever. Taxes are for you and me. Any tax that's imposed anywhere on the food chain will be passed down to us.
The wealth will own the carbon exchanges and make money off every transaction. It's yet another way to suck the life out of an economy at your and my expense.
Re: (Score:2)
And thank God, here in America they don't have to.
Re: Please stop drinking the Koolaid (Score:2)
You know what we're all paying for, and have been since the industrial revolution started? Health costs. $180B every year in the US, just from coal power alone. The externalised costs of fossil fuels get paid by the weak and infirm, not just the poor.
Don't you think it's past time to finish the job, get off the 300 year dino juice addiction, and invest in cleaner power - solar, wind, wave, nuclear, whatever - so we can have our cake and eat it too, without getting poisoned in the process?
We "get off dino juice" when something's cheaper (Score:2)
Don't you think it's past time to finish the job, get off the 300 year dino juice addiction, and invest in cleaner power - solar, wind, wave, nuclear, whatever - so we can have our cake and eat it too, without getting poisoned in the process?
We "get off the dino juice" when doing something else has a better price/performance ratio.
Screwing around with the market to try to make that happen artificially just results in people finding ways around your screwing around.
Meanwhile: Ground-based solar is starting
Re: (Score:3)
If you think for one moment that the carbon tax paid by a company owned by someone in the 0.1% is going to be absorbed by the company, reducing the amount of money it makes for the owner, instead of being passed down to the end consumer in the form of higher prices, then you're sadly confused about the way that the 0.1% got there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Please stop drinking the Koolaid (Score:4, Insightful)
Jesus Christ. AGW is based on scientific observations, not on some elite trying to take over the world. From what I can tell, a large chunk of the elite actually have significant fossil fuel interests, and it is that elite that manipulates morons like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Brother, you might as well be arguing about Italian neo-realist films of the 1950s with my cat. You're never going to make any headway and it just annoys the cat.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I assure you I'm no troll. I'm just paying attention.
Now maybe you should put me in prison like Bill Nye says, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OBjkn7a-fA
Re: (Score:3)
You say that you are not a troll, but then you link to a troll video. It makes the bogus claim that Bill Nye wants to Clinton to become president so she can get the DOJ to start filing criminal charges and imprisoning global warming skeptics. He then refers to the interview [youtube.com] in which he did not mention Hillary Clinton, nor anything about her directing the DOJ to do anything. He did not mention skeptics, and was only talking about company executives who produce the anti-science FUD that they know is incorrect
Re: Please stop drinking the Koolaid (Score:3)
And you base all this on science, or what some guy with unclear motives has told you, or just your gut feeling?
Because the science is pretty clear on all this. The "hockey stick" paper is just one of thousands that are pointing to the same future.
Re: (Score:1)
Climate change is a lie designed to get you to pay carbon taxes while reversing the industrial revolution (for you).
Forget the 1%. The top 100 wealthiest families in the world are using crap like this to enslave you. They need to be shot.
Yeah... because that totally makes sense as an evil plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does this idea that returning to an agrarian society is necessary or even suggested by any mainstream body as the solution? Even Greenpeace's radical Energy Revolution [greenpeace.org] doesn't propose that, quite the opposite in fact. Cheap, clean energy for all without wars over resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is a lie designed to get you to pay carbon taxes while reversing the industrial revolution (for you).
1. Why would I be paying a carbon tax? Carbon taxes are paid by the entities that emit carbon dioxide
2. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? If CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, why is this not demonstrated experimentally?
3. What is causing the present climate change if not our greenhouse gas emissions? Cite the relevant paper.
Forget the 1%. The top 100 wealthiest families in the world are using crap like this to enslave you. They need to be shot.
Why would the top 100 families want a carbon tax? How are we enslaved if someone else pays a tax?
Re: (Score:2)
1. Why would I be paying a carbon tax? Carbon taxes are paid by the entities that emit carbon dioxide
Those entities don't emit carbon dioxite 'just becuz' they want to. The emissions are a byproduct of things they produce for you. You'll pay the tax indirectly no matter how you feel about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Those entities don't emit carbon dioxite 'just becuz' they want to. The emissions are a byproduct of things they produce for you. You'll pay the tax indirectly no matter how you feel about it.
- OR I can buy the product from someone who doesn't emit Carbon Dioxide and therefore doesn't pay the Carbon Tax.
Doesn't go far enough (Score:1)
Where I live, temperatures are *already* 10-15 degrees above average. Couple that with all of the earthquakes we've had the world over lately and it's easy to see we have an extremely serious problem on our hands that we need to deal with TODAY, not by year 2100.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change doesn't cause earthquakes.
I attended a lecture, sales pitch actually, by a guy at a college who said it did. This was back in the 80's when climate change meant the next ice age was nigh...anyway, as more ice accumulated at the poles, it would compress the Earth and crack along tectonic plates. He was selling blue green algae as a solution to this (somehow). I can only assume he succeeded beyond his wildest imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, why should I care anymore? Why? I've tried to inform people, I tried to reason with them, I tried to show them the relevant data. What I got in return was ridicule and rhetoric, idiots who neither understood nor cared what they spouted but were afraid that they would have to do without their beloved SUVs to drive down the 100 yards to their mailbox.
Fuck it. I don't care anymore. I won't live long enough to see relevant changes affecting me. As far as I am concerned, this planet and humanity can go
Progress! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not every country ignores them. A lot of European states will meet or exceed them. It's a business opportunity, aside from anything else.
Despite the lack of binding targets, the fact that these agreements exist and some major countries have proven they can be implemented without the predicted economic suicide (in fact there is an economic benefit) has contributed to making the two biggest polluters, China and the US, at least start to clean up. We can never know for sure but I don't think China would have s
Re: (Score:1)
It's a business opportunity, aside from anything else.
Rather, it's an opportunity for various forces to wield state powers of coercion and appear completely reasonable to their followers.
Suicide Pact (Score:1, Insightful)
So this Earth Day, The Daily Caller News Foundation takes a look at predictions made by environmentalists around the original Earth Day in 1970 to see how they’ve held up. [wattsupwiththat.com]
Have any of
Re:Suicide Pact (Score:4, Insightful)
So ignore the environmentalists. Look at what the scientists are saying. But of course, that's hard and gives you an answer you don't want, so better to construct a strawman for your small mind to knock down.
Re: Suicide Pact (Score:1, Insightful)
In science, when the observations don't match your predictions, you have to revise or replace your theory. Of course, global warming isn't science. It's fiction. People have caught on, so global warming is no longer about definite predictions. It's unusually warm in the winter? Global warming! It's unusually dry in the winter? Global warming! It's unusually cold in the winter? Global warming! It's unusually snowy in the winter? Global warming! I'm pretty sure that no matter what the weather does, it will be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Suicide Pact (Score:2)
If only global warming would make this endless procession of straw men dry up and blow away..
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, global warming isn't science. It's fiction. People have caught on, so global warming is no longer about definite predictions.
Here's a graph for you: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist... [nasa.gov] Look at the red line. It's global, and it's warming.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah surprising how stupid people are.
"According to climate experts, the next 'ice age' might come sooner than expected" ... how retarded.
It's a feel good scam.... (Score:2)
To quote RNZ,"New Zealand's target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 11 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 remains conditional on aspects of the Paris deal that have not yet been nailed down, namely that there are functioning and transparent carbon markets in place."
Add that to our the recent Morgan Foundation report [stuff.co.nz] labelling New Zealand a climate change cheat for dealing in dodgy Carbon Credits, the utter failure of our government to rein in our dairy industry and the widespread
The New World Order (Score:1)
Non-binding treaty? Wake me up later. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake me up later when something important happens. The fine article says: "The non-binding treaty, approved in Paris in December after years of U.N. climate negotiations, aims to slow the rise of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, blamed for putting Earth on a dangerous warming path." A "non-binding treaty" doesn't actually do anything, other than create photo opportunities.
What is the objective? (Score:2)
Do they want to "slow the rise of harmful greenhouse gases"? Or, do they want to limit "global warming by 2100 to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F), as compared to pre-industrial levels"?
I think the latter is more desirable, and the former is not the best way to achieve it. However, there is no scientific consensus that either are more desirable than any of a host of alternatives.
Nevertheless, it seems they have made their futile decision.
Just like Kyoto, this is a joke (Score:2)
What is needed is for America (if not every nation) to put a tax on all consumed goods based on where the worst part comes from (and with America, it should include our states). In doing this, it makes ALL nations bring their CO2 way down and keep it down.
The hard part is that it needs to be based on REAL NUMBERS, such as what OCO3 would give us, and a smart normalization, which would be CO2 per $ GDP.
If America, who is the world's largest importer, was to do
Re: (Score:2)
which would be CO2 per $ GDP.
That is an idiotic metric
If America, who is the world's largest importer, was to do this, it would force all nations to drop their emissions to being equal or better than nations like Sweden (who is one of the lowest emissions). In addition, it would force China to HONESTLY clean up.
No it would not, because of your idiotic metric China would be far down on the bottom of the list of CO2 producers.
Re: Just like Kyoto, this is a joke (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because you can produce as many CO2 as you want without touching GDP and vice versa.
Also GDPs from country to country are not as compareable as you think.
Youst double all prices and wages in germany and we have double dour GDP without any doibeling of anything, and had hakved our CO2/GDP ratio. Look at switzerland for example. The income you get there looks nice if you live outside of Switzerland. If you live there and pay their prices you consider yourself very poor.
Obama proves how serious he is about climate chang (Score:3)
First Lady Michelle Obama didn’t accompany her husband on the first leg of his trip, opting instead to fly separately.
We’re losing count of how many planes, helicopters and vehicles are involved, but it looks like somebody’s trying to make the carbon footprint too large to calculate so as to ward off any charges of eco-hypocrisy.
And tomorrow, Earth Day, we’ll all be lectured about climate change.
Silly Feel Good Moment (Score:2)
Hypocrites.
Ferret
Paris accord will not clean it up. (Score:2)
Please consider what is REALLY going on.
China's numbers are based on what China's gov tells you.
The west's numbers are based on real measurements.
Because of OCO2, china recently admitted that their coal burning was some 17% MORE, which is a HUGE amount.
BUT, according to OCO2, it remains lower than what it appears.
OCO3 is coming, along with a new sat from Japan. Both will measure in absolute values. China is scared to death of these sats. Why? Because they mea
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, while China IS America's 3 %, they are a SMALL %. Canada is around 20%, while China is 8%, which is not enough to care, esp. when China dumps 20% on us. [cia.gov]
And again, EU has nothing to do with America's taxation on ALL OF OUR GOODS. And the dems will very likely be in control next term. My guess is that th
It's too late (Score:2)
2C is already a done deal.
It'd pretty much take an overnight cessation of all fossil fuels to keep it at 2C and that's not going to happen.
Slashdotters might like to look up anoxic events and wonder if there will be enough of us left to consider global warming issues when sea levels start rising enough that people notice.
The _only_ way to get enough cheap energy to replace fossil fuels is nuclear energy. Wind and solar might just be able to match correct electrical demands but that''s less than half of tota
Re: (Score:3)
Big snowstorm here, too. About 6 inches so far and still going strong. Should be a great powder ski day tomorrow.
(However, I am not so stupid as to equate weather with climate.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How can I believe the scientists who claimed snowfall would be a thing of the past
Would you name a few, with citations?
Without co2. YOU DIE.
Without water you die, too. Can I immerse you in water for an hour or two?
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold
Snowfall in Britain (Score:2)
He and that article are talking about snowfall being rare in Britain. How dumb are you?
Re: How can you tell me there's global warming? (Score:2)
I wouldn't normally have bothered with a bullshit rant like that, but this bit of misinformation needs to die:
If you increase the co2 levels to 1000ppm, vegitation will double its growth rate
That's not even remotely true. Plant growth is limited by any number of factors including water, sunshine, a whole range of soil nutrients, pests, symbiotes, genetic factors etc. You can double the CO2 all you like, but if irrigation is an issue like a lot of the US and desert belt counties, you won't increase yield. Much of Europe is limited by sunshine, not CO2.
What you will get is more CO2. Even
Re: (Score:2)
you won't increase yield
Exactly. A field can only grow so much crop. The growth cycle is basically fixed, it takes X days from planting to harvest. The fruit is not ripe more early. Only the "over all" planet grows a bit bigger, that is all.
Higher CO2 levels are useful in a green house. For stuff like tomatoes and salad. Not for Apples or Grain in the "outside". Sure, Salad, Tomatoes, Cucumber, Aubergine etc. would profit from higher CO2 levels, but the amount is neglectible unless you are a farmer and want
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live? I know, I know, the only place that counts