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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth EU United States News Science Technology

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Earth Day: 175 Nations Sign Historic Paris Climate Deal

Comments Filter:
  • 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?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • 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)

    by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Friday April 22, 2016 @06:04PM (#51968343)
    You know, if signing non-binding treaties had any effect on the climate, we could have set the global thermostat to anything we wanted by now.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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

      • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Environmentalists truly believed and predicted that the planet was doomed during the first Earth Day in 1970, unless drastic actions were taken to save it. Humanity never quite got around to that drastic action, but environmentalists still recall the first Earth Day fondly and hold many of the predictions in high regard.

    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)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday April 22, 2016 @06:31PM (#51968501) Journal

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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

        • The only thing that I see called global warming is the actual warming of the earth globally. No one calls the changes in local weather global warming. These are the effects of global warming, which we call climate change.
        • If only global warming would make this endless procession of straw men dry up and blow away..

        • 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)

        One of those scientists you tell me to listen to is Paul Ehrlich. He has made many predictions of doom which have failed to come true. Yet he is still given credence when he makes another prediction of doom, because "scientist".
      • 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.

    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
  • has finally begun!
  • by dwheeler ( 321049 ) on Friday April 22, 2016 @06:36PM (#51968527) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • 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.

  • Hopefully, CONgress will nix this one again.
    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
    • 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.

      • Considering that co2 is tied to business and gov decisions, why is co2/$gdp a bad metric? Ppl do not do the bulk of the choices.
        • 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.

  • http://twitchy.com/2016/04/21/... [twitchy.com]

    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.

  • And they put tons and tons of CO2 in the air to get to their Paris junket!

    Hypocrites.

    Ferret
  • Ppl that really want to see CO2 drop.
    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
    • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )
      While that's great for some of us, why would China agree to a metric that's so stacked against them? Why would any third world country agree to it? You're not going to convince other countries to follow suit on an import tax, especially not countries that export heavily to China (that would be Japan, South Korea, Australia and Brazil). China is the #3 export partner for both the EU and the US too. So you'll have a hard time convincing Congress to do anything about it, let alone other countries. They are jus
  • 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

panic: kernel trap (ignored)

Working...