Paris agreement on climate change.

Clint r

Well-Known Member
Copied from Castanets news service:

World Bank President Jim Yong Kim speaks at the Turning the Paris Climate Agreement into Action panel discussion.
The Canadian Press - Apr 22 7:02 am
More than 170 countries are lining up to sign the Paris Agreement on climate change Friday as the landmark deal takes a key step toward entering into force years ahead of schedule.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry joins dozens of world leaders for a signing ceremony that is expected to set a record for international diplomacy: Never have so many countries signed an agreement on the first available day. States that don't sign Friday have a year to do so.

"The era of consumption without consequences is over," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the gathering.

Many now expect the climate agreement to enter into force long before the original deadline of 2020. Some say it could happen this year.

After signing, countries must formally approve the Paris Agreement through their domestic procedures. The United Nations says 15 countries, several of them small island states under threat from rising seas, are set to do that Friday by depositing their instruments of ratification.

The agreement will enter into force once 55 countries representing at least 55 per cent of global emissions have formally joined it. The United States and China, which together account for nearly 40 per cent of global emissions, have said they intend to join this year.

Maros Sefcovic, the energy chief for another top emitter, the 28-nation European Union, told reporters Thursday that the EU wants to be in the "first wave: of ratifying countries.

French President Francois Hollande said Friday he will ask parliament to ratify the Paris Agreement on climate change by this summer. France's environment minister is in charge of global climate negotiations.

"There is no turning back now," Hollande told the gathering.

Countries that had not yet indicated they would sign the agreement Friday include some of the world's largest oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Nigeria and Kazakhstan, the World Resources Institute said Thursday.

The Paris Agreement, the world's response to hotter temperatures, rising seas and other impacts of climate change, was reached in December as a major breakthrough in UN climate negotiations, which for years were slowed by disputes between rich and poor countries over who should do what.

Under the agreement, countries set their own targets for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The targets are not legally binding, but countries must update them every five years.

Already, states face pressure to do more. Scientific analyses show the initial set of targets that countries pledged before Paris don't match the agreement's long-term goal to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), compared with pre-industrial times. Global average temperatures have already climbed by almost 1 degree C. Last year was the hottest on record.

The latest analysis by the Climate Interactive research group shows the Paris pledges put the world on track for 3.5 degrees C of warming. A separate analysis by Climate Action Tracker, a European group, projected warming of 2.7 degrees C.

Either way, scientists say the consequences could be catastrophic in some places, wiping out crops, flooding coastal areas and melting Arctic sea ice.

The United States is a key concern for the Paris Agreement as other countries worry what the next president might do. Analysts say that if the agreement enters into force before President Barack Obama leaves office in January, it would be more complicated for his successor to withdraw from the deal, because it would take four years to do so under the agreement's rules.

"Walking away from the agreement would instantly turn the U.S. from a leader to a defector" with serious diplomatic consequences, Elliot Diringer of the U.S.-based Center for Climate and Energy Solutions think-tank told reporters Thursday.

The Obama administration is expected to treat the deal as an executive agreement, which needs only the president's approval.

As the Paris Agreement moves forward, there is some good news. Global energy emissions, the biggest source of man-made greenhouse gases, were flat last year even though the global economy grew, according to the International Energy Agency.

Still, fossil fuels are used much more widely than renewable sources like wind and solar power.
 
From the article.
Countries set their own targets, none of which are legally binding. So far this seems like a lot of sizzle and no steak. Hope I'm wrong.
 
True, my point being is it a start? Set your own targets and there are no repercussions for not meeting them? How did Kyoto work out?
 
"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry joins dozens of world leaders"

That's funny, the last time I checked, John Kerry was not a "world leader". Strange that he is attending and is somehow relevant to this...
 
From predicting the end of civilization to classic worries about peak oil, here are seven environmentalist predictions that were just flat out wrong.

1: “Civilization Will End Within 15 Or 30 Years”

Harvard biologist Dr. George Wald warned shortly before the first Earth Day in 1970 that civilization would soon end “unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Three years before his projection, Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.

Wald was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War and the nuclear arms race. He even flew to Moscow at one point to advise the leader of the Soviet Union on environmental policy.

Despite his assistance to a communist government, civilization still exists. The percentage of Americans who are concerned about environmental threats has fallen as civilization failed to end by environmental catastrophe.

2: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving To Death During The Next Ten Years”

Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich declared in April 1970 that mass starvation was imminent. His dire predictions failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The world’s Gross Domestic Product per person has immeasurably grown despite increases in population.

Ehrlich is largely responsible for this view, having co-published “The Population Bomb” with The Sierra Club in 1968. The book made a number of claims including that millions of humans would starve to death in the 1970s and 1980s, mass famines would sweep England leading to the country’s demise, and that ecological destruction would devastate the planet causing the collapse of civilization.

3: “Population Will Inevitably And Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases In Food Supplies We Make”

Paul Ehrlich also made the above claim in 1970, shortly before an agricultural revolution that caused the world’s food supply to rapidly increase.

Ehrlich has consistently failed to revise his predictions when confronted with the fact that they did not occur, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.”

4: “Demographers Agree Almost Unanimously … Thirty Years From Now, The Entire World … Will Be In Famine”

Environmentalists in 1970 truly believed in a scientific consensus predicting global famine due to population growth in the developing world, especially in India.

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions,” Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, said in a 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.”By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

India, where the famines were supposed to begin, recently became one of the world’s largest exporters of agricultural products and food supply per person in the country has drastically increased in recent years. In fact, the number of people in every country listed by Gunter has risen dramatically since 1970.

5: “In A Decade, Urban Dwellers Will Have To Wear Gas Masks To Survive Air Pollution”

Life magazine stated in January 1970 that scientist had “solid experimental and theoretical evidence” to believe that “in a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one half.”

Despite the prediction, air quality has been improving worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Air pollution has also sharply declined in industrialized countries. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas environmentalists are worried about today, is odorless, invisible and harmless to humans in normal amounts.

6: “Childbearing [Will Be] A Punishable Crime Against Society, Unless The Parents Hold A Government License”

David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club made the above claim and went on to say that “[a]ll potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” Brower was also essential in founding Friends of the Earth and the League Of Conservation Voters and much of the modern environmental movement.

Brower believed that most environmental problems were ultimately attributable to new technology that allowed humans to pass natural limits on population size. He famously stated before his death in 2000 that “all technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent” and repeatedly advocated for mandatory birth control.

Today, the only major government to ever get close to his vision has been China, which ended its one-child policy last October.

7: “By The Year 2000 … There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil”

On Earth Day in 1970 ecologist Kenneth Watt famously predicted that the world would run out of oil saying, “You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Numerous academics like Watt predicted that American oil production peaked in 1970 and would gradually decline, likely causing a global economic meltdown. However, the successful application of massive hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, caused American oil production to come roaring back and there is currently too much oil on the market.
American oil and natural gas reserves are at their highest levels since 1972 and American oil production in 2014 was 80 percent higher than in 2008 thanks to fracking.

Furthermore, the U.S. now controls the world’s largest untapped oil reserve, the Green River Formation in Colorado. This formation alone contains up to 3 trillion barrels of untapped oil shale, half of which may be recoverable. That’s five and a half times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. This single geologic formation could contain more oil than the rest of the world’s proven reserves combined.
 
I have a couple of perditions too.....
Climate change deniers will have an argument that ......
1 - The scientist of the world and the science institutions that represents them are completely incompetent.
2 - If there not incompetent then they must be in cahoots with the UN to form a One World Government with Al Gore as there leader. For the express reason to destroy democracy and capitalism.

But what if the scientist just know something that they don't? You would think that a rational person might want to find out what those scientist and the rest of know. In my experience you can boil down most of the climate change denial nonsense down to those two arguments.

I would rather not call them climate change deniers but I'm at a loss to come up with a better description. If anyone knows of a better description I would like to here it.
 
Last edited:
I'm not with or against the issue, I have traveled many countries and compared to others we seam really good. I do have a question;

Why has the planet experienced ice ages and ice reseeding events over the globe many times (100s) for hundreds of thousands of years long before man was here???? Who, what caused them?

Wish a smart scientist would explain that instead of making me somehow pay the government a new tax to slow or stop it from happening faster again. Who believes the government will use the new revenue for "greenhouse cooling"? For those that have been to the 3rd world countries do you really think they will or can change? Who will start? Who will sell their old diesel or tow vehicle, buy a smart car and only use our boats 1 day per month? We must stop the warming somehow. I do hope those that vote and believe set the example. Maybe some really good upcoming boat deals to watch for? I am glad that 170 countries agreed to sign a document that has no clear directions and no legal ramifications. Not to be negative but to me it sounds like groundhog day? And yes I am hali fishing next weekend for the derby. Probably with hundreds of other global warming outboards.

HM
 
It is possible to believe that Climate changes, but not because of humans. I find it very hard to believe that humans can control the climate. I am against pollution and waste. I am also against unnecessary taxes. It would be easier to believe these stories about humans controlling climate if the people signing thes agreements just reduced their own carbon footprint a little bit. They never do. They want everyone else to.
 
The study of the earths climate history is called paleoclimatology. To explain why there are ice ages you first need to understand the earths orbit, tilt and wobble over time. This is called the Milankovitch Cycles, here is a video that helps to explain that.

Here is a video from a Richard Alley that pulls everything together.
 
Back
Top