I'm sure that world leaders know full well that this is all for show. Global Warming is a done deal because nothing substantive will be done to drastically reduce our appetite for fossil fuels. The big corporations and the banksters, the real powers that be, would never let that happen. They cynically know that we are headed for a climate catastrophe unprecedented in human history and figure that they can survive it because they are mobile and not attached to any particular place on the the planet, unlike the the billions of people who live in the third world. The great culling of "useless eaters" has only begun.
While this agreement is clearly far short of what is needed, and if we want climate stabilization we need to get below 350 ppm CO2 which is not even an aspiration in this agreement, we are far better off then we were a year ago. Amazingly China has taken on a role as a leader in fighting climate change and even India appears to be getting on board. And if the US did not have a congress controlled by Republicans it would be possible for this country to do much more than it is. Countries are motivated to reduce emissions, for one reason, they know that if they don't the result will be catastrophic. So a legally binding agreement is really not necessary given the dire consequences of not acting. Although it is highly unlikely that the world will be able to stay under 2C keeping the temperature increase as low as possible will have benefits in the long run as 3C is better than 4C and so on.
The fact is that they didn't even want this much, non binding as it is. They did agree though that something needs be done. The innovators that made solar and wind power more viable as competition for fossil fuels are the real heroes. So maybe this all show but it does show one thing if nothing else... Climate denial will sound absurd and finally be relegated to fringe groups and cranks.
Cheap solar and wind is our solution. Fossil fuels cost money but the sun and wind are free. Very basic and still very true.
From Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein's newsletter today:
Today world leaders are gathering at the UN for an Earth Day signing of the Paris Climate Agreement, which the corporate media will surely hail as groundbreaking.
But the inconvenient truth is that the Paris agreement’s voluntary, unenforceable pledges are entirely insufficient to prevent runaway climate change. Scientific analysis shows that these pledges will lead us to 3 degrees Celsius global temperature rise - and that will be catastrophic.
What we really need is a WWII-scale mobilization to transition to a sustainable economy with 100% clean renewable energy by 2030.
That’s why I’m calling for a Green New Deal to create 20 million jobs by investing in renewables such as wind, solar, tidal and geothermal, as well as public transit, sustainable agriculture, conservation and energy efficiency.
Join my call for a Green New Deal for America today!
President Obama’s “all-of-the-above” energy scheme has turned out to be “drill baby drill” on steroids. Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s promotion of the hydrofracking industry is leading to a spreading cancer of polluted groundwater and fracked gas pipelines. And Obama’s expansion of offshore drilling and lifting of the ban on oil exports are pouring fuel on the fire of global warming.
The establishment candidates have plans for deals that will enrich Wall Street and fossil fuel giants. What they don’t have is a plan to protect our people and planet from the greatest crisis we’ve ever faced.
Plus increased efficiency and demand reduction. The second particularly for energy profligates.
It never ceases to amaze me how foolish people become when they have been brainwashed. Our air,water and food has been effectively weaponized and all we can do is sign useless agreements to control nature as if signing paper will lower the climate by 2 degrees, what hubris!
In a fossil fuel free world, energy profligates wouldn't be a problem though. Maybe we should think in terms other than how we think of energy produced by fossil fuels? Stick a solar roof on your outhouse and leave the light on all the time ...lol?
Seriously, if a person produced an excess of electricity from solar and wind and fossil fuels were no longer needed to make energy then why shouldn't that person waste energy providing it wasn't needed to keep from using fossil fuels? The sun will shine and if we as a society collectively produce more energy than we can use then ... You might as well leave the lights on if you want.
That is in the non fossil fuel future not now.
They have bunkers.
Code name ARCHIE BUNKER signals the elite to head for the bunkers when the masses realize that the TPP, TTIP and TISA nullify any previous agreements and corporations decide how much pollution is OK.
those so called leaders would be doing us a favor if they would just tell us all they do not care about the Earth or us but want to make money today and tomorrow any way they can right now- end they will make their money even if it means the world dies in the floods or droughts they are planning for us.
Ah, but wind turbines and solar panels are not free. Fossil fuels do not inherently cost money as they're just 'there' like the sun and wind, but it is their extraction and/or harnessing of their energy that costs money... just like the sun and the wind.
That's a statement I can enthusiastically concur with. Additionally, and just a general question not specifically on topic or to yourself... are all meetings of heads of state and their ilk not "Global Elite's Theatre?" Geesh.
This is dorm room debate level stuff but nevertheless... Fossil fuels are only fuels after extraction which costs money. The apparatus and cost of that extraction being factored in and the source ...the fossil fuel ...being a commodity.
The sun and wind are ready as is to be used as energy. The cost of the apparatus to turn them into electricity being the only expense. There is no additional extraction expense, refining nor distribution costs nor depletion allowances (nor necessarily even a profit motive at least with home solar and wind). Thus before you can use the fossil fuels they must be rendered accessible and that costs money. Solar and wind are free and both readily accessible to anyone and cannot be depleted. No fake peak oil scare to jack up prices.
Hey now, I never said fossil fuels were more efficient... I was just saying, and I now see what you meant. As to 'fake peak oil,' it is a finite resource and therefore there is nothing fake about it. It may not be unfolding as scarily as they'd lead us to believe (and this being largely due to the advent of fracking and increasing complicated drilling techniques), but the concept itself is pretty hard to dismiss. Those innovations may have been enough to buy us the time to make the switch off fossil fuels for energy, but the problem of everything else oil is used for remains (plastics and synthetics).
When's the nanotechnology going to come along and save us? The clock is ticking..
True. And why don't we hear more about tidal? It's not everywhere but it's within reach of most and is far more regular/reliable than wind or sun.
Britain is set to build a very large chain of tidal turbines in the North Sea. Riverine turbines are under construction and being teased. A proposed tidal generator set up in the Juan de Fuca strait is under review. The delay is still in operation and yet once governments are finally positive that further delay will cook our asses to well done charbroiled, you'll see a surprisingly swift turnaround as numerous projects get the go ahead.
Bernie would set them in motion but Hillary will play that incremental (stalling) game as long as possible. Nevertheless the plans are there for everything from flood dikes to tidal turbines and vast off shore wind farms. I think she invented or introduced the term incremental specifically to associate the concept with climate change remediation.
An indian company Adani, has just been given the approval to open Australia's largest open-cut coal mine which will be situated in the State of Queensland and the coal will be shipped out via a harbour the development of which has been alleged to risk damaging the Great Barrier Reef.
China is concerned to cut back on its industrial pollution, which fouls the atmosphere to the point of endangering health not only in China but also in northern and northwestern Vietnam, but as for CO2? I read a while ago that the Chinese government intends to get umpteen millions of cars on the roads in the next 10 years.
Chna and India leading the way in dealing with Anthropogenic Global Heating? Ho Ho Ho.
To render solar, wind and tidal accessible one has to build infrastructure and equipment and that involves mining, among other things. There is no free lunch in this universe.
Race in France using only electric cars 200 mph racing cars. There is hope! The fossil fuel industry stalls and delays so innovation and change is postponed.
Good bye reef when it was no longer necessary for that to happen is our generation's sin. We had the ability and could have saved so much yet voluntarily chose not to. That will be how history will remember us.
The selfish apes.
You often reference food as if you were always thinking about food. I know why and it isn't because you are hungry!
Well assuming we want civilization to continue and for humanity to survive and Britsherites to import other people's cooking, then building infrastructure will provide employment and give people something else to do other than to just run around killing each other for fun and profit.
Happy birthday mum,
From those damn colonials!