The latest United Nations (UN) analysis of the climate pledges of world governments reveals the commitments are not enough to avert "climate catastrophe," green groups warned on Friday.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I wish the phrase, "It's a step in the right direction" would just disappear. It is not a step in the right direction if it gives anyone false hope or the impression that something of any significance is being done. If such is the case, it is ultimately a step in the wrong direction.
There still seem to be more questions than answers. Is 2C too high a target and if so should the target be lowered to 1,5C? Who is going to pay? Is a global price on carbon essential? Can these pledges be renegotiated in the future? Can the targets of these pledges really be met? What happens if a country fails to meet its pledge?
Why to people always bring up "who's going to pay... or How much will it cost.."... There is a way to stop emissions... to reduce... even while we build renewables, if we have to build them.... We just have to get rid CAPITALISM... get rid of frivolous activity...Ya know, it's not that I do not want people to have fun... Heck.. .we can have fun in our own back yards... but we do not have to do that in mass scale situations... doing things Mass scale is part of the problem... like WAR... ALONG WITH THE REST OF THINGS I HAVE MENTIONED ...
Given the changes that a 0.8 deg C rise in global temperature has initiated, how in the name of sanity is a rise of 2 deg C safe?
It's not. The number was chosen pretty arbitrarily.
Put your thinking cap on and start to think about other ways to deal with this. Maybe one of us will come up with a magical solution to the problem.
Otherwise, reality is going to be a hell of a thing.
I rather think that Hell has become the reality of the thing.
In Dante's Inferno, the lowest circle of Hell is ice.
In our 'real' inferno, there's not going to be much ice left.
- Climate Change Challenges
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Polution Includes:
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2), 82%
- Methane (CH4), 9%
- Nitrous Oxide (N2O), 6%
- Flouronidated Gases, 3%
In the run-up to United Nations Climate Change Conference that opens in Paris on November 30, yearly worldwide release of Carbon dioxide (CO2) will be around 32 billion metric tons. At the rate we’re going, the world’s air is set to rise 4 degrees Celsius before the century’s over, twofold what researchers say is a “acceptable” level of warming. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gives preservationist benchmarks concerning what is required to balance out the normal worldwide temperature at its present level of around 60.3 degrees Fahrenheit, which is 3.6 degrees (2 degrees Celsius) over the pre-modern normal of 56.7 degrees. As indicated by the IPCC, worldwide CO2 outflows need to fall by around 40 percent underneath current levels inside of 20 years, to around 20 billion tons, and 80 percent by 2050, to seven billion tons. So, what to do now?
Implement low-carbon energy base that promotes conservation, conversion into renewal energy sources and fusion technology, providing a fair transition from fossil fuels and a “global treaty” to block the export of fossil fuels. How to do what?
(a) Implement the climate protection bill by Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Bernie Sanders that includes a carbon tax on the nearly 3000 of the largest fossil fuel polluters, covering about 85 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
In his bill, Sanders cautioned that the main researchers who study environmental changes now let us know that their projections in the past weren’t right. That, actually, the emergency confronting our planet is significantly more genuine than they had already believed.They now let us know that on the off chance that we proceed with our cheerful way, where 12 out of the most recent 15 years were the hottest on record, and make no definitive move in changing our vitality framework and cutting green-house gasses, this planet could be 8 degrees Fahrenheit or more hotter than is right now the case.
(b) Implement the modest Obama’s Clean Power Plan that pushed for 32 percent diminishes in carbon dioxide surges from power plants by 2030 with the base year of 2005, and requiring a 28 percent of a power plant’s yield to be generated from renewable sources.
In comparison, California’s ambitious Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) right now requires utilities to supply 33 percent of their power generation from renewable sources, for example, sun, wind, and geothermal force, by 2020. The new bill, The Clean Energy and Reduction Act, that goes more further than that would expand that objective to 50 percent by 2030. It would likewise require a 50 percent expansion in energy efficiency in structures by that year. The state means to lessen the state’s green house gas emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 — a major stride to the larger 2050 objective of decreasing carbon dioxide by 80 percent under 1990 levels.
(c) End tax breaks and subsidies for big oil, gas and coal companies. Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act to stop taxpayer-funded $135 billion giveaways to oil, gas and coal companies.
(d) Eliminate and inevitably boycott Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) gasses which are intense greenhouse gasses used as a part of fridges and ventilation systems and are discharged essentially amid repairing of or toward the end of the life-span of these items. The outcomes are the collection of substances in these applications which shapes a formerly unrecognized extra hazard for environmental change. These substances are utilized as a part of the spot of the ozone-layer-exhausting substances (CFCs en HCFCs) that were once in the past utilized and banned as a part of 1987. HFCs that supplanted CFCs, conversely, don’t influence the ozone layer however add to the greenhouse impact. In October 16, 2015, Obama organization has announced new efforts to diminish the use of hydrofluorocarbons as a piece of worldwide treaty to confine their uses.
Republicans, famously, are to a great extent deniers of environmental changes, hating green energies of any kind. What explains their resistance to climate science? As indicated by new research distributed in Nature Climate Change, there’s no less than one factually demonstrated motivation behind why more than 56 percent of Congressional Republicans deny environmental change: echo chamber, which refers to circumstances where individuals surround themselves with data they want to listen to, and shut out the rest. We’ve known for some time that these present themselves in climate issues; A 2014 report postulated that the reason Americans haven’t completely accepted the scientific consensus on environmental changes is a result of echo chamber like Fox News, where traditionalist viewers are “exposed only to content consistent with their opinions, while shielded from dissenting views.”
Yet a June 2014 ABC/Washington Post survey reports that 70 percent of Americans believe that the central government ought to require states to limit the measure of carbon dioxide gasses created inside of their borders. A 2015 Stanford University poll also found an overwhelming majority of the American public, including half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming.
It’s true that a Paris agreement probably will fall short, on its own, of the international community’s stated goal of halting warming at 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), which is regarded as the benchmark for dangerous, unmanageable climate change. Although many people consider it unrealistic to meeting the 2 degrees goal, these talks, which aptly, if ominously, have been called “our last hope” for climate action, must be met with bold optimism.
There's that ancient (Zen I think) homily "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Technically true, but taking that first step does not appreciably shorten the distance still ahead, or guarantee you'll be able to get there once you take that starting step.
It's past time we asked a more basic question: why aren't the UN and other international processes able to deliver?
I am not talking about the economic stranglehold the 1% have over policy and politics. That's now a "known" factor.
I'm not talking about the well funded misinformation campaigns being waged with petro-chemical funding.
I'm not talking about massive induced ignorance which has rotted America's ability to clearly think, and
I'm not talking about if we have or don't have enough technology to fix the climate system we've disrupted.
It looks to me like we need to refine our own understanding of human behavioral drivers...and fast. Because what is at stake is understood, yet the motivation to survive hasn't truly awakened in the hearts of so-called leaders (let's call them system manipulators).
Greed seems to be the motivating factor at the top of our economic food chain. But greed is based in fear at the most fundamental personal level; fear of not having enough, fear of not having control over one's situation. At a time when fear itself is ramping up across the planet, how can we have sane conversations and sane policies for sane actions...if fundamental inner fears are resonating from the increased intensity of global insecurity? In a system, everything is affected by everything else.
What's the way forward and out? I don't have answers, but by changing the way we collectively frame the questions, I do think that together we can find ways to dissipate the blockages. Perhaps if we can see this as a disease, a pathology, we'll see more clearly how to heal our systems. In the meantime, if those currently tasked with crafting policies and cooperation aren't delivering, then the response from the public needs to be swift and clear. Ge the job done, or get out. Now.
I don't think saying get rid of capitalism helps much. I take it as a given that capitalism will be with us for at least several more decades. I think it is more useful to think of solutions that can occur with capitalism.