[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: Chasing a Climate Deal in Paris LE BOURGET, France — It still needs to pass by consensus, and given the tortured history of United Nations climate negotiations, that is not a sure thing. But the 31-page document released by the French government on Saturday afternoon could be a turning point in the struggle to contain global warming, according to several experts who have been scrutinizing the small but momentous changes to the document’s wording. Here are some highlights of the latest version. • To achieve that goal, countries should “reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter.” Advocates say this wording sends a clear message to the fossil-fuel industry that much of the world’s remaining reserves of coal, oil and gas must stay in the ground and cannot be burned. But the agreement does not call, as a previous version did, for “reaching greenhouse gas emissions neutrality in the second half of the century,” a provision that oil producers fiercely resisted. •The agreement acknowledges “the importance of averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change.” This was deemed crucial by poor and small-island countries that suffer the most from extreme weather and from long-term impacts like droughts. However, this provision “does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation,” a point that wealthy nations, which did not want to be held financially liable for climate change, insisted on. •The agreement asks all countries to update their national targets for reducing emissions by 2020 and every 5 years thereafter, a time frame that the United States and the European Union urged. India had initially sought a 10-year review cycle. •The agreement, which takes effect in 2020, calls on nations to establish “a new collective quantified goal” of at least $100 billion a year in climate-related financing by 2020. It avoids a specific number, and even the $100 billion-a-year aspiration is mentioned in the “decision” part of the document, not the “action” section, to avoid triggering a review by the United States Senate. But it makes clear that the $100 billion — promised in 2009 in Copenhagen — is the bare minimum going forward. •The agreement sets up something called a “Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency” to help developing countries meet a new requirement that they regularly provide a national “inventory report” of human-caused emissions, by source, and track their progress in meeting their national goals. •The deal requires a global “stocktake” — an overall assessment of how things are going — starting in 2023, every five years. •When countries update their commitments, they will commit to the “highest possible ambition,” but the agreement does not set a numeric target. It acknowledges “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.” This language is essential to a country like India, which believes it will need some time before it can reach peak emissions, given the need to provide 300 million people with electricity. The agreement calls on rich countries to engage in “absolute” reductions in emissions, while calling on developing ones to “continue enhancing their mitigation efforts.” Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: buckeroo (#0)
(Edited)
So a committment has been made but what does it mean? There is a broad band between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees just as there is a broad band between where we are now and 1.5 degrees and if small nations are sinking now even 1.5 degrees won't save them. Now is the time when they have to get a real system of measuring the change so that the data isn't fudged and we are not chasing illusionary numbers and computer models. What amazes me is there isn't greater emphasis on distrubuted energy production which solves the issue of the use of coal
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|