There are more than 190 countries that believe climate change is real and requires aggressive steps to combat, and then there is America’s Republican Party.
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 12, 2015
FACT SHEET: U.S. Leadership and the Historic Paris Agreement to Combat Climate Change
Today, more than 190 countries came together to adopt the most ambitious climate change agreement in history. The Paris Agreement establishes a long term, durable global framework to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. For the first time, all countries commit to putting forward successive and ambitious, nationally determined climate targets and reporting on their progress towards them using a rigorous, standardized process of review.
The Agreement provides strong assurance to developing countries that they will be supported as they pursue clean and climate resilient growth. The deal builds on the unprecedented participation of 187 countries that submitted post-2020 climate action targets in advance of the meeting, and establishes a framework to ratchet up ambition by driving down global emissions in the decades to come.
This new global framework lays the foundation for countries to work together to put the world on a path to keeping global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius and sets an ambitious vision to go even farther than that. This Agreement sends a strong signal to the private sector that the global economy is moving towards clean energy, and that through innovation and ingenuity, we can achieve our climate objectives while creating new jobs, raising standards of living and lifting millions out of poverty.
The Paris Agreement is also the culmination of a broader effort by nations, businesses, cities, and citizens to reorient the global economy to a path of low-carbon growth – progress that will accelerate as a result of the Agreement’s provisions on mitigation ambition, transparency, and climate finance.
An Ambitious Agreement
The Paris Agreement sets forward an ambitious vision for tackling climate change globally. This includes:
· Strengthening long-term ambition: The Agreement sets a goal of keeping warming well below 2 degrees Celsius and for the first time agrees to pursue efforts to limit the increase in temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It also acknowledges that in order to meet that target, countries should aim to peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.
· Establishing a universal approach for all countries: The Agreement moves beyond dividing the world into outdated categories of developed and developing countries and instead directs all parties to prepare, communicate and maintain successive and ambitious nationally determined climate targets. This approach – where countries set non-binding targets for themselves – paved the way for 187 mitigation contributions this year and will form the basis for a long-term, durable system to ratchet down emissions.
· Locking in five year target cycles: Under the Agreement, all countries will communicate their climate targets every five years, starting in 2020. Targets must be submitted 9-12 months before they are finalized, creating time for other countries and civil society to seek clarity about the targets submitted.
· Ratcheting up ambition over time: Each target should reflect progress from the prior one, reflecting the highest possible ambition that each country can achieve. This durable, long term framework will drive greater climate ambition as technologies improve and circumstances change.
· Rigorous assessment of global climate action: To help inform further domestic and global efforts, the Agreement puts in place a mechanism to assess collective progress on global mitigation action using the best available science. This process will begin in 2018 and occur every five years to help inform countries’ future targets and strategies.
· Sending a market signal on innovation and technology: The mitigation components of the Agreement, combined with a broad push on innovation and technology, will help significantly scale up energy investments over the coming years – investments that will accelerate cost reductions for renewable energy and other low-carbon solutions. This set of actions will create a mutually reinforcing cycle in which enhanced mitigation increases investment and enhanced investment allows additional mitigation by driving down costs.
A Transparent and Accountable Agreement
The Paris Agreement establishes a robust transparency system to help make sure that all countries are living up to their commitments. This will send a market signal to the private sector and investors that countries are serious about meeting the targets they have set. These steps include:
· Putting in place an enhanced transparency system for all countries: A critical component of the Agreement, the transparency framework agreed to by parties ensures that all countries are on a level playing field with the United States with flexibility for those developing countries with less capacity.
· Requiring countries to report on greenhouse gas inventories: For the first time, the Agreement requires all countries to report on national inventories of emissions by source. This breakthrough will give unprecedented clarity to the public’s understanding of emissions and pollution in countries throughout the world.
· Requiring countries to report on mitigation progress: Also for the first time, countries are required to report on information necessary to track progress made in implementing and achieving the targets and strategies countries have put forward.
· Establishing a technical review process with agreed upon standards: To help ensure countries are meeting transparency requirements, countries are subject to a comprehensive technical expert review process that analyzes whether reporting is in line with the standards adopted. Countries will also engage in a multilateral review with their peers to share their experiences and lessons learned.
An Agreement for a Low-Carbon Future
Tackling climate change will require shifting global investment flows towards clean energy, forest protection, and climate-resilient infrastructure. Developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable, will need support from the global community as they pursue clean and resilient growth. The Paris Agreement makes real progress on this front by:
· Providing a strong, long-term market signal that the world is locking in a low-carbon future: The submission of ambitious national targets in five-year cycles gives investors and technology innovators a clear signal that the world will demand clean power plants, energy efficient factories and buildings, and low-carbon transportation not just in the short-term but in the decades to come. This will make it far easier to draw in the largest pools of capital that need long-term certainty in order to invest in clean technologies.
· Giving confidence that existing financial commitments will be met: Many developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, came to Paris seeking reassurance that a global climate deal is not just about the big emitters but also supports their transition to a low-carbon growth path. In this regard, we are already making strong progress towards meeting the existing goal to mobilize $100 billion from a wide variety of sources, including both public and private, by 2020. The Paris outcome provides further confidence that this goal will be met and that climate finance will continue to flow. For the first time, the Agreement recognizes the reality that countries like China are already joining the base of donor countries contributing to climate finance and encourages developing countries to contribute to climate finance, while reaffirming that the United States and other developed economies should continue to take the lead.
These components of the Agreement build on steps the United States took in Paris to demonstrate its commitment to mobilizing finance from public and private sources for both mitigation and adaptation activities in developing countries. These steps include:
· Launching Mission Innovation: On the first day of the conference, President Obama joined other world leaders to launch Mission Innovation, a landmark commitment to accelerate public and private global clean energy innovation, and dramatically expand the new technologies that will define a clean, affordable, and reliable global power mix. Twenty countries representing around 80% of global clean energy research and development (R&D) funding base committed to double their R&D investments over five years. In addition, a coalition of 28 global investors led by Bill Gates committed to support early-stage breakthrough energy technologies in countries that have joined Mission Innovation.
· Doubling U.S. grant-based public finance for adaptation by 2020: Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States will double its grant-based, public climate finance for adaptation by 2020. As of 2014, the United States invested more than $400 million per year of grant-based resources for climate adaptation in developing countries. These investments provide vulnerable countries with support – through both bilateral and multilateral channels – to reduce climate risks in key areas, including infrastructure, agriculture, health and water services.
An Agreement Complemented by Subnational, Private Sector and Citizen Action
Because the Agreement should serve as a floor for future ambitious climate action, complementary actions outside of the Agreement by sub-national governments, enterprising businesses, investors and entrepreneurs, and an enlightened global public are important complements to the Paris Agreement. As part of these global efforts, Americans have demonstrated their dedication to climate action through a wide variety of commitments.
· Compact of Mayors: 117 United States mayors have signed onto the Compact of Mayors pledge. The Compact establishes a common platform to capture the impact of cities’ collective actions through standardized measurement of emissions and climate risk, and consistent, public reporting of their efforts.
· Under-2 MOU: States including California, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New York have signed onto the Under-2 MOU. The MOU commits signatories to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80-95% below 1990 levels, share technology and scientific research, expand zero-emission vehicles, improve air quality by reducing short-lived climate pollutants and assess projected impacts of climate change on communities.
· American Business Act on Climate Pledge: 154 companies have signed the White House’s American Business Act on Climate Pledge. These companies have operations in all 50 states, employ nearly 11 million people, represent more than $4.2 trillion in annual revenue and have a combined market capitalization of over $7 trillion. As part of this initiative, each company expressed support for an ambitious Paris Agreement and announced significant pledges to reduce their emissions, increase low-carbon investments, deploy more clean energy and take other actions to build more sustainable businesses and tackle climate change.
· American Campuses Act on Climate Pledge: 311 colleges and universities representing over 4 million students have demonstrated their commitment to climate action by joining the American Campuses Act on Climate Pledge.
Could the GOP look any more isolated and ridiculous?
Could the GOP look any more isolated and ridiculous?
For those not suffering from a failure of imagination, the answer is yes. And even then they could be reasonably confident of getting 45% of the national vote.
The Gold Standard in Iowa Polling
Cruz 31
Trump 21
Carson 13
Rubio 10
From the story: “the anti-establishment congressional agitator has made a rapid ascent into the lead in the GOP presidential race here, with a 21 percentage-point leap that smashes records for upsurges in recent Iowa caucuses history.”
The DMR can find no other example of a candidate moving so fast in the last 5 Iowa Caucus Cycle
Cruz is a nut job of the first order, and climate denial change is really just the start. But a whopping 64% of the Iowa vote is split among people who are certifiable.
Have to say, though, Cruz’s time as Trump’s caddie is over.
But then if you understand GOP politics you knew he never was Trump’s caddie.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/12/12/big-shakeup-iow
a-poll-cruz-soars-lead/77199800/
It’s Iowa and the GOP caucus.
Iowas GOP caucus winners:
And the Dem winners
Carter
Mondale
Gephardt
Gore
Kerry
Obama
All but 1 won the nomination.
McCain did not seriously contest Iowa in ’08.
Cruz differs from Santorum and Huckabee in two important ways:
This morning NBC has Cruz down 5 nationally to Trump, 27-22.
Cruz is not Trump’s caddie.
Merely pointing out that in the Iowa GOP caucuses, it’s more important to capture the fundie vote than to have money. Romney dumped a ton of money there in ’08, but the fundie vote didn’t split. He spent less in ’12 but that vote ended up splitting between Santorum and Bachmann.
Cruz has had his daddy camped out in Iowa for a few years working the fundie sector. If not for the interference from Carson, he would have been polling better there much sooner. However, that IA fundie vote doesn’t travel well to NH. And in SC, Carson’s loss isn’t Cruz’ gain.
The Republicans wear “isolated and ridiculous” as a badge of honor. They can’t be shamed or embarrassed; that’s clear by now. No matter if every country in the world proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that global warming is real and manmade, they will not back down.
That’s why the whole battle for the leadership will never end. They will never concede on gun control, abortion, climate change, or taxes. Facts do not matter to them, period.
This is the party of “One man, with Jesus, is a majority”, after all…
Uh, about that, Davis…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/4/25/1086278/–Sometimes-Jesus-Is-Just-Plain-Wrong
The old ladies, without an exception, identified with the prodigal son’s brother, who they believed had been wronged by the father. The poor brother had done everything right, yet the other one, the bad one, got the party. How was that fair? Why wasn’t the good brother rewarded and the irresponsible one punished?
I pointed out to them that while the prodigal son had a brief time of debauchery, it was followed by a rather miserable life, during which he had to work as a swineherd — not a pleasant occupation for a Jew. “Yes,” a woman named Elaine replied, “but that was his own fault! He brought it on himself! Besides, the only reason he even came back was that he was broke and miserable. He probably wasn’t even really sorry.”
“So what would you have done if you were the father?” the pastor asked.
“I would have told him off, of course,” Elaine answered. “I would have said, ‘You made your bed, so now lie in it. Go right back to where you came from!'”
“But what if the father loved the son so much that he wanted to forgive him?” the pastor followed up.
“Well, but that’s not love; that’s enabling. Besides, the son did not DESERVE to be forgiven.”
“That’s exactly the point of the story,” I chimed in. “The son didn’t deserve forgiveness but received it anyway. According to Jesus, that’s how the Kingdom of Heaven works.”
“Well,” fumed Elaine, “sometimes Jesus is just plain wrong.”
The Prodigal Son is one of the more difficult parables. And has several messages. However, fundies seem to take the once one accepts JC as one’s lord and savior, all is forgiven and gets one to heaven in the hereafter as a primary tenet of Christianity.
Unfortunately, they appear to believe they will be forgiven for rejecting Jesus’s teachings. They’re correct only if the worst impulses of the Old Testament are allowed to obliterate the Living God.
But they claimed Jesus as their lord and savior, right? Heaven it is, then.
Their God is sanctimonious, selfish and small. This is why a separation between church and state is valuable to each. It’s been bad for the church to become solidly associated with this hate-filled agenda.
Child: Dad, how come there are no Jews, Christians or Muslims on Star Trek?
Father: Because it’s the future, son.
The GOP uses their tactics to get the attention of those that watch Fox Propaganda station and Rush. They know these are the people that will follow them as long as they keep their very short memories entertained over and over again. The GOP provides undeniable evidence that keeping one in abject fear kills the mind.
James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks ‘a fraud’
what a dick
A realist.
How is he wrong?
I won’t even dignify that question with an answer.
It’s perhaps the most assholish statement I’ve seen all year.
???? cynical, maybe, but assholish? You have a lot more faith in human nature than he and I and seabe.
It’s not cynical at all. It’s purely assholish.
It’s the equivalent of bitching at your child for getting an A-minus in quantum mechanics.
It’s like bitching about the public option times infinity.
I think Hansen may have earned the right to be an asshole here. He’s been sounding the alarm for decades now, and he knows as much about the issue as anyone alive, so he’s under no obligation to get his hopes up about this agreement.
Not that being an asshole about it is at all useful or constructive, because he’s not really advancing his cause that way. But there’s also the question of whether he’s right.
I can see both sides of this question. The agreement is fraudulent in that it does not fundamentally address the overwhelming peril that human life on earth is in right now. It’s like we’ve got a loaded gun to our head and the trigger has been pulled, and the agreement calls for voluntary efforts to sand down the rifling in the barrel so the bullet won’t go quite as fast.
On the other hand, our only hope is for nations to work together, and that requires extraordinary political coordination and a virtually unprecedented diplomatic process. In that regard, this agreement seems like a very real step towards global action. Is it 20 years too late? Maybe, but let’s keep in mind the fundamental truth that things can always get worse.
I read about this a few days ago here (http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/prominent-climate-scientist-offers-scathing-critique-of-obama
s-paris-plans/). The Guardian article whitewashes what this guy said. Here are some choice excerpts from the (better) Ars Technica article:
I can’t comment on his scientific analysis, but he’s an absolute moron when it comes to the politics. Anyone who believes, in 2015, that “conservatives” will “eventually be receptive to a tax-based approach” is, quite frankly, stupid or not paying attention. Sure, maybe in 2050, the Republicans will “accept” a tax-based approach; is that an acceptable “eventually” to Hansen? But it’s President Obama “who will have sold our children, and theirs, down the river”?
The Paris talks were explicitly constrained by the global understanding that the Republican-controlled US Congress would do NOTHING and actively fight the agreement, so any failure to achieve more has to be understood in those terms. That’s not Obama’s fault beyond not taking the 2010 mid-terms and local races seriously enough. In my opinion, the Guardian article gives a false impression of this guy by not mentioning the absurdly naive assumptions he makes in his paper. With one party completely denying that Global Climate Change is anything more than a vast conspiracy of tree-huggers and scientists hungry for that sweet, sweet grant money, no number of “fireside chats” are going to convince the right people of what needs to be done. This dumbass fails to understand that the FDR wasn’t convincing people we were at war, he was convincing them that we would win.
is just a different form of “both sides do it” and it’s not helpful. How is it reasonable to be “just as scathing” when Republicans are THE reason the agreement comes up short? If Obama had Republicans on board with simply the idea that a problem exists, the agreement would have been better. Period. So wasting breath complaining about the failure of Obama to do more is just being a stupid asshole. I don’t have a problem with pointing out that the agreement falls short, but I have a real problem with spreading the blame around when the blame really belongs in one place in this instance.
Please. If we took away Republicans from the equation and allowed Democrats free-reign to develop a climate policy, it would fall far short of doing anything meaningful. The equivalent to “background checks” for gun control.
I’m obviously not advocating we do nothing because that’s just nihilism, and getting something in place can then be ratcheted up, but at the same time what they’re proposing is spitting into the wind.
You can’t take “away Republicans from the equation”. Having the political party and its propaganda organs which will likely control Congress (at least the House) at least until 2022 and which controls the majority governorships and state legislatures 100% invested in the idea that Global Climate Change is a hoax has consequences.
You don’t trust Obama and Democrats on this; that’s fine. But the political climate is the overwhelming variable in this equation, and either Republicans need to be removed from power first or their position needs to change. I just don’t see how attacking Obama and the Democrats on this issue is constructive, especially when the agreement highlights what Booman posted about: it’s basically the world against the Republicans and thus opens up a new front in being able to attack Republicans on the issue. Education policy on the other hand…
It’s not that I don’t trust Democrats/Obama on this issue. I’m not saying there’s no differences in the parties, or that I wouldn’t support this agreement if I was in Congress, or anything like that. Obama/Democrats aren’t the issue either! It’s the entire world elite that’s the problem.
The point is you can blame the big bad Republicans all you want, but as long as neoliberalism, “growth”, et al. remain dominant themes of the underlying agreement, we might as well welcome that most extreme conditions predicted by climate scientists. Ways of life are going to need to be drastically changed. This is doing the hedging and trimming when we need things pulled from their roots.
Look at clif’s posts above.
Also keep in mind I’m far less forgiving on this one issue than any other. We don’t get a second shot at this. It’s not like health care where we can stick band-aids on it, or extend coverage just to get people some help before the structural issues are dealt with. At best this kicks the can down the road in order to slow the acceleration until the elites get serious. But every time new papers/science comes out, it always seems the problem isn’t just worse than predicted, it’s the worst end of the possible predictions.
Are you willing to trade nuclear for coal, oil, and gas?
Transferring to nothing but solar and wind is a giant step. Nuclear could be a buffer that then could “wither away”. But nothing will go away as long as it makes huge profits for the rich.
I support nuclear power, at minimum as a transition, which puts me in the minority on this forum. So yes, I’d trade oil/coal/gas for nuclear in a heartbeat.
I agree. I even think thorium reactors could be permanent. Radioactive waste is a problem, but we can solve it if we can get any from the mindset of just dumping it the cheapest way. But I don’t want us to close nukes and replace them with coal plants.
Remember, every famous scientist was in a minority at the beginning.
Why support nuclear as a “transition” when it produces twice as much CO2 as solar PV and six times as much as wind? And those estimates for nuclear may be conservative. 30% of those CO2 emissions are for construction of the facility and decommisioning of it. Plus we have yet to figure out what to do with the waste. So, even it were equal to solar PV CO2 emissions, it is still a fail as a “transition” energy source.
But you’re both correct. Merely viewing the situation from different perspectives: Republicans too strong v. Democrats too weak. A difference is that your perspective concedes that it’s hopeless because DEMs can’t change the PUBs. Seabe perspective questions how would this shake out if the DEMs chose to be strong. Overall, too many DEMs are ambivalent about CO2 emissions. Why a tiny step forward this time compared to the Copenhagen COP? A tragedy that a solid majority of DEM primary voters care too little about global climate change to look at that question.
Another question — how much media attention was given to Climategate which was a crock versus the repeated exposure of climate denialists being fossil fuel paid shills?
However he is correct as to the science of AGW,
where we stand at the moment,
where this treaty will take the planet,
The problems this treaty will further enhance not prevent,
have no solution if we keep going on the trajectory allowed in the treaty
there is no way to undo the damage,
that will be done in the mean time.
Mostly because of the feed backs the earth will keep handing out from the warming;
feedbacks like the oceans going from a CO2 sink to emitting CO2,
methane hydrates melting and the methane being realised into the atmosphere.
The undoing of modern agriculture on a planet where the unstable climate makes such industrial scale farming basically impossible year in and year out.
People starve globally if this happens,
If you want to understand more;
Read the book Six Degrees, our future on a hotter planet by Mark Lynas,
realise this treaty if fully implemented actually creates 2.7 degrees of warming if no on cheats
and cheating is written into the agreement …. by design.
The time to stop the warming of the planet is past.
Reagan, Exxon-Mobile and the Koch brothers made sure of that.
We are in the mitigation era
treaties like this pretend there is still time to stop it.
Hanson is more on target than most want to admit, because if we do, we admit we are bequeathing to our grandchildren a future where their very survival on this planet is in question from global warming.
Honestly read the book, it dopes a very good job explaining why allowing almost three more degrees of warming is far too great as rise to take;
……. hence Hansen’s comment.
There are plenty of opportunities to show this here at the Frog Pond:
They’re just nutty bunnies, BooMan. They don’t like to complain; they like to frolic!
2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
1.5 degrees Celsius.
USA Today
Big difference there.
It’s pretty impossible to argue that this treaty is going to be responsible for “enhancing” global warming. I can’t see how anyone could fail to see the magnitude of the accomplishment here and how it sets a framework moving forward.
But, if you want to argue that go right ahead.
I’m certain that I won’t agree with you.
The consensus of applying the agreement is 2.7 degrees Celsius;
Global Response to Climate Change Keeps Door Open to 2 Degree C Temperature Limit
“The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs,” said Ms. Figueres.
http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/indc-synthesis-report-press-release/
Far too much since they do not consider feedbacks like CO2 release from warmer oceans, methane or albedo loss from loss of Arctic ice, among others.
I believe that is simply a typo.
No it is in the report they made.
The agreement is still looking for growth, which in the modern world of 7.2+ billion people means more energy usage.
Given that very little industrial growth the third world and growing second world countries like china and India need, very little can be achieved with out burning fossil fuels the main cause of global warming since the 19th century.
This agreement does not stop the rest of the planet from trying to catch the west in their living standards.
That IS a recipe for disaster.
Too many people on the planet already, and far too many of them trying to love the middle class dream.
This agreement does not directly address that in ways people can understand.
So the joe six packs of the world won’t accept it in their daily lives.
The fossil fuel driven politicos will enable BAU to continue because that is in their best short term interests.
Okay, I see what you’re saying now. I was thrown off by two things. One was how you were defining the pledges and the other was the coincidence of 2.7F and 2.7C both being numbers that were being thrown around.
Here’s what they tweeted:
Wanna know why I am not so elated on the newest piece of paper signed by the planets politicos?
Because they are also doing THIS;
Philippines set for 23 new coal-fired power plants
Energy Secretary Carlos Jericho L Petilla announced that 23 new coal-fired power plants would be established by 2020. Facilities include two new 300 MW plants opening in Davao City in 2016 and 2017, a 400 MW expansion of existing facilities in Quezon opening in 2017, a 600 MW plant in Subic opening in 2016, and a plant expansion in Bataan, also in 2016.
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2015/06/23-new-coal-fired-power-plants-for-philippines.h
tml
According to a new Greenpeace analysis, in the first nine months of 2015 China’s central and provincial governments issued environmental approvals to 155 coal-fired power plants
http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/publications/reports/climate-energy/climate-energy-2015/doubling-
down/
DEWA boss sets date for units at Dubai coal plant
The first two units of Dubai’s first coal plant will be operational by 2020 according to the chief of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2015/12/dewa-boss-sets-date-for-units-at-dubai-coal-plan
t.html
India Has Big Plans for Burning Coal
India is poised to build 455 coal fired power plants
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Proposed_coal_plants_in_India
Almost 650 NEW coal plants being built going forward, not gonna help cut CO2 emissions ……
They can promise anything on paper, but in the real world what are they actually doing?
Vermont Law Prof. Patrick Parenteau: “Paris historic agreement is a political act and not a binding legal document.”
Biggest pollutors USA and China need to curb emissions from cole-fired power plants NOW. Yearly 36 bn tons of pollutants are added, stop tax benefits to large oil corporations, stop paying these CEOs those excessive salaries and bonusses.
Leading in green energy are Sweden and Germany according to this index – Germanwatch: Der Klimaschutz-Index 2016 – Zusammenfassung.
○ French constitution gets a dash of green with environmetal rights – Viva la Difference
○ Keynote address: Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (PIELC)
There is no credibility that any political organization can declare this Paris agreement limits the rise in global temperature to 2ºC (centigrade).
“The paleoclimate record makes it clear that a target to keep human made global warming less than 2°C, as proposed in some international discussions, is not sufficient – it is a prescription for disaster. Assessment of the dangerous level of CO2, and the dangerous level of warming, is made difficult by the inertia of the climate system. The inertia, especially of the ocean and ice sheets, allows us to introduce powerful climate forcing such as atmospheric CO2 with only moderate initial response. But that inertia is not our friend – it means that we are building in changes for future generations that will be difficult, if not impossible to avoid.” James Hansen July 2011
I’ll tell you what makes me pessimistic. Even among people who take climate change seriously, there’s this persistent fantasy that electric cars are the answer. Electric vehicles are part of the answer, sure, but there’s no way we can just replace all our gas-burning vehicles with electric ones and carry on as before. Maybe if the number of cars in the world was fixed, but not when the number is exploding at the rate that it has been in countries like China and India.
Boo, you tend to see issues primarily through the lens of how they will impact the current political environment. Not a criticism, as that is your area of expertise and your passion. But occasionally an issue transcends that.
This isn’t, for example, health insurance. During the health care debate in 2009-10 you could legitimately call someone who opposed ACA on the grounds it wasn’t good enough a dick. In the case of ACA, 1) it was massively better than not doing anything, and 2) there was no chance of getting single payer, or even public option passed. In that case the old cliche “the perfect is the enemy of the good” certainly applied.
But that was health insurance, an issue in which waiting a few decades until finally getting a real universal health care system in place wouldn’t have any permanent, long-term negative consequences. Sometimes you have to have the long view, and in that case I could see calling people who criticized ACA as not good enough “dicks”.
This is climate change. Hansen has been fighting this battle for decades. He was the first to raise it to Congress, in 1988. He knows the science as well as anyone on the planet. He’s far from an expert at politics (as he has shown again and again), but he does know what needs to happen to prevent a climate disaster.
His argument against is that this is a feel-good agreement that doesn’t have a hope of achieving the goal of limiting increases to 2 degrees C, and has enough loopholes that it may actually have no measurable change in what would have happened anyway.
Yes, you can argue that the agreement does a great job of advancing global consensus on the problem and isolating/rejecting the flat-earth denialists like the GOP. And it does. It lays the ground work for a future agreement, in 10 or 15 years, after the climate has gotten incrementally hotter and human conditions incrementally worse, that might actually cause emissions to go below what they would in the absence of an agreement. So, yes, this is an important milestone.
But by itself, it won’t be enough. Too little, too late. This is the agreement we needed in 1995. Models that show the increase in global temps by end of century to be 2 C assume a massive reduction in future emissions – this agreement won’t do that. Models of “business as usual” – which, by the way, is what has been happening world-wide since these models were first published 20 years ago – show 6-7 C increase, which is a planet very different than what we are used to. And even those have an excellent chance of understating the increase. The IPCC models are extremely conservative in nature, including climate forcing effects only if they are well understood and quantified. There are known add-on effects, such as releasing the methane in the permafrost in the arctic, which aren’t included in the models but almost certainly will have a knock-on effect. An 8-9 C increase isn’t out of the question.
This is the first year in human history when the carbon PPM (parts per million in the atmosphere) measurement for the year in average will be over 400. Most of human history experienced 350. The sudden shift to 400 has only begun to warm the planet. If held at a steady state of 400 for a half century or so the planetary temperature would reach a new equilibrium, probably a bit under 2 C above what we were used to. However, if we keep emitting far more carbon than the planet can absorb the PPM won’t stop at 400 – it will hit 450 or 500 or higher.
We know, from evidence of past history, what the planet climate was like at PPMs of 400, 450, 500 and higher. It’s dramatically different than anything we’ve experienced. We also know that when the climate has shifted this dramatically in this quick of a time period (in geological terms), most of the life on the planet dies, and most of the species become extinct.
We are thus facing the next great planetary extinction, and have probably used up all the buffer time we have to think about what to do before taking action. And we’ve come up with an agreement that makes it more likely that the next agreement, a decade or so down the road, may actually have an impact.
No, it’s not like health insurance at all. Hansen is right. This is not a time to be in pat-ourselves-on-the-back mode. It’s time to be in kick-ourselves-in-the-butt mode.
What this agreement does is deliver an enormous blow to the fossil fuel industry.
For a host of reasons, including the simple fiduciary responsibility of institutional investors, it’s going to be very hard to raise money or maintain stock values in straightforward fossil fuel corporations. They will have to move to diversify with an eye to phasing out fossil fuels as their primary business.
It’s not what’s signed on the dotted line that will do the work here. And no one thinks that the dotted-line agreement is what this is all about except assholes who don’t want to give people the credit they deserve for this accomplishment.
I think it’s appropriate to observe that this agreement was a major accomplishment AND it’s not nearly enough.
Unfortunately, when a public person says that the message gets diluted. That’s why I don’t mind having one public person say the first part and other say the second.
Praising himself, a mind-boggling game of chess … a tribute to American leadership; “We made the Paris agreement non-binding!”
Great stuff Obama!!
“The provisions of the Paris accord are voluntary – a necessary step to stop the Republican-controlled US Congress from killing it.”
Bill McKibben takes a more constructive approach:
OT:A House Divided
How a radical group of Republicans pushed Congress to the right.
BY RYAN LIZZA
………………………
Meadows is one of the more active members of the House Freedom Caucus, an invitation-only group of about forty right-wing conservatives that formed at the beginning of this year. Since 2010, when the Party won back the chamber, the House has been engaged in a series of clashes over taxes and spending. Two years ago, House Republicans brought about a government shutdown over the Affordable Care Act and nearly caused the United States to default on its debt. This week, as Congress raced to meet a December 11th deadline to pass the annual legislation that funds the government, the members of the Freedom Caucus had new demands: they wanted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood and restrict Syrian refugees from entering the United States, policies that, if attached to the spending bills, could face a veto from Obama and, potentially, lead to another government shutdown.
To the general public, these fights have played out as a battle between President Obama and Republicans in Congress. But the more critical divide is within the Republican Party, as House Speaker John Boehner discovered. Boehner, who is from Ohio, was elected to Congress in 1990 and rose to the Speakership in 2010. His tenure was marked by an increasingly futile effort to control a group of conservatives that Devin Nunes, a Republican from California and an ally of Boehner’s, once described as “lemmings with suicide vests.” In 2013, to the bafflement of some colleagues, Boehner supported the shutdown, in the hope that the public backlash would expose the group as hopelessly radical. It didn’t work. The group continued to defy Boehner. He tried to regain control as Speaker by marginalizing its members, and they decided that he must be forced out.
Meadows, who was elected in 2012, spent months weighing whether to launch the attack. “It was probably one of the most difficult things I’ve ever done,” he told me recently. “It was a lonely period of time here on Capitol Hill. Even my closest friends didn’t necessarily think it was the right move.”
………………………………………………….
Boehner’s troubles and the rise of the Freedom Caucus are the product of resentments and expectations that the G.O.P. leadership has struggled for years to either address or dismiss. In 2009 and 2010, Democrats, who then controlled both the House and the Senate, pushed through the most aggressive domestic agenda since the Great Society. In response, during the 2010 midterm elections Republicans promised to overturn Obama’s entire agenda–the Affordable Care Act, financial regulation, stimulus spending, climate-change regulations–and dramatically cut government. Just before the election, the three House Republican leaders, Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy, promoted a manifesto, called “A Pledge to America,” that, among other things, promised to cut a hundred billion dollars from the budget and return spending to pre-Obama levels. The Republicans won sixty-three seats, taking control of the House, and expanded their ranks in the Senate. In November, 2010, House Republicans unanimously elected Boehner Speaker.
Jeff Duncan, a husky forty-nine-year-old former real-estate executive and auctioneer from South Carolina who was first elected in 2010, recently reread the “Pledge.” Sitting in his office in early November, he handed me a marked-up copy and shook his head. “We came up short in so many ways,” he said.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/14/a-house-divided?intcid=mod-most-popular
That reporting is full of astounding stories:
Very principled understanding that C.R.E.A.M. there.
– “I used to spend ninety per cent of my constituent response time on people who call, e-mail, or send a letter, such as, `I really like this bill, H.R. 123,’ and they really believe in it because they heard about it through one of the groups that they belong to, but their view was based on actual legislation,” (Representative) Nunes said. “Ten per cent were about `Chemtrails from airplanes are poisoning me’ to every other conspiracy theory that’s out there. And that has essentially flipped on its head.” The overwhelming majority of his constituent mail is now about the far-out ideas, and only a small portion is “based on something that is mostly true.” He added, “It’s dramatically changed politics and politicians, and what they’re doing.”
That’s the bed you and your movement made, Devin. Destroy the middle class and respond to the grief of the white working class by overpromising to the Birchers, Stormfront followers and Dominionists, and they make your life uncomfortable? Oh, gosh, that’s so surprising.
– “The public face and strategist for the Freedom Caucus is Raúl Labrador, from Idaho, who was elected in the wave of 2010 and revels in the mischief-making that has characterized the House since then…He insisted that the strategy behind the government shutdown was sound, but that its subtlety was lost when Senator Ted Cruz, who positioned himself as an ally of the House rebels, seized the credit for it. “Ted Cruz was out there saying, `Defund Obamacare or we’ll shut down the government,’ ” Labrador, who has endorsed Rand Paul for President in 2016, told me. “Our position was more nuanced,” he added, insisting that he and his fellow hard-liners were willing to settle for a one-year delay of Obamacare.”
Oh, THAT’s all?
There’s soooo much more sociopathy. All this is just in the first third of the reporting.
Of course they deny anthropomorphic climate change. They are owned by the Koch Brothers.
Of course the Koch brothers have more money than God and could completely divest themselves, then they and their descendants could live like kings just on 2% treasury bonds. But people like that just need more and more even if it makes no practical difference to them and causes real hurt or death to others. It’s a mental illness.
link
○ Antarctic increased ice sheet melt
○ Faster rate of melting glaciers on Greenland increases sea-level rise
A modern nation like The Netherlands, sitting on one of the world’s largest gas fields, decided to open a new coal-fired electricity plant in the industrial zone Maasvlakte Rotterdam – see E*ON and Electrabel. I believe it was more economical to buy CO2 offset instead of installing emission reduction filters – see emissions trading, thus buying carbon credits.
○ SourceWatch: Proposed coal plants in Europe
○ Netherlands ordered to cut greenhouse gas emissions [Btw, BBC photo of flooding due to movement of dike was caused by unusual drought! The Dutch are well protected for sea rise levels due to global warming for next 100 years – Oui]
PM Mark Rutte decided to brush aside court order and wait for appeal. I’m beyond pessimistic …
Ann Althouse, impenetrably stupid.
You forget that Wine Box Althouse lives in Wisconsin and has air conditioning. She’s just picturing Madison being a few degrees warmer in winter.
“…it could be better to live on a 3.6 degree warmer Earth.” Tell that to the people in Equatorial nations, particularly the coastal regions.
I also wonder what the climatologist professors at the formerly great U of W think about her ill-informed bleatings. At least her tenure is safe under Governor Walker, unlike Scott Lemieux, amirite?
Mind boggling. Even more frightening were comments from the readers. Talking point after talking point after talking point of nonsense.
My take on what Hansen (and clif) was saying: “until I see someone take on Big Oil we haven’t taken action.”
The agreement is basically a statement of intent. Good luck with that. If the situation is really considered pressing by the participants, why didn’t they feel compelled/obliged to take more definite measures to keep the fossil fuel in the ground? Instead demand has to be reduced. In tandem fossil fuel will just become cheaper. No tax on fossil fuel to discourage its use. And where are all the high-flying measures to tackle the animal agriculture industry which accounts for a big proportions (if not half) of the greenhouse gases (methane and some kind of nitrogen). Urgency and commitment are nowhere in sight behind the smoke and mirrors.
Well, there was this moment:
“Deep into the document, in Article 4, was a line declaring that wealthier countries “shall” set economy-wide targets for cutting their greenhouse gas pollution. That may not sound like such a headache-inducing roadblock, but in the world of international climate negotiations, every word counts. In previous drafts, the word “shall” had been “should” — and in the lingo of U.N. climate agreements, “shall” implies legal obligation and “should” does not. That means the word change could have obliged the Obama administration to submit the final deal to the Senate for its approval. And inevitably, the GOP-led chamber would kill it on sight.”
So, the intent is the best that can be gotten. But it’s far better to get this than throw up your hands because the Senate is a joke. It’s an unprecedented and very useful starting point.
‘Thou shalt not kill!’: right, that’s better than nothing, but hardly much more than that, even if the Senate approves the agreement. What’s the penalty for noncompliance and who will enforce it: the UN? I agree, anything might be better than nothing.