PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Towards COP21
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:30 pm    Post subject: Towards COP21 Reply with quote

EU ministers seek ambitious, binding deal at Paris climate talks -draft

Barbara Lewis wrote:


BRUSSELS, June 25 (Reuters) - European Union ministers are seeking an ambitious, durable and legally binding deal to curb global warming, enforced through five-yearly reviews, a draft of their position statement for U.N. climate talks shows.

EU environment ministers meet on Sept. 18 in Brussels to iron out their joint position ahead of the U.N. talks in Paris in December. Diplomats have already drawn up a draft text.

The Paris climate agreement must be "legally binding in order to enshrine the strongest expression of political will and provide predictability and durability", says the EU ministers' draft seen by Reuters.

It calls for five-yearly reviews to ensure temperature rises are capped at 2 degrees Celsius, the necessary limit according to scientists to prevent the most devastating climate change.


The EU (rather interesting) background paper to this is here: http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/energy-union/docs/paris-swd_en.pdf
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First keynote speaker at CFCC Paris today was Fatih Birol

Watch here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh1qTWv-NsY
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ADP2

Quote:
South Africa, speaking for 134 developing countries under the G77+China group, stunned the UN climate change negotiations on the first day of the talks at Bonn Germany by saying that the two co-chairs and some developed countries attitude to developing countries was akin to apartheid.

The blunt attack, rare in international diplomacy and UN multilateral negotiations, was pointed particularly towards the co-chair from US, Daniel Reifsnyder. It came after all developing country groups criticised the co-chairs for producing a draft Paris agreement which favoured select developed countries and then refusing to bring balance to the text.


http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/after-an-ugly-battle-g77-china-developing-countries-win-the-day-115101900902_1.html
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Graph that Matters

http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-graph-that-matters-ii.html
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13974
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
The Graph that Matters

http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-graph-that-matters-ii.html


You're an optimist. Oh and btw:

Quote:
As the second diagram suggests a 15 years Emergency Transition is needed, yet nobody is taking about such a thing.

Let's repeat that in case you missed it. We need a 15 years Emergency Transition, starting now and getting to as near as dammit zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 if our children and grandchildren are going to inherit a planet worth it's name.


Trying to help here. Laughing
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1976

PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
biffvernon wrote:
Let's repeat that in case you missed it. We need a 15 years Emergency Transition, starting now and getting to as near as dammit zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 if our children and grandchildren are going to inherit a planet worth it's name.


Even if the Greenland ice is melted Earth will still be a lot of Earth.

One of the difficulties of political debates is that when people exaggerate their argument in order to persuade people of the merits it often dissuades people because of the exaggeration.

There is a good argument to avoid the melting of the glaciers, but earth will not be "uninhabitable" if on average it is 2 degrees C warmer. Some areas would be flooded.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7638

PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hyperbole does make things tricky. Under almost any scenario the Earth will still be human habitable for many thousands of years. But that's not a very useful question.

More sensible is to consider whether 'civilisation' with 7 going on 10 billion people can be maintained. Here I'm pretty sure that +2C warmer with ten+ m of sea level rise (we're sure to lose Greenland, and a good chunk of West Antartica) is incompatible with a 10 Bn strong civilisation.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 1976

PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
Hyperbole does make things tricky. Under almost any scenario the Earth will still be human habitable for many thousands of years. But that's not a very useful question.

More sensible is to consider whether 'civilisation' with 7 going on 10 billion people can be maintained. Here I'm pretty sure that +2C warmer with ten+ m of sea level rise (we're sure to lose Greenland, and a good chunk of West Antartica) is incompatible with a 10 Bn strong civilisation.

Population is clearly an issue. There is also the issue about the use of fossil fuels to provide food through fertiliser.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:

Trying to help here. Laughing

Thanks. Typos corrected Smile
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-graph-that-matters-ii.html
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bonn ADP2 results:

So we now have a new text [with 1490 pairs of square brackets].
http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/bonn_oct_2015/application/pdf/ws_1_and_2.pdf
[Somebody else counted them]

So let's just take a [not quite] random example from the text:

Quote:
Article 3 (MITIGATION)
1. Collective long-term goal
Option 1:
[Parties aim [to achieve the global temperature goal], in accordance with the best available science [and

the principles of the Convention], through [long-term global [low-[carbon][emission] transformation]

[[climate][carbon] neutrality]], [and peaking their [net] emissions] [by 2030][20XX][as soon as

possible], [with a [x]40-[y]70% net emission reduction below 2010 levels by 2050][according to the global

carbon budget distribution based on climate justice], and [overall reductions][[net] zero emissions]

[over the course of the century][by 2050][by 2100].


Look at that last pair of pairs of square brackets. There's an existential difference between reduction

to zero emissions by 2050 and 2100. That's what Paris will be about.

The Twittersphere's conclusion is "Basically the take from everyone seems to be, you go to COP with the

text you have not the text you want."
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

johnhemming2 wrote:
clv101 wrote:
Hyperbole does make things tricky. Under almost any scenario the Earth will still be human habitable for many thousands of years. But that's not a very useful question.

More sensible is to consider whether 'civilisation' with 7 going on 10 billion people can be maintained. Here I'm pretty sure that +2C warmer with ten+ m of sea level rise (we're sure to lose Greenland, and a good chunk of West Antartica) is incompatible with a 10 Bn strong civilisation.

Population is clearly an issue. There is also the issue about the use of fossil fuels to provide food through fertiliser.


There is also the issue that much of the world's best farm land lies below the 10 metre mark and also much of the world's urban population lives below the 10 metre mark. Much of the world's most expensive real estate lies below the 10 metre mark so the loss of this or the attempt to build bunds around it would probably destroy the world's economy anyway.

According to the UN we could with a large reduction in meat eating, a return to local gardening rather than oil based farming and the reuse of "night waste" produce much more food than we do today and employ many more people. Food would be much more expensive though because of the replacement of oil power by people power. but then again if food was more expensive we wouldn't waste so much of what we produce.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, writing in The Telegraph, is putting the boot into the fossil fuel industry.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11958713/Fossil-fuel-companies-risk-plague-of-asbestos-lawsuits-as-tide-turns-on-climate-change.html
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please all write to your MP, especially your Tory ones and quote the above article especially this

Quote:
Lord Bourne, Britains under-secretary for energy, said at Chatham House this week that Tuvalus plight is an international scandal. We cant sit back and let it happen, he said.


and ask them why they are actually making things worse for Tuvalu by wasting time and effort in promoting fracking for even more fossil fuels.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13974
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some class images for the COP-out:











More here.
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fuzzy



Joined: 29 Nov 2013
Posts: 595
Location: The Marches, UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
Hyperbole does make things tricky. Under almost any scenario the Earth will still be human habitable for many thousands of years. But that's not a very useful question.

More sensible is to consider whether 'civilisation' with 7 going on 10 billion people can be maintained. Here I'm pretty sure that +2C warmer with ten+ m of sea level rise (we're sure to lose Greenland, and a good chunk of West Antartica) is incompatible with a 10 Bn strong civilisation.


I have no say in the earth containing 10bn people. The people payed to represent me refuse to accept the pop problem. If 90% of the pop perished then tough - they should have kept their dicks in their pants. I realize that people with kids could be worried for their future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group