
Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris - aaronbrethorst
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climate-change-accord-paris.html
======
marcusgarvey
>The new deal will not, on its own, solve global warming. At best, scientists
who have analyzed it say, it will cut global greenhouse gas emissions by about
half what is necessary to stave off an increase in atmospheric temperatures of
2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That is the point at which
scientific studies have concluded the world will be locked into a future of
devastating consequences, including rising sea levels, severe droughts and
flooding, widespread food and water shortages, and more destructive storms.

>But the agreement could be an inflection point in human history: the moment
at which, because of a huge shift in global economic policy, the inexorable
rise in planet-warming carbon emissions that started during the Industrial
Revolution began to level out and eventually decline.

So, is this really cause for celebration? This last paragraph reads as though
there's no agency here. We agreed to half of what's necessary. Not to mention
VW-type sleights of hand that mean we're not doing what we've said we would do
in the past, when things were less dire.

~~~
vlehto
The VW scam was actually better for climate.

Their engines released less CO2 and more NOx as a trade off. NOx is bad for
humans and has slight cooling effect. CO2 is not dangerous and has heating
effect.

"Less polluting" can mean several completely different things. People often
don't get this.

~~~
chadzawistowski
NOx also contributes to acid rain.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain)

------
HiLo
A coherent, baseline platform that ratchets up in intensity every 5 years and
forces the hand of domestic politics (rather than simply allowing them to
block intnl agreements) seems like a positive, I'm not sure why everybody is
so entirely cynical.

~~~
vram22
5 years is way too low a frequency, IMO.

Edit: s/to/too

~~~
Brakenshire
I think that's just about right personally. Any more and it would be too
infrequent to be useful. Any less and it would get lost in the noise of the
media cycle. It's important when these things happen that there's a sense that
the whole world is watching, and international reputations can be impacted
depending on how countries behave.

~~~
vram22
I agree somewhat with this point of yours:

>It's important when these things happen that there's a sense that the whole
world is watching, and

but my reason for saying that every 5 years is too low a frequency, i.e. it
should be more frequent, like once in 2 or 3 years, was because 1) a lot can
be done in 2 or 3 years, and 2) more importantly, I'd think that reviewing
progress (or regress) should not be left for as large a gap as 5 years - so as
to be able to either hasten progress or slow/stop regress more often, if
needed, considering the huge importance of the issue. Cf. recent live example
- Chennai (and Tamil Nadu state) floods in India. Huge damage and loss.

I should mention that I am not a climate expert; saying the above as a layman.

~~~
Brakenshire
Yeah, it is a bit difficult to say either way. You could well be right.

------
xCathedra
> As a result, all language in the accord relating to the reduction of carbon
> emissions is essentially voluntary. The language assigns no concrete targets
> to any country for emissions reductions. Instead, each government has
> crafted a plan detailing how they would lower emissions at home, based on
> what each head of state believes is feasible given the country’s domestic
> political and economic situation.

I fail to see how this summit differs from previous summits without anything
being legally binding.

~~~
blondie9x
This had to be added due to those in Congress paid off by Koch brothers to
deny anthropogenic climate change. They are abhorrent to any effort to
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions:
[http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/senate-
bloc...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/senate-blocks-
obamas-climate-change-rules.html?_r=0)

Getting everyone on board is a huge win and setting targets of 1.5C (max 2C)
will help humanity stand together against the threat of climate change.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
Mitch McConnell is from Kentucky. That alone is enough to explain his actions.
Because, you know, coal mining, Kentucky... likewise whatsisname...ah, Inhofe
... from Oklahoma.

You know that people from states with strong extractive industries have a
conservative tendency because of the really large business cycles, right?
Throw in that these climes also sport lots of farmers, and.... Not everybody
can move to the large, overpriced urban areas.

If Congress/the Senate is bought off that cheaply... which is always a
questionable thing ... [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-
klein/2010/10/ten_thin...](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-
klein/2010/10/ten_things_we_think_we_know_bu.html)

~~~
DrScump
Note that Kentucky has an Oil Extraction tax of 4.5%.

Meanwhile, solidly blue California has _none_.

------
classicsnoot
I think it is time that we as a species faced a few hard truths:

1) Nothing short of a dark age will reduce human emissions to a non factor in
climate shift

2) Climate shift was always inevitable. It has happened before; it will happen
again. The only thing we have done is hasten it... maybe.

3) All global efforts in regards to climate shift should be pointed at
adapting to the changes, safeguarding threatened species (or collecting the
requisite genetic data to one day rebuild them), and ensuring our specie's
evolutionary March into the future.

We shouldn't be designing green houses; we should be learning how to live
underwater and underground. We should be planning for the Great Inland
Migration. We should be hardening and burying all infrastructure. We should be
decreasing energy and material waste for efficiency reasons, not feel-good
reasons.

This nascent cataclysm is not a fire, it is a flood. The metaphorical waters
will rise and recede over thousands of years. No one in the future will give a
flying fuck about Priuses or carbon credits. They will either praise us for
building the tools and protocols byvwhich they survive, or curse us for
thinking we could fight the inevitable.

Our kind showed up at the end of an ice age. Let's not circle jerk ourselves
to extinction in the face of another. Assessing past faults is pointless. We
must adapt our collective civilizations to a dynamic future for which we are
biologically and technologically I'll equipped.

~~~
tim333
Even if you buy the hypothesis that climate change can't be stopped, the sea
level rises would be something like 1 or 2m / century. More a case of get your
grandkids to build their houses a quarter mile inland than a mad panic.
Funnily enough global sea levels rose about 90m over the last 10,000 years and
people hardly even noticed. You used to be able to walk from England to France
where the channel now is.

~~~
classicsnoot
You are seriously suggesting that a 7 billion plus population is going to just
roll with a level of increase that quickly like it is nothing? So I guess you
feel that all of this 'forestall global warming' is hullabaloo... Most of the
world lives at or below sea level. If 2 million 'refugees' can cause an
unprecedented crisis, what do you think will be the effect of entire islands,
countries, and regions mass migrating Inland will be?

~~~
tim333
No, just that it wouldn't be as bad as classicsnoot was suggesting. Though I'd
agree with him that our current efforts at reducing emissions are not having
much effect. I'd lean towards not worrying two much for the next decade or two
and then reducing emissions to less than zero when solar is seriously cheap
and robots can cover the Sahara with it.

~~~
classicsnoot
But... But... ye gods, man. Bangladesh is entirely at sea level. Southeast
Asia, the entirety of the -nesias, every island and seaboard, damn near ~70%
of the world's population will be under water in 200 years, and their mass
migration is headed toward arod plains that can barely support 50 people per
square mile. A decimation is 1 out of 10; we are looking at 9 out of 10. The
psychological impact alone is enough to make the survivors believe in Allah.
Climate Shift is real, and I get the feel that we are using it as a political
set piece in the Game of Chairs.

~~~
DrScump

      Bangladesh is entirely at sea level. 
    

One could argue that Bangladeshis aren't all that worried about it themselves,
given their high population growth rate (higher than, for example, India or
Mexico). [CIA World Fact Book 2014]

~~~
classicsnoot
Areas with extreme violence, high poverty, and uncertain futures tend to have
high birthrates according to this Swede [1] FWIW

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78)

------
shoo
Climate Action Tracker [1] provides a summary of all pledges, and per-country
assessments. They have a recent post regarding the Paris agreement [2].

> As the CAT has previously noted, the national mitigation contributions, now
> associated with the Paris Agreement, would lead to a median warming of
> around 2.7°C by 2100 (a full range of 2.2-3.4°C, which means there is a
> likely chance of holding warming below 3°C, temperature would continue to
> rise after 2100).

> Compared to the 3.6°C by 2100 warming that is projected to result from
> current policies, the climate pledges submitted in the INDCs lower warming
> by about 0.9°C – but only if all governments fully implement their pledges.

[1] [http://climateactiontracker.org/](http://climateactiontracker.org/)

[2] [http://climateactiontracker.org/news/257/Paris-Agreement-
sta...](http://climateactiontracker.org/news/257/Paris-Agreement-stage-set-to-
ramp-up-climate-action.html)

------
goalieca
As a canadian, I'm so glad that these discussions were held after the
election.

~~~
agumonkey
I heard a bit about it in the news, the previous government was very much
against this bill, is that it ?

~~~
grobbles
Not at all. The previous government was against binding agreements that did
not bind China or India or other developing nations (for reasons that we've
seen as China has exploded into the most significant polluter), and which
actually might have been negative to the actual cause. Kyoto, for instance,
would have been devastating to the environment, however much it might have
been illusory of progress.

So right now you see a lot of Canadians who villainized the previous
government celebrating what sounds like it is effectively nothing. The new
Canadian government sent 388 delegates to Paris, the vast bulk having nothing
to do with negotiations and just enjoying the photo ops and a vacation junket,
which was more than the United States, more than the UK, more than Australia.
Indeed, it was more than all of those countries combined.

I don't mean to politicize this, but there is a detached "words versus action"
argument that appears when Canada comes up and it is deeply disconcerting.

~~~
goalieca
Another common opinion is that they used India/China as an excuse for not
having to do anything. The saying goes "no one is responsible if everyone is
responsible".

------
clumsysmurf
Not encouraging.

“The current text is weaker than the final agreement that came out of [the
failed] Copenhagen [summit in 2009]”

[http://www.thenation.com/article/scientists-warn-paris-
clima...](http://www.thenation.com/article/scientists-warn-paris-climate-
agreement-needs-massive-improvement/)

"James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks 'a
fraud'" [http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-
han...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-
climate-change-paris-talks-fraud)

------
colordrops
What is the shortest text available that takes raw data and first principles
and deductively walks to the inevitable conclusion of anthropogenic global
warming and its dire consequences? I absolutely need this to convince my
conservative relatives. I would also be interested for my own edification
since my current belief in global warming is mostly based on faith in the
scientific community, and I'd rather understand it myself.

------
phkamp
We'll see on monday when the stock exchanges open if this agreement actually
matters.

If Oil/Coal companies tank: Yes

If not: No

Always follow the money.

~~~
tosseraccount
Wasn't an agreement well known in advance? Shouldn't this have already been
baked into stock prices?

~~~
TaylorSwift
Yes, crude oil is at record lows.

~~~
tosseraccount
Apparently not.

$12.45 in 2115 dollars in 1998 is the low.

[http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical...](http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp)

------
zouhair
Nothing will change as long as Capitalism is the force leading the World. All
these summits mean nothing when all that matters is the results for the next
quarter then the next.

~~~
Brakenshire
There's a big difference between Capitalism in general and completely free-
market, unregulated Capitalism in particular. The market is an amazing
instrument for technology development, if we had priced in the externalities
of carbon twenty years ago, as originally planned at Kyoto, Capitalism would
already be half way along to solving the problem in the same relentless way
that it always pursues profit.

~~~
tim333
Yeah, CFCs got banned and the ozone hole went, you don't hear about acid rain
any more, lead in petrol got banned, DDT got banned and so on in spite of
Capitalism, so there's hope.

~~~
zouhair
That's not comparable. When they got rid of CFCs they just replaced it with
something else. Now we need to stop making stuff, stat.

------
ArkyBeagle
So for what is the $100B to be used? Does this amount to the buying of carbon
indulgences?

------
tosseraccount
Is this a treaty? If so 2/3rd of the U.S. Senate must concur.

Should be an interesting, spirited debate.

~~~
blondie9x
No, this isn't a treaty see my comment above on why it was worded the way it
was to avoid Congress ratification. Our country will now join the world to
fight climate change, with or without the Senate. This is huge because more of
Senate is deeply indebted/paid by Koch brothers.

------
gdubs
This is a big deal. Is it perfect? No, far from it. Politics is -- as the
famous saying goes -- the art of the possible. This is what was possible
_today_. If you've been following closely, then you know we almost had no
deal.

My hope is that the emissions targets (low by what the scientific community
wants to see) are tough enough that they will mandate significant investments
in new technology. When clean tech becomes profitable (optimistically
_cheaper_ via subsidies), then it may become easier to sell the world on
ratcheting-up the targets before we run out of time.

As others have mentioned, I will be watching the market reactions with
cautious optimism.

------
dan-silver
Are there details about how this will affect regulations in the US?

------
nsns
It's indeed just a spectacle, political theater, but it is based on a wide-
ranging acknowledgment of man-made climate change, which is of great
importance.

------
alphaBetaGamma
Photos of the event:
[http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop21/enb/12dec.html](http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop21/enb/12dec.html)

------
forrestthewoods
No fossil fuels between 2050 and 2100? I am unimpressed.

I have a better plan. Here's how to reduce worldwide carbon emissions by 44%
in 15-25 years.

Step 1) Replace all coal power plants with nuclear plants Step 2) There is no
step 2

~~~
pan69
It almost seems like the most practical solution at this point in time. Even
though "green" energy has come a long way over the past few decades, it's not
going to power the industries that cater to our comfy lives.

There are certainly downsides and problems with nuclear power, waste is coming
to mind and safety seems to be the other. I think that if we built nuclear
power plants today they will be a lot safer and cleaner than the ones we used
to built in the 60's and 70's.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EviEN0ScOwg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EviEN0ScOwg)

~~~
jbandela1
I fail to understand the ambivalence not to mention hostility towards nuclear
power. If people really believed that climate change was as dangerous as they
say they believe they would be fully on board. Even a Chernobyl type incident
once a year over the next 30 years would be preferable to the consequences of
unchecked global warming.

~~~
tim333
I guess if you are a green enthusiast you'd go for solar and batteries and if
a skeptic you'd go for gas/coal. So there's a narrow group who like nuclear.

Another thing that surprises me is how few people actually cost up different
options on reducing CO2. I've given some money to reforestation projects and
the CO2 saved per dollar is about 1000 times as effective as getting solar
panels but no one seems interested in running the numbers.

~~~
CuriousSkeptic
I think there was a mention in one of the ipcc reports where they actually ran
the numbers and concluded that no amount of terraforming (be it forests,
algae, and some other hypothetical "negative" emission approaches), even
ignoring economical or technical feasibility, would be able to stop or reduce
ghg concentrations.

------
oneJob
I wish I could sit down with every person on this thread and devote as much
time as required for me to hear out their position and me to make mine. But,
since I can't and since the info is already out there, I'll just say, please,
pleaseeeeee go educate yourself.

Humanity has just about built the infrastructure to _lock in_ 2 degree temp
increase. We are talking about a matter of years, not a decade. We are talking
about _locking in_ , not higher probability.

Yet, there is uninterrupted talk of growing our economies (but little talk of
reducing the wealth gap). If our economies are to continue growing. If we
continue to be an extraction oriented species. If we continue to spend _tens
of billions_ a year searching out new fossil fuel reserves when we can't use
half of those we already know of without pushing the 4-6 degree threshold..?

Nature, will go on. Some portion of humanity, will go on. It's not the end of
the world. Just the end of the world as we know it.

If today everyone ditched their cars and used public transit and bikes, we
shut down the airlines, and became vegan we'd be most of the way there. Switch
to organic farming and cradle-to-cradle manufacturing would almost surely get
us the rest of the way there.

Yeah, I know, that's not going to happen and people don't want it to. My point
is simply, the solution is not some black magic or future technology. The
solution is simply a choice.

edit: for cradle-to-cradle, see... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle-to-
cradle_design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle-to-cradle_design)

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>If today everyone ditched their cars and used public transit and bikes, we
shut down the airlines, and became vegan we'd be most of the way there.

One of these things is not like the others: _shutting down airlines_ is an
actual regulatory action. The others are lifestyle choices (and for what it's
worth, I overwhelmingly just use public transit and my bike).

>Switch to organic farming and cradle-to-cradle manufacturing would almost
surely get us the rest of the way there.

I'd like it if you could explain "cradle-to-cradle manufacturing", but I'm
very skeptical that organic farming would actually help. Last I heard, even
when you account for the subsidies paid to make industrial farming cheap,
organic farming is _still_ more resource-intensive than industrial farming.

Further, again, last I heard, lifestyle changes on the part of individuals
have far less impact on resource usage than policy changes in major
industries.

~~~
socialist_coder
Really the type of farming you need is permaculture and forest gardening, and
implementing these literally everywhere that humans live. That is, in my
opinion, the best type of farming that is also sustainable. "Organic" farming
is still just as bad for the environment and soil as regular farming.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_gardening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_gardening)

------
connoredel
So, is man-made climate change solved? If the whole world agrees that we will
all collectively take steps to reach an agreed upon level of temperature rise
in 100 years, what else is needed except to do it? The rational thing to do is
stop funding more and more studies, stop having summits, and just do what we
all said we would do: carry out the plan. The whole world has agreed they are
satisfied with the future climate this deal will bring us.

If Congress legislated tomorrow that all gun sales and manufacturing were to
be banned, and all existing guns should be collected and melted down, then
should we still spend time and money researching gun violence and lobbying for
stricter gun laws? I think everyone would agree that would be a waste of time
because gun control is inevitable given the plan to ban them.

Why does it feel like funding additional climate studies and appointing more
bureaucrats won't stop like it would for the gun control example?

