Paris climate deal

[WestCoastRunner]

Jaycee posted a link to the deal but I can't copy it here while on my smartphone

The only issue I can see so far just having a quick read is that individuals countries aren't legally obligated to curb emissions and other countries damaged can't seek redress. Is that correct?

[TimG]

The only issue I can see so far just having a quick read is that individuals countries aren't legally obligated to curb emissions and other countries damaged can't seek redress.

IOW: it is a tacit admission that a global treaty on CO2 emission reductions is pointless waste of time and money but the AGW acolytes that attended were desperate to have anything that would allow them to claim success. Edited December 13, 2015 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

IOW: it is a tacit admission that a global treaty on CO2 emission reductions is pointless waste of time and money but the AGW acolytes that attended were desperate to have anything that would allow them to claim success.

Well I'm not saying I'd write it off completely. I haven't read it in detail. Have you?

[WestCoastRunner]

Maybe Jaycee can provide a link to the agreement. Is there a published agreement. And with Jaycees legal mind she can provide some analysis. And Waldo too.

Cause I am very interested in this agreement as most people should be. I probably won't be alive to see the end results but my grandchildren and great grandchildren will be.

Edited December 13, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[jacee]

Here's CBC's take on it:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/paris-agreement-key-climate-points-1.3362500

I think it's stronger for being a negotiated agreement of UN countries.

Nobody has the authority or moral ground to impose penalties on anyone else.

It's a cooperative effort, by agreement and with tracking and reporting publicly. I think that's a strong point.

.

Edited December 13, 2015 by jacee

[ReeferMadness]

Jaycee posted a link to the deal but I can't copy it here while on my smartphone

The only issue I can see so far just having a quick read is that individuals countries aren't legally obligated to curb emissions and other countries damaged can't seek redress. Is that correct?

This might be it.

I haven't read it yet but it's purported to be weak - long on ambition and short on specifics. I watched a clip of Obama speechifying and he said that it's more of a framework for building future agreements.

It's funny how trade agreements are legally binding with extrajudicial committees that arbitrarily judge compliance but agreements to save the planet are aspirational.

[WestCoastRunner]

This might be it.

I haven't read it yet but it's purported to be weak - long on ambition and short on specifics. I watched a clip of Obama speechifying and he said that it's more of a framework for building future agreements.

It's funny how trade agreements are legally binding with extrajudicial committees that arbitrarily judge compliance but agreements to save the planet are aspirational.

This article lists 5 key points.

5 key points in Paris Agreement on climate change

After lengthy overnight negotiations and two weeks of touch-and-go discussions, delegates at the UN climate talks in Paris have adopted a climate-change pact. Here are five of the key points.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-agreement-key-climate-points-1.3362500

Shared from the CBC News App for iPhone

I like these agreements. I think it goes a long way to addressing the issues.

Edited December 13, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[TimG]

Well I'm not saying I'd write it off completely. I haven't read it in detail. Have you?

No. But the headlines simply confirm what anyone with any common sense would expect to come out of such discussions. No country is willing to expose themselves to punitive measures based on arbitrary targets chosen for political purposes.

[ReeferMadness]

It's a fine agreement - assuming it's still 1995.

[WestCoastRunner]

No. But the headlines simply confirm what anyone with any common sense would expect to come out of such discussions. No country is willing to expose themselves to punitive measures based on arbitrary targets chosen for political purposes.

But they have agreed to contribute 100 billon annually by 2020. That's not chump change.

[ReeferMadness]

But they have agreed to contribute 100 billon annually by 2020. That's not chump change.

It is chump change. Global expenditure on fossil fuels is something in the order of $5 trillion annually. Put another way, for every dollar spent to help countries adapt to climate change problems, we're spending 50 dollars making the problem worse. And that doesn't take into account the $5.3 trillion in subsidies that accrue to fossil fuels annually, according to an IMF report.

So, we spend we spend $100 making the problem worse for every $1 we spend dealing with the fallout. It's less than chump change.

[TimG]

But they have agreed to contribute 100 billon annually by 2020. That's not chump change.

That is what they agreed last time. No one delivered. The chance of the US congress authorizing 1 penny for such a fund is near zero.

[On Guard for Thee]

No. But the headlines simply confirm what anyone with any common sense would expect to come out of such discussions. No country is willing to expose themselves to punitive measures based on arbitrary targets chosen for political purposes.

~90 % of the worlds publishing climate scientists have no common sense? I suspect they probably do.

[TimG]

Global expenditure on fossil fuels is something in the order of $5 trillion annually.

Any for that expenditure people get energy which keeps economies running.

GAnd that doesn't take into account the $5.3 trillion in subsidies that accrue to fossil fuels annually

IF you are just going to make numbers up why not just say "eleventy quadraduodecdadion". It makes just as much sense.

So, we spend we spend $100 making the problem worse for every $1 we spend dealing with the fallout.

No: we spend $100 providing food and shelter 7 billion people. Personally that is higher priority to me than hypothetical problems that may or may not come to arise in the future. Edited December 13, 2015 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

No need to worry about Obama or the U.S. Congress, as Canada's Liberal party already blew off a treaty that was actually ratified (Kyoto).

"Saving the planet" starts at home, eh ?

[eyeball]

Jaycee posted a link to the deal but I can't copy it here while on my smartphone

The only issue I can see so far just having a quick read is that individuals countries aren't legally obligated to curb emissions and other countries damaged can't seek redress. Is that correct?

In a world overwritten with deals that permit a company to sue a country for preventing them to emit, who are we to argue?

Edited December 13, 2015 by eyeball

[ReeferMadness]

Any for that expenditure people get energy which keeps economies running.

Ah. A comment from the guy that is economically dependent on fossil fuel energy. I know that might skew your perspective a little. It seems like our Canadian electrical generation companies aren't talented enough to use renewable energy. Something about not being able to get past their 1950's ideas of "base load". But I have an answer for you. Just bring in some people from Uruguay. With roughly the same percentage of electricity coming from hydro (~60%), they manage to generate an astounding 95%(!!) of their electricity from renewable sources.

I know, I know. What will you guys do when the guys who know how come and generate electricity? Maybe you could empty the garbage or hold their coats re something.

IF you are just going to make numbers up why not just say "eleventy quadraduodecdadion". It makes just as much sense.

So, that number cane from an IMF report. I know it's sooooo hard for you to figure out but if you click that little blue link, the source pops right up! Go ahead and try it. We'll wait for you.

[TimG]

Ah. A comment from the guy that is economically dependent on fossil fuel energy.

There you go again - making crap up since you have no idea what I depend on for my income. All I said before that I knew something about the electrical industry from my work experience (which includes working with wind and solar farms). I assume you insert this smear into every post because you are threatened by people who poke holes in your delusions.

With roughly the same percentage of electricity coming from hydro (~60%), they manage to generate an astounding 95%(!!) of their electricity from renewable sources.

Sure. So that would only require that Canadians give up 60% of their incomes to match the per capita GDP of Uruguay. You may be keen on making that sacrifice but I am pretty sure you are a tiny tiny minority. A little hint: the advanced economies have much greater need for reliable energy sources than a country of farmers.

Basically, Uruguay can only do what it does because its need for electricity does not exceed the capacity of its hydro resources to absorb the variable wind. If Uruguay developed its need for electricity would outstrip its hydro resources and it will be forced to turn to gas or coal to make up the difference because the size of its hydro resource is fixed.

]So, that number cane from an IMF report.

When the IMF "estimates" costs of pollution it is making up numbers. Made up numbers don't have more meaning because a well known agency makes them up. Edited December 13, 2015 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Sure. So that would only require that Canadians give up 60% of their incomes to match the per capita GDP of Uruguay. You may be keen on making that sacrifice but I am pretty sure you are a tiny tiny minority. A little hint: the advanced economies have much greater need for reliable energy sources than a country of farmers.

Basically, Uruguay can only do what it does because its need for electricity does not exceed the capacity of its hydro resources to absorb the variable wind. If Uruguay developed its need for electricity would outstrip its hydro resources and it will be forced to turn to gas or coal to make up the difference because the size of its hydro resource is fixed.

I take it that is your way of admitting you didn't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about and if a relatively poor country like Uruguay can get 95% of its electricity from renewable sources, then of course Canada could do the same. Uruguay does have one big advantage over Canada - it completely lacks a domestic fossil energy industry to keep happy.

[TimG]

I take it that is your way of admitting you didn't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about and if a relatively poor country like Uruguay can get 95% of its electricity from renewable sources, then of course Canada could do the same.

No - you are the one that has no clue.

Per capita energy consumption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

Canada: 7379.6

Uruguay: 1240.9

Germany: 4003.3

Uruguay's need for power is 1/6th of Canada's and 1/3rd of Germany's.

If Uruguay developed enough to need as much energy as Germany its geographic winning lottery ticket (a.k.a. hydro) would not be enough to cover its base load needs and it would be burning coal and gas just like Germany. Uruguay offers no examples to anyone unless you think we should all take vows of poverty and kill off any excess population.

A similar situation exists for Iceland which is a small economy sitting one top a few active volcano means Iceland will have no problem getting close to 100% renewables. Great for Iceland but not a useful example for countries with large economies when compared to whatever convenient geographic features they happen to have.

Edited December 13, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Clearly worth sending more delegates than US, UK and Australia combined. *sarcasm*

[Topaz]

IF all these countries really want to deal with climate change, then perhaps they should offer a "reward" system to countries and the top 3 or 5 or 10, gets monetary reward for reducing. Where does the money come from...from ALL the countries and this could total millions or billions of dollars and every country needs money. Thoughts?

[TimG]

from ALL the countries and this could total millions or billions of dollars and every country needs money. Thoughts?

If emissions are reduced it will be the result of technological breakthroughs that allow non-emitting energy sources to deliver more value for money than emitting sources. It will not be the result of any treaty process. These treaties are for show and to allow preening politicians to pretend they are "doing something". Edited December 13, 2015 by TimG

[Guest]

Do we know if there is going to be any accountability with regards to the $100B/y?

Some third world despot is going to get gold taps on his bathtub, isn't he?

[ironstone]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-climate-talks-we-want-to-feel-good-about-ourselves/article27535885/

I think this sums up the conference pretty well.