Sign in to follow this  
JohnM

Legally binding climate change agreement

Recommended Posts

.. According to the Guardian report....

1. A (sic) historic, legally binding climate deal that aims to hold global temperatures to a maximum rise of 1.5C, staving off the worst effects of catastrophic global warming, has been secured.

2, ...there will be no legal obligation for countries to cut emissions.....

Discuss

Edited by JohnM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yes...know thine enemy!

Oddly that was the reason my dad always gave me for reading the telegraph, and in his youth he'd have classed himself as a communist.

Edited by RidingPie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Re the Climate Change  Conf. I remain to be convinced that anything much will change.

 

Firstly, according to the BBC  The agreement - which is partly legally binding and partly voluntary - will come into being in 2020.

 

Thus already, the "legally-binding" element is being watered down

 

Secondly.how is this going to work?  "keep global temperature increase "well below" 2C (3.6F) and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C"

 

I thought we might see some direct measure that if implemented might have the required effect but as far as I can see, it's just hot air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. According to the Guardian report....

1. A (sic) historic, legally binding climate deal that aims to hold global temperatures to a maximum rise of 1.5C, staving off the worst effects of catastrophic global warming, has been secured.

2, ...there will be no legal obligation for countries to cut emissions.....

Discuss

 

I think (from a quick reading)....

 

The countries have signed up to say legally they all agree that the target should be 1.5C.  

 

The pledges (to cut emissions) countries have made would see us hitting around 3.0C.

 

There is no plan (currently) of how to get every country to match the first bit with the second.

 

Though they have never been able to agree the first bit before now so its not all bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The third world and emerging economies point to the traditionally wealthier economies and quite rightly say that that wealth was cemented during the years from the industrial revolution onwards where we polluted the world and just didn't give a damn about the impacts on poorer countries.  Now that the wealthier countries can afford green technologies they want to stop the poorer countries from exploiting the cheapest and dirtiest technologies in the same way they did.  The only way that I can see any worldwide effort to reduce pollution would be if the world's wealthiest countries effectively paid the poorest ones the difference between cheap and dirty technologies and the expensive but green ones.  Even then, the wealthy countries have an internal minefield of very powerful fossil fuel companies that would sabotage any efforts to wean the world off fossil fuels.

 

The world is effectively screwed if nothing changes.  The problem is that the capitalist driven west only looks for profit, there really is no profit for them in saving the world so it has to be government led, government funded and worldwide in nature.  Will it happen though?  About as likely the US banning fossil fuel usage this decade.  The time that the world accepts it needs to change will be when it's too late to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The third world and emerging economies point to the traditionally wealthier economies and quite rightly say that that wealth was cemented during the years from the industrial revolution onwards where we polluted the world and just didn't give a damn about the impacts on poorer countries. Now that the wealthier countries can afford green technologies they want to stop the poorer countries from exploiting the cheapest and dirtiest technologies in the same way they did. The only way that I can see any worldwide effort to reduce pollution would be if the world's wealthiest countries effectively paid the poorest ones the difference between cheap and dirty technologies and the expensive but green ones. Even then, the wealthy countries have an internal minefield of very powerful fossil fuel companies that would sabotage any efforts to wean the world off fossil fuels.

The world is effectively screwed if nothing changes. The problem is that the capitalist driven west only looks for profit, there really is no profit for them in saving the world so it has to be government led, government funded and worldwide in nature. Will it happen though? About as likely the US banning fossil fuel usage this decade. The time that the world accepts it needs to change will be when it's too late to fix it.

Agree with the sentiment of that post. I personally think the world is b**g***d as one of the key issues is the dramatic growth in the human population which is only going to get worse, especially in nations who can't afford to have a dramatic rise in population. The loss of more habitat which helps reduce the impact of fossil fuels will continue to heighten the problem, not reduce it despite the hyperbole from this summit. If you want reduce the impact of climate change, drastic measures need to be taken but won't of course.

NB. I had read there will a £100bn pot for developing nations to tap into. Is this not the case and is that per year or in totality?

Edited by GeordieSaint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The third world and emerging economies point to the traditionally wealthier economies and quite rightly say that that wealth was cemented during the years from the industrial revolution onwards where we polluted the world and just didn't give a damn about the impacts on poorer countries.

That is of course assuming that other than seeing black bits on the washing hung out on the line and coughing up phlegm after a shift down the pit, people understood the wider implications of polution on the atmosphere.  I suggest they didn't.

 

Even while I was growing up (relatively recently in this context!) there was no talk about 'global warming' or 'climate change' (other than at school when learning about ice ages and the like), and certainly no suggestion that human beings may influence global climate patterns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even while I was growing up (relatively recently in this context!) there was no talk about 'global warming' or 'climate change' (other than at school when learning about ice ages and the like), and certainly no suggestion that human beings may influence global climate patterns.

I'm 49 and there was plenty of discussion of the environment, ecology and green issues when I was at school, specifically focused on human contributions to global climatic change. There was also discussion about an impending now Ice Age too. The 80s was an era of competing theories, but to say nobody was talking about it is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 49 and there was plenty of discussion of the environment, ecology and green issues when I was at school, specifically focused on human contributions to global climatic change. There was also discussion about an impending now Ice Age too. The 80s was an era of competing theories, but to say nobody was talking about it is nonsense.

Well there was no discussion on human contributions to global climatic change when I was at school and no sign of it on TV as a political issue or even a conversation.  I remember Thatcher changing the law to ensure that new businesses landscaped their premises but that was to improve the environment.  And I'd left school by the time she did that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1990, Margaret Thatcher emerged as one of the first world leaders to champion climate science,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/margaret-thatcher-climate_n_3043873.html

in my view, nothing much will change. the UN troughers have had their holiday in Paris at our expense. Meanwhile, any money that we give to developing countries will go on gold-plated beds in presidents' palaces and diamons studded watches on presidents' wrists.

use of brown coal, etc will continue, motor traffic will continue to rise, and the best control mechanism, increasing energy prices, will be ignored because of the negative effect in the poll booths.

The most absurd thing of all is having a legal requirement to limit a temperature increase. What we need in actual action, not weasel words and platitudes.

Edited by JohnM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1990, Margaret Thatcher emerged as one of the first world leaders to champion climate science,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/margaret-thatcher-climate_n_3043873.html

Well she'd shut all those horrid pits.... of course she could claim to be doing her bit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well she'd shut all those horrid pits.... of course she could claim to be doing her bit!

Good for her. and for ending the healthh risk that the pits entailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for her. and for ending the healthh risk that the pits entailed.

We've done this to bits.... happy to carry it on on a specific thread rather than derail this. Naturally I believe your post to be nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point. its over and no more will people in the UK be subject to this medieval practice and no more of my wife's relatives will die as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realise how few deaths mining has seen these last 3 decades. Accidents at work happen but mining had become a huge safety environment.

Anecdotal evidence (I can't be ar sed trawling for the source) suggests far more people died driving taxis than died mining coal.

Best close all those ranks down...

Get Ian Mc in as taxi minister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway... climate change....

While ever China India and former eastern bloc's industries are belching their crapola into the atmos, this accord means JS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realise how few deaths mining has seen these last 3 decades.

Well that made up for the hundreds if not thousands they'd caused in all the decades leading up to them (and since we've hardly had any pits in production for the last decade then I would hope there were no deaths at all). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's the point.... Poor safety belongs to decades gone by. Prior to nationalisation in 1947 safety was almost an unspoken word.

After that date, thankfully safety was legislated for. Collieries has safety officers and engineers. Fatalities dropped remarkably.

There have always been dangerous jobs, none of which are risk free. But have made the same positive strides.

John's notion that it was right to shut collieries cos they were dangerous is plain daft. Industry would come to a stand still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express Yearbook 2018/19 - Order Now


Rugby League World - Nov 2018

Rugby League World - Nov 2018



League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday