• World agrees draft climate change deal, as summit hits halfway point
    15 replies, posted
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/05/paris-climate-change-talks-draft-french-summit[/url] [quote]Negotiators paving the way for a global climate change agreement in Paris have cleared a major hurdle, producing a draft accord in record time and raising hopes that a full week of minister-led talks can now clinch a deal despite many sticking points. No part of the deal has been finalised because in the end it is likely to be a tradeoff between developing countries’ demands – particularly for financing to help cope with the impacts of locked-in climate change – and wealthier nations’ insistence that over time all countries properly account for the progress they have made towards emission reduction goals. And it remains littered with brackets – indicating areas of disagreement. But the document handed to the French on Saturday has refined 50 pages down to just over 20 and, unusually, was agreed on schedule, leaving a full week for ministers to reach agreement. ... Non-government observers were also cautiously optimistic. Martin Kaiser of Greenpeace said progress was far better than at a similar point in the 2009 Copenhagen talks. “At this point in Copenhagen [in 2009] we were dealing with a 300-page text and a pervasive sense of despair. In Paris we’re down to a slim 21 pages and the atmosphere remains constructive. But that doesn’t guarantee a decent deal. Right now the oil-producing nations and the fossil fuel industry will be plotting how to crash these talks when ministers arrive next week.”[/quote] [img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img][img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img][img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img][img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img][img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img][img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img][img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img][img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img][img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img][img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img][img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img][img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img][img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img][img]http://imgkk.com/i/eohe.png[/img]
I'v heard it before so i'll believe it when i see it Still hoping for something though
Apparently portions of Big Oil did come to the talks and was for this deal... And then a bunch of KOCH brothers funded Climate Change deniers to come a disrupt the talks by disputing it.
too bad fucking republicans are already torpedoing any deal that is reached
Anyone know how much of a slap on the wrist coal power's going to get while automobiles get bent over and fucked yet again?
[QUOTE=Sableye;49254309]too bad fucking republicans are already torpedoing any deal that is reached[/QUOTE] can't you guys like just give the republicans one state, a small one somewhere where they can all move to and only govern that one state, so the can leave the rest of America to actually fix shit instead of going back to the middle ages?
[QUOTE=Source;49262577]can't you guys like just give the republicans one state, a small one somewhere where they can all move to and only govern that one state, so the can leave the rest of America to actually fix shit instead of going back to the middle ages?[/QUOTE] To the gop it is about MONEY. Someone here had the right idea. If you make dealing with the climate issue PROFITABLE, they will jump on board in no time. Right now it is more profitable not to acknowledged it and resist currently proposed solutions to fix global warming.
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49262647]To the gop it is about MONEY. Someone here had the right idea. If you make dealing with the climate issue PROFITABLE, they will jump on board in no time.[/QUOTE] It already is profitable if you do it right.
[QUOTE=OvB;49262653]It already is profitable if you do it right.[/QUOTE] How would you go about it?
[QUOTE=OvB;49262653]It already is profitable if you do it right.[/QUOTE] The problem is that most of it is profitable only in the long term, and while this is the smarter way to deal with things (thinking about the future rather than the immediate short-term), it's much easier to convince constituents about present things rather than the converse.
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49262664]How would you go about it?[/QUOTE] Depends on what you're doing. For most people, probably not much you can do. But if you're a wealthy business owner, converting to things like LED lights, energy saving windows, etc, solar panels (high upfront, profitable over the years), you can definitely save money by being "green" (I don't like that word) Or you could go a different route and make a company that makes "green" things and rake in hella bucks. Now if you're an oil giant it might be difficult, but I'd start moving to renewables in preparation for the future. I've been told that Shell deals almost exclusively in Natural Gas instead of oil because it's "better" and more profitable. Not quite all the way but it's a start. Then there are also companies like NRG which are investing heavily in renewables. The Empire State Building switched to all LED lighting, better windows, and other sustainable upgrades and it's saving them millions each year in energy costs. [url]http://www.esbnyc.com/esb-sustainability[/url] [editline]6th December 2015[/editline] Not to mention the economic turmoil that will result from global climate catastrophe if we don't do something now. Global fisheries collapse, unprecedented refugee crisis, wide spread crop collapse. Your bottom line will be your last worry.
[QUOTE]Not to mention the economic turmoil that will result from global climate catastrophe if we don't do something now. Global fisheries collapse, unprecedented refugee crisis, wide spread crop collapse. Your bottom line will be your last worry.[/QUOTE] Yes but any one who is concerned of money at expense of having breathable air in the future are known as the technical and highly scientific term, "idiot"
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49265205]Yes but any one who is concerned of money at expense of having breathable air in the future are known as the technical and highly scientific term, "idiot"[/QUOTE] These people aren't scientific. I had the honor of meeting a gentleman that believed in the Rapture. He believed that we should fund Israel and pollute as much as possible to bring about the end times. These beliefs contribute alot to the apathy towards climate change. Also, baby boomers were raised to think in the short-term, hence most of societies problems (infrastructure, etc).
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49262664]How would you go about it?[/QUOTE] Solar and wind have both been outpacing fossil fuel in job growth, and as a sector, with an unfriendly regulatory framework I may add. The recent spike in oil jobs is a blip but green has been consistently growing for the last few decades and is set to surpass fossil fuels quickly No you can't make fighting climate change profitable today, the schemes like cap and trade incentivise the buying and selling of made up carbon limits, they do not incentivise reducing the total carbon output, and there will be accountants that justify buying carbon credits and paying fees instead of reducing emissions. The only plan that will work is a carbon tax and the right is painting that as the doomsday scenario for our economy
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49265273]These people aren't scientific. I had the honor of meeting a gentleman that believed in the Rapture. He believed that we should fund Israel and pollute as much as possible to bring about the end times. These beliefs contribute alot to the apathy towards climate change. Also, baby boomers were raised to think in the short-term, hence most of societies problems (infrastructure, etc).[/QUOTE] Scientific was sarcasm. [QUOTE]He believed that we should fund Israel and pollute as much as possible to bring about the end times. [/QUOTE] What a sad man.
[QUOTE=OvB;49262653]It already is profitable if you do it right.[/QUOTE] But is it as profitable as being paid off by oil companies?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.