Trump withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

Temps are a global mean average aussie. You are describing weather, not climate. The Pause is global sport. That's why they used to refer to this as global warming, global.

And you did not answer his question. I seriously doubt you even know what Global Warming/Climate Change has to do with weather, or even the difference. For instance, the melting of the Ice packs is not weather.

http://www.livescience.com/topics/global-warming?type=article
 
Werbung:
Dogtowner. While most countries had a pause it did not occur the same time in each country. For example The Aric warmed early but while this was happening the Antarctica had a pause. Now Icebergs are melting in the Antarctica as well. Can you name any couple where temperatures have not generally risen in the last twenty years.
Hi Mate, the Paris Agreement doesn't do anything other than allow the trading of Carbon the fudging of agreements and in some cases outright lying about targets and allowing developing nations to increase their economies and by default their carbon outputs, it does nothing to close the gap between the political ambition and national obligation. Indeed, it actually may stress developing and indeed developed economies by widening that gap because of the adoption of ambitious temperature targets without the apparent means to reach them. I know this seems counterintuitive but can't you see the damage this is actually doing to the science of climate!!

The Agreement stresses an analysis and interpretation of the science for the design and implementation of climate policy however, the agreement is soley based on temperature! Can you see the problem with this!!?? For a very simple example it offers no cost/benefit provision - if the science does not agree on the cause of warming (as is the case) and temperatures continue to fluctuate (as they always do) how is a judciary likely to respond? How are national judiciaries and lawmakers likely to respond to the decisions of supranational judiciaries and lawmakers? Very simply put it operates under the principles of law whilst threatening constitutional arrangements.
 
good luck to them...but I was thinking of the AGU - the American Geophysical Union.


I am pretty sure I addressed this in another thread, however, to the point of the AGU, another of those groups I pay little attention to, while I agree that man has a certain influence on the environment, and thus the climate, I dis agree that it is the major problem. We have underwater volcanoes (the Ring of Fire) erupting quite often, and spewing out methane gas. Whether or not that is caused by mans actions is questionable. Man himself is destroying the environment with his industrial actions such as cutting down the rain forests for the timer, oil, or gold. This in turn affects the weather patterns, and the filtering of the air. Then we have the garbage being dumped into the oceans affecting the temperature of the water, and the acidity. On land we have man using fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, (and then the amount of medicines, and cosmetics found in ground water, or streams, is phenomenal.) polluting the water, the air, and the food we eat.

I once wrote a paper in which I asked the question "does anyone have any idea as to what effect the paving of highways, the carving out of tunnels, the the building of skyscrapers, dams, houses, etc. has had on the environment?". No one has an answer, yet the effects can be seen.

Iti si not that man has an effect that I disagree with, it is the amount that I question, and have seen no proof that man is anymore hazardous then nature. Man can be controlled though, and can change his effect. Little we can do about nature.
 
The Sotsman, I am not saying the Paris agreement was perfect. It is just all we have. It has led to China leading a campaign to clean its environment. This was done because of the actual state of its cities not some future crisis. The agreement allow undeveloped countries to continue with carbon. This is accepting the fact that many undeveloped countries at present can not get rid of carbon inducing coal. But developed countries can and they are the leading polluters . In Australia over a million houses have solar panels on their roofs. We also have extensive wind generators. Most business support non fossil fuels as they see they will be the fuel of the future. They are also getting cheaper. These changes are the result of agreements like Paris. To abandon them with no alternative is wrong. We can not change nature but if some of the pollution is caused by man's activities we can at least effect this. There are many other things we can do but at least the Paris agreement is doing something.
 
This is accepting the fact that many undeveloped countries at present can not get rid of carbon inducing coal. But developed countries can and they are the leading polluters.
hmmmm doesn't that sound familiar.....

There are many other things we can do but at least the Paris agreement is doing something.
....is it?
It is estimated that just for the 12 days of the Paris conference (forget the preliminary and post conference talks etc.) it cost around USD1 Billion.
Almost half the world's population lives on less than a dollar a day, but the statistic fails to capture the humiliation, powerlessness and brutal hardship that is the daily lot of the world's poor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2007/12/071227_dollar_a_day_1.shtml
So instead of listening to politicians and the likes of Mugabe and his ilk masturbating over a worthless bit of paper perhaps feeding 2.7million people for a year would have been a much more worthwhile use of resources.
 
....is it?
It is estimated that just for the 12 days of the Paris conference (forget the preliminary and post conference talks etc.) it cost around USD1 Billion.

I would actually like to see a source for that, and just how those costs were spread out among the countries attending. The US did donate 1 billion to the Green Climate Fund.

http://www.environewsnigeria.com/u-s-donates-500m-green-climate-fund/

As to China, it seems you are now supporting the burning of coal, and the further pollution of the atmosphere. Maybe you have taken up Dogs position that more CO2 is good for the environment. Then too, are you to ignore that China is a leader in the building of renewable energy in its own country? Or is it no one told you that China began going "green" about ten years ago?

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/red-china-goes-green
 
The Sotsman, I am not saying the Paris agreement was perfect. It is just all we have. It has led to China leading a campaign to clean its environment. This was done because of the actual state of its cities not some future crisis. The agreement allow undeveloped countries to continue with carbon. This is accepting the fact that many undeveloped countries at present can not get rid of carbon inducing coal. But developed countries can and they are the leading polluters . In Australia over a million houses have solar panels on their roofs. We also have extensive wind generators. Most business support non fossil fuels as they see they will be the fuel of the future. They are also getting cheaper. These changes are the result of agreements like Paris. To abandon them with no alternative is wrong. We can not change nature but if some of the pollution is caused by man's activities we can at least effect this. There are many other things we can do but at least the Paris agreement is doing something.
None of that had anything to do with paris. All of it was afoot long before.
 
Oh yeah....I agree China is a shining light. The Chinese policy of limiting families to one child and "crowning" subsequent children is now paying dividends and I think this environmentally friendly approach should have been part of the Paris Accord!
They got embarrassed with the Olympics and it's hurting them but it's the pollution they are fixing, not co2.
Kinda had no choice really.
 
I would actually like to see a source for that,
Sorry mate it was a while ago in the print edition of the Economist it was written by a guy called George Klein (strangley enongh a member of the AGU!) - can't find the article on the web though. But do the math 45,0000 delegates over 2-3 weeks private jets and hotel suits, airline costs which woulf be 1st or business class, hotel room in paris costs what minimum EUR250 per night? - shit Obama spent about $5M and he was there for a day was it? Cost to the venue, cost of security, transport to from hotels... per diem rates what is it in the US$480 per day etc. etc. shit its probably more than $1Bn!

it seems you are now supporting the burning of coal, and the further pollution of the atmosphere.
Seems everyone is mate... look at the Germans and their new coal fired powere plants they're building... sucs but thats the way of it at the moment
I have gas for my heating and hot water what comes out the socket I can't vouch for.
 
It seems the main argument against the Paris agreement is that it will cost developed countries money. Any agreement combat global warming will cost money. Australia was the first to put a price on carbon. It was taking off at a subsequent election. Now while the majority of Australians want an EPU no political party will risk it as it will cost.


However do people look at he cost of doing nothing. It is said that the money would be better spent on the poor countries. Yet what would happen to countries like Bangladesh which will be under water if global warming is not stop. Any aid now offer will be nothing compare to then. World flow of refugees may lead to wars. This will cost even the developed nations far more.
This is why the Paris agreement wanted Developed countries help undeveloped countries combat global warming. They can not do it alone. But if most the world does not do anything the cost in the future will be great.
 
Werbung:
Sorry mate it was a while ago in the print edition of the Economist it was written by a guy called George Klein (strangley enongh a member of the AGU!) - can't find the article on the web though. But do the math 45,0000 delegates over 2-3 weeks private jets and hotel suits, airline costs which woulf be 1st or business class, hotel room in paris costs what minimum EUR250 per night? - shit Obama spent about $5M and he was there for a day was it? Cost to the venue, cost of security, transport to from hotels... per diem rates what is it in the US$480 per day etc. etc. shit its probably more than $1Bn!

45,000 delegates? Still need a source.

Seems everyone is mate... look at the Germans and their new coal fired powere plants they're building... sucs but thats the way of it at the moment
I have gas for my heating and hot water what comes out the socket I can't vouch for.

You do know that the US is switching to natural gas, right?

Do you mean these plants?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ants-face-early-retirement-as-profit-dwindles
 
Back
Top