Scientists urge stronger Paris Agreement pledges to curb climate change

By Timothy Gardner

 

FILE PHOTO: Greenpeace environmental group stage a protest with words made of ice at the Brandenburg Gate near the venue of a session of the Petersberg Climate Dialogue, an informal meeting of ministers and representatives from 35 countries focused on the implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement in Berlin, Germany, May 14, 2019. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The vast majority of national commitments in the 2015 Paris Agreement are inadequate to prevent the worst effects of global warming, scientists said on Tuesday, naming the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitting countries as among those that must ratchet up their efforts.

 

"Governments are moving in the right direction, but nowhere near enough, so hopefully they will be willing to take on much stronger commitments" in next month's United Nation's climate summit in Spain, said Robert Watson, lead author of the report by the nonprofit Universal Ecological Fund.

 

The report ranked nearly 75%, or 136, of the pledges as insufficient, including ones by major carbon emitters China, the United States, and India. A dozen, by countries including Australia, Japan and Brazil, were judged only partially sufficient.

 

Countries at next month's summit in Madrid will hash out some details of the international pact to curb warming. Chile withdrew as host following weeks of riots protesting inequality.

 

Of the 184 pledges countries made under the climate agreement, only 36 are ambitious enough to help reach the agreement's goal of keeping global warming less than 1.5 Celsius (2.7 F) above pre-industrial levels, the report https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nFx8UKTyjEteYO87-x06mVEkTs6RSPBi/view said. Most of those 36 are by countries in the European Union.

 

Watson, a former chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the report could be read two ways: "You can read 'My God it's hopeless', or 'My God this is a wake up call.'"

 

Watson estimated that even if all nations meet their existing pledges, the world would be headed for temperature rise of between 3 and 3.5 degrees Celsius, which could lead to more extreme weather, rising sea levels and the loss of plant and animal species.

 

The report rated the European Union's 28 member states as having sufficient pledges because they aim to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030.

 

It ranked the United States as insufficient because President Donald Trump reversed former President Barack Obama's climate policies and yanked Washington out of the pact. The administration, which argues that Paris Agreement would cost U.S. taxpayers too much money, filed official paperwork on Monday to withdraw.

 

China, the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases, and India, also came in as insufficient because their pledges focus on carbon intensity targets, which lower emissions per unit of gross domestic product, or GDP. Because those economies are growing and coal produces much of their electricity, total emissions have risen sharply even though carbon intensity levels in China and India have fallen.

 

(Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by David Gregorio)

 

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2019-11-06

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

Here we go again.

Do they think if they keep saying the same thing over and over, we'll eventually believe them?

As usual nothing about what should be, or could be done to actually change anything.

They are right that the Paris accord won't do anything. It is really a meaningless effort and nothing more than western virtue signalling. Non western nations not required to do much at all.

If there really was threat there would be some different responses. But this is a political goal. A reach for economic control.

Meanwhile the planet is greening, storms are less frequent, growing seasons longer, and Canada now has 6 weeks of summer.

The threat is real. Time to remove heads from the sand...

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50302392

9 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

They are right that the Paris accord won't do anything. It is really a meaningless effort and nothing more than western virtue signalling. Non western nations not required to do much at all.

If there really was threat there would be some different responses. But this is a political goal. A reach for economic control.

Meanwhile the planet is greening, storms are less frequent, growing seasons longer, and Canada now has 6 weeks of summer.

Plants in NZ are lovin' the extra CO2. Growing like gangbusters.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Here we go again.

Do they think if they keep saying the same thing over and over, we'll eventually believe them?

As usual nothing about what should be, or could be done to actually change anything.

They have the science to back it up.

 

What have you got?

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They have the science to back it up.

 

What have you got?

Read 'Mirrors and Mazes', a guide through the climate change debate.

By Howard Thomas Brady.

Available on Kindle. A good scientific read.

Yeah but Fred down the pub reckons the summer wasn’t that great this year, so all the scientists are wrong. 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They have the science to back it up.

 

What have you got?

If these scientists collectively have an ounce more sense than a billiard ball, they would accept the political reality that global CO2 emissions are going to continue to rise for several decades more.

 

Calls for measures to curb CO2 are pointless, have nothing to do with the climate, and show all the hallmarks of being merely a useful tool to pursue repressive political agendas.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They have the science to back it up.

 

What have you got?

Whose Science?

Personally I believe climate change is inevitable, cyclic, and has been going on for millions of years. More thought, energy, and money should be channeled to reducing the disgusting amount of garbage currently being discharged into every available waterway, to end up in the ocean ????

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do they think if they keep saying the same thing over and over, we'll eventually believe them?

Yes, that's the plan exactly. And sadly it's working because most people can't break from their programming. 

5 minutes ago, teacherofwoe said:

Yes, that's the plan exactly. And sadly it's working because most people can't break from their programming. 

Well, the method has a very good track record.

 

A famous and successful propagandist of the mid-20th century said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."

Translation: We want more taxes and we want a piece of them, ASAP.

OMG here we go again from the Sheeple. With their scientists have said and agreed bla, bla, bla without even checking what they are told. Not one scientist who is not being paid directly or indirectly has agreed with this rubbish in fact only 0.001% of scientists agree with this. You ask any climate scientist who is not receiving grants what causes climate change and 100% will state The Sun = 97% humans = 1%. But the ice sheets..... Some are decreasing and some are growing in fact growing faster than ever recorded. But, but the polor bears in fact largest numbers recorded, but but OMG you were told by Al Gore the Great lakes would be dry years ago and last year highest levels recorded but but the world will end in 12 years sorry 11 years now....  What utter rubbish and what will it be in 10 years time when there is no change, what will you change the buzz words to be..... Global warming ~ Climate Change ~? And the biggest joke the report people go on about that Obama read to Congress was written by a comic book artist. You can't make this stuff up. Lol

The money is only filling the coffers of the Climate Scammers. Just how the hell is taxing the public gonna change Mother Nature.

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They have the science to back it up.

 

What have you got?

Science.

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Plants in NZ are lovin' the extra CO2. Growing like gangbusters.

Not all of as are vegetables.

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They have the science to back it up.

 

What have you got?

An enquiring mind and some basic research will confirm that, contrary to what we are constantly assured by the tame mass media, the science of anthropogenic global warming is anything but "settled".

 

To counter this truly inconvenient truth, the official climate change narrative is beng treated more like a religion than a scientific theory - with unpleasant consequences for heretics and apostates within and outside the scientific community.

 

There has even been a call for deniers and skeptics to be prosecuted as a danger to the rest of humanity.

 

One doesn't need a science degree to know that when people have to be browbeaten and bullied into believing something, it is probably wrong.

 

13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They have the science to back it up.

 

What have you got?

Donald Trump and assorted right wing nuts on the internet, oh and the fact they won't be around to see it so they don't care. Oh and I forget Jeremy Corbyn's brother. 

9 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

An enquiring mind and some basic research will confirm that, contrary to what we are constantly assured by the tame mass media, the science of anthropogenic global warming is anything but "settled".

 

To counter this truly inconvenient truth, the official climate change narrative is beng treated more like a religion than a scientific theory - with unpleasant consequences for heretics and apostates within and outside the scientific community.

 

There has even been a call for deniers and skeptics to be prosecuted as a danger to the rest of humanity.

 

One doesn't need a science degree to know that when people have to be browbeaten and bullied into believing something, it is probably wrong.

 

The science is settled and is shows there is a clear relationship between CO2 and climate change. 

One does need a science degree to understand the underlying science. 

The anti science funding by big corporations has paid off and the anti science crazies attack the clear evidence of human induced climate change. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, jm91 said:

The science is settled and is shows there is a clear relationship between CO2 and climate change. 

One does need a science degree to understand the underlying science. 

The anti science funding by big corporations has paid off and the anti science crazies attack the clear evidence of human induced climate change. 

 

 

 

Your dogmatism is formidable, but by all means PM me if you are open- minded enough to explore sources which question the official narrative.

23 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

They are right that the Paris accord won't do anything. It is really a meaningless effort and nothing more than western virtue signalling. Non western nations not required to do much at all.

If there really was threat there would be some different responses. But this is a political goal. A reach for economic control.

Meanwhile the planet is greening, storms are less frequent, growing seasons longer, and Canada now has 6 weeks of summer.

It is really a meaningless effort and nothing more than western virtue signalling.

 

The virtue signaling is just a tactic.  It's all about money.  Lots and lots and lots of money.  At least for those who have access to it.  Further control of the populace as well, since it's an excuse to dictate how everyone needs to live.  Except for those who will decide those things for everyone else.  Some people will necessarily have to be exempt.  Some pigs are more equal than others you know.

22 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

They have the science to back it up.

 

What have you got?

They have the science to back it up.

 

Well, then, if the evidence is so axiomatic then all scientists should agree.  But they don't.  So, no, the science isn't settled.

 

That's what I've got.

3 hours ago, jm91 said:

One does need a science degree to understand the underlying science. 

A degree might help, but anyone who bothers to learn can understand science. Information is not exclusive to graduates, the times when everything was written in Latin to keep it only among priests are long gone. Climatists might want to invent their own language if they want to achieve that superhuman aura. 

 

Degrees are good for getting into the first real job, showing off and getting government grants.

 

 

Here's a rarity a cool, reasoned appraisal of the reality behind the climate change hyperbole from a non-scientist with, as far as one can determine, no axe to grind. Should make some of us sleep easier in our beds tonight.

 

https://quillette.com/2019/11/07/climate-change-assessing-the-worst-case-scenario/

3 hours ago, jm91 said:

The science is settled and is shows there is a clear relationship between CO2 and climate change. 

One does need a science degree to understand the underlying science. 

The anti science funding by big corporations has paid off and the anti science crazies attack the clear evidence of human induced climate change. 

 

 

 

Here's your clear relationship. Link

 

10 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Here's your clear relationship. Link

 

I prefer to believe the scientists who studied the evidence for and against and made their decision.

 

 

44 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I prefer to believe the scientists who studied the evidence for and against and made their decision.

I think belief and science are mutually exclusive.

 

I prefer not to believe, but research and make my decisions based on the highest probabilities given the information I've found. As such, I do think humans are affecting the climate, we have since we stopped being hunter gatherers. But CO2 - nah, that's a money grab.

On 11/6/2019 at 8:58 PM, RickBradford said:

If these scientists collectively have an ounce more sense than a billiard ball, they would accept the political reality that global CO2 emissions are going to continue to rise for several decades more.

 

Calls for measures to curb CO2 are pointless, have nothing to do with the climate, and show all the hallmarks of being merely a useful tool to pursue repressive political agendas.

Exactly.

CO2 is necessary to promote life. Reduce CO2 too much, the plants die, and we die.

CO2 is a result of increasing temperatures, according to clever scientists, not the cause, and in any event, human caused CO2 is around 3% of atmospheric CO2, so nothing we do will change anything anyway.

This is, IMO, an entirely political scenario for reasons of taxation or suchlike.