UN: delegates set to sign historic climate change deal

[thaibeachlovers]

Perhaps historic, but nothing effective will come of it. Does anyone believe that all countries will cease using oil motivated vehicles and stop mass air travel? If they don't, it's not going to make any difference in either the long or short term. How many additional motor vehicles come into use every day- that's not going to change.

Is a single TV poster going to change their lifestyle- no AC, no car, no m'bike?

Perhaps Obama could show some leadership by mothballing AF1 and not travelling in massive convoys- dream on.

Well we could all sit around and wait till you come up with a solution.

What is it with you and Obama and Air Force 1? It is all you seem to rabbit on about as if that will address CO₂ pollution.

Grounding all planes, no a/c, motor vehicles or motorbikes would be a pretty foolish thing to do and the only people who seem to endorse this idiotic thinking is you and fellow climate deniers.

You seem to read everything I say about AF1, but ignore all the solutions I have given, MANY TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grounding AF1 would be symbolic in that Obama actually did something about what he believes in, but he has done nothing that I know of- ZERO leadership from a personal perspective.

The only things that would actually make a difference in the near future would be replacing carbon generated electricity with nuclear, banning private cars in cities and banning mass air travel. In the long term, population reduction is the best solution.

I'm betting that the only thing we actually get is more taxes.

[thaibeachlovers]

Every day climate change secondary to humans is proven fraudulent. Its no longer necessary to even tease the data, its self evident. From the fraud to the manipulation to the threats from climate changers/leftists its apparent... climate change is a socialist ideology that has cloaked itself in the priesthood appearance of Science.

Climate Change secondary to humans is another Long March. Its populated by lefists, radicals, liberals,etc. The entire poison and its antidote is contrived by the selective application and withholding of funds. Every single day in the news there is more proof regarding the Political Ideology of Climate Change being delusion. Science? Its ubiquitous.

People might be more receptive to this delusion if it was not populated by angry brown shirts couched as concerned citizens. Its despotic/

Political gobbledygook. 120 years of scientific research and evidence on GW / CC simply does not support your view. You have demonstrated post after post you do not have even a basic understanding of GW / CC science. Volcanic activity, Younger Dryas, all wrong.

!20 years! 555555555555555555555

I remember when the "scientists" were predicting an ice age and that we should burn more carbon to prevent it, and I'm not 120 years old.

The only thing certain in life is that politicians will use any excuse to raise taxes, and CC, which is impossible to prove is based 100% on human activity, is ideal. The propaganda machines have been working flat out on this one.

I even remember when the "scientists" were saying sugar was good for you, and that smoking didn't kill you.

[thaibeachlovers]

Deniers are using immature arguments of "all or nothing." An example goes something like this: "If you, tree hugger really believe humans are polluting the atmosphere, then you should stop using any contraption connected to internal combustion engines, and that includes stop using electricity, because it is sometimes produced by fossil fuels."

Here's are some more immature arguments by deniers: "Climate control agreements are never going to accomplish anything because......."

>>> it's too big of a topic. How can the activities of little ol' people affect something as vast as the Earth's surface?

>>> the scientists are only looking to enrich themselves with grants

>>> politicians will want to tax us into the poor house with carbon taxes

Most immature of all, is the argument that goes something like this; "no agreements are going to clean everything up and stop all pollution."

That's the 'all or nothing' type of logic I'd expect from a 5 year old. For sure, no agreement is going to entirely clean up the environment. To put it more maturely: Just getting the approx 200 nations of the world to agree on a big concept is a big deal. More importantly, the mature people are talking about DEGREES OF IMPROVEMENTS. Look at it this way:

Let's say you inherited a giant house with 350 rooms, and they're all dirty. You say you'd like to clean the house. Your cynical neighbor immediately tells you, "Yea sure, you're going to make the place spotless by tomorrow afternoon. What a joke!"

You get a crew with brooms and mops and tell the neighbor, "no, we're not going to attain complete perfection by tomorrow, but we're going to start, room by room. We may not even finish in a year, but every bit of cleaning we do, is an improvement. The longest journey begins with the first step."

As for deniers worried about wasted money and/or delegates taking jets to meetings. I don't like wasted money and people flying on jets who don't need to. However, if you want to talk about wasted money on meetings, or high salaries for professionals (climate scientists), you're worrying about a little nettle bush when next door there's a giant forest of sticker bushes and trees with spikes. Comparing the amount of wasted money by bureaucrats - to grants for climate scientists, is like comparing a sparkler with a barrel bomb. Get real.

Yes very true Boomer. Don't forget the last desperate strategy of the Climate Denier 'Oh it is too late to do anything now'

I'm not saying it's too late to do anything, I'm saying the politicians won't do what is necessary to change anything, so nothing will change. Strange that they won't do anything, given that their children will die in the methane storms that they say are coming unless we pay more tax!

[up2u2]

Perhaps historic, but nothing effective will come of it. Does anyone believe that all countries will cease using oil motivated vehicles and stop mass air travel? If they don't, it's not going to make any difference in either the long or short term. How many additional motor vehicles come into use every day- that's not going to change.

Is a single TV poster going to change their lifestyle- no AC, no car, no m'bike?

Perhaps Obama could show some leadership by mothballing AF1 and not travelling in massive convoys- dream on.

Well we could all sit around and wait till you come up with a solution.

What is it with you and Obama and Air Force 1? It is all you seem to rabbit on about as if that will address CO₂ pollution.

Grounding all planes, no a/c, motor vehicles or motorbikes would be a pretty foolish thing to do and the only people who seem to endorse this idiotic thinking is you and fellow climate deniers.

You seem to read everything I say about AF1, but ignore all the solutions I have given, MANY TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grounding AF1 would be symbolic in that Obama actually did something about what he believes in, but he has done nothing that I know of- ZERO leadership from a personal perspective.

The only things that would actually make a difference in the near future would be replacing carbon generated electricity with nuclear, banning private cars in cities and banning mass air travel. In the long term, population reduction is the best solution.

I'm betting that the only thing we actually get is more taxes.

Grounding Air Force1 and reverting the world back to pre industrial revolution times seems a pretty stupid solution to Fossil Fuel pollution to me. Got any other suggestions?

[borborygmus]

Every day climate change secondary to humans is proven fraudulent. Its no longer necessary to even tease the data, its self evident. From the fraud to the manipulation to the threats from climate changers/leftists its apparent... climate change is a socialist ideology that has cloaked itself in the priesthood appearance of Science.

Climate Change secondary to humans is another Long March. Its populated by lefists, radicals, liberals,etc. The entire poison and its antidote is contrived by the selective application and withholding of funds. Every single day in the news there is more proof regarding the Political Ideology of Climate Change being delusion. Science? Its ubiquitous.

People might be more receptive to this delusion if it was not populated by angry brown shirts couched as concerned citizens. Its despotic/

Political gobbledygook. 120 years of scientific research and evidence on GW / CC simply does not support your view. You have demonstrated post after post you do not have even a basic understanding of GW / CC science. Volcanic activity, Younger Dryas, all wrong.

!20 years! 555555555555555555555

I remember when the "scientists" were predicting an ice age and that we should burn more carbon to prevent it, and I'm not 120 years old.

The only thing certain in life is that politicians will use any excuse to raise taxes, and CC, which is impossible to prove is based 100% on human activity, is ideal. The propaganda machines have been working flat out on this one.

I even remember when the "scientists" were saying sugar was good for you, and that smoking didn't kill you.

At one time a small minority of climate scientists said that. The theory never gained wide currency. http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

[thaibeachlovers]

Perhaps historic, but nothing effective will come of it. Does anyone believe that all countries will cease using oil motivated vehicles and stop mass air travel? If they don't, it's not going to make any difference in either the long or short term. How many additional motor vehicles come into use every day- that's not going to change.

Is a single TV poster going to change their lifestyle- no AC, no car, no m'bike?

Perhaps Obama could show some leadership by mothballing AF1 and not travelling in massive convoys- dream on.

Well we could all sit around and wait till you come up with a solution.

What is it with you and Obama and Air Force 1? It is all you seem to rabbit on about as if that will address CO₂ pollution.

Grounding all planes, no a/c, motor vehicles or motorbikes would be a pretty foolish thing to do and the only people who seem to endorse this idiotic thinking is you and fellow climate deniers.

You seem to read everything I say about AF1, but ignore all the solutions I have given, MANY TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grounding AF1 would be symbolic in that Obama actually did something about what he believes in, but he has done nothing that I know of- ZERO leadership from a personal perspective.

The only things that would actually make a difference in the near future would be replacing carbon generated electricity with nuclear, banning private cars in cities and banning mass air travel. In the long term, population reduction is the best solution.

I'm betting that the only thing we actually get is more taxes.

Grounding Air Force1 and reverting the world back to pre industrial revolution times seems a pretty stupid solution to Fossil Fuel pollution to me. Got any other suggestions?

Disagree. Grounding AF1 would send a powerful signal that Obama is actually serious about CC, and you seem to miss the bit where I say ban cars in the CITIES. Cars already ruin city life, so banning them and providing cheap, non polluting, convenient public transport would be a good thing regardless of whether or not it solves CC. I'm not saying ban trucks or cars in the countryside where public transport is unrealistic.

Mass air travel has become a very bad thing, judging by the ruined tourist areas of Thailand, from too many tourists.

Soooooo, what is your solution to CC, other than taxes? What they are doing so far is insignificant and won't change anything.

[eliotness]

Sorry to rain on peoples parade, but when you undertake a "life cycle analysis" of a nuclear power station you find there is a huge amount of emitted CO2 in its construction because of the amount of high-grade steel and concrete required. Then there's the extraction of the fuel source and its enrichment. Finally there is the nuclear waste, which is a huge story in itself. So gentlemen whilst nuclear power can be a contributor to a balanced energy plan, it will not negate CO2 emissions.

[tomwct]

What a Joke! It's all about money and big government! This is a load of crap!

[borborygmus]

What a Joke! It's all about money and big government! This is a load of crap!

Thank you for your useful and enlightening contribution to the subject. Clearly, it's one you've given a lot of thought to.

[up2u2]

Sorry to rain on peoples parade, but when you undertake a "life cycle analysis" of a nuclear power station you find there is a huge amount of emitted CO2 in its construction because of the amount of high-grade steel and concrete required. Then there's the extraction of the fuel source and its enrichment. Finally there is the nuclear waste, which is a huge story in itself. So gentlemen whilst nuclear power can be a contributor to a balanced energy plan, it will not negate CO2 emissions.

That better not be 'acid rain'.

What is the 'life cycle analysis' CO₂ emissions when a Nuclear Reactor is compared to a Coal Fired Power station.

[eliotness]

Sorry to rain on peoples parade, but when you undertake a "life cycle analysis" of a nuclear power station you find there is a huge amount of emitted CO2 in its construction because of the amount of high-grade steel and concrete required. Then there's the extraction of the fuel source and its enrichment. Finally there is the nuclear waste, which is a huge story in itself. So gentlemen whilst nuclear power can be a contributor to a balanced energy plan, it will not negate CO2 emissions.

That better not be 'acid rain'.

What is the 'life cycle analysis' CO₂ emissions when a Nuclear Reactor is compared to a Coal Fired Power station.

I could say "easy, just look it up", but due to political pressure no full life cycle analysis has ever been done, or will ever be done on Nuclear power. But my point was that nuclear power is not a solution to CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions from coal burning power stations is a problem. In the UK acid rain caused by the burning of coal was also a problem, but now as most have been closed down that problem is greatly diminished. Technology is being developed currently to allow carbon-capture from power station, be they coal, oil or gas, but it needs big political support, which seems to be somewhat lacking.

As an aside, when I was working in Manchester in the early 70s, we recorded one day in central Manchester rain of pH5.0. Fortunately such acid rain no longer occurs in the UK, but I bet China and India have that problem now.

Life cycle analysis looks at ALL the environmental effects, again and again you and your cohorts continue to totally focus on just on CO2, instead of looking at the truly bigger picture. Just check out the ISO web page for the Standard on Life Cycle Analysis.

[up2u2]

Sorry to rain on peoples parade, but when you undertake a "life cycle analysis" of a nuclear power station you find there is a huge amount of emitted CO2 in its construction because of the amount of high-grade steel and concrete required. Then there's the extraction of the fuel source and its enrichment. Finally there is the nuclear waste, which is a huge story in itself. So gentlemen whilst nuclear power can be a contributor to a balanced energy plan, it will not negate CO2 emissions.

That better not be 'acid rain'.

What is the 'life cycle analysis' CO₂ emissions when a Nuclear Reactor is compared to a Coal Fired Power station.

I could say "easy, just look it up", but due to political pressure no full life cycle analysis has ever been done, or will ever be done on Nuclear power. But my point was that nuclear power is not a solution to CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions from coal burning power stations is a problem. In the UK acid rain caused by the burning of coal was also a problem, but now as most have been closed down that problem is greatly diminished. Technology is being developed currently to allow carbon-capture from power station, be they coal, oil or gas, but it needs big political support, which seems to be somewhat lacking.

As an aside, when I was working in Manchester in the early 70s, we recorded one day in central Manchester rain of pH5.0. Fortunately such acid rain no longer occurs in the UK, but I bet China and India have that problem now.

Life cycle analysis looks at ALL the environmental effects, again and again you and your cohorts continue to totally focus on just on CO2, instead of looking at the truly bigger picture. Just check out the ISO web page for the Standard on Life Cycle Analysis.

You sure about that?

[RickBradford]

Meanwhile, to celebrate this "historic" climate change agreement, China is ramping up its coal-fired power capacity at the fastest rate for a decade.

A mere 100 coal plants were added last year, but another 155 more have been approved, which over their lifetime will emit 1.4 times China's total annual CO2 emissions.

Hats off to the UN for achieving this "historic" agreement.

Greenpeace, though, isn't happy, and has issued its usual demands -- that China "urgently institute a ban on issuing any more permits for coal-fired plants", and that it "include an ambitious target for peaking and reducing China's coal consumption by 2020."

I think not. Greenpeace is whistling, but the dog's out of range. Furthermore, China is simply operating within what it agreed to do at the "historic" climate summit.

If you lie awake at night worrying about the effects of CO2 on temperature, now's the time to start pricing apartments in Yakutsk.

[up2u2]

Meanwhile, to celebrate this "historic" climate change agreement, China is ramping up its coal-fired power capacity at the fastest rate for a decade.

A mere 100 coal plants were added last year, but another 155 more have been approved, which over their lifetime will emit 1.4 times China's total annual CO2 emissions.

Hats off to the UN for achieving this "historic" agreement.

Greenpeace, though, isn't happy, and has issued its usual demands -- that China "urgently institute a ban on issuing any more permits for coal-fired plants", and that it "include an ambitious target for peaking and reducing China's coal consumption by 2020."

I think not. Greenpeace is whistling, but the dog's out of range. Furthermore, China is simply operating within what it agreed to do at the "historic" climate summit.

If you lie awake at night worrying about the effects of CO2 on temperature, now's the time to start pricing apartments in Yakutsk.

Very simplistic. China is a very complex energy mix. Totally committed to Carbon reduction. Most obsolete coal fired power stations are earmarked for the bulldozer. Last November saw the last old coal fired power station powering Beijing taken offline and bulldozed all replaced by cleaner coal technology, gas, wind and solar arrays. I can understand Greenpeace's impatience but China is still a HUGE economy and a growing middle class. Over all China would be probably one of the most ambitious Carbon reduction economies if you properly evaluate their growth and power needs. China currently have a number of Carbon Tax economic zones being tested. These will be rolled out Nationally once they fine tune them.The great advantage China has is if the government decides something must be done for the advancement of its citizens any Fossil Fuel polluter or Climate Denier thinking of talking BS is taken for a short walk in a big paddock. Corrupt corporations like Exxon executives would be doing hard time if they are very lucky to stay alive. China is positioning itself to be a major player in clean energy technology. Certainly way ahead of the US. The US is hamstrung by a corrupt government still wasting money and polluting their country with fracking.

Not very goods points RB and very misleading. You need to be more across the complexities and the multi faceted factors where China is concerned. China is well placed to meet their targets and probably better those targets. Obama is more than aware if this and has pushed hard to keep America in the game in spite of a destructive Republican Congress and the Fossil Fuel funded Climate Denier blog-o-sphere.

[eliotness]

Sorry to rain on peoples parade, but when you undertake a "life cycle analysis" of a nuclear power station you find there is a huge amount of emitted CO2 in its construction because of the amount of high-grade steel and concrete required. Then there's the extraction of the fuel source and its enrichment. Finally there is the nuclear waste, which is a huge story in itself. So gentlemen whilst nuclear power can be a contributor to a balanced energy plan, it will not negate CO2 emissions.

That better not be 'acid rain'.

What is the 'life cycle analysis' CO₂ emissions when a Nuclear Reactor is compared to a Coal Fired Power station.

I could say "easy, just look it up", but due to political pressure no full life cycle analysis has ever been done, or will ever be done on Nuclear power. But my point was that nuclear power is not a solution to CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions from coal burning power stations is a problem. In the UK acid rain caused by the burning of coal was also a problem, but now as most have been closed down that problem is greatly diminished. Technology is being developed currently to allow carbon-capture from power station, be they coal, oil or gas, but it needs big political support, which seems to be somewhat lacking.

As an aside, when I was working in Manchester in the early 70s, we recorded one day in central Manchester rain of pH5.0. Fortunately such acid rain no longer occurs in the UK, but I bet China and India have that problem now.

Life cycle analysis looks at ALL the environmental effects, again and again you and your cohorts continue to totally focus on just on CO2, instead of looking at the truly bigger picture. Just check out the ISO web page for the Standard on Life Cycle Analysis.

You sure about that?

Sure about what ? No nuclear life cycle analysis ! Absolutely, too much of a political hot potato.

[up2u2]

That better not be 'acid rain'.

What is the 'life cycle analysis' CO₂ emissions when a Nuclear Reactor is compared to a Coal Fired Power station.

I could say "easy, just look it up", but due to political pressure no full life cycle analysis has ever been done, or will ever be done on Nuclear power. But my point was that nuclear power is not a solution to CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions from coal burning power stations is a problem. In the UK acid rain caused by the burning of coal was also a problem, but now as most have been closed down that problem is greatly diminished. Technology is being developed currently to allow carbon-capture from power station, be they coal, oil or gas, but it needs big political support, which seems to be somewhat lacking.

As an aside, when I was working in Manchester in the early 70s, we recorded one day in central Manchester rain of pH5.0. Fortunately such acid rain no longer occurs in the UK, but I bet China and India have that problem now.

Life cycle analysis looks at ALL the environmental effects, again and again you and your cohorts continue to totally focus on just on CO2, instead of looking at the truly bigger picture. Just check out the ISO web page for the Standard on Life Cycle Analysis.

You sure about that?

Sure about what ? No nuclear life cycle analysis ! Absolutely, too much of a political hot potato.

Let me help you out then.

'Life Cycle Analysis' CO₂ emissions comparison Nuclear Power Station vs Coal Fired Power Station:

Mean over the life of each technology including construction

Coal - 888 tonnes CO₂e/GWh

Nuclear - 29 tonnes CO₂e/GWh

[eliotness]

That better not be 'acid rain'.

What is the 'life cycle analysis' CO₂ emissions when a Nuclear Reactor is compared to a Coal Fired Power station.

I could say "easy, just look it up", but due to political pressure no full life cycle analysis has ever been done, or will ever be done on Nuclear power. But my point was that nuclear power is not a solution to CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions from coal burning power stations is a problem. In the UK acid rain caused by the burning of coal was also a problem, but now as most have been closed down that problem is greatly diminished. Technology is being developed currently to allow carbon-capture from power station, be they coal, oil or gas, but it needs big political support, which seems to be somewhat lacking.

As an aside, when I was working in Manchester in the early 70s, we recorded one day in central Manchester rain of pH5.0. Fortunately such acid rain no longer occurs in the UK, but I bet China and India have that problem now.

Life cycle analysis looks at ALL the environmental effects, again and again you and your cohorts continue to totally focus on just on CO2, instead of looking at the truly bigger picture. Just check out the ISO web page for the Standard on Life Cycle Analysis.

You sure about that?

Sure about what ? No nuclear life cycle analysis ! Absolutely, too much of a political hot potato.

Let me help you out then.

'Life Cycle Analysis' CO₂ emissions comparison Nuclear Power Station vs Coal Fired Power Station:

Mean over the life of each technology including construction
Coal - 888 tonnes CO₂e/GWh
Nuclear - 29 tonnes CO₂e/GWh

You so so miss my point, which shows your blinkered view. The whole point of life cycle analysis is to show not just the daily operational emissions but rather to consider the start-up, the construction, the operation and the close down of an activity. This appears by your comment to be something beyond your understanding. OK keep on living on your silly little world, keep on wearing your brown shirt designed by Hugo Boss, don't drink the coffee,and think the politicians are all really nice guys to be trusted.

[boomerangutang]

Sorry to rain on peoples parade, but when you undertake a "life cycle analysis" of a nuclear power station you find there is a huge amount of emitted CO2 in its construction because of the amount of high-grade steel and concrete required. Then there's the extraction of the fuel source and its enrichment. Finally there is the nuclear waste, which is a huge story in itself. So gentlemen whilst nuclear power can be a contributor to a balanced energy plan, it will not negate CO2 emissions.

That better not be 'acid rain'.

What is the 'life cycle analysis' CO₂ emissions when a Nuclear Reactor is compared to a Coal Fired Power station.

CO₂ emissions are just part of the problem. N plants have potential problems which are more dire than CO_{2. Look at Chernobyl or Fukishima. And that doesn't take into account the scheduled and eventual decommissioning of all N plants. Several N reactors are being decommissioned in the US - earlier than their due date, because locals don't want them nearby. The choices aren't between coal or nuclear. That's like saying to someone who wants to walk home alone from a late night party: do you want to be raped or knifed? What the CC conference/agreement is inferring, as much as anything else, is that all countries should be seriously considering adding as much alternative clean power generation as reasonably possible. Iceland and Japan (and UK and US, among others) are doing things with thermal. Portugal and Scotland are at the vanguard of wave power generation. Many small-time entrepreneurs are developing some very cool alternative energy contraptions while we speak. Unfortunately, Thailand (and other Asian countries) are behind the curve. Innovations aren't coming out of Asia. Instead, Asia is years behind trends, and when it does try a new technology, it doesn't want to pay royalties to the inventors/developers. Asians have the brain power and potential money for innovations, but governments and big biz investment all goes to smokestack investments. If innovation were surfers, Europeans and N.Americans and Aus/NZ would be out on the surf trying to catch the waves, while Asians and Africans would be at the clubhouse drinking beer on ice and trying to fix the stuck zippers on their shorts without taking them off.}

Meanwhile, to celebrate this "historic" climate change agreement, China is ramping up its coal-fired power capacity at the fastest rate for a decade.

A mere 100 coal plants were added last year, but another 155 more have been approved, which over their lifetime will emit 1.4 times China's total annual CO2 emissions.

Hats off to the UN for achieving this "historic" agreement.

Greenpeace, though, isn't happy, and has issued its usual demands -- that China "urgently institute a ban on issuing any more permits for coal-fired plants", and that it "include an ambitious target for peaking and reducing China's coal consumption by 2020."

I think not. Greenpeace is whistling, but the dog's out of range. Furthermore, China is simply operating within what it agreed to do at the "historic" climate summit.

If you lie awake at night worrying about the effects of CO2 on temperature, now's the time to start pricing apartments in Yakutsk.

China could have easily kept away from the agreement, which it wanted to do, as it's kept clear of other int'l agreements it doesn't like (related to grabbing territories in Tibet and SCS, for example). Considering it attended the meetings and agreed to sign on is a major achievement. One main reason China is agreeing to do something is, in some Chinese cities, there is active protests against dirty air. Very important for Chinese politburo is; no protests.

RB claims there have been are coal plants being added now, and more in the future for China, is sad news but not surprising. China is renown for bending and breaking treaties. Yet, without the CC agreement, the # of added coal plants could be a lot higher. Some improvement is better than no improvement.

[RickBradford]

RB claims there have been are coal plants being added now, and more in the future for China, is sad news but not surprising. China is renown for bending and breaking treaties. Yet, without the CC agreement, the # of added coal plants could be a lot higher. Some improvement is better than no improvement.

1 . It is not my "claim". It is well-documented fact and has been discussed in many publications.

2 . China is not bending or breaking anything. It is simply doing what it signed up to do in the "historic" climate deal, ie to keep increasing its emissions of CO2 through 2030, from about 11 gigatons of equivalent carbon dioxide (GTCO2e) now to perhaps 15 or 16 GTCO2e, depending on the exact policies enacted. That increase alone, of 5GTCO2e, is more than the entire EU emits each year.

3 . I doubt that China is making any improvements as a result of signing this silly treaty. Any improvements it makes will be purely out of self-interest, particularly in trying not to poison its own citizens with soot and other particulates.

[thaibeachlovers]

Sure about what ? No nuclear life cycle analysis ! Absolutely, too much of a political hot potato.

Let me help you out then.

'Life Cycle Analysis' CO₂ emissions comparison Nuclear Power Station vs Coal Fired Power Station:

Mean over the life of each technology including construction

Coal - 888 tonnes CO₂e/GWh

Nuclear - 29 tonnes CO₂e/GWh

You so so miss my point, which shows your blinkered view. The whole point of life cycle analysis is to show not just the daily operational emissions but rather to consider the start-up, the construction, the operation and the close down of an activity. This appears by your comment to be something beyond your understanding. OK keep on living on your silly little world, keep on wearing your brown shirt designed by Hugo Boss, don't drink the coffee,and think the politicians are all really nice guys to be trusted.

This isn't aimed at you in particular, but seems an appropriate reply to hang my thought on.

I drive a very old, small, economical car at the moment, because public transport is non existent ( while living in Pattaya and London I had no car or m'bike ). I use as little electricity as possible, have no smart phone, don't buy much, buy second hand where possible, travel minimally and only when necessary. When I was working and going on my bi annual holiday in LOS I stayed in simple, cheap places ( no tv, no hot water, no AC ), travelled in public transport and ate at simple restaurants. In short, if everyone was like me the world's economy would collapse, because I consumed very little. I caused as little pollution as possible while having an enjoyable life, but the main thing I did to reduce my impact on the planet was to have NO children.

Seems to me that the people wobbling on the most about CC are the ones causing the most pollution in their activities, taking planes and large entourages to meetings when they could do it all with VDO conferencing ( I'm thinking of Obama here, in particular, and CC scientists in general ).

I'm still waiting for a practical solution to emerge from the latest talk fest, but apparently just saying there is a problem is all they achieved. Solutions are obviously not needed.

[up2u2]

Sure about what ? No nuclear life cycle analysis ! Absolutely, too much of a political hot potato.

Let me help you out then.

'Life Cycle Analysis' CO₂ emissions comparison Nuclear Power Station vs Coal Fired Power Station:

Mean over the life of each technology including construction

Coal - 888 tonnes CO₂e/GWh

Nuclear - 29 tonnes CO₂e/GWh

You so so miss my point, which shows your blinkered view. The whole point of life cycle analysis is to show not just the daily operational emissions but rather to consider the start-up, the construction, the operation and the close down of an activity. This appears by your comment to be something beyond your understanding. OK keep on living on your silly little world, keep on wearing your brown shirt designed by Hugo Boss, don't drink the coffee,and think the politicians are all really nice guys to be trusted.

In a Life Cycle Analysis that is all included. Seemed in your world comparative life cycle analysis had not been done. In my 'silly little world' I knew darn well they had been done. Hundreds of them and I had actually looked at them years ago. The particular numbers I quoted were actually from a report that studied 10-17 full life cycle analysis of each power producing sector and compared Mean / Low and High outputs.

Hugo Boss? I don't think so mate a little last year for me. Hugo went in the dustbin. Currently Gant is my label of choice.

Coffee? Excuse me. Freshly ground (without burning the grind) Espresso if you don't mind. I wouldn't feed 'coffee' to a pig. Especially that American percolated muck. Coffee INDEED!!!! outrageous!!!

[RickBradford]

A prime example of the moronic and destructive way these international bureaucrats pursue their vanity projects is the decade-long biofuels debacle.

2003: Biofuels good. All EU countries to replace 5.75% of all transport fossil fuels (petrol and diesel) with biofuels by 2010. Greenpeace calls for subsidies for bio-diesel.

2007: The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, calls biofuels "a crime against humanity" for diverting arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel, pushing staple food prices to record highs. A direct consequence was an increase in malnutrition, especially in underdeveloped countries dependent on staple food imports, affecting tens of millions of people.

2007: Greenpeace belatedly discovers that biofuels are not the magic solution, and changes its stance.

2008: Biofuels doubleplusgood. Each EU member state to have at least 10% renewable energy used in transport by 2020 from biofuels and other sources like "green electricity."

2008: EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas announced the EU is rethinking its biofuel program due to environmental and social concerns.

2016: Biofuels finally ungood. Directive scrapped in order to sidestep criticism surrounding the appalling environmental damage caused by biofuels.

Result: More dead people in the Third World, pristine rainforests razed by the megahectare, tens of billions of dollars p**sed away, and the EU bureaucracy strokes its collective ego and tells us that we, the people, are the ones causing global warming and must change our ways.

That's what happens when you trust self-appointed elites to run your life.

[up2u2]

A prime example of the moronic and destructive way these international bureaucrats pursue their vanity projects is the decade-long biofuels debacle.

2003: Biofuels good. All EU countries to replace 5.75% of all transport fossil fuels (petrol and diesel) with biofuels by 2010. Greenpeace calls for subsidies for bio-diesel.

2007: The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, calls biofuels "a crime against humanity" for diverting arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel, pushing staple food prices to record highs. A direct consequence was an increase in malnutrition, especially in underdeveloped countries dependent on staple food imports, affecting tens of millions of people.

2007: Greenpeace belatedly discovers that biofuels are not the magic solution, and changes its stance.

2008: Biofuels doubleplusgood. Each EU member state to have at least 10% renewable energy used in transport by 2020 from biofuels and other sources like "green electricity."

2008: EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas announced the EU is rethinking its biofuel program due to environmental and social concerns.

2016: Biofuels finally ungood. Directive scrapped in order to sidestep criticism surrounding the appalling environmental damage caused by biofuels.

Result: More dead people in the Third World, pristine rainforests razed by the megahectare, tens of billions of dollars p**sed away, and the EU bureaucracy strokes its collective ego and tells us that we, the people, are the ones causing global warming and must change our ways.

That's what happens when you trust self-appointed elites to run your life.

Biofuels now. There really is no contributing technology solution to GW / CC the Fossil Fuel funded Climate Denier blog-o-sphere will not attack and provide misinformation on.

Climate Denier ideology:

Solutions to Fossil Fuel pollution = Bad

Fossil Fuels = Good

[arjunadawn]

A prime example of the moronic and destructive way these international bureaucrats pursue their vanity projects is the decade-long biofuels debacle.

2003: Biofuels good. All EU countries to replace 5.75% of all transport fossil fuels (petrol and diesel) with biofuels by 2010. Greenpeace calls for subsidies for bio-diesel.

2007: The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, calls biofuels "a crime against humanity" for diverting arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel, pushing staple food prices to record highs. A direct consequence was an increase in malnutrition, especially in underdeveloped countries dependent on staple food imports, affecting tens of millions of people.

2007: Greenpeace belatedly discovers that biofuels are not the magic solution, and changes its stance.

2008: Biofuels doubleplusgood. Each EU member state to have at least 10% renewable energy used in transport by 2020 from biofuels and other sources like "green electricity."

2008: EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas announced the EU is rethinking its biofuel program due to environmental and social concerns.

2016: Biofuels finally ungood. Directive scrapped in order to sidestep criticism surrounding the appalling environmental damage caused by biofuels.

Result: More dead people in the Third World, pristine rainforests razed by the megahectare, tens of billions of dollars p**sed away, and the EU bureaucracy strokes its collective ego and tells us that we, the people, are the ones causing global warming and must change our ways.

That's what happens when you trust self-appointed elites to run your life.

A very useful device demonstrating the unintended consequences of liberal ideology being emotionally inflicted on the whole.

[RickBradford]

Biofuels now. There really is no contributing technology solution to GW / CC the Fossil Fuel funded Climate Denier blog-o-sphere will not attack and provide misinformation on.

By that definition, also part of the "the Fossil Fuel funded Climate Denier blog-o-sphere" are the World Bank, the OECD, Greenpeace, the International Monetary Fund, The World Conservation Union, the United Nations, the European Environmental Bureau, all of whom have publicly attacked current or past policies on biofuels.

As for "misinformation", that is simply a Green/Left word for "stuff I disagree with."

[boomerangutang]

A prime example of the moronic and destructive way these international bureaucrats pursue their vanity projects is the decade-long biofuels debacle.

2003: Biofuels good. All EU countries to replace 5.75% of all transport fossil fuels (petrol and diesel) with biofuels by 2010. Greenpeace calls for subsidies for bio-diesel.

2007: The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, calls biofuels "a crime against humanity" for diverting arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel, pushing staple food prices to record highs. A direct consequence was an increase in malnutrition, especially in underdeveloped countries dependent on staple food imports, affecting tens of millions of people.

2007: Greenpeace belatedly discovers that biofuels are not the magic solution, and changes its stance.

2008: Biofuels doubleplusgood. Each EU member state to have at least 10% renewable energy used in transport by 2020 from biofuels and other sources like "green electricity."

2008: EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas announced the EU is rethinking its biofuel program due to environmental and social concerns.

2016: Biofuels finally ungood. Directive scrapped in order to sidestep criticism surrounding the appalling environmental damage caused by biofuels.

Result: More dead people in the Third World, pristine rainforests razed by the megahectare, tens of billions of dollars p**sed away, and the EU bureaucracy strokes its collective ego and tells us that we, the people, are the ones causing global warming and must change our ways.

That's what happens when you trust self-appointed elites to run your life.

That's why discussions among experts and interested parties should be vigorous and on-going. that's part of climate meetings are about. There no perfect solution on either side. Sometimes a technology (or fuel) comes along and experts are full of praise, .....then the same tech might be found to be problematic later. Several decades ago, it was thought that electric shocks to the body were health promoting. Doctors would get on TV and say smoking tobacco was good for health. People downwind from N bomb testings were told there's nothing to worry about. Things change.

I don't like the idea of Hydrogen for power, but maybe I'll change my opinion on that in the future. Same for fusion, when one considers the investment for trying to get it to work (for decades). The concept of American farmers growing corn for biofuel was thought, until recently, to be a great idea. then it was found it cost more than a gallon of gas to make a gallon of ethanol. Brazilians are doing it smarter, using sugar cane. Discussions are what's needed - to find best and lowest cost solutions. The alternative is the status quo, and that's obviously bad. I can't help but think the people who are adamantly against any improvements, are the people who are involved with fossil fuel-related businesses. Why else would they be so vociferously opposed to seeking solutions?

[RickBradford]

That's why discussions among experts and interested parties should be vigorous and on-going.

A laudable intention indeed. But impractical.

That intention cannot co-exist with the oft-repeated political mantram: "The science is settled, the debate is over." Or with attempts to try skeptic climate scientists under racketeering statutes. Or with decisions to ban climate skeptics from appearing on state TV. Or with sacking meteorologists who downplay the forthcoming climate apocalypse. Or even simply labelling people as "deniers", with the intention of putting them, and their opinions, beyond the pale.

If you only hold meetings with your own cronies and a few toadies and hangers-on, in a self-perpetuating echo chamber, you aren't going to get very far. As the IPCC demonstrates.

[boomerangutang]

That's why discussions among experts and interested parties should be vigorous and on-going.

A laudable intention indeed. But impractical.

That intention cannot co-exist with the oft-repeated political mantram: "The science is settled, the debate is over." Or with attempts to try skeptic climate scientists under racketeering statutes. Or with decisions to ban climate skeptics from appearing on state TV. Or with sacking meteorologists who downplay the forthcoming climate apocalypse. Or even simply labelling people as "deniers", with the intention of putting them, and their opinions, beyond the pale.

If you only hold meetings with your own cronies and a few toadies and hangers-on, in a self-perpetuating echo chamber, you aren't going to get very far. As the IPCC demonstrates.

I'm not surprised at your closed door / closed eyes attitude.

[RickBradford]

I'm not surprised at your closed door / closed eyes attitude.

I'm not surprised that you haven't read a word I posted.

If you had, you would have known that I am arguing for open doors to all opinions on the matter, "vigorous and on-going" discussions, indeed, and arguing against the closed door that is the stated goal of the climate establishment.

Discussions don't work properly if it is decided on the only acceptable answer, before the discussion starts.

[up2u2]

A prime example of the moronic and destructive way these international bureaucrats pursue their vanity projects is the decade-long biofuels debacle.

2003: Biofuels good. All EU countries to replace 5.75% of all transport fossil fuels (petrol and diesel) with biofuels by 2010. Greenpeace calls for subsidies for bio-diesel.

2007: The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, calls biofuels "a crime against humanity" for diverting arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel, pushing staple food prices to record highs. A direct consequence was an increase in malnutrition, especially in underdeveloped countries dependent on staple food imports, affecting tens of millions of people.

2007: Greenpeace belatedly discovers that biofuels are not the magic solution, and changes its stance.

2008: Biofuels doubleplusgood. Each EU member state to have at least 10% renewable energy used in transport by 2020 from biofuels and other sources like "green electricity."

2008: EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas announced the EU is rethinking its biofuel program due to environmental and social concerns.

2016: Biofuels finally ungood. Directive scrapped in order to sidestep criticism surrounding the appalling environmental damage caused by biofuels.

Result: More dead people in the Third World, pristine rainforests razed by the megahectare, tens of billions of dollars p**sed away, and the EU bureaucracy strokes its collective ego and tells us that we, the people, are the ones causing global warming and must change our ways.

That's what happens when you trust self-appointed elites to run your life.

A very useful device demonstrating the unintended consequences of liberal ideology being emotionally inflicted on the whole.

It is actually cherry picked nonsense. You can look it up on Climate Denier blog sites like Anthony Watts site