BobInget wrote:Plant, as usual, over reaches. Blaming President O for getting out of the way of oil technology is just as silly as giving him credit for the bounty.
BobInget wrote:I maintain we are in for 85 years of dealing with the effects of CC.
The gathering risks of climate change are so profound they could stall or even reverse generations of progress against poverty and hunger if greenhouse gas emissions continue at a runaway pace, according to a major new United Nations report.
Despite rising efforts in many countries to tackle the problem, the overall global situation is growing more acute as developing countries join the West in burning huge amounts of fossil fuels, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said here on Sunday.
Failure to reduce emissions, the group of scientists and other experts found, could threaten society with food shortages, refugee crises, the flooding of major cities and entire island nations, the mass extinction of plants and animals, and a climate so drastically altered it might become dangerous for people to work or play outside during the hottest times of the year.
Doing so would require finding a way to leave the vast majority of the world’s reserves of fossil fuels in the ground, or, alternatively, developing methods to capture and bury the emissions resulting from their use, the group said.
The new report comes just a month before international delegates convene in Lima, Peru, in an effort to devise a new global treaty or other agreement to limit emissions, and it makes clear the urgency of their task.
dohboi wrote:G, thanks for all your updates on this (and other) thread(s). Here's a view from outside the IPCC from perhaps the main GW activist (Bill McKibben):
IPCC is stern on climate change – but it still underestimates the situation
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ssil-fuels
And from arguably the top anti-denialist site (Skeptical Science):
Why the IPCC synthesis report is necessary but not sufficient to secure a response to climate change
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-the ... 9E.twitter
Scientists and governments have worked intensively over the last week to prepare the report, meeting once again in Copenhagen.
The location has been a bitter reminder for some of the 2009 conference, branded at the time as “No Hopenhagen” thanks to its failure to secure a deal committing governments to meaningful action on climate change.
A recent round of talks in Bonn ended in stalemate, with countries unable to agree on what their contributions to a proposed 2015 climate deal could look like.
But also speaking at the IPCC launch, Manuel Pulgar Vidal, environment minister of Peru and president of this year’s set of main UN negotiations in Lima said he felt hopeful about the prospects of success.
“We are in a completely different process in contrast to what we have in Copenhagen five years ago. We are closer to the science, with more actors like business and civil society.”
dohboi wrote:Ban Ki-moon: World leaders are ready to sign climate deal
Scientists and governments have worked intensively over the last week to prepare the report, meeting once again in Copenhagen.
The location has been a bitter reminder for some of the 2009 conference, branded at the time as “No Hopenhagen” thanks to its failure to secure a deal committing governments to meaningful action on climate change.
A recent round of talks in Bonn ended in stalemate, with countries unable to agree on what their contributions to a proposed 2015 climate deal could look like.
But also speaking at the IPCC launch, Manuel Pulgar Vidal, environment minister of Peru and president of this year’s set of main UN negotiations in Lima said he felt hopeful about the prospects of success.
“We are in a completely different process in contrast to what we have in Copenhagen five years ago. We are closer to the science, with more actors like business and civil society.”
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/11/02/ban-ki-m ... imate-deal
dohboi wrote:Yeah, it's hard to see how very many major capitalist enterprises are ever going to fully support what needs to be done.
Speaking of which:
IPCC censors language about the likelihood of catastrophic events and the need for "rapid and deep emission reductions" to have any chance of avoiding 2 degrees C warming (which itself is too high)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... te-report/
americandream wrote:(which is unlikely given that capitalism is founded around our base instincts)
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests