Tanada wrote:Here we are in total disagreement Plant, the negotiation and treaty system set up for Climate agreements under UN auspices was designed for exactly 1 purpose. That purpose it not to adjust human impact on the climate, the real purpose is to make it look like the political elites care and are doing something. Words, not deeds are where the entire value of the UN is placed. There has never been a UN enforcement mechanism nor even a UN fund raising (tax) mechanism. The UN is now as it has always been designed for the sole purpose of making politicians look important to their constituents.
I agree with you that the current UN treaty process is just as you've described.
However, it didn't start out that way.
The UN actually has a pretty good record of negotiating Treaties. Since 1945 the UN has put together over 80 treaties, each of which has had more than 170 nations sign on.
List_of_UN_treaties_The UN Climate Treaty process started in 1992 with the ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Each COP meeting, including the recent Glasgow COP, is held under the auspices of the UNFCC.
United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_ChangeThe goal of the UNFCCC is to negotiate a global treaty to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change. Unfortunately, in 2008, the US elected Obama as President and one of his first acts as President was to go to the COP meeting in Copenhagen where the leaders of the world were gather ing to sign a treaty to reduce CO2 emissions that had already been negotiated and agreed to. Unfortunately, when Obama got to Copenhagen he foolishly insulted the Chinese leader and the resulting tiff derailed the meeting and that treaty was never signed.
Over the next 7 years the Obama administration decided to advocate for a complete change in the direction of the UNFCCC. Rather than pushing for CO2 and CH4 emission reductions, the Obama administration wanted the UNFCC to instead agree to limit global temperature increases. And thats what happened in Paris in 2015 where Obama and other world leaders gathered to sign the Paris Accords....a document drafted mainly by the US delegation that stated that the world shouldn't warm more than 1.5-2°C. However, unfortunately, by totally de emphasizing CO2 and CH4 emissions reductions, Obama and the other leaders created a meaningless document that didn't require countries to do anything. The Paris accords are so bad that they don't even mention fossil fuels in the main text of the agreement.
And we see from the Glasgow meeting what that leads to.....another failed meeting where no one can hold anyone else accountable for anything, because no one agreed to anything except that the world shouldn't warm up.....which it continues to do irregardless of the failed Paris Accords. No one can be held in violation of the Paris Accords for emitting too many Greenhouse gases because the Paris Accords don't have any agreement on Greenhouse gases that can be violated. The big issue at Glasgow was the 100 billion dollars thatObama promised to all the 3rd world countries but when it came to Greenhouse gas emission reductions nothing was required in the Paris Accords so there is no way to apply pressure on the big CO2/CH4 emitters.
Again....I agree with you that the current UN treaty process is just as you've described. However, IMHO the UN Treaty Process was a reasonable way for the countries of the world to try to solve the problem of Global warming. Unfortunately, the decision by the Obama administration to refocus the UNFCCC treaty process on a treaty to mandate a maximum allowable global temperature, rather then continuing to push for a treaty dedicated to reducing CO2 and CH4 emissions on a global basis gutted the UNFCC and derailed the UN treaty process.
Cheers!