[jato0072]

Assuming humans are killing the planet, the only thing to do is to drastically shrink the global economy and depopulate the planet. Both are unpopular and if implemented, would breed conflict.

Of course, with the decline of fossil fuels both the global economy and human population will eventually shrink (right hand column). No matter how you slice it, it is going to be one hell of a ride for those who survive.

[careinke]

Assuming humans are killing the planet, the only thing to do is to drastically shrink the global economy and depopulate the planet. Both are unpopular and if implemented, would breed conflict.

Of course, with the decline of fossil fuels both the global economy and human population will eventually shrink (right hand column). No matter how you slice it, it is going to be one hell of a ride for those who survive.

I like Musk vote to increase population. Looks like a LOT more fun.

[Plantagenet]

Assuming humans are killing the planet, the only thing to do is to drastically shrink the global economy and depopulate the planet. Both are unpopular and if implemented, would breed conflict.

Actually, it isn't humans that are killing the planet....it is the greenhouse gases that are emitted by the fossil fuels and other industrial processes that are killing the planet.

Before we begin reducing the number of people, it would be worth a try to see if we can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are being released into the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, the current UN COP meeting in Egypt isn't focussed on reducing greenhouse emissions.

Instead it seems to be mostly a forum for third world countries to try to extort money from western nations in the name of climate "reparations."



Shouldn't the UN be focussed on producing a new climate treaty that would reduce global CO2 emissions instead of demanding money from rich countries go to poor countries?

Cheers!

[vtsnowedin]

Shouldn't the UN be moved to some city in Europe and get that den of thieves and spies out of New York?

[Tanada]

Shouldn't the UN be moved to some city in Europe and get that den of thieves and spies out of New York?

I prefer moving them to an island like South Georgia with no native population to abuse and require them to stay there.

[vtsnowedin]

Shouldn't the UN be moved to some city in Europe and get that den of thieves and spies out of New York?

I prefer moving them to an island like South Georgia with no native population to abuse and require them to stay there.

Works for me.

[Newfie]

My observations are humans are making the planet far, far less inhabitable for humans and most other species. I don’t know how far we will towards elimating all life, but strongly suspect far too far.

I am equally convinced there Jack all humans can do about it, our own actions are outside our ability to control. Humans will do what humans have always done, right to the bitter end.

Completely flat learning curve.

[Plantagenet]

My observations are humans are making the planet far, far less inhabitable for humans and most other species. I don’t know how far we will towards elimating all life, but strongly suspect far too far.

I am equally convinced there Jack all humans can do about it, our own actions are outside our ability to control. Humans will do what humans have always done, right to the bitter end.

Completely flat learning curve.

Intellectually I totally agree with you. On a purely logical level, I think we're all doomed.

But on an emotional level I still think we should try to do the right thing and respond as best we can.

Its what some Bhuddists call the principal of "right action"......i.e. even if things are hopeless the best thing you can do is to try to do the right thing.



And, IMHO, the right thing to do in the fact of the threat of climate change is to acknowledge the very real threat of climate change, acknowledge the cause of climate change (human emissions of greenhouse gases) and then try as good citizens in our glorious American Republic to replace the idiots in DC who have been "Greenwashing" the climate disaster with phony climate treaties like the Paris Accords which result in higher global emissions, and then replace them with smart people who will do the right thing, i.e. take steps to repeal the Paris Accords and replace it with a real climate treaty that will actually reduce global greenhouse emissions.

Cheers!

[Newfie]

Plant,

And I agree with that approach.

The difficulty is that our political system is badly broken and the politicians won't fix it.

But in a way that is a redundant statement about CC, our population simply does not understand the issues and demand the necessary action. For Christ's sake, look at the last few Presidents and wannabe candidates. What a flock of loons. I just can't take any of it seriously. So I agitate for systemic change, another lost cause eh,?

[Plantagenet]

There were three new developments for the USA at the COP meeting in Egypt today.

1. Joe Biden flew over in Air Force One to give a speech. According to Joe most everything is going great now thanks to Joe, and if anything is bad it is all Trump's fault.

2. And something I found more interesting.....people from the conservative Climate caucus in Congress (i.e. Rs concerned about climate change) went to Egypt with their own proposal. They proposed leveraging US NG resources to encourage the replacement of coal fired power plats around the world with NG electrical power plants as a way to reduce CO2 production. While you have to give the conservatives credit for thinking globally about the CO2 problem----something Biden and indeed the entire Paris Climate Accords are incapable of doing----the problem with the soncervative climate proposals is the increased use of NG results in more methane leaking into the atmosphere, which also causes climate change.


Kudos for thinking globally, but try to come up with a proposal that actually reduces fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions

3. The latest data indicates CO2 in the atmosphere went up another 1% in the last year, clearly showing the Paris Climate Accords are failing to reduce CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions actually dropped in China due to their COVID shutdowns, but that was more then offset by increased use of coal in the EU and the USA, as well as increased CO2 emissions from other sources.

Cheers!

[yellowcanoe]

Plant,

And I agree with that approach.

The difficulty is that our political system is badly broken and the politicians won't fix it.

But in a way that is a redundant statement about CC, our population simply does not understand the issues and demand the necessary action. For Christ's sake, look at the last few Presidents and wannabe candidates. What a flock of loons. I just can't take any of it seriously. So I agitate for systemic change, another lost cause eh,?

I believe climate change is a symptom of a bigger problem -- our consumption of resources beyond what is sustainable. Dealing with our overconsumption problem requires some form of degrowth which in turn means we all have to make do with less. Most people would see that as a reduction in their quality of life. That's a hard sell even to people who are concerned about climate change. We get the contradiction of governments that want to appear to be doing something about climate change while at the same time doing everything they can to stimulate more economic growth and hence increased consumption of resources.

It is frustrating knowing that the direction we are going is not sustainable and at some point growth will stop regardless of what people want. The rising cost of energy suggests we are getting close to that point. Yes, the war in Ukraine is impacting that but we may find that even after that war ends that energy supplies continue to be constrained.

[yellowcanoe]

2. And something I found more interesting.....people from the conservative Climate caucus in Congress (i.e. Rs concerned about climate change) went to Egypt with their own proposal. They proposed leveraging US NG resources to encourage the replacement of coal fired power plats around the world with NG electrical power plants as a way to reduce CO2 production. While you have to give the conservatives credit for thinking globally about the CO2 problem----something Biden and indeed the entire Paris Climate Accords are incapable of doing----the problem with the soncervative climate proposals is the increased use of NG results in more methane leaking into the atmosphere, which also causes climate change.

Natural gas prices in the US have been heading up over the last year and I would attribute that to increased exports of natural gas as more LNG export facilities come online. We can't export more natural gas without driving up the cost to American and Canadian customers. Ultimately the price of natural gas in the North American market will reach the world price (minus what it would cost to liquify and ship abroad).

[Plantagenet]

Natural gas prices in the US have been heading up over the last year and I would attribute that to increased exports of natural gas as more LNG export facilities come online. We can't export more natural gas without driving up the cost to American and Canadian customers. Ultimately the price of natural gas in the North American market will reach the world price (minus what it would cost to liquify and ship abroad).

Exactly right. And higher prices for NG are a good thing.

The simplest way to reduce consumption of fossil fuels is by increasing the price of fossil fuels. The higher they go the less fossil fuels will be consumed and the less CO2 will go into the atmosphere to caused global heating.

Its one of the most wrong-headed things about Joe Biden pumping 2 million barrels of oil per day out of the US strategic petroleum reserve to lower gasoline prices in the USA. Having low gasoline prices just encourages Americans to drive more and feel like they are entitled to have low gasoline prices forever. CO2 emissions in the US went up slightly this year, thanks in part to Biden's idiotic policy of pumping millions of barrels of oil of storage for no other reason then to lower the price of gasoline.


the new TESLA truck is a prime example of a MAGA HAT ON WHEELS

SHEESH!!!!!!

[Plantagenet]

The UN COP meeting in Egypt just ended in total farce.

The delegates agreed on only one thing......rich nations should pay money to poor nations.

But in return......nothing towards CO2 reduction or reductions in global warming.

Poor nations retain the right to keep on adding coal-fired power plants.

China and India say they will continue to build coal-fired power plants.

The net result is a UN climate meeting that rolled over and accepted ever more CO2 going into the atmosphere......which is the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

The Paris Accords started the UN treaty process on the road to farce and now this meeting completes the job. What good is a global warming treaty that accepts MORE CO2 production and HIGHER global warming? Its just insane.

The UN treaty process has completely failed.

The UN climate treaty meeting just voted for MORE CO2 emissions and MORE GLOBAL WARMIng. Every delegate that voted for this idiotic accord and every political leader who accepts this massive failure of responsibility should be frogmarched to jail cells strategically located where rising seas, burning forests, unprecedented floods, and lethal heat waves are happening.



SHEESH!!!!!!

[Newfie]

Plant,

And I agree with that approach.

The difficulty is that our political system is badly broken and the politicians won't fix it.

But in a way that is a redundant statement about CC, our population simply does not understand the issues and demand the necessary action. For Christ's sake, look at the last few Presidents and wannabe candidates. What a flock of loons. I just can't take any of it seriously. So I agitate for systemic change, another lost cause eh,?

I believe climate change is a symptom of a bigger problem -- our consumption of resources beyond what is sustainable. Dealing with our overconsumption problem requires some form of degrowth which in turn means we all have to make do with less. Most people would see that as a reduction in their quality of life. That's a hard sell even to people who are concerned about climate change. We get the contradiction of governments that want to appear to be doing something about climate change while at the same time doing everything they can to stimulate more economic growth and hence increased consumption of resources.

It is frustrating knowing that the direction we are going is not sustainable and at some point growth will stop regardless of what people want. The rising cost of energy suggests we are getting close to that point. Yes, the war in Ukraine is impacting that but we may find that even after that war ends that energy supplies continue to be constrained.

I agree and thank you for that well formulated opinion.

[Tanada]

Why the COP27 Summit Failed

Just before he left for the United Nations COP27 climate conference in Egypt, President Joe Biden tweeted: “The global leaders of the COP27 must reach out and take the future in our hands to make the world we wish to see and that we know we need.” This reminded me of one of my favorite spy movies, Our Man Flint. In the movie, the enemy is not a rival power like the Soviets or Red China or an evil criminal organization like Specter or THRUSH. It is an idealistic group of scientists who can control the weather. Derek Flint is sent to eliminate this threat. When confronted, the scientists explain they intend to coerce the nations of the world to disarm and pursue peaceful endeavors under their benevolent direction. They invite Flint to join them, with their leader declaring that “ours would be a perfect world!” Flint refuses, “because it’s your idea of perfection, gentlemen—not mine!”

It is because there is no universally shared vision of the world that Biden’s words fell on deaf ears. COP27 failed, as have the previous twenty-six conferences to place imagined climate control above tangible national interests.

Emerging nations pushed back against continually citing the goal of preventing global warming from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above pre-industrial levels. “1.5 is a substantive issue,” Wael Aboulmagd, a senior Egyptian negotiator, said, adding that China was not the only country that had raised questions about the target. This pushback challenged the very foundation of the UN climate effort, which claims “that only a fraction of proven fossil fuel reserves can be burned if we are to keep temperature rise to 1.5°C.” Most of the world finds this goal unacceptable. A compromise adopted in 2015 raised the formal target to 2 degrees Celsius while keeping 1.5 degrees Celsius as the ideal. Many governments want this reference to an ideal of 1.5 degrees Celsius ended.

The target for net zero—the cutting of greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, with any continued emissions being reabsorbed by carbon “offsets”—is now 2050. However, each country is to pursue this goal in its own way. For instance, India says it will not reach net zero until 2070. Policy goals set generations into the future lack credibility.

If the UN’s statement that “fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, are by far the largest contributor to global climate change” is true, then replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy should be the top priority. But it wasn’t made COP27’s top priority, for the obvious reason that it is impossible to accomplish this at a bearable cost. And the green activist demand that fossil fuels simply be eliminated regardless of what replacements are available would impose a dramatic drop in the standard of living of billions of people. Indeed, Europeans will discover the discomfort of an energy shortage this winter. National leaders know this is not an approach their people will tolerate.

Last year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected that while renewable energy sources will grow rapidly, they will be used primarily to increase total global energy output, not to replace existing sources. “By 2050, global energy use in the Reference case increases nearly 50% compared with 2020—mostly a result of non-OECD economic growth and population, particularly in Asia. In the Reference case, global emissions rise throughout the projection period, although slowed by regional policies, renewable growth, and increasing energy efficiency.” This means the hope that emissions would peak in 2025 (or 2030) has been dashed.

The driving ambition of the developing world is to develop, which means generating more energy by all available means, including oil, the use of which is expected to continue to grow through 2050. In October of this year, the EIA issued a new projection for nuclear power, a relatively clean energy source the greens are loath to talk about. The agency predicted a doubling of nuclear power generation worldwide by 2050, with the rethinking of security concerns in the wake of the Russo-Ukrainian War being one of the drivers.

Coal, which generates one-third of the world’s electricity, has been the main target for cuts. At COP26, 200 countries signed a pledge to “phase down” (but not eliminate) coal use. Yet a global record for the use of coal was set last year. New coal-fired power plants are under construction around the world because they meet the practical requirements of being reliable, affordable, and secure. Half of the world’s new coal plants are being built in China, even though Beijing’s fourteenth five-year plan claims coal will be “demoted” as a power source in coming decades. China claims that by 2025, 20 percent of its energy will come from renewables. Beijing is rapidly expanding its use of solar power and electric vehicles, but the driving force seems to be security rather than fear of climate change, which it has never taken seriously. As tensions rise in the Indo-Pacific, China is well aware of its vulnerability to sanctions or a blockade of oil and gas imports during a conflict. Coal also provides a security blanket, as China has the world’s fourth-largest proven coal reserves. But other Asian countries, notably India, Indonesia, and South Korea, are still building substantial coal plants as well.

Attempts at COP27 and previous UN meetings to add other fossil fuels to the coal “phase down” failed. Indeed, for the first time, oil and gas companies were invited to participate in the conference. In his speech at COP27, Biden never uttered the words “fossil fuels,” “coal,” or “oil,” though he calls for ending their use when addressing American audiences. Biden knew his international audience, so he repeatedly used the term “diversified energy” in recognition that countries will continue to make policy choices based on practical matters of reliability, affordability, and security, not fear of climate change, and will thus continue to use coal and oil along with natural gas, nuclear, solar, and wind.

The discussion has evolved from stopping climate change to adapting to it. Adaptation—targeting specific incidents of climate-related distress, if and when they appear—is a much more practical approach than trying to radically transform entire societies in ways contrary to popular desires. Since 2016, there has been a push to incorporate climate “resilience” into the estimated $90 trillion in infrastructure investments needed worldwide, particularly in developing countries, over the next fifteen years. As the UN puts it, “if all of this sounds expensive, it is—but the important thing to remember is that we already know a lot about how to adapt. More is being learned every day.” The argument for including climate as a design element in infrastructure projects is based on the same logic as any investment and will be evaluated on its merits. A call for climate features to be required in major projects was rejected at COP.

The 2015 Paris Agreement, signed at COP21, called for $100 billion a year to be raised to aid developing countries, half of which would be used for adaptation. These funds have not materialized, so the attempt to double this commitment lacks credibility, as does the call for another $300 billion to be raised annually for adaptation. Yet the real battle at COP27 was over how to get more money flowing from developed economies to developing economies to cover “loss and damage” from fires, floods, and other natural disasters allegedly spawned by climate change. The logic is that if human action is aggravating climate change, those countries that have been most active in building the modern world are liable for any damage suffered by the rest. This is just the old principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” which means all burdens, restrictions, and costs are to fall on the developed countries, while the rest remain free in their “right to develop.”

The original offer from the European Union to provide some aid to “the most vulnerable” countries set off a clamor for everybody to be able to make claims. The United States had opposed such a fund precisely for this reason, but it shifted in favor of it as the issue took the conference into overtime on November 19. However, it was not determined who would provide the money, who would administer it, and which countries and kinds of damage would be eligible. Instead, these questions would be topics for COP28. Still, this empty gesture was hailed as the greatest accomplishment of COP27, perhaps the greatest since the Paris Agreement! No wonder the meeting was quickly called a failure for advancing “climate ambitions,” with national ambitions holding sway instead.

If a room full of government climate specialists did not act as if a crisis was looming, higher authorities back home, whose plates are filled with pressing problems, will not divert scarce resources to address tired rumors of threats lurking beyond the horizon. Human nature was on display at COP27.

William R. Hawkins is a former economics professor who served on the professional staff of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. He has written widely on international economics and national security issues for both professional and popular publications.

[Newfie]

Not very hopeful is it.

But also not very surprising.

[Plantagenet]

Its been this way ever since Obama subverted the UN Climate Treaty process back in 2013 back at the COP meeting in Copenhagen.

The original purpose of the UN climate treaty process was to set up a treaty to reduce global CO2 emissions.

The first step was Kyoto Accords. The Kyoto Accords were a kind of "practice" climate treaty for reducing CO, where countries monitored their own emissions and made non-biding commitments to reduce them.

So far so good.

After Kyoto there were a series of COP meetings and a new biding treaty was drafted. This new, follow-on binding UN treaty was set to be signed at the Copenhagen COP in 2014. But Obama got in a tiff with China, and that treaty was never signed. Then after the failure at the Copenhagen COP Obama abandoned support for a treaty with binding commitments to CO2 reduction and instead pushed for a new idea....Obama replaced the treaty to reduce CO2 emissions with a new treaty that instead set a target for temperature increases. This new treaty, like the earlier Kyoto Accords, only had non-biding promises on CO2 reductions.

And so here we are now. There is no binding treaty to reduce CO2 emissions....so there are no global reductions in CO2 emissions. We're just doing Kyoto over again.

Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

The US and other nations all agreed when they signed the Paris Climate Accords that the Paris Accords would prevent the world from warming more then 1.5 C----and the Paris Accords would certainly prevent the planet from warming more then 2.0 C.

Well.....guess what?

Just as I predicted the earth hit temperatures of over 1.5° C warming earlier this year.......and just a few days ago the earth was more then 2.0° C warmer.

climate-change-2c-temperature-heat-record

I said when the Paris Climate Accords were signed that it was all a sham and a lie and a fraud. I said Obama and the other world leaders were just engaged in "Greenwashing...." They were promising to address the global warming problem but when you read the details of what they signed they were actually promising to INCREASE CO2 emissions and INCREASE Global warming.

It gives me no pleasure to be right.....well, thats not quite true. I do take pleasure in one of my predictions being right once again......but I take no pleasure in CO2 emissions going up since the paris accords and the fact that we are moving ever closer to the global warming catastrophe that Obama and his ilk have created for every other human being on earth.

And it's not going to stop here. The planet is just going to continue to get hotter and hotter because those lying @#$%$%#$% who run our country and run China and run the EU and run Saudi are just going to fiddle while the entire planet burns.


Obama and Trump and Biden and and Putin and Xi and all the world's leaders are fiddling while the planet burns....

Cheers!

[Tanada]

About COP 28

COP 28 refers to the United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from 30 November until 12 December 2023.

UN Climate Change conferences (or COPs) take place every year, and are the world’s only multilateral decision-making forum on climate change with almost complete membership of every country in the world.

To put it simply, the COP is where the world comes together to agree on ways to address the climate crisis, such as limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, helping vulnerable communities adapt to the effects of climate change, and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

More than 70,000 delegates are expected to attend COP28, including the member states (or Parties) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Business leaders, young people, climate scientists, Indigenous Peoples, journalists, and various other experts and stakeholders are also among the participants.

Officially, COP 28 stands for the 28th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC.

It has been going on for a week, whats the news that is fit to print?