Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby mousepad » Tue 09 Nov 2021, 16:35:20

AdamB wrote:
mousepad wrote:
Tanada wrote:planning to replace some very old existing coal facilities with brand new facilities designed to operate for 60 years or longer. I don't blame them.


There's plenty of calculations out there showing how cheap solar is.
I was under the impression that solar beats any other source hands down regarding cost per kWh.
Is that all fake news?


Ah yes...calculations....sort of like peak oil.....versus reality....economics and science and geology and stuff....ummm......which to choose, which to choose.... :)


Yes. I'm wondering. I would like to see a profitability calculation for one of them new coal plants vs solar.
If this solar business is beating coal based on cost, as many a green claim, there shouldn't be any coal plants being built anymore.

What do you think? Should I install my personal home coal plant to charge my tesla? Is that a cheaper option than going solar?
mousepad
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu 26 Sep 2019, 09:07:56

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 09 Nov 2021, 17:54:02

mousepad wrote:What do you think? Should I install my personal home coal plant to charge my tesla? Is that a cheaper option than going solar?


IMHO your best bet is to go nuclear.

With nuclear you've got zero carbon emissions and the power is always on whether or not the wind blows or the sun is shining.

Image
Just Build a mini-nuke in your basement and flip the switch and you've got all the electricity you'll ever need.

Cheers!
250 million thousand people have died of covid---Joe Biden
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama

-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 25070
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 09 Nov 2021, 22:44:04

mousepad wrote:
AdamB wrote:
mousepad wrote:
Tanada wrote:planning to replace some very old existing coal facilities with brand new facilities designed to operate for 60 years or longer. I don't blame them.


There's plenty of calculations out there showing how cheap solar is.
I was under the impression that solar beats any other source hands down regarding cost per kWh.
Is that all fake news?


Ah yes...calculations....sort of like peak oil.....versus reality....economics and science and geology and stuff....ummm......which to choose, which to choose.... :)


Yes. I'm wondering. I would like to see a profitability calculation for one of them new coal plants vs solar.
If this solar business is beating coal based on cost, as many a green claim, there shouldn't be any coal plants being built anymore.

What do you think? Should I install my personal home coal plant to charge my tesla? Is that a cheaper option than going solar?


It is all a matter of geography and geology. If you are in a desert climate within say 35 degrees of the equator Solar might be great for you. If you are in South Africa with literally mountains worth of coal in the ground then the story is very different. Australia has heaps of coal but also has a huge sunny desert region fairly close to the equator that gets great solar energy returns.

A very large share of the confusion comes from government subsidies for wind and solar and regulations that require grid utilities to buy all the available RE power at any particular minute it happens to be available. That means the big grid operators have to have rapid on capable units on standby 24/7/365 so that if a large solar farm gets occluded by an hour long thunderstorm they can ramp up their reserve power supply fast enough to prevent brownout/blackout conditions from occurring. Anyone who knows anything about engineering will tell you that switching a station on and off makes for gross inefficiencies.

Typically these plants are Gas Turbines which can be spun up on 15 minutes notice. To have a truly efficient Gas Turbine plant you need to have a heat recovery steam generator to capture as much of the energy of combustion as physically possible. Unfortunately while a CCGT plant can be as much as 65% efficient it is by its very nature only that efficient when operating as a base load plant using both the combustion gasses and the steam generated to spin generators. The fast start cycle necessary to compensate for large RE power supplies intermittency problem means these plants are fast start/fast stop systems which either have no steam generators or which do not run for a long enough time on any given cycle to make generating steam and getting the extra generation capacity activated worth the cost.

Any time a grid unit has more than 15 percent RE feeding into the system at intermittent random times the more difficult and expensive it gets to balance the grid. In essence whatever degree of RE energy feeding in you have requires a 100% fossil fuel back up capacity to replace it rapidly as the RE portion fluctuates randomly based on weather cycles. A reasonable scenario would have 65-70 percent nuclear base load power running continuously with 12-15 percent intermittent renewables like Solar and Wind. That leaves you with 20% coming from Hydroelectricity, Geothermal and Fossil Fuel energy supplies. Whatever your final RE percentage is you need an equal rapid switch on power supply to replace it as needed. You can do this with Hydroelectricity pretty well but that prevents the Hydro from being used as regular power supply unless it is a really big source like the Three Gorges Dam in China.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16407
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 09 Nov 2021, 23:11:45

mousepad wrote:Yes. I'm wondering. I would like to see a profitability calculation for one of them new coal plants vs solar.
If this solar business is beating coal based on cost, as many a green claim, there shouldn't be any coal plants being built anymore.

What do you think? Should I install my personal home coal plant to charge my tesla? Is that a cheaper option than going solar?


So I bothered to look it up. First the USA; Majority Gas (40%) with Coal(19.3%), Nuclear (19.7%) Hydroelectric (7.3%) and RE making up the remainder(13.7%) Varies wildly by region;
USA, March 2021: The price of electricity is 0.150 U.S. Dollar per kWh for households and 0.109 U.S. Dollar for businesses which includes all components of the electricity bill such as the cost of power, distribution and taxes.


Next we have South Africa which is predominately Coal powered;
South Africa, March 2021: The price of electricity is 0.145 U.S. Dollar per kWh for households and 0.070 U.S. Dollar for businesses which includes all components of the electricity bill such as the cost of power, distribution and taxes.


Now Germany with massive RE energy supplies works like this;
Germany, March 2021: The price of electricity is 0.371 U.S. Dollar per kWh for households and 0.243 U.S. Dollar for businesses which includes all components of the electricity bill such as the cost of power, distribution and taxes.


Just for comparison lets look at France where 75% of power is Fission Nuclear and most of the rest is Hydroelectricity;
France, March 2021: The price of electricity is 0.209 U.S. Dollar per kWh for households and 0.146 U.S. Dollar for businesses which includes all components of the electricity bill such as the cost of power, distribution and taxes.


You can look up many countries from this one LINK, just scroll down the page to the list and click the name of the country you want to see the information on.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16407
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 09 Nov 2021, 23:40:14

This graph shows just how wildly diverse electricity generation is in the USA. Hawaii despite being in a sunny tropical climate with active volcanoes gets over half its energy from imported oil burned in steam power stations and some diesel or Gas Turbine units with Coal making up another sizable chunk. West Virginia in coal mining country gets almost al of its electricity from burning the abundant coal. States like New Hampshire and Illinois get over half their power from CO2 free Nuclear Fission while Eco maniacs in California get just over half their power from Natural Gas with Hydroelectricity their second biggest power source. Alaska thanks to the abundance of Prudhoe Bay oil/gas fields gets about 40% from Gas another 20% from oil and most of the rest from Hydroelectricity. Where I live we get 25% from Natural Gas nearly 60% from Coal and most of the rest from Nuclear with bits and pieces from the other types.


Image
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16407
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby JuanP » Wed 10 Nov 2021, 15:28:24

"COP26 has 'mountain to climb' to curb warming as talks intensify"
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/cl ... 021-11-09/

"The Climate Action Tracker (CAT) research group put a sobering number on the size of the task at hand, saying that all the national pledges submitted so far to cut greenhouse gases by 2030 would allow the Earth's temperature to rise 2.4C from pre-industrial levels by 2100."

"U.N. emissions gap report estimates global warming trajectory at 2.5 degrees C" – The Washington Post
https://daily.energybulletin.org/2021/1 ... gton-post/

At this point in time thinking that we could keep the temperature increase at or below 2.4 is delusional, forget the 1.5C all these fools in Glasgow keep talking about. We are obviously headed to a 4C+ increase, which would lead to runaway Global Warming, when we include all the positive feedbacks we are activating. I am so glad that I'll be dead by 2100. Can you imagine what life on this planet will be like for the supposedly +-10 billion people estimated to be around by then? F**k, I wouldn't even be willing to watch a movie or read a book about it.

I believe that my choice to live childfree was the smartest decision I made in my life. My heart goes out to the people that produced biological offspring in the past and are now aware of the predicament humanity is facing, and those doing it now who will become aware in the future. One of my nieces is having a baby next month; it breaks my heart to think about it. I thinking having a child in today's world is the absolute worst mistake a person can make.
"Only Americans can hurt America." Dwight D. Eisenhower
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 10 Nov 2021, 17:28:58

Joe Biden banking nominee says the Biden administration goal is to drive the US oil, gas and coal industries into bankruptcy, thereby putting millions of Americans out of work.

bidens-unhinged-socialist-banking-nominee-wants-oil-coal-and-gas-industries-go-bankrupt

She claims the Biden administration wants to do this in order to mitigate climate change.

She may even be right.....but why do the Ds focus only on destroying the US oil, coal and NG industries? Why are they being so stupid about this? Don't they understand that most of the CO2 entering the atmosphere is coming from China? Shouldn't there be some effort to reign in China and India and other greenhouse gas emitters, instead of just going after US industries? If the Biden administration really wants to do something about climate change they should be pushing for a GLOBAL transition away from fossil fuels.

Just doing it in the USA accomplishes nothing....especially when Joe Biden himself is simultaneously calling on OPEC to INCREASE their oil production in order lower gasoline prices in the USA. Someone should explain to Biden that stopping US oil production only to replace it with increased OPEC oil production actually has zero effect on Greenhouse warming.

Its like Biden's "climate czar" John Kerry telling the Glasgow UN COP meeting that the US will stop electrical power generation using coal by 2030 and and stop using NG by 2035. All it take is one look at the interesting chart of state-by-state electrical generation posted by Tanada just above to realize that John Kerry is lying to the whole world when he makes this claim.

Image
The Biden administration is putting out a great deal of magical thinking and/or lies on the climate change issue. No wonder Greta Thunberg is so disgusted with them.

Cheers!
250 million thousand people have died of covid---Joe Biden
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama

-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 25070
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby Peak_Yeast » Wed 10 Nov 2021, 19:57:33

Plantagenet wrote:
Peak_Yeast wrote:we have to choose between killing off (indirectly or directly) a huge amount of people or totally destroy anything resembling the living standards we have gotten accustomed to.


??????

Why not just shift to nuclear power and renewable power instead of using fossil fuels?

Rebuilding the energy sector to remove fossil fuels and decarbonizing the economy might even create a lot of jobs and be good for the economy.

Image

Cheers!



I thought you knew that energy is just one of many problems we face. And I feel pretty certain it is not even the worst problem.
"If democracy is the least bad form of government - then why dont we try it for real?"
User avatar
Peak_Yeast
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013, 17:54:38
Location: Denmark

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 11 Nov 2021, 13:19:13

From above post:
Its like Biden's "climate czar" John Kerry telling the Glasgow UN COP meeting that the US will stop electrical power generation using coal by 2030 and and stop using NG by 2035. All it take is one look at the interesting chart of state-by-state electrical generation posted by Tanada just above to realize that John Kerry is lying to the whole world when he makes this claim.

The sad reality is that Kerry actually thinks this should happen and he and the rest of the administration are taking steps to make it happen.
I'm not against moving to renewable non carbon emitting sources of energy but could we at least have the common sense to build out those renewable sources of power and the storage needed to deal with their intermittency before we pull the plug on any of the existing system.
Europe just got a hard lesson about relying on wind produced electricity. Can we not learn from that lesson without repeating those mistakes on this side of the pond.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12409
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 11 Nov 2021, 14:21:00

mousepad wrote:Yes. I'm wondering. I would like to see a profitability calculation for one of them new coal plants vs solar.
If this solar business is beating coal based on cost, as many a green claim, there shouldn't be any coal plants being built anymore.


Absolutely. Because when I see the claims of solar beating out everything else, it doesn't appear be from an organization responsible for the entire project cost, financing, revenue projections, tax subsidies, all those pieces that make up the claim. Just "cheapest form of electricity ever!".

I agree with it, as the panels on my garage roof have never cost me anything, and consistently deliver fuel to my car when the sun is shining, so I get the concept, but I've also listened to descriptions of Ivanpah's economics, and some various other real world examples, and something doesn't seem quite right with the ACTUAL costs of solar power as opposed to the CLAIMED advantage.

Gilding of the lily perhaps, by advocates?
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 11 Nov 2021, 14:27:00

Tanada wrote:Any time a grid unit has more than 15 percent RE feeding into the system at intermittent random times the more difficult and expensive it gets to balance the grid. In essence whatever degree of RE energy feeding in you have requires a 100% fossil fuel back up capacity to replace it rapidly as the RE portion fluctuates randomly based on weather cycles. A reasonable scenario would have 65-70 percent nuclear base load power running continuously with 12-15 percent intermittent renewables like Solar and Wind. That leaves you with 20% coming from Hydroelectricity, Geothermal and Fossil Fuel energy supplies. Whatever your final RE percentage is you need an equal rapid switch on power supply to replace it as needed. You can do this with Hydroelectricity pretty well but that prevents the Hydro from being used as regular power supply unless it is a really big source like the Three Gorges Dam in China.


Well now that sounds like a completely logical explanation. As expected, and as has been discussed before, intermittency can be a real bug a boo. So, to summarize, solar is great as long as the government wants to hand out cash to make it happen consistently and at scale, and there is perhaps 100% spare surplus generation capacity built in for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. What a clever species, we monkeys be, to then proclaim this as the grand solution.
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 11 Nov 2021, 16:31:07

AdamB wrote:
Tanada wrote:Any time a grid unit has more than 15 percent RE feeding into the system at intermittent random times the more difficult and expensive it gets to balance the grid. In essence whatever degree of RE energy feeding in you have requires a 100% fossil fuel back up capacity to replace it rapidly as the RE portion fluctuates randomly based on weather cycles. A reasonable scenario would have 65-70 percent nuclear base load power running continuously with 12-15 percent intermittent renewables like Solar and Wind. That leaves you with 20% coming from Hydroelectricity, Geothermal and Fossil Fuel energy supplies. Whatever your final RE percentage is you need an equal rapid switch on power supply to replace it as needed. You can do this with Hydroelectricity pretty well but that prevents the Hydro from being used as regular power supply unless it is a really big source like the Three Gorges Dam in China.


Well now that sounds like a completely logical explanation. As expected, and as has been discussed before, intermittency can be a real bug a boo. So, to summarize, solar is great as long as the government wants to hand out cash to make it happen consistently and at scale, and there is perhaps 100% spare surplus generation capacity built in for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. What a clever species, we monkeys be, to then proclaim this as the grand solution.

And yet batteries for backup at both a utility / commercial scale and home use scale, are more and more of a thing, as technology improves and costs decline.

Just like for BEV's, just because they're not a big deal proportionally now doesn't mean they won't be in a decade or three.

And meanwhile, in the real world, solar and wind at utility scale continues to get cheap compared to burning fossil fuels, over time. As long as the economics works, those green energy sources will grow, even without various AGW government initiatives, which are also increasing over time.

I hate that progress is so slow, but it's progress, nonetheless.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9894
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby Heineken » Sun 14 Nov 2021, 06:49:33

Slow progress is no progress, when it comes to global warming (an honest term I prefer to the euphemism "climate change"). That's because the rate of growth of [CO2} is increasing. And because human population, the elephant in the china closet, is still increasing.
Was population growth even mentioned in the official proceedings of COP26?
COP26 represented slow progress indeed. And the agreements that did emerge are hardly binding. Just words on paper.
The whole climate disaster is tailor-made to elude human-type problem-solving. We jabbering, greedy, clever, wicked monkeys will not, by our very nature, ever unite to truly halt the progression of heat pollution. We need to actually reduce [CO2], not just slow its increase. At best we will temporarily shave maybe 1o Fahrenheit off the warming will see by 2100.
The problem first came to our attention in the 1970s, when it was known as the greenhouse effect. What have we done in a half-century of awareness? Nothing, as measured at the top of Mauna Loa. By the time we really start to act, it will be out of panic, and way, way too late. It will be like a mouse trying to stop a bulldozer.
And every year that passes is another nail in our civilization's coffin.
I'm pissed off. I now actually want our civilization to collapse. We deserve it. It's ugly and causes too much pain. Best that it gets wiped from the Earth, and nature starts a long healing from us. Collapse and healing. I know that this will happen.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7053
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 14 Nov 2021, 15:44:25

Peak_Yeast wrote:I thought you knew that energy is just one of many problems we face.


Of course.

That's why I'm saying reworking our energy systems is central to the problem of global warming.

And thats precisely where the UN COP international climate negotiation in Glasgow are a total failure, just like the prior COP Paris Accords in 2015 were a total failure.

They both failed to make firm, binding commitments to end using coal, oil and natural gas.

Both settled for allowing governments to make vague promises----which they aren't keeping.

That means greenhouse gases will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and global warming will continue to intensify.

Its yet another betrayal by our current political elites of the entire UN climate treaty process which was originally set up with the clear intent of regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Image
The COP meeting in Glasgow was a total failure....

Cheers!
250 million thousand people have died of covid---Joe Biden
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama

-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 25070
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 14 Nov 2021, 22:09:09

Heineken wrote:The problem first came to our attention in the 1970s, when it was known as the greenhouse effect. What have we done in a half-century of awareness? Nothing, as measured at the top of Mauna Loa. By the time we really start to act, it will be out of panic, and way, way too late. It will be like a mouse trying to stop a bulldozer.
And every year that passes is another nail in our civilization's coffin.
I'm pissed off. I now actually want our civilization to collapse. We deserve it. It's ugly and causes too much pain. Best that it gets wiped from the Earth, and nature starts a long healing from us. Collapse and healing. I know that this will happen.

The good news is you have to do nothing to make that collapse happen. It is already baked into the cake. And there is nothing you, or anybody, or any government, can do that will keep it from happening. So the only debate is about how much money etc. our governments will spend on useless efforts designed only to placate the masses into thinking their leaders are saving them.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12409
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 14 Nov 2021, 22:11:45

Plantagenet wrote:
Peak_Yeast wrote:I thought you knew that energy is just one of many problems we face.


Of course.

That's why I'm saying reworking our energy systems is central to the problem of global warming.

And thats precisely where the UN COP international climate negotiation in Glasgow are a total failure, just like the prior COP Paris Accords in 2015 were a total failure.

They both failed to make firm, binding commitments to end using coal, oil and natural gas.

Both settled for allowing governments to make vague promises----which they aren't keeping.

That means greenhouse gases will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and global warming will continue to intensify.

Its yet another betrayal by our current political elites of the entire UN climate treaty process which was originally set up with the clear intent of regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

The COP meeting in Glasgow was a total failure....

Cheers!


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.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16407
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 15 Nov 2021, 03:00:42

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_Change

Image

The 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!
250 million thousand people have died of covid---Joe Biden
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama

-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 25070
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby JuanP » Mon 15 Nov 2021, 06:33:21

Heineken wrote:Slow progress is no progress, when it comes to global warming (an honest term I prefer to the euphemism "climate change"). That's because the rate of growth of [CO2} is increasing. And because human population, the elephant in the china closet, is still increasing.
Was population growth even mentioned in the official proceedings of COP26?
COP26 represented slow progress indeed. And the agreements that did emerge are hardly binding. Just words on paper.
The whole climate disaster is tailor-made to elude human-type problem-solving. We jabbering, greedy, clever, wicked monkeys will not, by our very nature, ever unite to truly halt the progression of heat pollution. We need to actually reduce [CO2], not just slow its increase. At best we will temporarily shave maybe 1o Fahrenheit off the warming will see by 2100.
The problem first came to our attention in the 1970s, when it was known as the greenhouse effect. What have we done in a half-century of awareness? Nothing, as measured at the top of Mauna Loa. By the time we really start to act, it will be out of panic, and way, way too late. It will be like a mouse trying to stop a bulldozer.
And every year that passes is another nail in our civilization's coffin.
I'm pissed off. I now actually want our civilization to collapse. We deserve it. It's ugly and causes too much pain. Best that it gets wiped from the Earth, and nature starts a long healing from us. Collapse and healing. I know that this will happen.


That's a pretty accurate analysis of the situation. I agree with your conclusion. I no longer care whether our species makes it or not, and maybe I'd rather we didn't. We definitely don't deserve to.
"Only Americans can hurt America." Dwight D. Eisenhower
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo
JuanP
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sat 16 Aug 2014, 15:06:32

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby dissident » Mon 15 Nov 2021, 17:24:07

BAU includes using climate change action to further the old ambitions and goals. The west is trying to claim some BS moral high ground so it can engage in more colonialism in the name of all things holy and just. Same old, same old as for the last 1000 years.

But the sanctimonious, bloody hypocrisy is hard to take. Finger wagging from clown states that emit more per capita than the countries they pour their hate excrement over. And we have the ludicrous bimbette, Greta, a Soros project to use emotional thinking to spread the agenda.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6421
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 15 Nov 2021, 21:10:21

dissident wrote: The west is trying to claim some BS moral high ground so it can engage in more colonialism in the name of all things holy and just.

I see zero evidence of any country desiring to engage in any more colonialism. It has long sense been observed to be an unprofitable enterprise while merely engaging in commerce with whatever government holds the power is more profitable without the expense of defending the 'colony' and administrating it's government.
Even China looks to get their fingers into the commercial aspects of African and South American counties with their Road and Belt projects without actually 'colonizing' those countries.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12409
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Previous

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests