• Who is online

    In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 786 on Sun May 10, 2020 1:56 am

Just completed 'Climate Summit'

A forum for the friendly discussion of national and international politics, history and current events.
Post Reply
User avatar
DWill
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6926
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
13
Location: Luray, Virginia

Anyone have thoughts on the Glasgow COP conference? I tried to follow developments closely and have read a lot of divergent opinions about what was accomplished. So have at it, please.
User avatar
Robert Tulip
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6219
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
16
Location: Canberra
Contact:
Australia

Hi DWill

The Economist Magazine published a positive review of Glasgow, at https://www.facebook.com/TheEconomist/v ... 267393604/

To which I commented with the following rather disgruntled response.

In this summary, Catherine Brahic from The Economist refers to Glasgow as "Paris Plus". That is the most naively rose tinted lily gilding silk purse from sow's ear comment imaginable, up there with the emperor's new clothes. In fact it is Paris Minus. For the last five years, nations have been meant to be ratcheting up their Paris pledges, but suddenly we get to Glasgow and find the cupboard is bare.
The ratchet mechanism from Paris has failed, turning out more rat shit than ratchet. It is as though Brahic sees a remarkable positive in recalcitrant nations having suddenly discovered that the IPCC actually calls on them to reduce their emissions. But this failure was inevitably built into the spinning nonsense of the Paris Accord.
The tragic farce here is the avoidance of the reality that only geoengineering will prevent dangerous warming in this decade. The resolute refusal to engage this basic science of global security is likely to prove the most gross dereliction of planetary duty in all human history.
User avatar
DWill
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6926
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
13
Location: Luray, Virginia

Thanks, Robert. I had expected that if you replied, it wouldn't be with a bouquet of roses for the Glasgow Conference! I have mixed feelings about pledges lacking ambition. It might be worse for countries to pledge ambitiously and then to fall short, as surely will happen if the means or political will to cut emissions is lacking. The most optimistic assessment of the resolution I saw came from the mainstream International Energy Agency. It said that 1.8C was possible if all the natiions met their pledges and if no new fossil fuel projects were funded. The first is unlikely while the second is impossible.

The pact is thoroughly muddied by the phrase "unabated coal and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies." Clean coal is a chimera; and the efficiency of subsidies for the fossil industry isn't the issue.

Just wondering, would it be fair to say that the country of Australia is like our state of West Virginia, grasping tightly its reliance on coal for jobs and wealth?
As you probably know, Sen. Manchin of WV, personally and politically beholden to coal interests, derailed the emissions plan Biden had hoped to arrive with in Glasgow.
Post Reply