angelburst29
The Living Force
Information and articles on pros and cons of The Paris Agreement and introduction of a Carbon Tax, first to be implemented in Alberta, Canada (last article).
For what little I can grasp, it gives "the over all appearance" of an IRS Ponzi scheme, in the form of a Carbon Tax that will eventually subordinate all Countries to submit, in the disguise of controlling Climate Change? A World Wide Tax scheme?
The Paris Agreement: An Assessment
http://reason.org/news/show/the-paris-agreement-an-assessment
Examining the Paris climate deal and policy options that would better address the problem of climate change.
On December 12, 2015, government officials from 195 nations meeting in Paris, France, finalized a new agreement on climate change. This brief assesses the merits of the Paris Agreement in order to encourage informed debate about its ratification by signatory nations. It examines the nature and extent of the threat posed by climate change, the effectiveness of solutions adopted in Paris, and considers other, better solutions.
The brief begins with a concise history of the emergence of concern over climate change. This is followed by a status report on, first, the science of climate change and, second, economic analyses of the problem of climate change. It then assesses the Paris Agreement in light of the scientific and economic evidence. Finally, it explores some other policy options that would better address the problem of climate change.
The Paris Agreement seeks to limit the increase in global mean temperatures to “well below 2°C above pre- industrial levels.” The Agreement asserts that this goal is undertaken in order to enhance the implementation of the objective of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), which is to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
There is considerable disagreement over what increase in global mean temperature might be considered “dangerous.” For example, economic analyses suggest that warming of 3°C above pre-industrial levels may generate net benefits. In the very scenarios in which climate change is presumed to be greatest, its impact will be distributed most evenly and the harms will be most readily mitigated by adaptive responses. Merely asserting that an increase of 2°C above pre-industrial levels will be “dangerous” does not make it so.
(Article continues.)
World leaders prepare to sign Paris climate treaty (Map showing the countries signing the Paris agreement (blue).)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36098310
Nearly 170 countries are expected to formally sign the deal at the UN, setting in motion events that could see the treaty operational within a year.
The UN says the expected record turnout for the signing shows overwhelming global support for tackling rising temperatures.
But some environmentalists have dismissed the event as a "distraction".
Despite the absence of President Obama, around 60 world leaders are expected here at UN headquarters, including French President Francois Hollande and Prime Minister Trudeau from Canada.
But their signatures alone will not be enough to make the Paris agreement operational. The legal requirements mean that each country will have to go through a process of ratification. For some this will require nothing more than the assent of the political leader as in the example of the United States.
Others though, such as India and Japan, will have to take the document to their parliaments; some may need new laws. The European Union is expected to lag behind on this issue as it has not yet agreed with the 28 member states on how emissions cuts will be shared out. Each member state will also have to ratify the deal individually.
Some countries, including the Marshall Islands, Palau, Fiji and Switzerland, have already completed this step and will be able to formally join the agreement on April 22.
To become operational, the treaty needs at least 55 countries representing at least 55% of global emissions to complete all the steps.
[...] Many of the least developed countries are pushing forward as well because a clerical error in the drafting of the new agreement means it becomes operational as soon at it hits the 55/55 mark, and not in 2020 as many people had supposed.
Poorer countries fear that if the threshold is reached they could be left out in the cold if they haven't ratified, meaning they would not be able to influence the rules and organisation of the new deal.
(,,,) Some environmentalists and indigenous leaders believe the whole process is not worth the paper it is written on. According to the International Alliance of Frontline Communities, the Paris Agreement is a "dangerous distraction" from the real issues.
‘Today is an historic day,’ says Ban, as 175 countries sign Paris climate accord (Photos)
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53756#.VxuIc7sUWig
Today is an historic day,” Mr. Ban told reporters at a press conference following the opening ceremony of the signing event. “This is by far the largest number of countries ever to sign an international agreement on a single day.”
According to the UN chief, the participation by so many countries and the attendance by so many world leaders leaves “no doubt” that the international community is determined to take climate action. He also welcomed the strong presence of the private sector and civil society, saying they are “crucial to realizing the great promise of the Paris Agreement.”
Adopted in Paris by the 196 Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at a conference known as (COP21) last December, the Agreement’s objective is to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius, and to strive for 1.5 degrees Celsius. It will enter into force 30 days after at least 55 countries, accounting for 55 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, deposit their instruments of ratification.
“If all the countries that have signed today take the next step at the national level and join the Agreement, the world will have met the requirement needed for the Paris Agreement to enter into force,” Mr. Ban highlighted, congratulating the 15 Parties that have already deposited their instruments for ratification.
These Parties include Barbados, Belize, Fiji, Grenada, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Nauru, Palau, Palestine, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Somalia and Tuvalu.
Speaking alongside the Secretary-General, French President François Hollande applauded all those who made it possible to reach the second stage of the process – the signing of the document.
“I want to underscore that in Paris, it wasn’t just a single agreement that was brought about and needs to be ratified,” Mr. Hollande told the press. “In Paris, there were also four initiatives that were launched: the International Solar Energy Alliance, the development plan for renewable energy, the innovation mission with [United States] President Obama, and finally the high-level coalition to set a price for fossil fuels and coal.”
He insisted that France needs to be role model and set the example, not just because it was the place where the accord was reached, but because the country contributed to the solution.
“France should be an example to show that it wants to be the first – or one of the first – not just to ratify but also to implement the contents of the Agreement,” Mr. Hollande stated, noting that his country will increase its annual financing for climate from three to five billion euros per year between now and 2020.
Meanwhile, in two weeks, the UN chief will co-host the Climate Action 2016 meeting in Washington D.C., which is expected to bring together leaders and experts from many fields, including government, business, civil society and academia, ahead of the next COP in Morocco in November.
Following the press conference, in remarks to an Informal High-Level event on promoting the early entry into force of the Agreement, Mr. Ban encouraged all countries to move forward quickly with their own domestic processes to accept and ratify the accord.
“As you are well aware, we need at least 55 countries and 55 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. Having 55 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions may be a little bit shorter and easier if the United States and China […] ratify or join. Then it will add to almost 40 per cent. I call on the countries gathered here to use this opportunity to announce your timeline for joining the Agreement as soon as possible,” he said.
Mr. Ban said that it is imperative that strong political momentum continues to build, as the spirit of Paris is still continuing. “I will do all that I can this year to ensure that the Paris Agreement enters into force as soon as possible,” he said.
"Global Elite's Theater": Paris Deal Is Mere Starting Point for Climate Justice
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/22/global-elites-theater-paris-deal-mere-starting-point-climate-justice
There's no doubt that the deal "is the capstone of years and years of hard work," as Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) president Ken Kimmell put it on Thursday.
And the magnitude of the ceremonial signing in New York—attended by countries ranging from tiny Palau to major polluters like the U.S. and China—"confirms there's strong global will to act urgently to limit the dire impacts of climate change, by shifting away from fossil fuels toward clean renewable energy and efficiency technologies," said Kimmell's colleague, UCS director of strategy and policy Alden Meyer.
But Sara Shaw, climate justice and energy coordinator at Friends of the Earth International (FOEI), said the ceremony was merely the "global elite's theater," lacking "substance on implementation and ambition."
Requiring, as it does, countries to set their own targets for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in an effort to keep global warming below 2°C, "The formal signing of the Paris Agreement could be the next nail in the coffin of the fossil fuel industry," said 350.org executive director May Boeve, "if governments actually follow through on their commitments." That's a big "if."
In the United States, for instance, the carbon-cutting Clean Power Plan is seen as a critical component to meeting reduced emissions targets. But as the Los Angeles Times explained on Friday:
The centerpiece of Obama's climate agenda — the Clean Power Plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants — is in limbo as the Supreme Court weighs a challenge from states and industries that say the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the legal authority to carry out the plan. Even if it survives, scientists say much more needs to be done to meet emissions reductions stipulated in the Paris agreement — reducing greenhouse gas emissions from 26% to 28% below their 2005 levels by 2025.
And even if governments fulfill their emissions-reduction pledges, many experts say that won't be enough to prevent climate disaster.
[...] "Scientists tell us that burning of fossil fuels would have to end by 2030 if there would be a chance of keeping temperature increase to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels," Bassey continued. "The signal we get from the silence on the fossils factor is that oil and coal companies can continue to extract profit while burning the planet."
Signing is the first of a two-step process for countries to formally join the agreement—the next is ratification. The deal will come into force on the 30th day after the date on which at least 55 parties, representing at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gases, complete this process.
In the the U.S., Secretary of State John Kerry signed the agreement Friday, and then President Barack Obama will ratify it before he leaves office in December, a senior U.S. official told CBS News in a conference call this week.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that 15 countries would formally join the agreement immediately on Friday, many of them small island developing states—which the World Resources Institute notes "are poised to suffer the worst impacts of climate change even though they contributed the least to causing the problem."
‘But aren’t 97 per cent of climate scientists sure that humans are causing global warming?’
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/but-aren-t-97-per-cent-of-climate-scientists-sure-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html
One of the most frequently used rhetorical devices to avoid answering the questions of the critics of the AGW scare is the proposition that there is a astonishing scientific ‘consensus’ on the point: some 97 per cent of climate scientists are said to agree. By implication, the other 3 per cent are simply ignorant, mavericks or troublemakers, to be lumped in with other people who fall into the category ‘climate deniers’. We are thus asked to accept the authority of the consensus, and to cease and desist from questioning anything about global warming or ‘climate change’.
To deal with this part of the debate we need to go back to the beginning. The AGW scare is built around three core propositions: that the earth is warming, that the warming is caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, and that the warming is dangerous. It is said, or implied, that 97 per cent of ‘climate scientists’ agree with this triad. In fact President Obama’s office tweeted exactly this statement in 2015: Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.
[...] A year later Anderegg et al explored the work of 200 of the most prolific writers on ‘climate change’ and argued that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” So they too got a 97 per cent figure. Again, no mention of any danger from warming. Again, no one was asked anything.
The authors started with 1372 scientists whom they assessed to be the leading ones in the field, and winnowed them down to 200 of the really top. Then they just read, and made a decision from their reading. The 97 per cent were well published and agreed with the orthodox position; the 3 per cent were well published and did not agree.
The crème de la crème comes with the work (if that is right term for it) of John Cook, occasionally aided by Stefan Lewandowsky. I’ve written about their ‘contribution’ to science more than once, as here, for example. In 2013 Cook et al and a team of volunteers looked at more than 12,000 abstracts, rated them according to whether or not they implicitly or explicitly endorsed the view that human activity had caused (wait for it) some of the warming, and again found the magic 97 per cent. See — it’s true! Surely those three separate ratings of 97 per cent have something going for them.
On the face of it, no. Unfortunately for Cook, Legates and others later in the same year published a rebuttal. They found that only 41 papers – 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0% of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1% – had been found to endorse the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.
Elsewhere, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner and other climate scientists protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work. Cook has been trying to defend his results ever since, but more and more scorn has, in my view quite rightly, been poured on the work. You can read some of the objections here, here and here, for starters. As I have said before, this is terrible stuff methodologically, the worst I’ve ever seen in a peer-reviewed journal.
World leaders gather at U.N. to sign Paris climate accord
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/world-leaders-gather-at-u-n-to-sign-paris-climate-accord.html
The accord is also proving difficult to swallow by even its most ardent supporters, as many think it gives a free pass to emit a fixed amount. The signatories will meet at the United Nations' headquarters in New York City to sign the agreement, even though its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, was by all accounts an abject failure. Secretary of State John Kerry will be there to represent the United States, and not President Obama, which is surprising given his second-term push to pass the global warming agreement, cementing his climate legacy once and for all.
Even former NASA climatologist and green activist James Hansen, considered the godfather of the global warming movement, called the accord a "fraud." Speaking to the Guardian, he said: "It’s just bulls*** for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned."
Part of the problem is that the accord is not legally binding with the two biggest emitters, China and the U.S., and voluntary by most of the other signatories. The other problem is that even if every single country stopped using all fossil fuels, warming would continue unabated as the planet gets further removed from the Little Ice Age, which ended around 1850.
Most experts say if any warming is averted, it would be so minuscule as to be undetectable by humans or even the most accurate measuring devices. Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger told the Daily Caller that there are two very good reasons Mr. Obama should withdraw his pledge to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025. "The first is that I don’t believe that human-caused climate change is a “problem” that rises to a level which requires solutions which may jeopardize future well-being through energy restrictions/price increases."
Will the Paris Agreement Save the Earth? (Transcript.)
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16172
Chris Williams is a long-time environmental activist and author of Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis. He is chair of the science department at Packer Collegiate Institute and adjunct professor at Pace University, in the Department of Chemistry and Physical Science. His writings have appeared in numerous publications, including TruthOut, Z Magazine, Green Left Weekly, Alternet, CommonDreams, ClimateAndCapitalism, ClimateStoryTellers, The Indypendent, Dissident Voice, International Socialist Review, Socialist Worker, and ZNet. He reported from Fukushima in 2011 and was a Lannan writer-in-residence in Marfa, Texas over the summer of 2012, where he began work on his second book. He was awarded the Lannan 2013-4 Cultural Freedom Fellowship to continue this work. He has just returned from four months in Vietnam, Morocco and Bolivia, examining the impact of economic development and climate change in relation to energy, food and water issues. (Transcript follows.)
Carbon tax will cost Alberta families at least $1,000, Wildrose says
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/carbon-tax-will-cost-alberta-families-at-least-1-000-wildrose-says-1.3541177
Alberta's NDP government is hiding the true effects of the carbon tax, which could cost families at least $1,000 more each year,
Wildrose Leader Brian Jean said Monday.
Although low- and middle-income Albertans will receive rebates on the tax when it starts Jan. 1, 2017, Jean said they still will pay up to $700 extra.
■Alberta carbon tax will scare off business and investment, warns opposition
■Alberta budget goes heavily into the red to fight economic downturn
Jean said the tax is just a money grab and noted the government has provided no information on how the measure will reduce emissions.
He called on the government to delay the tax until the full economic impact can be studied.
"[The tax is] certainly not required by the international community. It's not required by the federal government," Jean said.
"And why we are going to such great lengths to be better than anybody else in the world by far, to punish our own competitiveness, is beyond belief."
Details of the carbon tax were released in Thursday's budget.
Details of the carbon tax were released in Thursday's budget.
Full and partial rebates will be offered to singles earning up to $51,250 net income annually and couples earning up to $100,000.
The net income cutoff for couples with two children is $101,000. Rebates will rise in 2018, when the carbon levy increases to $30 a tonne from $20.
The government has said people will see extra costs at the gas pump and on their home heating bills. The money collected will be invested in green infrastructure, energy efficiency programs and clean energy research.
Jean cited data from the Canadian Tax Journal that said a $30 carbon tax will increase electricity prices by 7.5 per cent, food costs by two per cent and the shelter costs by 1.2 per cent.
Jean said the initiative will do little or nothing to change people's behaviour. (Article continues.)
For what little I can grasp, it gives "the over all appearance" of an IRS Ponzi scheme, in the form of a Carbon Tax that will eventually subordinate all Countries to submit, in the disguise of controlling Climate Change? A World Wide Tax scheme?
The Paris Agreement: An Assessment
http://reason.org/news/show/the-paris-agreement-an-assessment
Examining the Paris climate deal and policy options that would better address the problem of climate change.
On December 12, 2015, government officials from 195 nations meeting in Paris, France, finalized a new agreement on climate change. This brief assesses the merits of the Paris Agreement in order to encourage informed debate about its ratification by signatory nations. It examines the nature and extent of the threat posed by climate change, the effectiveness of solutions adopted in Paris, and considers other, better solutions.
The brief begins with a concise history of the emergence of concern over climate change. This is followed by a status report on, first, the science of climate change and, second, economic analyses of the problem of climate change. It then assesses the Paris Agreement in light of the scientific and economic evidence. Finally, it explores some other policy options that would better address the problem of climate change.
The Paris Agreement seeks to limit the increase in global mean temperatures to “well below 2°C above pre- industrial levels.” The Agreement asserts that this goal is undertaken in order to enhance the implementation of the objective of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), which is to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
There is considerable disagreement over what increase in global mean temperature might be considered “dangerous.” For example, economic analyses suggest that warming of 3°C above pre-industrial levels may generate net benefits. In the very scenarios in which climate change is presumed to be greatest, its impact will be distributed most evenly and the harms will be most readily mitigated by adaptive responses. Merely asserting that an increase of 2°C above pre-industrial levels will be “dangerous” does not make it so.
(Article continues.)
World leaders prepare to sign Paris climate treaty (Map showing the countries signing the Paris agreement (blue).)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36098310
Nearly 170 countries are expected to formally sign the deal at the UN, setting in motion events that could see the treaty operational within a year.
The UN says the expected record turnout for the signing shows overwhelming global support for tackling rising temperatures.
But some environmentalists have dismissed the event as a "distraction".
Despite the absence of President Obama, around 60 world leaders are expected here at UN headquarters, including French President Francois Hollande and Prime Minister Trudeau from Canada.
But their signatures alone will not be enough to make the Paris agreement operational. The legal requirements mean that each country will have to go through a process of ratification. For some this will require nothing more than the assent of the political leader as in the example of the United States.
Others though, such as India and Japan, will have to take the document to their parliaments; some may need new laws. The European Union is expected to lag behind on this issue as it has not yet agreed with the 28 member states on how emissions cuts will be shared out. Each member state will also have to ratify the deal individually.
Some countries, including the Marshall Islands, Palau, Fiji and Switzerland, have already completed this step and will be able to formally join the agreement on April 22.
To become operational, the treaty needs at least 55 countries representing at least 55% of global emissions to complete all the steps.
[...] Many of the least developed countries are pushing forward as well because a clerical error in the drafting of the new agreement means it becomes operational as soon at it hits the 55/55 mark, and not in 2020 as many people had supposed.
Poorer countries fear that if the threshold is reached they could be left out in the cold if they haven't ratified, meaning they would not be able to influence the rules and organisation of the new deal.
(,,,) Some environmentalists and indigenous leaders believe the whole process is not worth the paper it is written on. According to the International Alliance of Frontline Communities, the Paris Agreement is a "dangerous distraction" from the real issues.
‘Today is an historic day,’ says Ban, as 175 countries sign Paris climate accord (Photos)
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53756#.VxuIc7sUWig
Today is an historic day,” Mr. Ban told reporters at a press conference following the opening ceremony of the signing event. “This is by far the largest number of countries ever to sign an international agreement on a single day.”
According to the UN chief, the participation by so many countries and the attendance by so many world leaders leaves “no doubt” that the international community is determined to take climate action. He also welcomed the strong presence of the private sector and civil society, saying they are “crucial to realizing the great promise of the Paris Agreement.”
Adopted in Paris by the 196 Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at a conference known as (COP21) last December, the Agreement’s objective is to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius, and to strive for 1.5 degrees Celsius. It will enter into force 30 days after at least 55 countries, accounting for 55 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, deposit their instruments of ratification.
“If all the countries that have signed today take the next step at the national level and join the Agreement, the world will have met the requirement needed for the Paris Agreement to enter into force,” Mr. Ban highlighted, congratulating the 15 Parties that have already deposited their instruments for ratification.
These Parties include Barbados, Belize, Fiji, Grenada, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Nauru, Palau, Palestine, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Somalia and Tuvalu.
Speaking alongside the Secretary-General, French President François Hollande applauded all those who made it possible to reach the second stage of the process – the signing of the document.
“I want to underscore that in Paris, it wasn’t just a single agreement that was brought about and needs to be ratified,” Mr. Hollande told the press. “In Paris, there were also four initiatives that were launched: the International Solar Energy Alliance, the development plan for renewable energy, the innovation mission with [United States] President Obama, and finally the high-level coalition to set a price for fossil fuels and coal.”
He insisted that France needs to be role model and set the example, not just because it was the place where the accord was reached, but because the country contributed to the solution.
“France should be an example to show that it wants to be the first – or one of the first – not just to ratify but also to implement the contents of the Agreement,” Mr. Hollande stated, noting that his country will increase its annual financing for climate from three to five billion euros per year between now and 2020.
Meanwhile, in two weeks, the UN chief will co-host the Climate Action 2016 meeting in Washington D.C., which is expected to bring together leaders and experts from many fields, including government, business, civil society and academia, ahead of the next COP in Morocco in November.
Following the press conference, in remarks to an Informal High-Level event on promoting the early entry into force of the Agreement, Mr. Ban encouraged all countries to move forward quickly with their own domestic processes to accept and ratify the accord.
“As you are well aware, we need at least 55 countries and 55 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. Having 55 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions may be a little bit shorter and easier if the United States and China […] ratify or join. Then it will add to almost 40 per cent. I call on the countries gathered here to use this opportunity to announce your timeline for joining the Agreement as soon as possible,” he said.
Mr. Ban said that it is imperative that strong political momentum continues to build, as the spirit of Paris is still continuing. “I will do all that I can this year to ensure that the Paris Agreement enters into force as soon as possible,” he said.
"Global Elite's Theater": Paris Deal Is Mere Starting Point for Climate Justice
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/22/global-elites-theater-paris-deal-mere-starting-point-climate-justice
There's no doubt that the deal "is the capstone of years and years of hard work," as Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) president Ken Kimmell put it on Thursday.
And the magnitude of the ceremonial signing in New York—attended by countries ranging from tiny Palau to major polluters like the U.S. and China—"confirms there's strong global will to act urgently to limit the dire impacts of climate change, by shifting away from fossil fuels toward clean renewable energy and efficiency technologies," said Kimmell's colleague, UCS director of strategy and policy Alden Meyer.
But Sara Shaw, climate justice and energy coordinator at Friends of the Earth International (FOEI), said the ceremony was merely the "global elite's theater," lacking "substance on implementation and ambition."
Requiring, as it does, countries to set their own targets for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in an effort to keep global warming below 2°C, "The formal signing of the Paris Agreement could be the next nail in the coffin of the fossil fuel industry," said 350.org executive director May Boeve, "if governments actually follow through on their commitments." That's a big "if."
In the United States, for instance, the carbon-cutting Clean Power Plan is seen as a critical component to meeting reduced emissions targets. But as the Los Angeles Times explained on Friday:
The centerpiece of Obama's climate agenda — the Clean Power Plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants — is in limbo as the Supreme Court weighs a challenge from states and industries that say the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the legal authority to carry out the plan. Even if it survives, scientists say much more needs to be done to meet emissions reductions stipulated in the Paris agreement — reducing greenhouse gas emissions from 26% to 28% below their 2005 levels by 2025.
And even if governments fulfill their emissions-reduction pledges, many experts say that won't be enough to prevent climate disaster.
[...] "Scientists tell us that burning of fossil fuels would have to end by 2030 if there would be a chance of keeping temperature increase to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels," Bassey continued. "The signal we get from the silence on the fossils factor is that oil and coal companies can continue to extract profit while burning the planet."
Signing is the first of a two-step process for countries to formally join the agreement—the next is ratification. The deal will come into force on the 30th day after the date on which at least 55 parties, representing at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gases, complete this process.
In the the U.S., Secretary of State John Kerry signed the agreement Friday, and then President Barack Obama will ratify it before he leaves office in December, a senior U.S. official told CBS News in a conference call this week.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that 15 countries would formally join the agreement immediately on Friday, many of them small island developing states—which the World Resources Institute notes "are poised to suffer the worst impacts of climate change even though they contributed the least to causing the problem."
‘But aren’t 97 per cent of climate scientists sure that humans are causing global warming?’
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/but-aren-t-97-per-cent-of-climate-scientists-sure-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html
One of the most frequently used rhetorical devices to avoid answering the questions of the critics of the AGW scare is the proposition that there is a astonishing scientific ‘consensus’ on the point: some 97 per cent of climate scientists are said to agree. By implication, the other 3 per cent are simply ignorant, mavericks or troublemakers, to be lumped in with other people who fall into the category ‘climate deniers’. We are thus asked to accept the authority of the consensus, and to cease and desist from questioning anything about global warming or ‘climate change’.
To deal with this part of the debate we need to go back to the beginning. The AGW scare is built around three core propositions: that the earth is warming, that the warming is caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, and that the warming is dangerous. It is said, or implied, that 97 per cent of ‘climate scientists’ agree with this triad. In fact President Obama’s office tweeted exactly this statement in 2015: Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.
[...] A year later Anderegg et al explored the work of 200 of the most prolific writers on ‘climate change’ and argued that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” So they too got a 97 per cent figure. Again, no mention of any danger from warming. Again, no one was asked anything.
The authors started with 1372 scientists whom they assessed to be the leading ones in the field, and winnowed them down to 200 of the really top. Then they just read, and made a decision from their reading. The 97 per cent were well published and agreed with the orthodox position; the 3 per cent were well published and did not agree.
The crème de la crème comes with the work (if that is right term for it) of John Cook, occasionally aided by Stefan Lewandowsky. I’ve written about their ‘contribution’ to science more than once, as here, for example. In 2013 Cook et al and a team of volunteers looked at more than 12,000 abstracts, rated them according to whether or not they implicitly or explicitly endorsed the view that human activity had caused (wait for it) some of the warming, and again found the magic 97 per cent. See — it’s true! Surely those three separate ratings of 97 per cent have something going for them.
On the face of it, no. Unfortunately for Cook, Legates and others later in the same year published a rebuttal. They found that only 41 papers – 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0% of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1% – had been found to endorse the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.
Elsewhere, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner and other climate scientists protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work. Cook has been trying to defend his results ever since, but more and more scorn has, in my view quite rightly, been poured on the work. You can read some of the objections here, here and here, for starters. As I have said before, this is terrible stuff methodologically, the worst I’ve ever seen in a peer-reviewed journal.
World leaders gather at U.N. to sign Paris climate accord
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/world-leaders-gather-at-u-n-to-sign-paris-climate-accord.html
The accord is also proving difficult to swallow by even its most ardent supporters, as many think it gives a free pass to emit a fixed amount. The signatories will meet at the United Nations' headquarters in New York City to sign the agreement, even though its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, was by all accounts an abject failure. Secretary of State John Kerry will be there to represent the United States, and not President Obama, which is surprising given his second-term push to pass the global warming agreement, cementing his climate legacy once and for all.
Even former NASA climatologist and green activist James Hansen, considered the godfather of the global warming movement, called the accord a "fraud." Speaking to the Guardian, he said: "It’s just bulls*** for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned."
Part of the problem is that the accord is not legally binding with the two biggest emitters, China and the U.S., and voluntary by most of the other signatories. The other problem is that even if every single country stopped using all fossil fuels, warming would continue unabated as the planet gets further removed from the Little Ice Age, which ended around 1850.
Most experts say if any warming is averted, it would be so minuscule as to be undetectable by humans or even the most accurate measuring devices. Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger told the Daily Caller that there are two very good reasons Mr. Obama should withdraw his pledge to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025. "The first is that I don’t believe that human-caused climate change is a “problem” that rises to a level which requires solutions which may jeopardize future well-being through energy restrictions/price increases."
Will the Paris Agreement Save the Earth? (Transcript.)
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16172
Chris Williams is a long-time environmental activist and author of Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis. He is chair of the science department at Packer Collegiate Institute and adjunct professor at Pace University, in the Department of Chemistry and Physical Science. His writings have appeared in numerous publications, including TruthOut, Z Magazine, Green Left Weekly, Alternet, CommonDreams, ClimateAndCapitalism, ClimateStoryTellers, The Indypendent, Dissident Voice, International Socialist Review, Socialist Worker, and ZNet. He reported from Fukushima in 2011 and was a Lannan writer-in-residence in Marfa, Texas over the summer of 2012, where he began work on his second book. He was awarded the Lannan 2013-4 Cultural Freedom Fellowship to continue this work. He has just returned from four months in Vietnam, Morocco and Bolivia, examining the impact of economic development and climate change in relation to energy, food and water issues. (Transcript follows.)
Carbon tax will cost Alberta families at least $1,000, Wildrose says
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/carbon-tax-will-cost-alberta-families-at-least-1-000-wildrose-says-1.3541177
Alberta's NDP government is hiding the true effects of the carbon tax, which could cost families at least $1,000 more each year,
Wildrose Leader Brian Jean said Monday.
Although low- and middle-income Albertans will receive rebates on the tax when it starts Jan. 1, 2017, Jean said they still will pay up to $700 extra.
■Alberta carbon tax will scare off business and investment, warns opposition
■Alberta budget goes heavily into the red to fight economic downturn
Jean said the tax is just a money grab and noted the government has provided no information on how the measure will reduce emissions.
He called on the government to delay the tax until the full economic impact can be studied.
"[The tax is] certainly not required by the international community. It's not required by the federal government," Jean said.
"And why we are going to such great lengths to be better than anybody else in the world by far, to punish our own competitiveness, is beyond belief."
Details of the carbon tax were released in Thursday's budget.
Details of the carbon tax were released in Thursday's budget.
Full and partial rebates will be offered to singles earning up to $51,250 net income annually and couples earning up to $100,000.
The net income cutoff for couples with two children is $101,000. Rebates will rise in 2018, when the carbon levy increases to $30 a tonne from $20.
The government has said people will see extra costs at the gas pump and on their home heating bills. The money collected will be invested in green infrastructure, energy efficiency programs and clean energy research.
Jean cited data from the Canadian Tax Journal that said a $30 carbon tax will increase electricity prices by 7.5 per cent, food costs by two per cent and the shelter costs by 1.2 per cent.
Jean said the initiative will do little or nothing to change people's behaviour. (Article continues.)
