New Universal Climate Agreement

[biffvernon]

Negotiations Towards New Universal Climate Agreement in 2015 Get Underway
International Organizations Ready to Support Higher Climate Ambition of Nations

(Bonn, 14 March 2014) – Countries got down to the business of fleshing out how a new universal agreement on
climate change might look by the deadline of Paris 2015 as part of worldwide efforts to keep a global temperature
rise under 2 degrees Celsius this century.

This week’s meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) marked
the start of an intense year with a calendar of meetings.

In late 2014 countries will meet in Lima, Peru with the aim of having a draft universal agreement on the table to be
finalized in 2015. The new agreement is to enter into force in 2020.

In advance of that, the UN Secretary-General will host a September Climate Summit involving heads of State to
leaders of the private sector, again with the aim of catalyzing climate action and raising ambition worldwide.

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said:
“We are now entering a serious and significant phase in the evolution of international, cooperative climate policy
as we look towards both Lima and Paris.”

“The next 9 months will require all nations to raise their eyes beyond business-as-usual in order to counter the
threats and deliver the multiple opportunities from moving rapidly towards a cleaner, healthier, low carbon world,”
she said

http://unfccc.int/files/press/press_rel ... pclose.pdf

[UndercoverElephant]

[biffvernon]

And here's a little tune to go with my previous post. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho3i7fzQYEY

[biffvernon]

But more seriously http://unfccc.int/meetings/bonn_mar_201 ... g/7979.php

[UndercoverElephant]

Nothing is going to change the course humanity is on. Certainly not a bunch of people talking to each other about how serious the problems are.

It's too late, and even if it wasn't, the underlying problems have no solutions. I'm tempted to say "the only thing that could save civilisation is the invention of star-trek technologies yesterday", but even that isn't true because if we had those technologies today then one group of humans would use them to subjugate another group rather than everybody living harmoniously with each other and with nature.

These people are talking about saving civilisation as we know it, and that cannot be done. Even talking about it as a serious possibility is becoming counter-productive because it maintains the illusion that something resembling BAU can be maintained.

I move ever closer to Derrick Jensen's position on these things. The real problems exist at a much more fundamental level than is being discussed at this conference. It's not about changing the way we generate energy. It's not about recycling more. It's about completely re-imagining the relationship between human beings and the rest of the ecosystem, and any solution involves a massive reduction of the human population on this planet. When you, Biff Vernon, start taking those things seriously, then I'll take notice when you say "but seriously."

I don't want to get into another personalised argument with you. I'm challenging what is being presented. I (obviously) understand why you're posting these things, and why you take the apparently-pragmatic positions you take. It's just that I've run out of tolerance for pretending any more that this sort of approach is actually going to get us anywhere.

[Lurkalot]

Not wanting to be funny but why do they have all these summits and meetings rather than conduct the whole thing over the internet? There are many people who will see this as some sort of "jolly boy's outing" , jetting off to Peru to talk about , well telling people not to fly and burn up the worlds resources. The impression is if those that care about the planet can still fly to Lima or Paris then why can't everyone else.? I'm not trying to denigrate the work being done but they should keep an eye on public opinion.

[Little John]

Nothing is going to change the course humanity is on. Certainly not a bunch of people talking to each other about how serious the problems are.

It's too late, and even if it wasn't, the underlying problems have no solutions. I'm tempted to say "the only thing that could save civilisation is the invention of star-trek technologies yesterday", but even that isn't true because if we had those technologies today then one group of humans would use them to subjugate another group rather than everybody living harmoniously with each other and with nature.

These people are talking about saving civilisation as we know it, and that cannot be done. Even talking about it as a serious possibility is becoming counter-productive because it maintains the illusion that something resembling BAU can be maintained.

I move ever closer to Derrick Jensen's position on these things. The real problems exist at a much more fundamental level than is being discussed at this conference. It's not about changing the way we generate energy. It's not about recycling more. It's about completely re-imagining the relationship between human beings and the rest of the ecosystem, and any solution involves a massive reduction of the human population on this planet. When you, Biff Vernon, start taking those things seriously, then I'll take notice when you say "but seriously."

I don't want to get into another personalised argument with you. I'm challenging what is being presented. I (obviously) understand why you're posting these things, and why you take the apparently-pragmatic positions you take. It's just that I've run out of tolerance for pretending any more that this sort of approach is actually going to get us anywhere.

yes

[biffvernon]

When you, Biff Vernon, start taking those things seriously, then I'll take notice when you say "but seriously."
I don't want to get into another personalised argument with you.

Then don't make personalised attacks against me. If you want to criticise the the actions of the UN or whatever, you can do so without including my name.

[Tarrel]

Not wanting to be funny but why do they have all these summits and meetings rather than conduct the whole thing over the internet? There are many people who will see this as some sort of "jolly boy's outing" , jetting off to Peru to talk about , well telling people not to fly and burn up the worlds resources. The impression is if those that care about the planet can still fly to Lima or Paris then why can't everyone else.? I'm not trying to denigrate the work being done but they should keep an eye on public opinion.

'Cos you can't pass the port round the dinner table via a webcam.

[Lurkalot]

'Cos you can't pass the port round the dinner table via a webcam.

I think that's what I like about this forum. You talk about passing round the port whereas on other forums the comments would be more about passing round the secretaries

[Tarrel]

'Cos you can't pass the port round the dinner table via a webcam.

I think that's what I like about this forum. You talk about passing round the port whereas on other forums the comments would be more about passing round the secretaries

Now that you could do on a webcam. (I wouldn't recommend it though).

Seriously though, I agree very much with your point. To be honest, one could level a similar criticism at some of the "collapse-purveyors". Many of them seem to cover a lot of mileage on the speaking-circuit, jetting off to the various corners of the globe to spread their message. Tricky one; is this an acceptable price to pay for the possibility of the message being propagated and more people "getting it", or should they be leading by example and changing their own behaviour first?

[UndercoverElephant]

When you, Biff Vernon, start taking those things seriously, then I'll take notice when you say "but seriously."
I don't want to get into another personalised argument with you.

Then don't make personalised attacks against me. If you want to criticise the the actions of the UN or whatever, you can do so without including my name.

I owe you an apology. Your name should not have been included.

But the flying pigs are appropriate, would you not agree?

[biffvernon]

Apology accepted.

Yeah, but when flying pigs are all there is maybe we have to fly with them.

The Bonn meeting that I drew attention to is one of the rather few shows in town. The process is under-way, leading to the COP 21 in November/December 2015 in Paris at which there may be agreement between 193 nations to do something. My betting is that an agreement will be reached on both mitigation and adaptation measures.

Will it be enough to avoid catastrophes? Almost certainly not. Are there other approaches? Yes, but it's not an either/or situation. Along with a global strategy it will be vital to have lots of distributed actions, unilateral policies, agreements across regions and small groupings of nations, agreements focussed on specific issues such as shipping emissions, wood-stoves, the Arctic etc. that do not have to involve 193 nations.

There seems to be pretty much no chance that the arbitrarily defined 2 degree 'safe' level will not be passed and right now we're on an emissions path that takes us along the top side of the AR5 RCP 8.5 so that looks about as bad as it could be. On the other hand the climate denialists have been marginalised throughout most of the world and are no longer given credence by the decision makers who matter. Tipping points do not just occur in physical systems but can happen in the tides of man too.

As individuals we have the choice of whether to give up hope, abandon our grandchildren and head for the hills with beans and ammo, or maintain the glimmers of hope, working with whatever straws we can clutch on to. The UNFCCC is one such straw and I shall continue to promote it.

[UndercoverElephant]

As individuals we have the choice of whether to give up hope, abandon our grandchildren and head for the hills with beans and ammo, or maintain the glimmers of hope, working with whatever straws we can clutch on to.

No, that is a false dichotomy. "Giving up hope" (or rather, "being honest about our predicament") does not automatically entail turning into a US-style survivalist.

[biffvernon]

Well, yes, you don't have to literally run for the hills. That's a metaphor. You could just get on with day to day life as cheerily as you can on the, possibly correct, assumption, that something mundane like being run over by a bus of dying of old age gets you first. It's how most folk seem to behave.