Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond  (Read 407645 times)

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #450 on: December 11, 2015, 06:31:02 AM »
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-deal-idUKKBN0TT1HI20151210
Quote
The EU has asked for that review every five years from the early 2020s. European Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said national plans for action should be reviewed every five years "so that when the treaty enters into force in 2021, we are able to raise the level of ambition".

"Without the five-year cycles, the agreement is meaningless," he told a news conference.
 
But China has balked at setting any conditions that would bring external pressure to step up its own measures before 2030.

Gao Feng, one of the Chinese negotiators, noted that Beijing had set out a national plan in June to start reducing its CO2 emissions by 2030. "I cannot say that in the middle, 2025, we would be in a position to change it," he said.

Fabius has been resolute in his desire to get a deal done, pressing delegates to work with only a few hours of rest in fear that delays could produce political drift.

"What is now important is to seek landing zones and compromise," he said, telling delegates they would have two-and-a-half hours to review the draft before returning to work for another all-night session.

A political pyrrhic victory. Let's see how today ends.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #451 on: December 11, 2015, 01:23:01 PM »
Ambition of Paris climate talks rises by half a degree
Quote
With the unexpected support of the United States and Europe, the agreement, due to be completed within days, seems set to go beyond the current goal of limiting the rise in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels.

Instead, the latest draft released late on Thursday, states a new goal to keep the rise "to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius". It is the first draft that does not offer alternate options for the goal.
http://www.trust.org/item/20151210215936-xmz9f/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #452 on: December 11, 2015, 04:15:11 PM »
Regarding the quote I made yesterday from the draft text.
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1021.msg66973.html#msg66973
Some comments from BBC's live coverage.

Hans Joachim Shellnhuber:
Quote
To have a chance of meeting the 2C [limit on] temperature rise, countries need to set decarbonisation plans for 2050.
The date was removed in yesterdays draft.

Kevin Andersson:
Quote
Calling for a peaking of CO2 levels 'as soon as possible' is not scientifically robust. The text is somewhere between dangerous and deadly for vulnerable nations.

Other comments.

Steffen Kallbekken:
Quote
CO2 reduction pledges must be reviewed frequently, biennially or every third year. If nations stick to the INDC pledges for 2025-2030 temperature rises will rise by between 2.7 and 3.7 degrees.

Joeri Rogelj:
Quote
There is an inconsistency between near-term and long-term ambition. We need robust stocktaking cycles holding nations to account for their CO2 reduction commitments every two to three years. The global budget of CO2 emissions that would restrict temperature rises to 1.5C is already exhausted.


Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #453 on: December 11, 2015, 08:08:40 PM »
The six key road blocks at the UN climate talks in Paris
From a 1.5C or 2C limit, to climate aid and the public reporting of emissions, here are the main differences in the draft text.

Here's one:
Quote
Future improvements to the deal

Governments at the Paris meeting have come out with lofty ambitions, unlike other climate talks, and there is a sense of momentum towards an agreement. But what about the follow-through? Industrial countries in particular are pushing hard for public reporting of all countries emissions reductions, a so-called “stocktaking”, which would subject climate laggards to public shaming. The US and other countries are pushing for an early stocktaking in 2018. Developing countries are trying to push back the first inventory to 2024. Then there is “ratcheting”. Developed countries are pushing for governments to put forward tougher emissions plans at five-year intervals, in order to take advantage of advances in clean energy technology, and improve the chances of getting to zero emissions in the middle of the century. India and other developing countries want to put off those ratchet meetings to once a decade or so.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/10/the-six-key-road-blocks-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-paris
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #454 on: December 11, 2015, 08:15:46 PM »
Quote
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who is chairing the summit, promised a new text on Saturday morning at 08:00 GMT - and suggested it would be the final version, to be ratified at lunchtime.

The end.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #455 on: December 11, 2015, 08:17:16 PM »
I like the video in this Skeptical Science article.  The narrator explains the terrifying global emissions numbers in an unwavering upbeat tone, leaving you to decide whether the situation is hopeless or merely... very challenging.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/TRTTDEquity.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Csnavywx

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 520
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #456 on: December 11, 2015, 08:59:11 PM »
Definitely not hopeless, but not really much room for optimism either. I am interested to see what the final "take it or leave it" text will look like. Let's put it this way, better 3C than 4C or 5C. It'll be plenty bad at 3C, but 4 or 5 is likely a major mass extinction event.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #457 on: December 11, 2015, 09:46:03 PM »
Paris climate deal ‘close to finish line’ but talks set to overrun
Quote
The latest version of a draft text, a slightly condensed 27 pages, retained a key demand made by low-lying and vulnerable states: to limit warming to less than 2C above pre-industrial levels and to seek to keep it to no more than 1.5C above.

But when it came to recognising irreversible effects, such as land loss and migration, the draft was a disappointment, campaign groups said. “The current options provide no hope for people who will suffer the impacts of climate change the hardest,” WWF said.
...
Key players in the negotiations, such as Brazil, insist a strong and durable climate agreement remains within reach. Izabella Teixeira, Brazil’s environment minister, said countries had stumbled in translating political goodwill into the dry language of diplomatic agreements.

But she said she was confident countries would eventually arrive at an agreement strong enough to avoid dangerous climate change.

“The agreement is done at the political level,” she said. “Everyone knows: OK, we can do this. What is not done yet is the language: how we can translate this common understanding about the next steps, and the progress to a flexible and transparent process, from political language into agreement language. This is the challenge we have today.”
...
Finding the exact language to unknot those problems as well as satisfy lawyers working for 196 countries – each with different economies and exposures to climate change – [is the] challenge.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/10/paris-climate-talks-deal-in-view-but-negotiations-likely-to-go-into-overtime
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #458 on: December 12, 2015, 02:48:08 AM »
The Paris Climate Change Agreement Is Going to Be Highly Aspirational. That’s Exactly What We Need.
Quote
... The negotiations seem to be taking a “build it and they will come” approach, hoping to signal urgency to the global private sector that the era of fossil fuels must end very soon, rather than command national-level emission reductions via international law, as previous climate talks have tried, and failed, to accomplish.

The change in tack, as well as the exceedingly durable nature of the draft agreement—with five-year review cycles built to last a century—has provided significant optimism as the talks draw to a close. The latest draft also provides a provision to ensure essentially all major emitting countries are on board, though it would enable a hypothetical bloc of China and India to block the final plan entirely. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, though, because both India and China have separately signaled their intention to work closely with the United States and Europe on climate action during the months leading up to Paris. More likely, it will ensure whatever agreement emerges from Paris will be widely supported.
...
This debate is more than just a detail—it also informs the overall goal of how quickly the world can reduce its emissions. In order to achieve the newly bold temperature target that the Paris talks have rallied around, global carbon emissions must peak within the next five years—before the draft Paris agreement would even enter into force—and then rapidly decline thereafter. Wealthier countries with greater historical emissions—like the United States—would need to decline to near-zero emissions over the next 15 years, with the rest of the world following by midcentury. Poor countries simply will not be able to sustain that scale of effort without significant financial and technical help from rich countries.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/11/paris_climate_change_agreement_aspirational_in_a_good_way.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #459 on: December 12, 2015, 04:26:27 AM »
Well;
We already understand the importance of our forests so why
Quote
newly strengthened protection for the world’s forest
We already know why our current economic system supports fossil fuels so why
Quote
a call for all nations to end fossil fuel subsidies
We don't need wooly acronyms that noone will remember so why
Quote
CBDRILONCWRC, which stands for “Common but Differentiated Responsibility in Light of National Circumstances With Respective Capability”
We already have climate refugees due to drought, so why
Quote
address the growing risk of mass climate-induced migration
We already have a lot of people in the private sector who understand so why
Quote
hoping to signal urgency to the global private sector that the era of fossil fuels must end very soon
Are they just talking to themselves?



Well I'm standing by the river
 But the water doesn't flow
 It boils with every poison you can think of
 And I'm underneath the streetlight
 But the light of joy I know
 Scared beyond belief way down in the shadows
 And the perverted fear of violence
 Chokes the smile on every face
 And common sense is ringing out the bell
 This ain't no technological breakdown
 Oh no, this is the road to hell

And all the roads jam up with credit
 And there's nothing you can do
 It's all just bits of paper flying away from you
 Oh look out world, take a good look
 What comes down here
 You must learn this lesson fast and learn it well
 This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway
 Oh no, this is the road
 Said this is the road
 This is the road to hell


Csnavywx

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 520
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #460 on: December 12, 2015, 02:24:02 PM »
Link to final text to be voted on: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf

Reviewing now...

Csnavywx

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 520
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #461 on: December 12, 2015, 03:51:40 PM »
It's clear that if there's any decoupling going on, it's been between science and policy. At least they put it IN the report:

Notes with  concern  that  the  estimated  aggregate  greenhouse  gas  emission  levels  in 2025 and 2030 resulting  from the  intended nationally determined contributions do  not fall within  least-cost 2  ̊C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030,  and also  notes that  much  greater  emission  reduction  efforts  will  be  required  than those associated with the  intended nationally determined contributions in order to hold the increase  in  the  global  average temperature to below 2  ̊C above pre-industrial  levels  by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5  ̊C above pre-industrial levels by reducing to a level to be identified in the special report referred to in paragraph 21 below.

55Gt = 15GtC or basically RCP 8.5 at 2030. CO2 levels in RCP 8.5 are *drumroll* 448ppm or 479ppm CO2-eq with all other forcing agents (including aerosol reductions).


They invite the IPCC to do a special report in 2018 on impacts and emissions pathways for 1.5C:

Invites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide a special report in 2018  on  the  impacts  of  global  warming  of  1.5  °C  above  pre-industrial  levels  and  related global greenhouse gas emission pathways.


The budget will be about blown already by the time 2018 rolls around. So, I'm not sure what they're expecting there. A chart with very sharp, straight lines to zero and negative emissions?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2015, 04:00:29 PM by Csnavywx »

Csnavywx

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 520
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #462 on: December 12, 2015, 03:56:59 PM »
Further  decides that,  in  accordance  with  Article  9,  paragraph 3,  of  the  Agreement,
developed  countries  intend  to  continue  their  existing  collective  mobilization  goal  through
2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation; prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement  shall  set  a  new  collective  quantified  goal  from  a  floor  of  USD  100  billion  per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries.


That's how the wording should be ALL over the document. At least that's a small piece of good news there. Get rid of the creative accounting and it'd be even better.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #463 on: December 12, 2015, 04:07:14 PM »
Thanks Csnavywx, seems like we're aiming for geoengineering now. That's scary.

Csnavywx

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 520
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #464 on: December 12, 2015, 04:25:31 PM »
Thanks Csnavywx, seems like we're aiming for geoengineering now. That's scary.

Well, there was some wording about "climate neutrality" in the last draft, which would have opened the door on geoengineering. Thankfully, it was replaced with "greenhouse gas neutrality" -- which doesn't explicitly open the door to it. Not off the table, of course, but at least it's not being invited directly into the room, so to speak.

For the 1.5C target, yeah, I'm not sure how they plan on getting that without geoengineering.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #465 on: December 12, 2015, 05:35:22 PM »
Quote
@EricHolthaus: I'm reminded of @dwtitley's advice: "Be prepared for catastrophic success."
#ParisAgreement

https://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/675695757270253569

(David Titley, Recovering weather forecaster. Director, PSU Center for Solutions to Weather & Climate Risk. Former Oceanographer of the Navy & Dir. Task Force Climate Change)

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/04/david_titley_climate_change_war_an_interview_with_the_retired_rear_admiral.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #466 on: December 12, 2015, 05:46:37 PM »
COP21 LIVE: Make or break time for Paris Outcome
Quote
1743 – Al Gore and Segolene Royal enter together. China’s Xie Zhenhua gives a thumbs up to EU commission Miguel Arias Canete. Everyone looks relaxed. You can follow the webcast here.

We understand the French presidency does not plan to beat about the bush. Laurent Fabius will ask if there are any objections, hoping to be greeted with deafening silence, then bring the gavel down to signify the text has been agreed.

UN climate chief Christiana Figueres, who has driven the process leading up to this summit, planned to wear purple on the day a deal was adopted. Here’s her outfit – I’m told it looks purpler in real life.

In anticipation of the deal going through, here’s our wrap of what it all means: slow death for fossil fuels.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/12/cop21-live-make-or-break-time-for-paris-outcome/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #467 on: December 12, 2015, 06:38:36 PM »
A nice summary of the goals.

Analysis: The [final] Paris climate deal
The 31-page draft no longer has any brackets to indicate areas of disagreement on the text.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-final-paris-climate-deal
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2536
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #468 on: December 12, 2015, 06:39:41 PM »
For someone who want to dwell in these past talks :
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19M59-wHuataEZh8f6joZ_Mvay3IZCbZfaxJKN-H_Bk0/edit?pli=1

There was 2 young new zelanders  recordings most of the talks... I won't ! but help yourself, if you please.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #469 on: December 12, 2015, 07:31:38 PM »
Success!!!
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Csnavywx

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 520
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #470 on: December 12, 2015, 07:42:09 PM »
Yep! Now the hard part begins.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2589
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 301
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #471 on: December 12, 2015, 08:30:21 PM »
By what stretch of the imagination do we consider this a success? Success for whom?

Do the commitments that countries have made come any where close to matching the ambitious goals?

Are any of those commitments legally binding?
Are they in fact voluntary, ie very likely not to be upheld?

Do the models they are based on include all carbon feedbacks?

Do they assume that we can massively draw down atmospheric CO2 by magically snatching it out of the air and safely burying it in the ground?

James Hansen (not a man generally prone to profanity) has a term for this agreement: 'bullshit'

Quote
“It’s just bullshit 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.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud?CMP=share_btn_fb
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2589
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 301
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #472 on: December 12, 2015, 08:32:34 PM »
Other reaction:

Quote
Friends of the Earth International's spokesperson at the Summit in Paris, Asad Rehman, went further:

"The draft Paris agreement puts us on track for a planet three degrees hotter than today. This would be a disaster. The reviews in this agreement are too weak and too late.

The finance figures have no bearing on the scale of need. It's empty."


"The iceberg has struck,

the ship is going down

and the band is still playing to warm applause.


"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #473 on: December 12, 2015, 09:48:54 PM »
Quote
@insideclimate: In Paris final hr, verb "shall" in key section changed to the word "should"—avoiding need for US Senate ratification https://t.co/27rao8ClaK

https://twitter.com/insideclimate/status/675773068170653697

Nations Approve Historic Climate Treaty, but Road Ahead Not Easy
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/12122015/nations-approve-historic-global-climate-treaty-road-ahead-not-easy
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #474 on: December 12, 2015, 10:24:08 PM »
196 countries approve historic climate agreement
Quote
The deal was struck in a rare show of near-universal accord, as poor and wealthy nations from across the political and geographic spectrum expressed support for measures that require all to take steps to battle climate change. The agreement binds together pledges by individual nations to cut or limit emissions from fossil-fuel burning, within a framework of rules that provide for monitoring and verification as well as financial and technical assistance for developing countries.
...
The accord is the first to call on all nations—rich and poor—to take action to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with additional reviews required very five years to encourage even deeper pollution cuts. A major goal, official said, is to spur governments and private industry to rapidly develop new technologies to help solve the climate challenge.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/12/proposed-historic-climate-pact-nears-final-vote/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #475 on: December 12, 2015, 10:31:14 PM »
Tweets from U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

Quote
@JohnKerry: World has chosen a smart, responsible path fwd. #COP21 agreement is the strongest, most ambitious global climate agreement ever negotiated.
https://twitter.com/johnkerry/status/675772310834417664

@JohnKerry: Addressing #climatechange will require fundamental change in the way we decide to power our planet. #COP21 agreement will help get us there.
https://twitter.com/johnkerry/status/675771956407369728

@JohnKerry: Thank you to all nations at #COP21 for hard work & dedication. Agreement is truly a global effort & signals we’re all in this together.
https://twitter.com/johnkerry/status/675771547102003201
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #476 on: December 12, 2015, 10:40:03 PM »
Paris Agreement Ushers in End of the Fossil Fuel Era
Quote
The Paris agreement ensures that the 1.5 degree target, and the effort it would take to get there, will be at the center of discussions over climate change ambition for years to come—which is much better than the alternative: soul-crushing despair. To provide clarity, it commissions a fresh scientific synthesis, to be completed in 2018, to determine the scale and scope of emissions reductions necessary to hit that bold goal, as well as the climate impacts that may result if it is not achieved.

It all amounts to much more than close watchers of the process had hoped from the meeting. As 2015 winds down, latest temperature reports show it is all but guaranteed to become the hottest year in recorded history. But, a fresh analysis also shows that global greenhouse gas emissions also decreased, the first time that’s ever happened during a year in which the overall economy grew. That’s huge, and with the added push from the Paris agreement, it seems like the worst-case scenario for climate change may remain the stuff of science fiction, not fact.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/12/paris_climate_agreement_will_lower_emissions_and_usher_in_end_of_the_fossil.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #477 on: December 13, 2015, 06:07:31 PM »
wili

Just tweeted

#COPout21 "The iceberg has struck,the ship is going down and the band is still playing to warm applause" https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1021.msg67050.html#msg67050

Hope it doesn't get AF a bad name.

Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #478 on: December 14, 2015, 12:51:33 AM »
We've known for months that the Paris agreement would not limit us to 2°C.  Nothing new there.  And you can't expect global carbon emissions to stop at 12:01am the day after the agreement is signed....  The accord is, however, an "enduring framework" on which 195 countries have agreed to continually ratchet up their efforts, and report on their progress.

But it's a good thing to express frustration that Paris didn't solve all aspects of the climate crisis.  We need more pressure on governments, and business -- and on everyone -- to take action, today!

10 Things We Learned from UN’s Top Climate Official
Christiana Figueres' Reddit "Ask Me Anything"
Quote
3)  "The 2 degrees Celsius temperature goal is achievable"

I have been pellucidly clear that the agreement in Paris is not going to reach a 2 degree limit on temperature rise as though that were something we can take off a magical shelf and put on the table. I have been equally clear that getting us on to the 2 degree pathway is entirely possible. This is why the Paris agreement will have two very important components with regard to emission reductions: First, it will harness all the national climate change plans which as a group, if fully implemented, already substantially reduce the business as usual growth in emissions. Second, in recognition that this first set of INDCs (the national climate action plans) is a departure point and not a destination, the Paris agreement will construct a path of ever-increasing emission reductions with periodic checkpoints of progress until we get to the 2 degree pathway.
http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/10-messages-from-the-un-s-top-climate-official-reddit-ama/

All the Reasons the Paris Agreement is a Huge Freaking Deal for the Climate
Quote
The world collectively agreed to combat global warming with the signing of the first international climate treaty Saturday in Paris.

This is a historic moment. Breathe a sigh of relief everyone. This is good news.

It doesn’t mean the work is done — not by a long shot — and that’s surely something pundits, politicians, campaigners and scientists alike will go to great lengths to hammer home for the foreseeable future.

But it does mean that nearly 200 hundred countries have agreed to work together. What’s more, they’ve more or less agreed on the basis of science and that only came about after a monumental amount of time, energy, diplomacy, negotiation, steadfastness and compromise were all thrown into a giant airport hangar on the outskirts of Paris.

Such accomplishments are not come by lightly. This is as much an important victory for the climate as it is for international diplomacy. Way to go, world.

http://www.desmog.ca/2015/12/12/all-reasons-paris-climate-deal-huge-freaking-deal


Climate Accord Is a Healing Step, if Not a Cure
Quote
LE BOURGET, France — After the stomping and cheering died down, and the hugs and toasts ended, a question hung in the air as the climate conference came to a close: What does the new deal really mean for the future of the Earth?

Scientists who closely monitored the talks here said it was not the agreement that humanity really needed. By itself, it will not save the planet.

The great ice sheets remain imperiled, the oceans are still rising, forests and reefs are under stress, people are dying by tens of thousands in heat waves and floods, and the agriculture system that feeds seven billion human beings is still at risk.

And yet 50 years after the first warning about global warming was put on the desk of an American president, and quickly forgotten, the political system of the world is finally responding in a way that scientists see as commensurate with the scale of the threat.

“I think this Paris outcome is going to change the world,” said Christopher B. Field, a leading American climate scientist. “We didn’t solve the problem, but we laid the foundation.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/science/earth/climate-accord-is-a-healing-step-if-not-a-cure.html

More here:
http://www.dailyclimate.org

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #479 on: December 14, 2015, 01:41:51 AM »
So, what's next?

Leaders Move to Convert Paris Climate Pledges Into Action
Quote
By May, the United Nations climate staff will update its estimate for the combined impact of the national pledges (now known as nationally determined contributions, the qualifying word “intended” having been dropped). Estimates of the first round of pledges suggested that, if carried out, they would still result in a rise of 2.7 to 3.5 degrees Celsius (4.9 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels — far above the newly adopted aspiration of an increase of just 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Those national plans must be revised every five years. Also every five years, starting in 2018, the United Nations will “take stock” of the pledges to see how much progress has been made in the aim of reaching peak carbon emissions “as soon as possible” and limiting the rise in temperature.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/world/europe/leaders-move-to-convert-paris-climate-pledges-into-action.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #480 on: December 14, 2015, 02:11:15 AM »
By Michael E. Mann

The Power of Paris: Climate Challenge Remains, But Now We're on the Right Path
Quote
One cannot understate the importance of the agreement arrived at in Paris. For the first time, world leaders have faced up to the stark warnings that climate scientists have been issuing for years, instead of shrinking away with denial and delay. So while the commitments made in Paris aren't on their own enough to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at safe levels, they are enough to begin bending the emissions curve towards a safe climate. Paris is a beginning of a process. It provides a framework for continued progress toward the goal of averting dangerous interference with our climate.

Put into more technical terms, the Paris agreement gets us roughly halfway to where we need to be. A future path of business-as-usual carbon emissions would likely warm the planet about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit). The reductions agreed upon in Paris reduce that to about 3.5 degree Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit), i.e. halfway down to limiting to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warming, the level of warming that many scientists studying the impacts of climate change consider to be unsafe.

Different groups have come up with slightly different numbers than these, but the end result is the same: Paris doesn't get us to a safe climate, but it gets us a substantial way there, close enough that we can now envision, in subsequent conferences, reaching an agreement for more stringent reductions that get us all the way there.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/paris-climate-change_b_8799764.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #481 on: December 14, 2015, 03:42:55 AM »
By Bill McKibben

World leaders adopt 1.5 C goal — and we’re damn well going to hold them to it
Quote
Here’s the crucial plaintive paragraph from the preamble to the Paris climate agreement released today, written in the almost indecipherable bureaucratese that attends this international circus:

Emphasizing with serious concern the urgent need to address the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C …

What it says is: The world is a doughy fellow who has promised to drop three suit sizes in time for his wedding, which is now only a month away. The world is an anxious student who has to ace the next morning’s test to pass the course but hasn’t yet started to study. The world has promised his kids a great raft of presents under the tree, but now it’s suddenly Christmas Eve and the shops have started closing.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/world-leaders-adopt-1-5-c-goal-and-were-damn-well-going-to-hold-them-to-it/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4488
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 878
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #482 on: December 14, 2015, 07:08:55 AM »
The good: many people have moved past the stage of wondering whether global warming exists, or of not even knowing it's an important subject, to realizing it exists and being happy that it's taken care of. Deniers will have a much harder time from now on. And maybe business people will be more optimistic and greedy about making money from renewable energy projects.

The bad: many people think the problem has been magically solved. Headlines I've seen in common newspapers say the Paris agreement "will limit warming to 2 deg and even to 1.5 deg". Headlines say the agreement is binding. That it starts immediately. etc. People might think the problem taken care of, and move on.

The ugly: we are already at 1 deg warming. The agreement starts in 5 years, and emissions take 10 years after being emitted for full effect. Meaning that warming until 2030 will follow the course it is currently on. 1.5 deg will be very close by then. Adopting 1.5 deg as a goal is pure PR BS, nothing more.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #483 on: December 14, 2015, 12:58:16 PM »
...
The ugly: we are already at 1 deg warming. The agreement starts in 5 years, and emissions take 10 years after being emitted for full effect. Meaning that warming until 2030 will follow the course it is currently on. 1.5 deg will be very close by then. Adopting 1.5 deg as a goal is pure PR BS, nothing more.

Yes, it's a nice way to say, "We're really going to work on this.  Somehow."  But it's also a tacit admission that our efforts to date have been nowhere near enough.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #484 on: December 14, 2015, 01:02:31 PM »
A Signal to Industry to Go Green in an Era of Carbon Reduction
Quote
Beyond the auto industry, the money is flowing. According to a recent Goldman Sachs study, the combined market size of low-carbon technologies like wind and solar power and electric and hybrid vehicles exceeded $600 billion last year, nearly equivalent to the United States defense budget.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/business/climate-accord-draws-mixed-reaction-from-business-leaders.html


From the comments:  "SUVs will be really cheap soon!"   :)
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #485 on: December 14, 2015, 03:34:41 PM »
I'm pleased that the most outspoken (=willing to tell the truth?) climate scientist in the UK, Kevin Andersen, has had some airtime on the BBC e.g. R4's Today.

My first thought: Is the BBC changing from being a bunch of climate delayers?

Answer: Not sure: The Best of Today podcasts don't include
Quote
Speaking on the programme is Anote Tong, President of Kiribati, and Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at Manchester University.
but they do include
Quote
Will the US abolish the Confederate flag?
Gay priest reacts to church ban
'Huge rise' in newborns taken into care
Monday's business with Simon Jack

Anyway kevinandersen.info says

Quote
The Paris Agreement: 10/10 for presentation; 4/10 for content. Shows promise …

The Paris Agreement is a fitting testament to how years of diligent and meticulous science has ultimately weathered relentless and well-funded attempts to undermine its legitimacy. Building on this science base and under the inspiring auspices of the French people, the global community has come together as never before to tackle what is arguably the first truly globalised and self-induced challenge to humanity. 

However, whilst the 2°C and 1.5°C aspirations of the Paris Agreement are to be wholeheartedly welcomed, the thirty-one page edifice is premised on future technologies removing huge quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere many decades from today. If such highly speculative ‘negative emission technologies’ prove to be unsuccessful then the 1.5°C target is simply not achievable. Moreover, there is only a slim chance of maintaining the global temperature rise to below 2°C.

That reminded me. I once had a phone call with Kevin Andersen because I had read a hard hitting articles of his about climate but, as I remember, even these didn't deal with the "missing feedback" issues.

The memory prompted me to put "remaining carbon budget" and "missing feedbacks" into Google to see the latest state-of-play. I was shocked that all of the 11 results were pieces by me or discussions I had taken part in. (Thanks to contributors here that helped.)

Is my Google search too tied to my terminology? - and there is any proper work on this out there?

"Proper work" means peer reviewed or from official sources? i.e. stuff that is backed up by credentials and has some credibility with policy makers.

Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Timothy Astin

  • New ice
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #486 on: December 14, 2015, 08:33:42 PM »
Geoff,

Probably your google search is too tied to your own browsing history! (The annoyance of "smart" search.)

A Google Scholar search with "2015 missing feedbacks climate change" leads to
a) the recent Phil Trans A Roy Soc volume 373, issue 2054, November 2015  on "feedbacks on climate in the earth system"
b) Schuur et al, 2015. Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature 520, 171–179     (09 April 2015)
etc.




A-Team

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2407
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #487 on: December 14, 2015, 10:57:51 PM »
Quote
happy that it's taken care of ... the problem has been magically solved ... Paris agreement "will limit warming to 2 deg and even to 1.5 deg"... nobody has to do anything different ... the agreement is binding... it starts immediately ...  carbon capture tech  ... more trees too [on somebody else's ag land]... just shuffle yr stock portfolio out of coal by 2030...
You  know these folks are not serious when nobody breathes a word about livestock and diet. The fastest, easiest thing to do with the biggest, cheapest impact:

Quote
... sent me a post from United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), stating that raising livestock produces more greenhouse gases than the combined exhaust of the entire transportation sector. This means that the meat and dairy industries produce more greenhouse gases than all cars, trucks, trains, boats, and planes combined. Worldwide.

That’s 13 percent for the global transportation sector compared to 18 percent for livestock. Cows and other animals produce a substantial amount of methane from their digestive process. Methane gas from livestock has a global warming potential eighty-six times greater than carbon dioxide from vehicles. This makes it a vastly more destructive gas than carbon dioxide on a twenty-year time frame.

In 2009, Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, two environmental advisors to the World Bank Group, released an analysis on human-related greenhouse gases (pdf), concluding that animal agriculture was responsible not for 18 percent as the FAO stated, but was actually responsible for 51 percent of all greenhouse gases. Fifty-one percent. Yet all we hear about is burning fossil fuels.

This difference in the figures is due to factors that the FAO didn’t take into account, such as the massive loss of carbon sinks from clear-cutting rainforests for grazing in addition to the respiration and waste produced by animals. Goodland and Anhang used the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the global standard for measuring emissions set by the World Resources Institute and World Business Council on Sustainable Development, to reach the figure of 51 percent. According to their calculations, animal agriculture is the number one contributor to human-caused climate change.

I also found out that raising animals for food consumes a third of all the planet’s fresh water, occupies up to 45 percent of the Earth’s land, is responsible for up to 91 percent of Amazon destruction, and is a leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, and habitat destruction.

How is it possible I wasn’t aware of this? I prided myself on being up-to-date on environmental issues. I thought this information would be plastered everywhere in the environmental community. Why didn’t the world’s largest environmental groups, who are supposed to be saving our planet, have this as their main focus?

I went to the biggest organizations’ websites—350.org, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, the Climate Reality Project, Rainforest Action Network, Amazon Watch—and was shocked to see they had virtually nothing on animal agriculture. Why would they not have this information on there? What was going on?

I had to find out. I teamed up with fellow filmmaker Keegan Kuhn to see if we could get to the bottom of this ... Kip Andersen

documentary Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret
http://www.cowspiracy.com/

book Rethinking Our Diet to Transform the World
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1608876578

https://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4953
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 355
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #488 on: December 15, 2015, 12:27:01 AM »
I read the piece and disagree with Goodland and Anhang that livestock respiration and waste count the same as fossil carbon release. Agree that many meat eaters eat too much meat. There is an excellent article called "The Oil We Eat" from Harper's Magazine some time ago that lays it out much better than Goodland and Anhang do.

sidd

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1462
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #489 on: December 15, 2015, 03:15:33 AM »
Skeptical Science recently did a nice job debunking that Worldwatch piece linked by A-Team

http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html

I have an interest in reducing on farm energy use that the same Skeptical Science piece puts into context. A small portion of the overall ff use but I guess we all have our favorite petard to fall upon.
 
Yes reducing beef/ sheep consumption for Americans seems a reasonable goal but it is obviously not a panacea. It should be pointed out that standard farm practices are not designed to minimize energy consumption and better farm practices can make a contribution to reducing ff use and efficiency. The comment section on the Skeptical Science piece is well worth the read. 

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #490 on: December 15, 2015, 06:03:47 AM »
All of this is hugely complex of course. There's only one simple solution, use less.

Unfortunately that solution is incompatible with todays society (and leaders), since the answer to all of our problems is more. More growth, more energy, more stuff, more food. MORE.
We need to change that mentality, I don't believe that will happen.
We can't take our wealth with us when we die, yet wealthy people have tried to do so for thousands of years.

So as I see it, everything written in Paris is nothing more than illusions. We can't continue to increase our energy demand and reach negative emissions without geoengineering.
We can't negotiate with nature.

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #491 on: December 15, 2015, 10:14:31 AM »
Timothy Astin

Thanks but..

"Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback", Schurr et.al.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14338.html

Although this article is very interesting and authoritative, having corresponded with one of the authors on permafrost carbon feedback a few years ago, it doesn't add much to what I know in broad terms.  However, it should tell me stuff with greater certainty and precision and will help in challenging the government organisations that have been dodging these issues for years. It says

Quote
The Earth system models analysed for the IPCC AR5 did not include permafrost carbon emissions, and there is a need for the next assessment to make substantive progress analysing this climate feedback. It is clear, even among models that are currently capable of simulating permafrost carbon emissions, that improvements are needed to the simulations of the physical and biological processes that control the dynamics of permafrost distribution and soil thermal regime.

OK, that's one feedback missing from the AR5 models but on my initial skim I can see  nothing about carbon budgets that indicates by how much the remaining carbon budgets are reduced.

The Royal Society stuff, "Discussion meeting issue ‘Feedbacks on climate in the Earth system’ organised and edited by Eric W. Wolff , John G. Shepherd, Emily Shuckburgh and Andrew J. Watson"  is at http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054

This lists several papers, whose titles don't seem to be about carbon budgets.

I'm not confident that the "remaining carbon budget" is a concept with 100% clarity (e.g. GWP20 or GWP100) but it has been widely used. I have even used it "Is Green Growth a fantasy", http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/is-green-growth-a-fantasy/.

"Remaining carbon budget" does get its way into the policy making process.

Can I ask again: Is there any proper work out there, showing the effect of feedbacks missing from the climate models on carbon budgets?

P.S. I think I might get more search results with "global carbon budget".
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

A-Team

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2407
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #492 on: December 15, 2015, 02:36:10 PM »
Quote
debunking that Worldwatch piece on beef impacts
If only that were true. The fact is, we have lots and lots of climate activists and enviros whose lives are awash in internal contradictions -- giving up their steaks, their two-ton SUVs (for that one ski trip a year), and gratuitous airplane travel are all non-starters. American (and Euro) exceptionalism; wants vs needs. The real problem is them dark people in India wanting an hour a day of electric. From coal. Can you imagine!

Nothing quite tops the denial of beef production impacts by people who know better. I am reminded of the third monkey -- the one with its hands over its ears. Can't hear, won't hear: beef is worse than all the world's vehicles combined.

Dead zone again in the Gulf from all that fertilizer? Too bad, but I gotta have red meat but hey here is a $20 donation for the Sierra Club, mitigate my lifestyle.

Scientific reticence: hundreds of ongoing AGU2015 climate science talks but you are compelled to fly to San Francisco because the member-controlled professional association refuses to show the posters, slides or video sessions. Who among the speakers has objected to that (no one), even in the concurrent Paris conf year.

My observation is that even the outspoken ones eat steaks whenever they please. They get a pass because of good deeds elsewhere. The problem is too many people issuing themselves passes.

Quote
Giving up beef will reduce carbon footprint more than cars, says expert
PNAS … free full text, no registration http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996

Beef’s environmental impact dwarfs that of other meat including chicken and pork, new research reveals, with one expert saying that eating less red meat would be a better way for people to cut carbon emissions than giving up their cars.

The heavy impact on the environment of meat production was known but the research shows a new scale and scope of damage, particularly for beef. The popular red meat requires 28 times more land to produce than pork or chicken, 11 times more water and results in five times more climate-warming emissions. When compared to staples like potatoes, wheat, and rice, the impact of beef per calorie is even more extreme, requiring 160 times more land and producing 11 times more greenhouse gases.

Agriculture is a significant driver of global warming and causes 15% of all emissions, half of which are from livestock. Furthermore, the huge amounts of grain and water needed to raise cattle is a concern to experts worried about feeding an extra 2 billion people by 2050. But previous calls for people to eat less meat in order to help the environment, or preserve grain stocks, have been highly controversial.

“The big story is just how dramatically impactful beef is compared to all the others,” said Prof Gidon Eshel, at Bard College in New York state and who led the research on beef’s impact. He said cutting subsidies for meat production would be the least controversial way to reduce its consumption. “Remove the artificial support given to the livestock industry and rising prices will do the rest.”

Eshel’s team analysed how much land, water and nitrogen fertiliser was needed to raise beef and compared this with poultry, pork, eggs and dairy produce. Beef had a far greater impact than all the others because as ruminants, cattle make far less efficient use of their feed. “Only a minute fraction of the food consumed by cattle goes into the bloodstream, so the bulk of the energy is lost,” said Eshel. Feeding cattle on grain rather than grass exacerbates this inefficiency, although Eshel noted that even grass-fed cattle still have greater environmental footprints than other animal produce. The footprint of lamb, relatively rarely eaten in the US, was not considered in the study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Prof Tim Benton, at the University of Leeds, said “The biggest intervention people could make towards reducing their carbon footprints would not be to abandon cars, but to eat significantly less red meat,” Benton said. “Another recent study implies the single biggest intervention to free up calories that could be used to feed people would be not to use grains for beef production in the US.”

Prof Mark Sutton, at the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said: “The US and Europe alike are using so much of their land in highly inefficient livestock farming systems, while so much good quality cropland is being used to grow animal feeds rather than human food.”

Separately, a second study of tens of thousands of British people’s daily eating habits shows that meat lovers’ diets cause double the climate-warming emissions of vegetarian diets.

The study of British people’s diets was conducted by University of Oxford scientists and found that meat-rich diets - defined as more than 100g per day - resulted in 7.2kg of carbon dioxide emissions. In contrast, both vegetarian and fish-eating diets caused about 3.8kg of CO2 per day, while vegan diets produced only 2.9kg. The research analysed the food eaten by 30,000 meat eaters, 16,000 vegetarians, 8,000 fish eaters and 2,000 vegans.
More on the climate cost of cattle just on US public land (100 million acres with mammoth lease subsidy at $1.15 per acre per month per cow/calf pair) focusing on the belched methane (not considered above):

Quote
Cattle contribute to global climate change through the emission of methane they produce by enteric fermentation as part of their digestion.  I quantified the mass of this methane produced by cattle that graze on U.S. federal public lands managed by the BLM and U.S. Forest Service. I've now updated that 2008 essay in important ways by recalculating the methane production using the most recent government data about the extent of grazing on these lands. And Ive incorporated the most recent findings about the heat-trapping properties of methane, which are now regarded as being much greater than they were in 2008. Not included: soil's lessor sequestering of atmospheric carbon under grazing and under grazing exclusion. http://www.mikehudak.com/Articles/PLR_Methane.html
Amusing footnote:

Quote
During the presidential campaign of 1928, a circular published by the Republican Party claimed that if Herbert Hoover won there would be “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” The promise of prosperity was derailed seven months after Hoover took the oath of office. The stock market crash of 1929 plunged the country into the Great Depression and people eventually lost confidence in Hoover.
In other words, in 1928, chicken not to mention beef, was not even on the horizon for most Americans during the height of the boom. They couldn't  afford a worn-out stewing chicken but somehow they got along without. Today that would be "a beef on every grill and a motorhome on every curb." Big climate footprint aspirational.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 02:41:44 PM by A-Team »

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2589
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 301
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #493 on: December 15, 2015, 07:25:03 PM »
Thanks for that, A-Team. We are much of the same mind.

One historical point, though. It surprised me to learn that, even when people were eating chicken only on Sunda' or just on other such special occasions, beef and pork consumption was actually much more common early last century than I would have thought. Check out the first graph in this article, which pretty well corresponds to other sources I've seen: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/chicken-vs-beef_n_4525366.html

It's in countries like India and China where any kind of meat eating for the vast majority was a quite rare thing (or only tiny quantities) until quite recently. And of course Chinese hardly ever have any kind of dairy (at least as far as milk and its products go), and even in India, most people couldn't afford to have mild or ghee very often.

These have been the most populous countries in the world. And these patterns reflect those in most other countries in Asia, Africa and beyond.

Hence my point that most people in most places through most of history have not only been mostly vegetarian, but mostly vegan most of the time.

This is quite contrary to the usual assumption that vegetarianism and, even more, veganism is some bizarre aberration form normal human behavior.

It is high meat diets that are the big aberrations from most traditional diets in most cultures (unless your an Eskimo--a tiny sliver of a percentage of a percentage of humanity--the exception that proves the rule, so to speak).
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2536
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #494 on: December 15, 2015, 09:57:39 PM »
Carbon trading in Paris Agreement has set us up for failure
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2986673/carbon_trading_in_paris_agreement_has_set_us_up_for_failure.html

Quote
Hidden away in the pages of UN-speak that make up the Paris Agreement are the makings of global carbon market in which a host of exotic emissions derivatives can be freely traded, writes Steffen Böhm. And it's all going to be a huge and expensive distraction from the real and urgent task of cutting emissions.

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1462
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #495 on: December 16, 2015, 03:22:48 AM »
A-Team, The Worldwatch  article you linked is an opinion piece and you are entitled to any opinion you would like but the Skeptical Science debunking of the  piece and the 51% meat Co2 contribution numbers Worldwatch claims  is challenged with peer reviewed papers. Science verses opinion. The standards we judge denier sites by , cherrypicking, and no peer review , apply to both sides of the aisle.
 I also wonder whose quote you are using " debunking that Worldwatch piece on beef impacts "
If it is me then you are misquoting me, I would hope you might struggle for higher standards if it was an intentional misdirection.   

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #496 on: December 16, 2015, 11:10:50 AM »
Bruce

I find it difficult to have a sensible conversation with someone who believes "Peer review good and scientific" any thing else c**p.

However can I point you to my comment above where I point out that, if there is peer reviewed work on my concern, (is there?), it has not reached public conciousness.

Indeed, there is a report today that has been headlined "Are vegetarians to blame for climate change? Researchers find lettuce is 'three times worse than BACON' for emissions"

Is far as I can see this is based on peer reviewed stuff by authors from Carnegie Mellon, based on the idea that luttuce is a carbon expensive method for getting your calories. I had believed that luttuce had negative calories - it takes more energy to digest than it provides. That makes it infinitely worse than bacon.

And of course, the CM stuff is pay walled.

Must rush now.  In the mean time see http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/nobeef-or-uk/
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1462
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #497 on: December 16, 2015, 07:52:14 PM »

"I find it difficult to have a sensible conversation with someone who believes "Peer review good and scientific" any thing else c**p."

Yes I find peer review in major journals an important asset to scientific discussions. If we are talking about the major themes of ice formation and melt, carbon cycle mechanisms or other discussions regularly covered on this blog it is an  imperative.
 If on the other hand we each get to dismiss scientific  literature as it impedes our personal worldview as "crap", each to his own choosing ,then we might as well go post on Fox.
 As regards energy policy I am interested in how to approach or achieve zero fossil fuel farming. I could care less whether that be animal or plant based.
   

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15717
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #498 on: December 17, 2015, 02:15:22 AM »
Well, if Dear Leader said, "Plant trees!", you know it would happen....   ;D

North Korean delegates who attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP 21, showed a great deal of interest in climate change issues.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/12/15/North-Korea-showed-interest-in-combating-climate-change-official-says/5781450208605/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: UN Climate Treaty - Paris 2015
« Reply #499 on: December 17, 2015, 04:41:30 AM »
Emissions rate per capita is 0.81, so they don't have to in DPRK. Maybe western leaders could persuade them to plant trees in at least one lane?