The emissions cuts offered so far at the Copenhagen climate change summit would still lead to global temperatures rising by an average of 3C, according to a confidential UN analysis obtained by the Guardian.
With the talks entering the final 24 hours on a knife-edge, the emergence of the document seriously undermines the statements by governments that they are aiming to limit emissions to a level ensuring no more than a 2C temperature rise over the next century, and indicates that the last day of negotiations will be extremely challenging.
A rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger, according to the Stern economic review of climate change for the UK government – as well as leaving up to 50% of species facing extinction. Even a rise of 2C would lead to a sharp decline in tropical crop yields, more flooding and droughts.
Tonight hopes of the summit producing a deal were rising after the US, the world’s biggest historical polluter, moved to save the talks from collapse. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton committed the US to backing a $100bn-a-year global climate fund from 2020 to shield poor countries from the ravages of global warming. Barack Obama is expected to offer even more cash when he flies in tomorrow.
Jlo, good to know there is someone real out there , yes voyager to me is something else as my lifes journey has been a solo process and startrek seems to fit.
I will try to get back when time permits and as for fluidity I see you have some sence, although I now totally disagree with global warming and believe this last phase of warming was short lived and now we are in a cooling phase for very many reasons which I will not further press my case as I feel the feedback suggests there is too much brainwashing out there to be bothered.
I agree totally that carbon emissions should be reduced and the very positive aspect of this hoax is it is making the general populous wake up to the plight of this planet.
Back in Auckland in the early 70’s when heavely involved in conservation groups trying to get anyone to seriously take note was almost impossible and I feel after my experience of living in the wharf area when the Rainbow Warrier was bombed and a mate lost and the huge issues involved people started to wake up.
Now in Australia my involvement with the Wilderness Society and many other groups
I am seeing huge changes through people pressure with many victories this year and on my own backdoor the final victory of preventing the Travestan Dam going ahead, the bloody idiots wanted to dam this river (The Mary)for water supplies to Brisbane, this is a very prestine area with tributaries from where I live to past Maryborough with many unique species found nowhere else.
Aussie
Downunder.
Startrek, (that’s too funny!), being one who’s favorite show, EVER, was “Voyager”, (and I’ve got a thing for Xena) The inertial dampeners ARE online! Janeway is my Love of all Loves. Seven was hot, but Janeway was the shit! That gal could call the shit and make up her mind in seconds flat. She had the Wisdom, even though she was cruising through the delta quadrant,… not so friendly as we’ve seen.
So, in all seriousness, how can WE avoid the pitfalls of “garbage” media, while still maintaining OUR OWN sense of awareness?!? (The fact of the matter is we can’t). (Media is garbage, so, we have to check, and double check our findings, and from There, we continue on through this reality to where we’re going. Hopefully somewhere that nurtures us, and makes us feel Good about ourselves,.. and.. a place that LOVE’S us!!!)
(Take it however you want but, Startrek, I Love You!)
Peace, and Love…
Jere
there seems to be pressure to ‘debate the science’
i would like to switch the focus for a second…
perhaps there is some (legitimate?) doubt about whether there is global climate change, and whether it is caused by the activity of people (as opposed to just happen naturally)
granted we cannot be 100% about either
but there is at the very least some possibility that the climate is changing, and that it is changing based on the activity of our industrial world (aka release of greenhouse gases)
given that this is a possibility, i would advise us to take a precautionary principle … to just think that yes there is a chance that releasing more greenhouse gases will result in further climate change, and since there is that chance, then we should work on reducing how much carbon is being put out there
to not attempt to reduce or stop the emission of greenhouse gases would be irresponsible given the possibility that these gases will have a negative impact on our environment and on peoples lives
of course, the efforts at reducing the emission of greenhouse gases has already shown us where our societal systems are problematic, and give us something to aim …
and of course, greenhouse gases are not the only problem we (may) have, so it is important to deal with the problem(s) holistically, looking at what is the root of the problem(s) and how we can address those
attempting to aim all discussions at ‘debating the science’ thus becomes a (stalling?) tactic which assumes we have the luxury of maintaining a ‘business as usual’ and in fact supports the status quo, which given any number of lenses can be seen to be very destructive to both the environment and to people’s lives
but of course people who do not want to change the status quo are usually those not directly negatively affected by the status quo … and they only make up a small minority of the world’s population; however they tend to have privileged positions in our society and thus a more privileged ‘voice’ which can drown out those of others who know first-hand what is in fact happening
Star Trek,
“Right now” (snow in Europe) and patterns going back hundreds or thousands of years have nothing in common except that you’re writing about them in the same paragraph.
This is not a simple issue and I think you’re trying to take a feel-good approach. Gallup polls tell us nothing except the degree of ignorance.
e
Fluidity, from here in Australia what a load of crap!!! where did you dig up that load of very misinformed garbage, the recent Morgan survey in Australia shows since 2006 well over 30% now totally disagree with climate change, and your suggestion that most scientists agree that temperatures are rising!!! just look for a change, Under myths of global warming, The Gallup Poll of the Metrological Society and the American Geophysical Society show only 17% agree that global warming could be caused by human activity, also quote; Even if earth’s temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last several thousand years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries — a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonised Greenland and built settlements in Canada.
And it is stated in the same report that world temptertures have not increased in the last eighteen years!!!
Just look at the huge snow drifts in Europe right now!!!
Come on get real.
Aussie Downunder.
I’m with you fluidity:
There is more science backing up the global warming issue than there is for the alternative view. And this science has been investigating the phenomenon for quite a few decades to arrive at this point.
We do entertain the notion of both sides voicing their opinions on climate science here on PW, and I am glad members who see the other side of the issue are willing to speak up, even in an environment where you may not have support.
I think the only conspiracy out there is that of confusion, that makes people who are even in the most affected areas of climate change do what we did here in politics in the US – cognitive dissonance, explained by wiki as thus:
i’m not going to say much about the science, except to say that there’s a very wide consensus of people (scientists) who backed by facts say that global warming is happening – it’s like a 90/10 split – and that much of the ‘other side of the fence’ is financed by fossil fuel industry (note: when you have that kind of split it is kind of misleading to give both ‘sides’ equal credence)
but here’s an article that gives an interesting perspective on what is happening in terms of where people stand, basically it is a conflict between people who believe that we have to live within limits, versus people who believe we should have no limits/responsibility in terms of what we want to do:
http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/4079
As one who has not being caught up in the current Global Warming debunkle after years of downloading huge amounts of information and observation from both sides of the fence all this time I am now beginning to think there is something more sinister underneath all this.
I have not seen anything from Eric but the usual right wing view that this is what is factual, this disappoints me, and wonder if he even knows there is alternative views or if he does is fearfull to express a viewpoint.
There is just so much available now to consider that I have become open to all views.
ie, one of the first to come to mind; Google “Chilling Stars” about the fifth entry; Global Warming a warn out hoax, so much more ; recent information on the Southern Ocean, the coldest for a very long time, New Zealands South Island, extreme cold, the southern skifields extended by a month due to very heavy snowfalls.
And just downloaded; Scientest Pulls About-Face on Global Warming, this is Pofesser Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming, at the UN’s World Climate Conference, Lafit Conceded that the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and we are likely entering one or two decades were temperatures cool, and much more.
So all I am saying to you readers out there try to see there is an alternative views, I am not fixed one way or the other but getting more convinced there is far more going on.
I am open to more views.
Ausie Downunder.
Interesting how this article on the climate talk resonated’s with Kelly Cowan’s piece on debt. fludity’s quote from Mr. Chavez reinforces that. Ms Cowan’s statement that “The debt cannot and will not be repaid..” would not be out of place in referring to the environmental crisis.
Life on earth does not depend on the existence of money, banks, real estate or other symbols and manefestations of material wealth. It does depend on air and water which are not toxic, sunlight and arable soil. Can the two groupings be separated? Or does one go as the other does? Crucial questions.
A national leader speaking truth to the conference:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5012
“I have been reading some of the slogans painted in the streets… One said, ‘Don’t Change the Climate, Change the System!’ – And I bring that on board for us. Let’s not change the climate. Let’s change the system! And as a consequence, we will begin to save the planet. Capitalism is a destructive development model that is putting an end to life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species.”
Another notable slogan is, “If the climate were a bank, they would have bailed it out already,” Chavez said during his speech. “It’s true; the rich governments have saved the capitalist banks,” he said, but they lack “the political will” to make the necessary reductions to greenhouse emissions.
“One could say there is a spectre at Copenhagen, to paraphrase Karl Marx… almost no-one wants to mention it: the spectre of capitalism,” he declared.