Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #538996
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? |
| Date | 2015-12-14 03:34 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <fvp1kc-ke8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | <9rCdnUnucdwHs_PLnZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > After Paris: Now what for world climate? >> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-paris-world-climate.html >> http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/thefirststep.jpg > >> 'It has to be affordable' It can not be by any stretch of the imagination or it would already be being done. >> The United States, for example, wants pledges to be purely voluntary >> to avoid being obliged to take the accord to a hostile Congress for >> ratification. Translation: no one in their right mind would be willing to pay for this nonsense. >> China, India and other developing nations, in turn, wanted to make >> their commitments conditional on assurances of finance to the tune of >> billions of dollars in the coming decades to help them switch from >> cheap and abundant fossil fuels to costly renewable sources like >> solar and wind. Translation: send us money and we will provide you with eye wash. >> Another part of the problem was fear of failure?negotiators were keen >> to avoid a repeat of the 2009 UN climate conference in Copenhagen >> which didn't even come close to sealing a global deal. And didn't accomplish anything either. >> Instead of a top-down approach of apportioning emissions targets, it >> opened the way to a bottom-up approach: nations would set their own >> emissions-cutting targets and timelines. As in none. >> The UN's climate science panel says greenhouse-gas emissions have to >> drop 40-70 percent between 2010 and 2050, and to zero by 2100. Pure stupidity. -- Jim Pennino
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
After Paris: Now what for world climate? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 20:51 -0600
Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-13 21:25 -0600
Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 22:40 -0500
Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-13 23:04 -0600
Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 07:49 -0500
Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 13:55 +0100
Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 08:26 -0500
Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 15:19 +0100
Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 22:14 -0500
Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 03:34 +0000
csiph-web