Environment & Energy
Related: About this forum$55M Of $100B Pledged 5 Years Ago, Lots Of Greenwash, And Beyond UN Doors, CO2 Output Only Goes Up
EDIT
Well-intentioned as they are, these announcements are not exactly money in the bank. UN-watchers know the sorry story of the Green Climate Fund, which emerged out of COP 15 in 2009 in Copenhagen. Back then, a Guardian story trumpeted: Hillary Clinton pledges US support for a $100bn to help poor countries adapt to climate change providing their leaders sign up for deal. Ministers reaffirmed the promise a year later in Cancun, saying they would contributes $30bn by 2012 for fast track financing. The state of that Green Climate Fund today? Until a week or so ago, countries had committed a mere $55m thats million, not billion. Last week, Germany promised another $960m, and at the summit pledges came from France ($1bn), South Korea ($100m), Switzerland ($100m), Denmark ($70m) and Norway ($33m). Do the math, and the total pledged to the fund to date is about $2.3bn. Good, but a far cry from $100bn.
Business, meantime, was given a more prominent role than ever at this years confab. The chairman or chief executives of IKEA, Saudi Aramco, GDF Suez, State Grid Corporation of China, SINOPEC, Zenith Bank, HESTA, Bank of America, Cargill, Unilever, Statoil, Veolia, BYD, McDonalds, Walmart, Enel, ABB and Swiss Re each got the 10 or 15 minutes of fame. IKEA and Mars reiterated pledges to power their companies with 100% renewable energy. Six global oil and gas companies promised to cut methane emissions in fossil fuel productions. Food and agriculture firms agreed not to source products palm oil, soy or soy-feed beef, from land where forests have been illegally cut. (Deforestation is a big contributor to global warming.)
All this is to say, the summit is not without encouraging declarations. But the inclination to grandstand might outstrip any tangible action. Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, used his podium to speculate grandly about the summits place in history:
Historians may one day refer to our meeting today as the beginning of a new period of economic thinking where we internalize externality costs into our behavior as governments, as business, as cities, and as citizens.
Lamentably, the rhetoric is belied by the facts on the ground. Greenhouse gas emissions are steadily rising. So are atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Stabilizing or reversing those trends will be extremely difficult for a couple of reasons the existing stock of fossil fuel plants, the fact that 1 billion people in the world still lack electricity and the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Consider, as evidence, a recent study from UC Irvine earth scientist Steven Davis and Princeton physicist Robert Socolow counting what they call committed emissions, by which they mean the carbon pollution that existing power plants will generate over their lifetimes. Those emissions, too, are growing, by about 4 percent a year, as new coal, oil and natural gas plants are built, particularly in China and India.
EDIT
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/sep/24/rhetoric-and-reality-at-the-united-nations-climate-summit
pscot
(21,024 posts)i.e., plague, famine or nuclear war, will stop us now.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Out all modest gains we made in the last 25 years. Yesterday an article says bombing equals 100 million cars for a year. I don't see how we can win this battle at all.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)The commoners are supposed to run around with our hair on fire changing light bulbs and worrying about how humanity is going to get through the next 50 years and no one talks about what you just wrote.
I'll start worrying about changing light bulbs just as soon as the US Government starts acting in a consistent manner. Something tells me I've got some time.