Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

marmar

(80,073 posts)
Tue Dec 13, 2011, 12:46 AM Dec 2011

Der Spiegel: The Durban Climate Agreement 'Is Almost Useless' [View all]


The climate talks in Durban ended with an agreement to agree on a new agreement on emissions cuts in coming years. The outcome was hailed as historic by the organizers, but German commentators say the pledges remain too vague and the progress too slow -- while global warming is accelerating.

Countries from around the globe agreed on Sunday to forge a new deal forcing all the biggest polluters for the first time to limit greenhouse gas emissions. A package of accords agreed after two weeks of United Nations talks in Durban, South Africa, extended the 1997 Kyoto Protocol -- the only global pact enforcing carbon cuts -- allowing five more years to finalize a wider pact.

Delegates agreed in the early hours of Sunday to start work next year on a new, legally binding accord to cut greenhouse gases, to be decided by 2015 and to come into force by 2020. The process for doing so, called the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, would "develop a new protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force." The phrasing was vague enough for all parties to claim victory.

.....(snip).....

Left-wing Frankfurter Rundschau writes:

"The Kyoto Protocol is saved. After a hard diplomatic battle, the summit meeting agreed to a continuation of the historic climate agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise have expired in 2012. That makes for good reading. As does the fact that the US, China and the other emerging markets want to take part in a new global agreement from 2020. The only problem is that it's almost useless. The UN summit wasn't a debacle like the Copenhagen conference two years ago, but it only narrowly avoided complete failure -- like most of the 16 summits before it." ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,803158,00.html



20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
And a different perspective... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #1
By the time they get around to discussing "negotiating legally binding restrictions"... joshcryer Dec 2011 #2
We're out of time - YOY increases in atmospheric GHG content in 2010 were 5.95% hatrack Dec 2011 #3
However, that 5.95% increase in emissions was after a decrease from 2008 to 2009 muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #4
The west has been relatively flat for decades, the increases are coming from India, China and the... joshcryer Dec 2011 #10
The annual increase had been slowing from 2003 to 2007 muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #15
2010 is the largest, though, and that's at the end of a deep recession. joshcryer Dec 2011 #17
Here, I plotted it with the 2008-2010 data: joshcryer Dec 2011 #18
Another interesting point about the subset of CO2 within the larger GHG growth picture: hatrack Dec 2011 #20
Are we out of time? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #5
Methane is 27 times more potent greenhouse gas than is CO2 txlibdem Dec 2011 #6
It does have a much shorter atmospheric life, but it's enough to cause glacial feedbacks... joshcryer Dec 2011 #8
Point of interest: the 20-odd time worse figure is averaged over a century. Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #11
Fair point. joshcryer Dec 2011 #12
Just let me say thank you for giving me nightmares for the next month NickB79 Dec 2011 #13
Average lifetime is something like 8 years Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #16
Oops. Nihil Dec 2011 #19
Unfortunatley it'd cost $100 trillion, or roughly 10%-15% global GDP every year for a decade. joshcryer Dec 2011 #9
Have to agree. Ice free arctic in 5 years tops. Methane releases beyond expectations. joshcryer Dec 2011 #7
A post from 2006 by hatrack: joshcryer Dec 2011 #14
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Der Spiegel: The Durban C...»Reply #0