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)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
By the time they get around to discussing "negotiating legally binding restrictions"...
joshcryer
Dec 2011
#2
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
Another interesting point about the subset of CO2 within the larger GHG growth picture:
hatrack
Dec 2011
#20
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
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