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

Bob Wallace

(549 posts)
1. And a different perspective...
Tue Dec 13, 2011, 12:58 AM
Dec 2011

"My conclusion is that for now, at least, the conceptual advance made in Durban is as good as it gets.

This advance is, potentially, huge: For the first time, officials of the nations that are the biggest carbon emitters — China, the United States and India — have agreed to negotiate legally binding restrictions.

Under the old Kyoto Protocol framework, which for now remains largely in effect, rapidly industrializing nations refused to be constricted by limits that would stunt their development. The United States declined to sign on to the Kyoto agreement as long as China, India, Brazil and other rising economic giants got a pass.

This meant that while European nations worked to meet emissions targets — or, in some cases, pretended to do so — the most important sources of carbon were unconstrained."

"Compromise language was found: By 2015, delegates will negotiate an “agreed outcome with legal force.” What does this mean? Within four years, there is supposed to be something like a treaty — covering developed and developing countries alike — that limits carbon emissions. This treaty or treaty-like document is supposed to take effect in 2020."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reason-to-smile-about-the-durban-climate-conference/2011/12/12/gIQA80nZqO_story.html

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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 #1