Everything you need to know about the Paris climate summit and UN talks
As UN climate negotiations resume in Bonn, we look at why the crunch Paris climate conference from 30 November to 11 December is so important
What is happening in Paris this December?
The governments of more than 190 nations will gather in Paris to discuss a possible new global agreement on climate change, aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and thus avoiding the threat of dangerous climate change.

Why now?
Current commitments on greenhouse gas emissions run out in 2020, so at Paris governments are expected to produce an agreement on what happens for the decade after that at least, and potentially beyond.

Why is this important?
Scientists have warned that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, we will pass the threshold beyond which global warming becomes catastrophic and irreversible. That threshold is estimated as a temperature rise of 2C above pre-industrial levels, and on current emissions trajectories we are heading for a rise of about 5C. That may not sound like much, but the temperature difference between today’s world and the last ice age was about 5C, so seemingly small changes in temperature can mean big differences for the Earth.

Emissions trajectory
Emissions trajectory Photograph: Guardian
Why has nobody thought of getting a global agreement on this before now?
They have: global negotiations on climate change have been carrying on for more than 20 years. The history of climate change goes back much further: in the 19th century, physicists theorised about the role of greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, and several suggested that the warming effect would increase alongside the levels of these gases in the atmosphere. But this was all theoretical.

Only in the past few decades have scientists begun the measurements necessary to establish a relationship between current carbon levels and temperatures, and the science conducted since then has consistently pointed in one direction: that rising greenhouse gas emissions, arising from our use of fossil fuels and our industries, lead to higher temperatures.

Hasn’t global warming stopped?
No. Global temperatures have been on a clear upward path. There was a spike in 1998, after which temperatures were lower – but still warmer than previous decades – that led some climate sceptics to claim that the world was cooling.

During the period since 1998, global temperatures have risen at a slower pace than they did in the previous 30 years. That, too, has been seized upon by sceptics as evidence that global warming has 'paused'.

But it is important to note that temperatures have not fallen, or stalled – they have continued to rise. Given the variations that characterise our weather systems, a period in which the rate of warming slowed is not unexpected.

For the past two years, the rate of warming seems to have accelerated again, but little can be construed from that.



People sign the Earth pledge made at the the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in June 1992.

What progress have we seen on a global agreement?
Advertisement

In 1992, governments met in Rio de Janeiro and forged the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That agreement, still in force, bound governments to take action to avoid dangerous climate change, but did not specify what actions. Over the following five years, governments wrangled over what each should do, and what should be the role of developed countries versus poorer nations.

Those years of argument produced, in 1997, the Kyoto protocol. That pact required worldwide cuts in emissions of about 5%, compared with 1990 levels, by 2012, and each developed country was allotted a target on emissions reductions. But developing countries, including China, South Korea, Mexico and other rapidly emerging economies, were given no targets and allowed to increase their emissions at will.

Al Gore, then US vice-president, signed up to the protocol, but it was quickly apparent that it would never be ratified by the US Congress. Legally, the protocol could not come into force until countries representing 55% of global emissions had ratified it. With the US – then the world’s biggest emitter – on the outside, that was not going to happen.

So for most of the following decade, the Kyoto protocol remained in abeyance and global climate change negotiations ground to a near-halt. But in late 2004, Russia decided to pass the treaty – unexpectedly, and as part of a move to have its application for World Trade Organisation membership accepted by the European Union. That made up the weight needed, and the protocol finally came into force.

So we had a global agreement?
Not quite. The US, under George W Bush, remained firmly outside Kyoto, so although the UN negotiations carried on year after year, the US negotiators were often in different rooms from the rest of the world. It was clear a new approach was needed that could bring the US in, and encourage the major developing economies – especially China, now the world’s biggest emitter – to take on limits to their emissions.

What followed was, agreed at Bali in 2007 after much drama, an action plan that set the world on the course to a new agreement that would take over from Kyoto.

This is taking a long time. What happened next?
It did take a long time. But getting agreement from 196 countries was never going to be easy. The next act of this long-running drama fully demonstrated that: the Copenhagen conference of 2009.

What happened at Copenhagen?
Advertisement

Everything but the treaty. All of the world’s developed countries and the biggest developing countries agreed – for the first time – to limits on their greenhouse gas emissions. This was a landmark, as it meant the world’s biggest emitters were united towards a single goal.

The emissions reductions agreed on were still not enough to meet scientific advice, but they were a big advance on reducing emissions compared with 'business as usual'.

But what didn’t happen turned out to be the point that NGOs and many in the press seized on. What didn’t happen was a fully articulated and legally binding treaty.

Is that important?
It depends on your viewpoint. The Kyoto protocol was a beautifully written, watertight, fully legally binding international treaty, a sub-treaty of the similarly binding UNFCCC. But it never met its objectives, because it wasn’t ratified by the US, and not by Russia until it was too late. And none of the countries that failed to meet their commitments under Kyoto have been sanctioned.

The Copenhagen agreement, on the other hand, was not fully adopted by the UN in 2009 because of last-minute chaos at the conference, though it was ratified the following year in the form of the Cancun agreements. For this reason, the Copenhagen agreement was derided as a failure by green groups.

But the targets agreed at Copenhagen, in the form of a document signed by world leaders, still stand.

What is likely to be agreed in Paris?

Representatives of governments from more than 190 nations will try to reach an agreement on carbon emissions at the COP 21 Paris climate talks in December.
We know already what the biggest emitters have committed to. The EU will cut its emissions by 40%, compared with 1990 levels, by 2030. The US will cut its emissions by 26% to 28%, compared with 2005 levels, by 2025. China will agree that its emissions will peak by 2030.

Nations responsible for about two-thirds of global emissions have now come up with their targets – known in the UN jargon as Indended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDCs – but some countries, most notably India, have not yet done so, despite being asked to meet a deadline at the end of March.

What we already know, however, is that the commitments made, and likely to be made by December, will not by themselves be enough to hold the world to no more than 2C of warming. In order to bolster these targets, two approaches have been suggested: that more effort should be made to bring down emissions outside the UN process, for instance by engaging “non-state actors” such as cities, local governments and businesses to do more; and that the INDCs should be subject to regular review and ratcheting up in the years after the Paris meeting.

If the commitments from the major countries are in the bag, does that mean the Paris agreement is settled?
Not at all – the other key question, apart from emissions reduction, is finance. Poorer countries want the rich world to provide them with financial help that will enable them to invest in clean technology to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, and to adapt their infrastructure to the likely damage from climate change.

This is a hugely contentious issue. At Copenhagen, where the finance part of the deal was only sorted out at the very last minute, rich countries agreed to supply $30bn ($20bn) of “fast-start” financial assistance to the poor nations, and they said that by 2020, financial flows of at least $100bn a year would be provided.

Poor nations want a similar provision in place beyond 2020, but there is strong disagreement over how this should be done. Some want all the money to come from rich country governments, but those governments are adamant that they will not provide such funding solely from the public purse. They want international development banks, such as the World Bank, to play a role, and they want most of the funding to come from the private sector.

An agreement on this is still possible, but it will be one of the main obstacles to a Paris deal.

Will world leaders go to Paris to agree on this?
No. World leaders, including Barack Obama and the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, attended Copenhagen but were then embarrassed when that conference ended in scenes of chaos and vicious recriminations. So they’re not coming back. Paris will be attended by high-level ministers of all the world’s governments, who have the power to sign a deal on behalf of their countries.

On behalf of the French government, the conference will be led by foreign minister Laurent Fabius, and environment minister Segolene Royal, but the French president Francois Hollande will also play a key role. They are all confident that a deal can be made.

What else can we expect before Paris?
Plenty. We are in the midst of a long series of meetings in the run-up to the conference, which have already begun: in late May, a business and climate summit brought together leading private sector companies and government officials; in June, a meeting in Bonn produced a reformation of the key details of the negotiating text; in July, a meeting of scientists reiterated their warnings.

But progress has been slow. At the latest weeklong round of negotiations, ending in Bonn on 4 September, there was supposed to be a clearing up of the text of the agreement, which has been divided into sections including a core that will be the legal document and ancillary papers, where the details of issues such as finance and forestry will appear. However, by the end of the week, questions still hovered over what would appear in the core agreement, and there was dispute over issues such as “loss and damage”, by which developing countries want assistance on coping with extreme weather events, likely to be made worse by climate change.

There will be one further week of negotiations, in October, before the Paris meeting agrees, so there is much work to be done on the text.

Many are pinning their hopes on world leaders to break the logjam, at a key meeting in late September: the UN’s annual general assembly.

This year, the assembly will be the crowning effort of the UN’s plan for world governments to adopt a set of 'sustainable development goals', which will take over from the millennium development goals that were pegged to 2015. These will include issues such as access to clean water and sanitation, access to energy, gender equality, education and health. Those SDGs will have a profound effect on whether the world can meet its climate change targets, and meet them in an equitable fashion that allows poor countries to lift their citizens out of poverty while not passing climate thresholds.

At the same time, climate change will be high on the agenda, and the secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, is expected to make a concerted push for leaders to hammer out any remaining differences and to instruct their negotiating teams to make compromises. While negotiators are mired in the paragraphs, sub-headings and addenda of texts thick with square brackets denoting unresolved issues, their heads of government have the power to sweep aside such details and order them to agree.

If nations can meet and agree equitable goals on the climate, on economic development, on social and environmental issues, and do so in a spirit of cooperation, it will be a huge achievement.

But, as the French president Francois Hollande told delegates in Paris in late May, that might be hoping for a '��miracle'��.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/02/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-paris-climate-summit-and-un-talks

Here is how "political correctness" is conflicting with reality.

"Several countries, especially European countries, have abandoned the construction of new of nuclear power plants.[13] Austria (1978), Sweden (1980) and Italy (1987) voted in referendums to oppose or phase out nuclear power, while opposition in Ireland prevented a nuclear program there. Countries that have no nuclear plants and have restricted new plant constructions comprise Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Ireland and Norway.[14][15] Poland stopped the construction of a plant.[14][16] Belgium, Germany, Spain, and Sweden decided not to build new plants or intend to phase out nuclear power, although still mostly relying on nuclear energy.[14][17]

New reactors under construction in Finland and France, which were meant to lead a nuclear new build, have been substantially delayed and are running over-budget.[18][19][20] However, China has 27 new reactors under construction,[21] and there are also new reactors being built in South Korea, India, and Russia. At least 100 older and smaller reactors will "most probably be closed over the next 10-15 years".[22]

Countries that wish to shut down nuclear power plants must find alternatives for electricity generation; otherwise, they are forced to become dependent on imports. Therefore, the discussion of a future for nuclear energy is intertwined with a discussion of an energy transition to renewable energy."

They can discuss it all they want but there isn't enough "renewable energy" to replace the power plants.

Yay! The gubbahmints of 190 nations, have yet another scam excuse, to vacation at taxpayer expense.

Hundreds, if not thousands of people, being flown into Paris. All the while, chanting the mantra to stamp out the carbon footprint. Either oblivious to the fact, or just too arrogant to care, that they're among the worst offenders.


Nope...
I don't see any irony at all.

Hey China, what have you done with the billions of USD from Wal-Mart?
They burned it in coal plants, the ink and fiber cause a nuclear reaction generating heat and little slivers of aluminum which is converted into higher emissions than coal, so it is used 1 day a week while coal is used 7 days a week in nuclear power plants. Where is the electricity? Trains powered by coal transfer coal to stockpiles that power the nuclear plants. What for?
Maybe, just maybe, a huge capacitor was the cause of the horrific explosion there recently. Maybe, just maybe, they are secretly trying to develop an electric super weapon vs a nuclear one. R&D. (&Death) might have something to do with the devaluation of the � destabilizing wall street and the Dao Jones.
Lesson to the rest of the world, renewable energy and energy weapons can be extremely dangerous. Read ALL instructions before during and after assembly operation and or shutdown. Hopefully it's not

Made in China

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/un-climate-chief-communism-best-for-fighting-global-warming.html

UN Climate chief: Communism best for fighting global warming

Written by Rick Moran, American Thinker on 16 January 2014.

This kind of thing parodies itself, and if you want a comprehensive take down of this nonsense, Ed Morrissey has a crackerjack of a post on the wisdom emanating from the lips of Christiana Figueres about the best political system to fight climate change.

Daily Caller:

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.


A Clear Day In Beijing.

China may be the world's top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is "doing it right" when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.

"They actually want to breathe air that they don't have to look at," she said. "They're not doing this because they want to save the planet. They're doing it because it's in their national interest."

Uh-huh.

Her logic is impecable - if you believe in socialist twaddle:

Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is "very detrimental" to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country's national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party's Central Committee and other executive offices.

Leave aside the fact that one of the most dangerous jobs in the world is being a coal miner in a Chinese mine due to the paucity of safety and health regulations. Leave aside the fact that the Chinese refuse to join any UN treaties on climate change. The Communist system actually encourages air and water pollution, not to mention the burning of as much fossile fuel, as fast as possible in the name of economic development.

Ms. Figueres appears to be the perfect choice to head up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Her husband works at the World Bank and is on the board of directors for a company called WEnergy Global PTE.

WEnergy Global PTE LTD is a one-stop-shop-solution provider of renewable energy systems and technologies for energy-efficiency in buildings. Our company designs, procures and build power plants, such as Solar PV, Small Hydro Power, Wind and Biogas. We use Artificial Intelligence Systems in our Energy Consumption Optimizer (ECO) to reduce energy consumption in buildings.

http://www.zoominfo.com/s/#!search/profile/company?companyId=357437972&targetid=profile

There is no money to be made or influence to be peddled by these two earth lovers...

There's a Chinese herbal remedy for biogas, but the side effects may include bloating flatulence with or without oily discharge and on rare occasions solar shingles.