Two years more until the Kyoto Protocol expires; no progress towards replacement

[GuineaPig]

https://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/11/cancun-climate-talks.html

Well, climate talks in Cancun have recently wrapped up, with once again very little progress being made towards creating an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol.  This makes me pretty angry.

The biggest thing that came out of these meetings was a dedication of $100 billion towards developing countries; money which will not be distributed until 2020 with funding sources still unknown.  The lethargy and inertia displayed is pathetic.

[rumborak]

You know, it doesn't matter whether one is for or against those measures. If there's one thing these conferences have shown, it's that  multi-national bodies are completely impotent.

rumborak

[emindead]

What a relief.

[GuineaPig]

You know, it doesn't matter whether one is for or against those measures. If there's one thing these conferences have shown, it's that  multi-national bodies are completely impotent.

rumborak

Actually, this is one instance where I'd disagree.  The U.N. has been pretty useful with regards to climate change.  The IPCC has provided much-needed global perspective, and the U.N. has been a great forum for communication.  The problem is the individual states, who all claim they want to take action, and then use any excuse to avoid it.  Exhibit A: Canada.

EDIT:  Nevermind, you said impotent.  So yes, I agree with you.

[rumborak]

That's what I'm saying. It's an exercising in stale-mating.

My personal opinion is, countries need to abandon the idea of getting everyone on board before doing anything. The US and China won't do anything, they're both too keen on their short-term gain and full of people who are chock-full of some weird ideology that commands them to passive aggressiveness. Look at emin's post; he'd rather go down the global heat run-off, as long as he can say he did so freely.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

I'm not sure China's so down on green technology and climate change prevention: https://climateprogress.org/2010/07/15/the-challenge-of-china's-green-technology-policy/

Maybe they aren't making the full thrust into green for the right reasons, but at least they're getting something done.

[William Wallace]

What a relief.

Yep.

Aren't you guys the least bit concerned that these global agreements won't reduce climate change by any detectable amount?

[GuineaPig]

What a relief.

Yep.

Aren't you guys the least bit concerned that these global agreements won't reduce climate change by any detectable amount?

The Kyoto Protocol sure didn't.  But there has to be some progress towards making cuts in GHG production now, and any international agreement that furthers that cause is one I'd support. 

Because being selfish, short-sighted, and ignorant does not help the situation one bit.  Deep cuts are needed now.  Europe's made some progress in terms of agreeing to targets of reductions (mostly due to the much higher degree of political pressure), but there needs to be some engagement of big contributors like the States and China, as well as the emerging powers like Brazil and India, so that other countries don't have excuses to not take action.

The position of Canada's Conservative government is infuriating.  They say "Canada produces 2% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, therefore we are not the problem."  It's this kind of attitude from smaller countries, combined with the criminal shortsightedness of the major economic powers that is the reason for the lack of progress since Kyoto, not the agreement itself.

[rumborak]

Eh, it's always the same shit. The big guys can't be bullied into action, and the small ones hide behind he inactivity of the big ones.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Just a side note, but I think it's worth mentioning. All of these agreements so far have the wealthier states providing funding to developing nations to help them mitigate the effects of climate change. But it's countries like China and India whose GHG emissions are on the rise. Does anybody see the perverse incentive at work here?

The Kyoto Protocol sure didn't.  But there has to be some progress towards making cuts in GHG production now, and any international agreement that furthers that cause is one I'd support.  

Alright, but even if you get everybody to play along with a new Kyoto, how certain are you that warming would be reduced significantly?

[rumborak]

Just a side note, but I think it's worth mentioning. All of these agreements so far have the wealthier states providing funding to developing nations to help them mitigate the effects of climate change. But it's countries like China and India whose GHG emissions are on the rise. Does anybody see the perverse incentive at work here?

Well, it sucks, I agree. Problem is, the third-world nations you can give directed funding to, attached with the constraints of lowering the GHG emissions. The threshold nations like India and China are independent enough to not need any money from us, and they (with a good point) say they don't want to stifle their burgeoning economies.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Just a side note, but I think it's worth mentioning. All of these agreements so far have the wealthier states providing funding to developing nations to help them mitigate the effects of climate change. But it's countries like China and India whose GHG emissions are on the rise. Does anybody see the perverse incentive at work here?

Well, it sucks, I agree. Problem is, the third-world nations you can give directed funding to, attached with the constraints of lowering the GHG emissions. The threshold nations like India and China are independent enough to not need any money from us, and they (with a good point) say they don't want to stifle their burgeoning economies.

rumborak

Yeah, but they both would have been on the receiving end of mitigation funding. Still, none of the third world nations involved in the talks will be able to grow their economies without some form of cheap energy. That makes any agreement quite useless in my opinion.

[GuineaPig]

Just a side note, but I think it's worth mentioning. All of these agreements so far have the wealthier states providing funding to developing nations to help them mitigate the effects of climate change. But it's countries like China and India whose GHG emissions are on the rise. Does anybody see the perverse incentive at work here?

The Kyoto Protocol sure didn't.  But there has to be some progress towards making cuts in GHG production now, and any international agreement that furthers that cause is one I'd support.  

Alright, but even if you get everybody to play along with a new Kyoto, how certain are you that warming would be reduced significantly?

Pretty certain.  The main goal is to prevent temperatures from increasing 2 degrees across the board; any substantial cuts that would prevent global temperatures from reaching that point would prevent massive amounts of warming due to prevented positive feedbacks.