Paris Climate Summit - what does it mean?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

It appears from what I've read, this is another exercise in futility, as the accord/agreement/hugs and good wishes agreement is non-binding, voluntary, with no penalties and no congressional approval needed. Why bother?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/wo...he-making.html

So what changed from Copenhagen to Paris? In short, three things: a fundamental change in the geopolitics of climate change; a shift in the perception of global warming from a distant warning to an immediate threat; and the art of French diplomacy during the event and in the months beforehand to soften the sharp elbows of negotiators and reduce the chances that major points of contention might kill a deal again. In particular, they made sure that each country, regardless of its size or wealth, felt its voice would be heard.

French diplomacy, indeed. How to surrender and not accomplish anything.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35086346

Some nice graphics here to make everyone feel <less> warm and fuzzy about....accomplishing nothing.

The climate deal reached in Paris is "the best chance we have to save the one planet we have", US President Barack Obama has said. He said it could be a "turning point" towards a low-carbon future.
...
Nearly 200 countries took part in tense negotiations in the French capital over two weeks, striking the first deal to commit all nations to cut emissions. The agreement - which is partly legally binding and partly voluntary - will come into being in 2020.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...?intcmp=hplnws

He also said the mandatory reporting every five years “is a serious form of enforcement and compliance.” And, like President Obama, Kerry touted the deal as a jobs creator, contrary to critics who say the demand for lower carbon emissions will hurt the U.S. fossil fuel industry and other sectors of the economy.

“I think it actually sends a big powerful message to the marketplace,” Kerry said. “A lot of jobs are being created.”

Jobs being created? This reminds me of Nancy Pelosi insisting unemployment benefits were the fastest way to create new jobs.

[davew]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

Jobs being created? This reminds me of Nancy Pelosi insisting unemployment benefits were the fastest way to create new jobs.

It will take a lot of capital and manpower to produce green electricity costing 2-6 times current costs.

[Tom]

Re-distribution of wealth.
Nothing more.

That 2 degrees was pulled out thin air.
No scientific basis for it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by davew

It will take a lot of capital and manpower to produce green electricity costing 2-6 times current costs.

Yes! And at a time when the entire world is already teetering on the edge financial disaster of apocalyptic proportions.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by davew

It will take a lot of capital and manpower to produce green electricity costing 2-6 times current costs.

Yes! And at a time when the entire world is already teetering on the edge financial disaster of apocalyptic proportions.

[Tom]

This will cause much suffering world-wide.
Stupidity is running wild.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

Jobs being created? This reminds me of Nancy Pelosi insisting unemployment benefits were the fastest way to create new jobs.

It will create jobs. It will just destroy more than it creates. The democrats usually leave that part out.

[tucker6]

Either us schmucks on a horse player board are getter smarter, or the politicians are getting sloppier. Did anyone NOT know that this entire climate discussion was simply a redistribution of wealth scheme? There is zero proof that anyone has been harmed by global warming, if in fact it is real and caused by man in the first place. What an embarrassing farce.

[zico20]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Either us schmucks on a horse player board are getter smarter, or the politicians are getting sloppier. Did anyone NOT know that this entire climate discussion was simply a redistribution of wealth scheme? There is zero proof that anyone has been harmed by global warming, if in fact it is real and caused by man in the first place. What an embarrassing farce.

Not to mention a power grab by DC to take away states rights and individual rights. Plus, the inevitable carbon tax to come to pay for this whole farce.

[sammy the sage]

Originally Posted by Tom

Re-distribution of wealth.
Nothing more.

That 2 degrees was pulled out thin air.
No scientific basis for it.

THIS time I agree w/Tom...damn I'm dizzy

[ArlJim78]

How much hubris does it take to think that that meeting saved the planet.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

How much hubris does it take to think that that meeting saved the planet.

To read the text of the agreement is surreal. A marked up version is near the bottom of the page at this link:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-...s-climate-deal

While I agree with the suspicions of others, and that this issue is an example of where the "reds hijacked the greens", what I can't do is connect the dots and translate any of this to concrete actions by .Fed. This contrasts sharply with Obamacare, in which not only did we see the changes coming, but once the Supremes ruled it a tax, the catastrophe was baked in the cake.

These sneaky bastards are taking a different track here. Not sure how they're going to get any monies without Congressional approval. Looks like a great issue for the election.

[davew]

I feel it will be one of 0bama / Kerry's greatest accomplishments; right up there with the Iran deal they made with themselves.

[delayjf]

Did anyone NOT know that this entire climate discussion was simply a redistribution of wealth scheme?

Indeed, to the tune of 100 billion dollars A YEAR.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by davew

I feel it will be one of 0bama / Kerry's greatest accomplishments; right up there with the Iran deal they made with themselves.

http://qz.com/575430/a-single-word-a...nge-agreement/

This article requires developed countries to undertake economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets but developing countries to only “continue to enhance” their mitigation efforts. In the draft that was presented for adoption there were two critical words—“shall” and “should”. The expression “shall” applied to the developed countries’ obligation and the word “should” applied to the developing countries’ obligation.

The US wanted both developed and developing countries to agree on the same, more lenient word: “should.” In effect, the US only wanted to commit to trying to cut emissions, but not be legally bound to do so. Without the US onboard, the deal couldn’t go through.

....

In the end, France proposed a diplomatic solution, decreeing that “shall” was a typographical mistake, and should have been “should” all along.

Yes, Kerry and Obama can claim success of the agreement, built on a lie. Well, actually many lies.

A perfect example of how useless politicians really are, and why we shouldn't be in the UN....which is just a collection of second rate politicians and bureaucrats....