Paris Climate Change Summit: What did we learn?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Dec 2, 2015.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    So what did the elites achieve at the Paris Climate Change Summit? Besides slurping down fresh snails, tucking into delicious horsemeat steaks, and sipping on 70-year-old Beaujolais, that is.

    Well, we learned that India aims to produce 1.5 billion metric tons of the fossil fuel by 2020, up about 600 million tons in 2012. To make this happen, India will need to open the equivalent of a new coal mine every month until the end of this decade.

    Also, many promises were made but none that extend past 2030.

    Of course, we saw the usual genuflection to renewables such as solar and wind, but no mention that these are expensive to maintain and take up vast amounts of land. The Paris elites would have us believe that we can put a few solar panels on our roofs or a few windmills somewhere, and we will have all the power we need.

    At the least, it's clear that more and more people are giving greenhouse-free nuclear power another look. They realize that the only way to eradicate global poverty, and its evil stepchildren war and terrorism, is to bring at least 3,000 kWhs per year to everyone on Earth, necessitating an additional 15 trillion kWhs of electricity each year to power the 9 billion people who will live on Earth in about 2040. This almost doubles the amount we produce now, and requires capital investments of well over $5 trillion, no matter what energy mix we choose. Clearly, nuclear will be part of the mix.

    I can't find if greenhouse-free nuclear power is part of the Paris proposals. Fortunately, Obama was already getting behind greenhouse-free nuclear power. That, at least, is a smashing success.
     
  2. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #3
    What the European Goverments won't admit that they championed diesel to the hilt and now we know they were as bad as trucks! Plus they won't even mention China's poor environmental record! China is now the worlds largest polluter in the world! :mad:
     
  3. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #4
    It's also a dictatorship.
    With 1.5 billion subjects.
    The world is being raped by china.

    And at the same time the rulers get all those infemminated, stupid wannabe hippies in europe and north america to reduce their "carbon footprint".
     
  4. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #5
    I learned how much Air Force one pollutes for a trip like this. Jesus Christ can these people at least pretend like they care about the earth as much as they talk about it and ****ing FaceTime these conferences? Obama can borrow my iPad.
     
  5. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #6
    I learned that President Hollande said, “I can’t separate the fight with terrorism from the fight against global warming.”

    Yeah. The idea is to still have a society well into the future in order to gauge the chicken little predictions. By the way, did they serve Cornish hens during the conference?


    In commentator Rachel Marsden’s own words:
    “Let’s call this climate change conference what it really is: a scam to transfer billions of dollars in taxpayer funds from developed nations to “emerging markets.” During Monday’s opening session, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India said that without $100 billion from developed countries by 2020, developing countries such as India couldn’t possibly hope to reduce their own greenhouse gases. “Developed countries must fulfill their responsibility to make clean energy affordable and accessible to all in the developing world,” Modi said.”
     
  6. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #7
    CO2 is harmless. Grow more crops and we can feed more people.

    If you're really concerned about CO2, then let's reduce the emissions from having a military presence in 120 countries via 150 bases.
     
  7. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #8
    I do worry about the weather. I don't worry about the climate.
     
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #9
    Keep in mind that the talks extend through Dec. 11, and the agreements should include measures for accountability and verification.

    Today, the European Union put recycling on the agenda, with a target of 65 percent uptake for trash. This will cut about 340 million tons of CO2, or seven percent of EU emissions.

    That's horrifying, and I don't understand why India is pursuing coal even as China is planning on amping up their nuclear-energy production by 600 percent.

    A room full of CO2 will kill you, so under certain circumstances, CO2 is not harmless. (This is also true with nitrogen, BTW.)

    Of course, that's not what we're dealing with, but keep in mind that massive amounts of CO2 are making the oceans acidic and the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed by plants is actually limited. Experiments in closed systems have shown that at high CO2 thresholds, plants can't absorb CO2 to produce oxygen.

    This also assumes linear relationships between CO2 and food production, but what this means in reality is the slow failure of breadbaskets in Asia and the United States, and while more land will be available in Siberia, the land isn't likely to produce food at the same rates because of problems in nitrogen uptake from once permafrosted soil.

    Deal.
     
  9. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #10
    We're seeing a new concept develop: "climate imperialism."

    Developing nations like India don't understand why they should stunt their development when the developed world caused the climate crisis in the first place. It's a valid argument.
     
  10. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #11
    Exactly. Simply put: it's a do as I say not as I do (did) situation. We were allowed to use plenty full, cheaper, workable fuel but you must construct hundreds of windmills to stop the damage we did! That being said, I just put solar panels on my roof but no one forced me to do it and I'm paying for it. (Well, most of it....)
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    True.

    China should be the world's largest polluter, it has the most people.

    I think we already get pretty close to 65% target for recycling. Certainly the recycling in my county at the recycling centres is about 70% at the moment, probably it's lower for domestic users, but now we recycle food waste it isn't far off.
     
  12. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #13
    Modern nuclear reactors can recycle their waste products.

    reprocessing_used_fuel_purex_flow_sheet.jpg
     
  13. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #14
    Tell that to everyone who is dying of type 2 respiratory failure.
     
  14. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #15
    Totally unrelated. That is a malfunctioning heart and it's a biological short straw.
     
  15. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #16
    Lungs actually.
     
  16. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #17
    It's not only heart and blood, buts it's about the body's own overproduction of co2, so your entire comment is unfounded with its assumption of environmental cause.
     
  17. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #18
    All mankind's troubles will disappear with a judicious application of uranium, plutonium, and thorium.
     
  18. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #19
    A room full of dihydrogen monoxide can kill in under a minute. DHMO should be regulated.
     
  19. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #20
    How about worrying about truth and honesty?

    House Science Chair Backs Off NOAA Scientists

    Is This Congressman's 'Oversight' An Effort To Hobble Climate Science?

    We have the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology who does not like a report because it does not mesh with his personal climate fantasy, so what does he do? He subpoenas those scientists' emails! Instead of working to solve problems, he works very hard to deny problems, feeling there is a scientific liberal conspiracy to mislead conservatives. This is completely separate regarding what we should go about it, if anything. It is denial to make the problem go away. This is why you don't want today's batch of Conservative/Tea Party Republicans any where near your government.

    Quote
    About 600 scientists and engineers, including former employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have signed on to letters urging the head of that agency, Kathryn Sullivan, to push back against political interference in science.


    For months, Sullivan has been tangling with U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas and chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, as he investigates a climate change study done by NOAA scientists.


    That study, published earlier this year in the journal Science, cast doubt on the what some have called a global warming hiatus — the idea that global warming has slowed in the last two decades.


    Smith says his actions are a legitimate part of his oversight duties. But scientists call it harassment.
     
  20. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #21
    Here's the problem, in a nutshell.
    The climate scientists say that if the world emits more carbon than x, certain disaster will occur. This disaster will be somewhat mitigated if carbon emissions are kept to below y.

    Trouble is, economic growth models suggest that in the absence of international cooperation, more and more countries will start emitting carbon at rates matching, or exceeding the economically developed nations, which will, in turn mean that more carbon will be emitted than y, and x, and probably more besides, regardless of anything that the United States (hah!) might do in the future.

    This conference is a diplomatic conference designed to produce binding international cooperation that will meaningfully reduce global emissions. A successful conference will mean that the investment of jet fuel to produce useful face to face negotiations will be paid back in spades. An unsuccessful conference, like Copenhagen ,will mean that any attempts by the conference to go green will be purely symbolic, and swamped by large growing states who see burning coal and oil and gas at first world levels as the best way to improve economic conditions for their people--at least until the world goes to hell. Teleconferencing is inferior to face to face negotiations. It isn't worth it, even at a symbolic level.
     

Share This Page