iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

UN Climate Deal A Small Step Forward In Global Warming Fight

ARTHUR MAX   12/11/10 08:15 AM ET   AP

Un

CANCUN, Mexico — A U.N. conference on Saturday adopted a modest climate deal creating a fund to help the developing world go green, though it deferred for another year the tough work of carving out deeper reductions in carbon emissions causing Earth to steadily warm.

Though the accords were limited, it was the first time in three years the 193-nation conference adopted any climate action, restoring faith in the unwieldy U.N. process after the letdown a year ago at a much-anticipated summit in Copenhagen.

The Cancun Agreements created institutions for delivering technology and funding to poorer countries, though they did not say where the funding would come from.

In urging industrial countries to move faster on emissions cuts, it noted that scientists recommended reducing greenhouse gas emissions from industrial countries by 25 to 40 per cent from 1990 levels within the next 10 years. Current pledges amount to about 16 percent.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon, in a 4 a.m. speech, declared the conference "a thoroughgoing success," after two separate agreements were passed. The agreements shattered "the inertia of mistrust" that had settled over the frustrated efforts for a broad climate treaty, he said.

One of the agreements renewed a framework for cutting greenhouse gas emissions but set no new targets for industrial countries. The second created a financial and technical support system for developing countries facing grave threats from global warming.

Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa, the conference president, gaveled the deal through early Saturday over the objections of Bolivia's delegate, who said it was so weak it would endanger the planet.

Decisions at the U.N. climate talks are typically made by consensus, but Espinosa said consensus doesn't "mean that one country has the right to veto" decisions supported by everyone else.

The accord establishes a multibillion dollar annual Green Climate Fund to help developing countries cope with climate change, though it doesn't say how the fund's money is to be raised. Last year in Copenhagen governments agreed to mobilize $100 billion a year for developing countries, starting in 2020, much of which will be handled by the fund.

The agreements also set rules for internationally funded forest conservation, and provides for climate-friendly technology to expanding economies.

Espinosa won repeated standing ovations from a packed conference hall for her deft handling of bickering countries and for drafting an acceptable deal, though it fully satisfied no one.

"It's been a challenging, tiring and intensive week" said U.S. special climate envoy Todd Stern, clearly content with the results.

The European Union's top climate official, Connie Hedegaard, said Saturday's decisions would help keep international climate talks on track.

"But the two weeks in Cancun have shown once again how slow and difficult the process is," Hedegaard said. "Everyone needs to be aware that we still have a long and challenging journey ahead of us to reach the goal of a legally binding global climate framework."

Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s senior climate official, said the agreements would put all governments on cleaner trajectory. "Cancun has done its job," she said.

Environmentalists cautiously welcomed the deal.

It "wasn't enough to save the climate," said Alden Meyer of the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists. "But it did restore the credibility of the United Nations as a forum where progress can be made."

The Cancun deal finessed disputes between industrial and developing countries on future emissions cuts and incorporates voluntary reduction pledges attached to the Copenhagen Accord that emerged from last year's climate summit in the Danish capital.

It struck a skillful compromise between the U.S. and China, which had been at loggerheads throughout the two week conclave on methods for monitoring and verifying actions to curtail greenhouse gases.

"What we have now is a text that, while not perfect, is certainly a good basis for moving forward," Stern said during the decisive conference meeting. His Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, sounded a similar note and added, "The negotiations in the future will continue to be difficult."

The accord "goes beyond what we expected when we came here," said Wendel Trio of the Greenpeace environmental group.

Underscoring what's at stake in the long-running climate talks, NASA reported that the January-November 2010 global temperatures were the warmest in the 131-year record. Its data indicated the year would likely end as the warmest on record, or tied with 2005 as the warmest.

The U.N.'s top climate science body has said swift and deep reductions are required to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 F) above preindustrial levels, which could trigger catastrophic climate impacts.

Bolivian delegate Pablo Solon protested that the weak pledges of the Copenhagen Accord condemned the Earth to temperature increases of up to 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 F), saying that is tantamount to "ecocide" that could cost millions of lives.

He also complained that the text was being railroaded over his protests in violation of the U.N.'s consensus rules.

In the 1992 U.N. climate treaty, the world's nations promised to do their best to rein in carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases emitted by industry, transportation and agriculture. In the two decades since, the annual conferences' only big advance came in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, when parties agreed on modest mandatory reductions by richer nations.

But the U.S., alone in the industrial world, rejected the Kyoto Protocol, complaining it would hurt its economy and that such emerging economies as China and India should have taken on emissions obligations.

Since then China has replaced the U.S. as the world's biggest emitter, but it has resisted calls that it assume legally binding commitments – not to lower its emissions, but to restrain their growth.

Here at Cancun such issues came to a head, as Japan and Russia fought pressure to acknowledge in a final decision that they will commit to a second period of emissions reductions under Kyoto, whose current targets expire in 2012.

The Japanese complained that with the rise of China, India, Brazil and others, the 37 Kyoto industrial nations now account for only 27 percent of global greenhouse emissions. They want a new, legally binding pact obligating the U.S., China and other major emitters.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

CANCUN, Mexico — A U.N. conference on Saturday adopted a modest climate deal creating a fund to help the developing world go green, though it deferred for another year the tough work of carving ...
CANCUN, Mexico — A U.N. conference on Saturday adopted a modest climate deal creating a fund to help the developing world go green, though it deferred for another year the tough work of carving ...
Filed by Hunter Stuart  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7,624
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (102 total)
12:16 AM on 12/18/2010
I think I know why these arguments all go the same way.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/agw_def_flow.png
photo
GulfportM
"It's like deja vu all over again."
10:21 AM on 12/16/2010
by Steve Goddard | October 21, 2010

In order to understand recent behavior of polar ice and have some visibility into the future, we need to look at it from an historical perspective. A good place to start the investigation is Greenland, which is often described by official sources as experiencing a meltdown. The BBC has famously warned us “If the ice cap were to completely disappear, global sea levels would rise by 6.5m (21 feet).”

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) has long term temperature records for several locations in Greenland and Iceland. The graph below shows average annual temperatures in the Greenland capital for the last 100 years.

Over the last 30 years, Godthab has warmed by several degrees, as shown with the red line. But the one hundred year trend (yellow line) shows a slight cooling. Peak yearly temperatures during the past decade are about one degree cooler than peak years in the 1930s and 1940s.
There also appears to be a cyclical pattern of warming and cooling in Godthab. Temperatures warmed until 1940, cooled in the 1960s and 1970s, and warmed again starting in the 1980s. The graph below shows the Godthab temperature record again, this time with the ten year running mean in red.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/to_a_geologist_the_past_is_key_to_the_future.pdf
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
10:35 AM on 12/18/2010
We look at the sspi page and we find that curiously they offer no information under the 'about us' tab.

Digging a little further, we discover that the president is a former Republican science policy wonk for a series of congressmen from Texas, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.

We also notice that the chief policy advisor is none other than himself:
Lord Monckton, UK: -- Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Along with a long history of misrepresenting science, Monckton has misrepresented his lineage:

"Monckton has referred to himself as "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature" in a letter to US Senators , but more recently as "a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote. The House of Lords has said he is not and never has been a member, and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member." -Wiki

So Gulfport, your source is hardly scientifically credible , now is it?
02:48 PM on 12/15/2010
Until all the countries of the world see climate change as the destructive and life killing event that it is there will not be enough changes to prevent warming and the melting of the ice caps. I no longer have any hope that the pollitics involved with this problem can be resolved before the crisis begins. I believe the best that can be done is to prepare for it as best we can, our own government will never be able to work out. $$ before lives apears to be the motto of Americas disbelieving party.
05:34 AM on 12/15/2010
Perhaps we should have a real scientific debate and let Malthus stand on his own or get ripped to shreds?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGTk4S_HV2w
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:39 PM on 12/19/2010
So there are no limits to the carrying capacity of the planet right? And I contend that simply must be the case for all those who seek a materially indulgent lifestyle, because a planet with limits threatens to redefine an "examined life" and success in non-monetary terms.

It is curious that you have no capacity to speak to the human condition itself in defense of your worldview.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
11:53 AM on 12/14/2010
I've looked at clouds from both sides now,
From up and down, and still somehow,
It's cloud illusions I recall, I really don't know clouds, at all.
----------------------------------
"Climate models used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assume that clouds provide a large positive feedback, greatly amplifying the small warming effect of increasing CO2 content in air. A detailed analysis of cloud behavior from satellite data by Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville shows that clouds actually provide a strong negative feedback, the opposite of that assumed by the climate modelers. The modelers confused cause and effect, thereby getting the feedback in the wrong direction."
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Clouds_Climate.pdf
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
12:21 PM on 12/14/2010
Would this be the Roy Spencer who accepts payments from ExxonMobile?

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=19
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
02:47 PM on 12/14/2010
no..

joni mitchell..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:19 PM on 12/14/2010
I looked at your link. It doesn't claim he took any payments.
05:54 PM on 12/14/2010
I believe your use of the word "strong" in both positions is inaccurate. The current state of affairs is that the net may be close to zero. Why don't you cite the primary literature on this instead of filtered, massaged and spun citations.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
06:29 PM on 12/14/2010
zero's good..

i'm just the anti-catastrophic poster here..
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
10:56 AM on 12/14/2010
GulfportM - "I have read thousands upon thousands of pages of research on the matter of climate change."

What was the last thing you read?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:07 AM on 12/14/2010
His check from Heritage for spamming internet sites with nonsense.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
11:32 AM on 12/14/2010
Gulfportm - "Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induce­d ocean acidificat­ion
Justin B. Ries1,*, Anne L. Cohen1 and Daniel C. McCorkle1 Department of Geology and Geophysics­, Woods Hole Oceanograp­hic Institutio­n, Woods Hole, Massachuse­tts 02543, USA "

That is tangential to climate change, but I'll take what I can get. Are you in agreement with the science in the article?
photo
GulfportM
"It's like deja vu all over again."
11:35 AM on 12/14/2010
It seems well researched and the study reports some facts. In terms of inserted opinions in some places I find them unsupported. Taken to extremes it appears there is a negative effect on some forms of life while others are lesseffected or in some cases show positive growth.
photo
GulfportM
"It's like deja vu all over again."
07:05 AM on 12/14/2010
In 1999, more than a decade after the "manmade CO2 is the major cause of global warming" hypothesis became popular and many prominent politicians and academics had taken strong public positions in favor of that view, a startling discovery was made and came to light that atmospheric CO2 changes followed, not caused, temperature changes

It goes like this; temperature rises which then causes a rise in CO2 , presumably released from the oceans, and that additional CO2 causes a rise in temperature, which then causes a release of still more CO2 and on and on. This they say could lead to runaway global warming and roast the planet. The problem is, this runaway that they were and still are predicting, has never occurred, at least not in the last 500 million years of Earth's temperature history, even though naturally occurring CO2 levels have been as high as 7,000 parts per million versus the warming catastrophists' predictions that a simple doubling or less of our current 385 ppm will cause runaway warming. Despite the real world, empirical data, the logic seems to be lost on those who want to believe that man, once again, is the culprit.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:36 AM on 12/14/2010
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas.

The point that warm temperatures then release more CO2 from the oceans is somethng that should cause even more concern.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
10:45 AM on 12/14/2010
and the concern would be positive feedback..

aka runaway warming..

that hasn't happened.. isn't happening.. and has never happened before.

so wassup with that ya think lol?
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
08:11 AM on 12/14/2010
That is a fanciful tale. It has some bits that are true, but they are badly used. For example, warming global temperatures can prompt release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to be released from the oceans and land surface. However, that fact doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't operate as a greenhouse gas. It just makes the situation more grave.
photo
GulfportM
"It's like deja vu all over again."
06:46 AM on 12/14/2010
Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (5). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice.

To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
07:10 AM on 12/14/2010
Great post, of solid information.

Fanned
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:38 AM on 12/14/2010
lol
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
12:52 PM on 12/15/2010
What actual facts are present are misrepresented - no, not a great post. Not, that is, if you are interested in knowledge / truth.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:46 AM on 12/14/2010
THey don't leave water vapor out. CO2 induced warming will cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. I think you know that as well. But you are trying to confuse people so...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035333.shtml

That's why you have NASA, the NAS, MIT climate group, the Royal Society, NOAA and every other scientific org on one side, and an anonymous internet poster on the other. Oh, you and Richard Lindzen, who says smoking is safe as well. Maybe you believe that one too.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
12:24 PM on 12/14/2010
Fanned, just for your name. Well, ok for your science too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
05:24 AM on 12/14/2010
Check this out. Looks like there must be a conspiracy to prevent us from preventing a disaster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvG2XptIEJk&feature=related
05:08 AM on 12/14/2010
Where do all you believers stand on this issue?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K9rXydMmfw

I await your response Exusian, Docskull, Publicola, gallon, jimboy, Shan Wells, Objective Realist.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
08:19 AM on 12/14/2010
I am firmly against vague statements and youtube links by people I already regard as incapable of telling the truth.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
09:13 AM on 12/14/2010
I, for one, make it a policy not to follow your meaningless, off topic links.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
01:14 PM on 12/14/2010
One wonders then, why didn't you pose your question over there, where it would be on topic?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
04:47 AM on 12/14/2010
SoCalHotOne: if I'm cold and put on a sweater, it takes a little while for me to warm up. Similarly, the warming created by a sudden increase in greenhouse gases will take a while to kick in.

Check out figure 2 in the pdf file you can download from: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
01:44 AM on 12/14/2010
U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities”

Report confirms failure to act poses "significant risks"

"A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."

http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/19/national-academy-of-sciences-america%E2%80%99s-climate-choices-global-warming/
photo
GulfportM
"It's like deja vu all over again."
06:53 AM on 12/14/2010
It is disturbing to know that such an important organization has given up on trying to better understand the mechanisms of the earth's atmosphere. This despite all of the new research other organizations are conducting to better understand the systems and process that make up the atmosphere that bring into question the "settled facts" based it seems on "group think" and politically motivated manipulation of data.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
09:25 AM on 12/14/2010
Well, that would be one interpretation of reality. Sounds a lot like a vast conspiracy, doesn't it. I would say you are on to something, keep up the good work there Gulfport.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
10:44 AM on 12/14/2010
Here is your chance to assure everyone that you aren't merely telling absurd lies. You said there was "politicall­y motivated manipulati­on of data." VERY SPECIFICALLY, tell use who manipulated what data for what political reason.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
06:36 PM on 12/13/2010
So here's a one-point question; is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
07:40 PM on 12/13/2010
Sure, see:

Svante Arrhenius, 1896b, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (fifth series), April 1896. vol 41, pages 237–275.

It's out there on the web. Note, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science is simply known at the Philosphical Magazine for short.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
08:00 PM on 12/13/2010
Just trying to figure out what exactly the "deniers" are denying.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
08:11 PM on 12/13/2010
Sorry for ruining it.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Shan Wells
Sciencey sun venerator + political cartoonist
12:14 AM on 12/14/2010
Yes:

A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In the Solar System, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars, and Titan also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would be on average about 33 °C (59 °F)[note 1] colder than at present.[2][3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
01:34 AM on 12/14/2010
Shan, I do not believe it would be possible to change your mind on this issue. You have shown you can ignore any and all evidence you wish.

So I will turn your attention to a different aspect of this scam. It is a real environmental holocaust being carried out in the name of saving us from global warming (which isn't happening).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K9rXydMmfw
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
01:20 PM on 12/15/2010
Fanned for fighting the good fight against the deniers who, if they succeed, will bring down the web of life that supports humans.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
06:23 PM on 12/13/2010
Bering Sea was ice-free and full of life during last warm period, study finds
December 13, 2010 By Donna Hesterman

UCSC ocean scientist Christina Ravelo and Alan Mix of Oregon State University show off a record-breaking sediment core section during the Bering Sea expedition. Ravelo (below) was co-chief scientist of the expedition on the RV Joides Resolution. Deep sediment cores retrieved from the Bering Sea floor indicate that the region was ice-free all year and biological productivity was high during the last major warm period in Earth's climate history. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-bering-sea-ice-free-full-life.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
06:31 PM on 12/13/2010
Nice link. Thank you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:32 PM on 12/13/2010
Beware of shiny objects passed off as pertinent by omission.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
06:48 PM on 12/13/2010
I am happy for the plankton.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
06:04 PM on 12/13/2010
Hah! Good one GulfportM. You crack me up!