No Progress on Global Emissions 8 Years After Paris Climate Agreement
Officials admitted at COP28 that they are not "on track" to achieving climate goals. And they are not likely to be any time soon.

Eight years after the Paris climate agreement, where do we stand on global emissions? The title of a new United Nations Environment Programme report sums the situation up: Broken Record: Temperatures hit new highs, yet world fails to cut emissions (again).
The Paris Agreement aims to hold the global average temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius relative to preindustrial levels. Consequently, the agreement recognizes "deep reductions in global emissions will be required in order to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention." Each country issues its voluntary nationally determined contribution that outlines its plans and promises to address the problem of man-made climate change. The agreement noted that adding up the projected greenhouse gas emissions in all of the 2015 promises would result in 55 gigatons (billion metric tons) of emissions in 2030, a far higher level than would be required to meet the temperature goal.
Most countries underdelivered in setting their emissions goals. And why not? Their "commitments" are voluntary and there is no mechanism for enforcing them in any case.
The United Nations' 28th Climate Change Conference (COP28) convened in early December with representatives from nearly 200 countries meeting in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Parties to the 2015 agreement were supposed to take stock of its implementation.
It's way off track. Global greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to rise. In 2015, the world emitted 50.1 gigatons of greenhouse gases. By 2022, that had risen to 53.8 gigatons. Emissions from the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels and deforestation, rose from 35.5 gigatons in 2015 to a record high of 40.9 gigatons in 2023. A study in Science published in December also reported that the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were this high was 14 million years ago.
While global temperatures vary depending on natural phenomena (such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation in the Pacific Ocean), the overall trend remains upward. Given a boost by a strong El Niño, 2023 will be the hottest year in the instrumental record at more than 1.4 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial baseline.
COP28's Global Stocktake asserts that "deep, rapid and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions of 43 per cent by 2030" will be required to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. This would mean cutting global emissions by about 7 percent per year for the next six years.
To get a sense of just how difficult pursuing this goal would be, consider that the economic disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 yielded a record drop of only 4.4 percent in global greenhouse gas emissions—along with a 3.4 percent fall in global gross domestic product.
Man-made climate change could become a significant problem for humanity over the course of this century, so it is reasonable to develop and deploy low- and no-emissions technologies. But with still-rising emissions, the COP28's Global Stocktake bottom line is correct: "Parties are not yet collectively on track towards achieving the purpose of the Paris Agreement and its long-term goals." And they are not likely to be any time soon.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"To get a sense of just how difficult pursuing this goal would be, consider that the economic disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 yielded a record drop of only 4.4 percent in global greenhouse gas emissions—along with a 3.4 percent fall in global gross domestic product."
don't worry fauci is fast at work on creating an airborne version of ebola
I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and Qd straightforward don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me....
This SITE....> http://Www.Bizwork1.com
Wasn’t there something going on in Paris? Or was that just another “local story,”
No UN monster climate rally is complete without people in polar bear suits.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/01/friends-vloggers-congressmen-switch-off.html
Fuck off an die, you fake link posting faggot
Do you really expect the global political-media-infotainment complex to report on sedition (unless it furthers The Agenda)?
Great question to put to an AI. Get back to us with its answer.
From time to time they've had protests from the "yellow vests" over implementation of the "carbon tax" that's part of compliance with their precious "accords".
It might be a good thing for Joe Biden that he's lacking the cognitive capacity to see his "Big Fucking Deal" ultimately amount to virtually nothing.
Gee, it's almost like it's a scam meant to extract money from developed countries and Bailey is all in on being scammed.
Isnt just about money but also control. EU was talking about allowing only a single airplane trip for each citizen in their life*
*your betters will be exempt
TBF you only need one trip to emigrate to someplace that isn't a totalitarian hellhole on par with the EU, like NK.
The targets discussed in the article have nothing to do with "extracting money from developed countries"; they are strictly about countries' commitments to reduce their own emissions.
Still, this lack of progress was utterly predictable (as I had utterly predicted years ago). The world cannot and will not ever work together in the fashion necessary to accomplish the lofty climate goals allegedly required to save the planet from Armageddon. This report is just superfluous evidence thereof. It is time to admit that the goals will never be met, not matter how many "tipping points" are surpassed, forgotten about and regurgitated.
The climate does appear to be changing, however, so any money spent by governments on the environment should probably be redirected towards mitigation, rather than thrown away on meeting climate goals which will never be met.
I don't see any reason why the West shouldn't try to help developing nations which cannot mitigate expected climate effects themselves, but any attempt to cast this as "reparations" is as doomed to fail as the last one was.
Does it, now?
Climate is always changing. There has been a gradual overall warming trend since the little ice age. I'd say the question of whether human activity is a significant contributor is still largely an open question.
Science found out that heat is always being captured by atmospheric carbon dioxide long before Einstein was born, and its concentration has been increasingly raised by human activity ever since the Industrial Revolution.
I'd say you're begging the question.
I'd say you're (again) ignoring the fact that terrestrial climate is dominated by the water cycle and that known feedbacks (which occur at all scales) swamp the measured CO2 effect discovered by Arrhenius.
Yes, humans are putting incremental CO2 into the atmosphere. Yes, CO2 in isolation acts as a greenhouse gas. It does not, however, automatically follow that the incremental CO2 will increase temperatures in the real world.
That's idiotic.
Let's see your references for what you preach.
Then let's see your models that have been accurate.
Since you are supposed to be smart, then you know you create a theory based on facts, unlike Climate Change who tries to make facts fit their theory.
BTW, why did you and yours change to Climate Change from AGW? So you can say your always right.
What a well-sourced and articulate rebuttal! Is that you, Prof Mann? It certainly reads like your work.
By the way, how's your lawsuit going?
"Let’s see your references for what you preach."
Start here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
You'll also find a few thousand of the funnier examples of gonzo & scientifically illiterate climate denial curated here:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com
So you've got nothing. Got it.
Mann was in court in DC. when I wrote that earlier today.
As to the basic science just linked, since you display a Reasonable understanding of isostasy, there's really no excuse for you pretending to have flunked radiative equilibrium
Yes and Mann has been trounce as an evil retarded bully. The only way he wins is that it's a new york jury
“Science found out”? If you are going to congratulate yourself for being all smart and sciency, at least don't say retarded things like that.
But, but . . . he's a physicist!
My humble superstition is physics.
What is yours?
What is yours?
Rational thought.
If human activity was a significant contributor, all those ancient cities around the Mediterranean would not have been underwater for several thousand years.
I mean, there's a lot more to it but think about it: The ocean was low enough for those cities to be above water for at least hundreds, if not thousands of years before sinking. There is no cause whatsoever to believe that had anything to do with mankind, so why is it suddenly a sane position to blame mankind for a process that is obviously driven by the sun itself along with the axial tilt of the planet?
Same goes for those 'famine' stones buried in rivers in the EU. The idea that those were needed because of mankinds effect on the environment is laughable, yet those same stones appearing now is considered to be largely attributed to man.
It's actually insane. Real pollution exists, maybe focus on that instead of a necessary trace gas.
Real pollution exists, maybe focus on that instead of a necessary trace gas.
^
In fairness, some of those sunken cities are the result of land subsidence (because of shifting tectonic plates, compaction of underlying soil, etc) and not merely because of aggregate sea level changes.
Perhaps so, earthquakes are at least theoretically responsible for many of them, but the fact remains that there are a whole lot of sunken cities along the coasts of the EU (especially around Greece) and they are not all the result of any of those factors.
Pavlopetri, for example, is thought to have sunk due to earthquakes yet it is almost entirely intact. A curious phenomena for sure.
Venice and New Orleans are sinking and has nothing to do with climate change and rising sea water. There's nothing that can prevent NOLA from sliding off into the Gulf of Mexico. Venice can only be saved by building and maintaining a giant sea wall surrounding it but it still will sink.
If you go back to early bronze age, sea levels were definitely still rising from the last big glaciation events. But unless they are much older than thought, I think that something more than sea level rise has to be involved. The large scale changes in sea levels in human history and late pre-history are pretty well understood I think.
I'm familiar with the arguments, I'm just not knowledgeable enough to be certain.
I completely agree with the last part, though. Even is human activity is a significant contributor to warming, readily available energy is such a critical thing for human development an wellbeing that making energy less reliable or more expensive is just going to be a disaster. Much better to deal with actual toxic pollution and save resources so we can adapt, as we always have done, when things inevitably do change.
Next we're going to blame the drying up of the Sahara on the industrial revolution.
The targets discussed in the article have nothing to do with “extracting money from developed countries”; they are strictly about countries’ commitments to reduce their own emissions.
[...]
I don’t see any reason why the West shouldn’t try to help developing nations which cannot mitigate expected climate effects themselves
They is wrong.
I don't know if you're aware, but wealthy countries have often given money (mysteriously called "foreign aid") to poorer countries. Why wouldn't they do so for poorer countries suffering from climate change?
Why wouldn’t they do so for poorer countries suffering from climate change?
Do they do so out of an altruistic sense of charity, or because there is some advantage in it for them?
It's a way to keep those countries under the thumb of the American hegemony, more or less. Don't let them develop using technologies that we, and other industrialized nations, used to get where we are.
Instead, force them to use intermittent energy production which de facto keeps them trapped in a permanent 'developing' economy and thus dependent on us and other nations like us. If they happen to wander off the reservation, those payments stop and suddenly they are in crisis.
It's control, plain and simple. We pay them off so they will do what we want. It's such an old strategy at this point that it's amazing people don't see it for what it is.
More or less. Either we do it or China does it...
In any case, I didn't say we should do it, just that we probably would do it, based on our current practices.
Is Switzerland suffering from Climate change? Because the money given to poorer countries ends up in their banks.
“A job not worth doing, is not worth doing well.”
-a great scholar I knew
Can't bring myself to give a shit.
Moar testing needed!
But first, let's govern even harder.
The solution won't be govts or elites agreeing or meeting. Or anything agreed to or understood by old farts.
The solution will be a currency backed by fossil fuels that remain in the ground - that becomes the reserve currency for the yoots. If they can figure that out and/or get off their phones
Why would you create a currency based on "leaving fuels in the ground". That presumes that fossil fuels are an automatic negative for humanity.
Economics today doesn’t value ‘saving’ resources for future consumption. It only values extracting (nb – that means extracting not producing because resources cannot be produced) and consuming them. That is what has created the ‘climate’ problem here. We have extracted and combusted millions of years worth of sequestered carbon over two hundred or so years. And there is no way of resolving that climate problem within a framework that doesn’t value resources available for the future.
A currency that does value those ‘resources for future use’ would also provide a price mechanism so the market can make those decisions. It’s not that fossil fuels are an ‘automatic negative’. It’s that combusting/using fossil fuels does have an automatic COST in the form of depreciating that currency.
The US dollar in particular really is the worst possible ‘reserve currency’ for that because at core the dollar is backed not by oil itself but by protecting the oceanic transport of that oil for consumption (and houses I guess).
Everyone knows that the only solution to atmospheric carbon is to reduce fossil fuel combustion. Period. The only way for a market/pricing system to do that is for that to be priced somehow. And not via a govt- price for carbon credits and such which is pure cronyism.
Economics today doesn’t value ‘saving’ resources for future consumption. It only values extracting...
It's almost as if future value, much like the overall amount of fossil fuels that exist, is impossible to calculate thus it's entirely moot.
It's as if JFree is telling us that we should value buggy whips at a premium going into the future because they were valuable in 1800. Obviously, value doesn't change over time and technology never improves or drastically changes the way we live and work.
HTTP Status 204: Comment has no content
Tell me, what will be the value of a buggy whip in 2050? We can certainly calculate what it costs, but what would it sell for?
What is the value of a dollar in 2050?
Economics today doesn’t value ‘saving’ resources for future consumption. It only values extracting (nb – that means extracting not producing because resources cannot be produced) and consuming them.
Economics values the demand we have for said resources. That's how markets work. That's like saying "economics doesn't value not producing food, it only values growing it and feeding people".
Now, if you just magically believe that there's some inherent moral good in not using the resources that are in demand, sure, then implement all the carbon/futures/five-year-plan systems you want and watch just how that works out for you, and the last 10,000 regimes that tried it.
No it doesn't. If we valued the reserves of oil as an asset, then the four biggest currency 'issuers' of a currency backed by that asset would be Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Iran. Those are the four countries that could contribute the most to reducing atmospheric carbon by simply not combusting it and leaving it in the ground. They would not be forced (or find any benefit whatsoever) to denominate their oil sales in dollars. There would be no possible sanctions against them because they would possess the financial power that currently rests with the US. Instead two of them are totally tied up in sanctions and one of the others only has power as the swing producer.
It’s not an asset if you can’t use it for anything.
Thus demonstrating your ignorance of economics, history, and reality, all in one. Pretty clever!
One would ask how much fossil fuel is actually in the ground, but then JFree has never cared if a question is impossible to answer before. Why start now?
In a world full of economic geology journals and 3-D stratigraphers , what makes you think it impossible?
Plus - 'it changes over time' is exactly how resources/reserves are currently valued by oil companies today and how 'currency values' can fluctuate over time.
Good, its bad enough politicians waste money on the conferences. Hell, would follow if they were able to make good on them.
Asking the population of the world to deliberately impoverish themselves was always a near impossible thing to accomplish.
"Man-made climate change could become a significant problem for humanity . . . "
Not at all.
But government responses to the threat of global climate warming change may lead to world wide revolutions and the massacre of fascists.
That might be the best case scenario at this point.
What's really going to bake your noodle later on is... imagine for a moment that Man-made climate change becomes a significant problem for humanity over the course of this century *because* we campaign to develop and deploy low- and no-emissions technologies.
Never underestimate geo-engineering nutjobs ability to actually bring about the apocalypse they are ostensibly trying to avoid.
That's my actual fear. I'm not convinced they could actually fuck up the planet on a scale that matters, at least not long enough to make it an irreversible change, but why roll the dice on something like that when you don't actually have to.
It doesn't even have to be geo-engineering.
Scare half the population into not reproducing, force the other half to adopt all-electric appliances, force half between them to use EVs that cause rolling black outs, cut corners that generate massive wildfires.
Whatever the future may hold, the subsequent generation and almost certainly generation*s* will be far less well off than the current one.
"Man-made climate change could become a significant problem for humanity over the course of this century, so it is reasonable to develop and deploy low- and no-emissions technologies."
No, you fucktard. Actual science is not based on "could", like some teen drama or courtroom argument. Science is based on data and probability. And economics is based on costs and benefits.
So first tell us, what do good data and analyses tell us about the likelihood that climate change will cause "significant" problems, what are the economic impacts of these potential problems, and how much will it cost, both out of pocket and in what you want us to give up. Oh, if you have any pretense as a libertarian, how can you accomplish all of this without dictating rules?
We could do what we have always done, adapt.
It's hard to come up with the probability when you can't create a good model.
Seems to me "could" is all about probability.
No, could is about possibility. So when a lawyer argues about a hypothetical he/she seldom worries about likelihood. As they might say, anything is possible.
But if a phenomenon has only a 0.0001 probability, it is very unlikely, even though it "could" happen.
Fair enough. Just saying "could" without any further explanation of actual probability does leave you room to just go with the least probable thing.
There's a lot buried in that "no progress made" claim. While maybe true in aggregate, there was one outstanding success. The US dramatically lowered its CO2 emissions during the period. They did it primarily by switching from coal to natural gas.
So of course the climate catastrophists have now pivoted to demonizing natural gas. Yes, they are quite literally trying to outlaw the only success in their crusade. I'd like to say that "it's almost as if ..." but in fact it's transparently obvious that they have no interest in actually reducing emissions.
^This exactly.
And despite China and India continuing to build coal fired power plants both at home and in other countries, it's all America's fault.
Are China and India still part of the Globe?
More specifically, it's all Trump/MAGA's fault.
Such a tedious and boring diversion. Nations do not really have much impact on fuel combustion (outside military stuff). People do. And the reality is that fossil fuel combustion growth is quite unequal within nations. The biggest reason why 'national'/governmental solutions are crap. The poorest 50% of the world has been responsible for 16% of emissions growth since 1990 - the richest 1% has been responsible for 23%. And unlike 1990, the biggest differences now are within countries not between countries.
Further, the increase by the richest 1% is not mainly due to their direct consumption (flying to Davos to yap about climate). Rather it is due to their INVESTMENT decisions. Moving high combustion from rich country A to poor country B. IOW - it is globalization that is the current source of the problem because it is simply focused on moving the source of combustion from one place to a cheaper place rather than focusing on improving the efficiency of combustion or on changing the import/export carbon profile of the goods produced outside the final destination of those goods (ie the 'comparative advantage' of 'combustion efficiency').
On the bright side - because these are basically monetary decisions among those who have money, the solutions are very achievable.
On the down side - because those who have money also have the power to resist all change, the solutions are highly corruptible.
The biggest reason why ‘national’/governmental solutions are crap.
Would this be a non-government/national solution to "create a currency based on resources 'left in the ground'"?
That currency is effectively a war by the yoots against the oldsters. Their usage of that currency (and the inevitable demise of oldsters) is what will achieve the climate results. This is not one nation v another. This is intergenerational.
A study in Science published in December also reported that the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were this high was 14 million years ago.
LOL... Remember all those polluting industries plants 14-millions years ago?
Yeah; Me neither....
F'En retarded environmentalists.
Watch as Reason start turning into a leftard indoctrination rag.
And it was 4000-6000 ppm (10-15 times as high) during the dinosaur ages. This was obviously because dinosaurs were so big, factories had to be bigger to match, and they spewed that much more CO2 into the atmosphere. I wish someone would do some research on what fossil fuels they were burning and how they recovered from having tipped into a Venus-style runaway greenhouse effect.
Remember how much coal older than 14 million years the Industrial Revolution burned in its first century, and how many times world population has doubled since then?
Those who refuse to do arithmetic are doomed to believe nonsense.
In what way is throwing soup on a painting of the Mona Lisa arithmetic?
Ask Extinction Rebellion
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/01/progress-in-arts-continues.html
Having spent my career in the geological sciences doing analyses that are closely related to looking at ancient CO2 levels, I’ll say that the numbers being release are robust and (with the proper equipment and methods) easily reproduced.
HOWEVER, data is one thing, its mis-use for shock value and political reasons is quite another.
Quite.
Houu do you know you weren't led by mis represented or false data?
At some point, one has to look at the totality of the system in question and make a judgement call if all of the data going into the model are generally compatible. I believe that the portion of the data that I have contributed are sound. Related data generated by labs (that I often know professionally) that back up higher CO2 over time seem to work well with my own numbers. Therefore, I accept that CO2 has been many times higher than 200 ppm in the past. And, anyone with the samples, training and equipment could come up with their own data if they really wanted to be sure for themselves.
Yes, at some point it does come down to trust, but you would have to fudge a huge amount of work, in many dozens of labs worldwide, to start to get a different answer about such a basic quantity as the levels of CO2 at 10 or 50 or 250 million years ago. The conspiracy would be so large as to encompass essentially all of biogeochemistry, including the work done by oil companies, who would certainly have little benefit in going along with the plot.
I think you misunderstood the point of TJJ's comment. No one disputes that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising. The point of the comment is that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen in the past at times when human industry could not possibly have been the causative agent.
That fact challenges the dual assertions that 1) the current atmospheric CO2 increase could only be from human causes and not from, say, oceanic outgassing as the planet continues to emerge from the last ice age and 2) that increasing atmospheric CO2 will necessarily result in catastrophic climate change.
Natural history happens to include phenomena that sporadically release stuff in scary quantities, which has precisely nothing to do with humans doing it on purpose.
Go back to Gondwana and you're effectively talking about a different planet with, no surprise , different geophysical equilibria
Go troll an underwater volcano.
Ah, yes, climate change.
The new, improved and sanitized version of the old shell game called, " The Redistribution of Wealth Scheme for Our Own Good."
Actually, it's the latest version of "The priesthood has determined that the gods are angry, and you must give the king all your stuff". That goes back at least 100,000 years.
It is being exploited, obviously. By the same people who used to march for nuclear disarmament (before they forgot about that "imminent" danger--which, by the way has not changed) and other leftist causes.
But that doesn't mean the climate isn't changing now.
But that doesn’t mean the climate isn’t changing now.
But it does mean that the extent of the problem is greatly exaggerated and that the solutions proposed are guaranteed to be ineffective, expensive, and tailored to amplify government power.
I couldn't agree more.
re: " that doesn’t mean the climate isn’t changing now"
A fair point. So let's look at how much it's being changed. If you take the climate change advocates at their word, we're looking at about a 2 C increase in average temperatures. For context, that's roughly the equivalent of moving 200 miles south of wherever you are now. If you live in Pittsburgh, that's Roanoke. Philadelphia to Richmond, Detroit to Columbus, Chicago to St Louis, Atlanta of Jacksonville, Dallas to San Antonio, Las Vegas to Tucson.
And that's if their predictions are accurate.
And we're going to find out if they are accurate, because nothing will be done anyway.
And Miami to hell.
That's only a half mile or so South...
Between 2016 and 2020 (most recent years I have numbers for), for every pound of total CO2 emission reductions in the US, Japan, Germany and India (!) combined, China increased emissions by 1.36 pounds (and China, Saudi Arabia and Iran in total increased by 1.49 pounds). Accounting for population changes, US reduced 10% per capita while China increased by 12%.
Emperor Winnie Xi Pooh has got to be laughing himself silly at us trashing our economy while he gets a free pass because he rules a "developing country".
What is curtailing emissions supposed to solve, anyway?
The theory is that doing so will magically reverse global warming. It's a theory a bit short on detail, however.
Which is entirely defeated by the WWII era in which more CO2 was dumped and global temperatures went down more than ever before.
Yes, and your atmospheric science credentials are...?
You're a believer; I'm agnostic.
Study finds climate change alarmists need to chill the fuck out.
https://twitter.com/StudyFindsorg/status/1582047810622324736
"Man-made climate change could become a significant problem for humanity over the course of this century, so it is reasonable to develop and deploy low- and no-emissions technologies."
Oh, look who drank the global warming koolaid! Nobody on this earth knows whether global warming is causing cee-oh-two to rise or whether anthropogenic fossil fuel burning is causing global climate to warm. But by all means swallow the official narrative hook, line and sinker that whatever problem there might be is de facto man-made.
And even if it's true that fossil fuel burning for energy is contributing to global warming, there is no reason to believe that even draconian energy use lockdowns will slow global warming, or that the economic disaster that will almost certainly ensue won't be worse than the global warming will be. Oh, my people! Check your brains at the door.
But Bailey is a SCIENCE correspondent.
There's a lot more evidence "that fossil fuel burning for energy is contributing to global warming" than "even draconian energy use lockdowns will slow global warming". For that reason, the only response warranted at this point is research into how we might best adapt to the apparently changing climate and mitigate the worst effects.
The Paris Agreement aims to hold the global average temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius relative to preindustrial levels.
Vote for Democrat and they will command the sea's to lower and the temperature to change!
Vote for Republicans and Gaia will be displeased and she will kill you where you stand!
Does this religious nonsense play well outside of the ultra-young retard demographic?
People are dying!
What about the future of our children?!?!
Ron, CO2 is such a concern that they all flew to United Nations' 28th Climate Change Conference (COP28) on private jets.
Finally, there is a thing called Teams or Zoom out there that us ordinary people use for meetings.
If the problem is so real, why aren't the betters showing by example.
Here in the emerald city the local hockey team plays in the “climate pledge arena”. Sports teams and entertainers flying in from all over the world and tens of thousands of people driving to see them play doesn’t really square with pledging to cut down on emissions, but whatever.
It’s almost like naming a huge spending bill “The inflation reduction act”. Haha. Fuck these pandering clowns. They have no one to blame but themselves for people not believing them.
You do realize that everything at Davos is webcast ?
These articles carefully avoid naming names, instead, just blame everyone. However, if you look at CO2 emissions from the EU they have been lowering since 1990. The UK dropping since 1990, Japan in 2013, Korea since 2018, Sweden since 1979. Add the US and they have been lowering since 2005. Yet if you look at world CO2 emissions there is no slowing down of CO2 levels despite all the drops from all these countries.
How much of that change has been simply the richer countries outsourcing pollution/combustion to other countries - and importing the products made by that pollution/combustion? Basically moving to a service economy but still buying stuff that's now made in China/etc rather than made at home.
Approximately none. The majority of fossil fuel consumption is power generation and transportation - both factors that are independent of manufacturing and are not materially affected by outsourcing. Looking at the trends in the US, the dominant factor in our reduction was the migration from coal to natural gas. There was no material reduction in US aggregate manufacturing over the period of the US CO2-emission reduction.
Wrong- see Jesse Ausabel's work, e.g
https://phe.rockefeller.edu/PDF_FILES/oakridge.pdf
"While global temperatures vary depending on natural phenomena..." You mean like the Hunga-Tonga volcanic eruption that is raising temperatures 1.5C by itself? https://www.carbonbrief.org/tonga-volcano-eruption-raises-imminent-risk-of-temporary-1-5c-breach/
Ah the pointless arguments between people people for whom there will always be another specious reason to handwave away anthropogenic climate change and those who who are under the impression they can be reasoned with. Almost as much fun as watching the arguments between climate doomists who think we'll all be dead in 100 years and those under the impression they can be reasoned with. Equally pointless just two sides of the same coin.
But what I'm disappointed by is Reason failing to even mention all the ways in which we aren't meeting emission reductions because governments get in the way. How they hinder decarbonizing our energy supply, making it harder to maintain and expand access to abundant reasonably priced energy. From the burdensome excessive and deliberately obstructive U.S. NRC making nuclear power excessively overpriced (and distorting prices by subsidizing some but not all low carbon energy) and blocking deployment of advanced generation reactors, small modular reactors, even ones that could be dropped into existing coal boilers. To the regulations used by 'yes, but not here' environmentalists blocking pumped water grid storage, critical power transmission lines, windfarms, geothermal power (especially evil new methods derived from gasp! fracking, that could make geothermal practical across much of the U.S.), and more with endless regulatory delay. To protectionism over photovolteic panels, wind turbines and other corporate welfare holding us back. There are so many ways that governments have gotten in the way of the very changes they pledged to make, Reason could replace every word of this article with them and there would still be more.
Put down the doomerism pipe and tell us about steps consistent with libertarian priniciples that can help. How we can decarbonize energy production and decouple growth from carbon emissions by getting government out of the way?
Maybe it will even help get some libertarians to put down the denial pipe. Because the last thing liberty needs when reality becomes increasingly unavoidable, is for voices advocating authoritarianism and government control to be seen as the only ones fighting anthropogenic climate change because we refused to step up. And are easily painted as the problem not the solution, because we were.
Nice Blog
It's disheartening to see that there has been no significant progress on global emissions, even eight years after the Paris Climate Agreement. It emphasizes the urgency for more effective actions and international cooperation to address this critical issue. The lack of progress is a cause for concern, and it's essential for policymakers and communities to reassess and intensify their efforts in combating climate change. The need for sustainable solutions and a renewed commitment to reduce emissions is evident for the well-being of our planet and future generations.
app developers in coimbatore
ios app development company in coimbatore