US undermining 'last chance' climate talks, experts charge

US undermining 'last chance' climate talks, experts charge

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/10/world/climate-change-us-coal-cop24/index.html

Katowice, Poland (CNN)The American delegation came to promote coal.

And the kids laughed in their faces.That was the bizarre and symbolic scene that unfolded Monday at the UN COP24 climate talks at a spaceship-shaped conference center in Polish coal country.The nations of the world are meeting here to hash out a "rulebook" to help ensure the viability of humanity -- preventing runaway global warming from causing even greater calamity in the form of superstorms, searing droughts and deadly heat waves.Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts warnThat work, which follows up on the 2015 Paris Agreement, is seen as more critical now than ever. A damning report from the United Nations this fall said there's only about a decade left to avoid the worst of climate change. The message: cut fossil fuel pollution to "net zero" in just a few decades.Yet the United States held a discussion on Monday that was meant, among other things, to "showcase ways to use fossil fuels as cleanly and efficiently as possible."Vic Barrett says US energy policy is "a joke."Vic Barrett, a 19-year-old college student in Wisconsin, was among those who decided that was too much to take. She and dozens of other protestors erupted in mock laughter as Preston Wells Griffith, an official at the US Department of Energy, spoke about how fossil fuels "will continue to play a role" in the global energy picture. They temporarily stopped the US-led discussion, shouting, "shame on you!" and "keep it in the ground!" -- a reference to fossil fuels that they say should be left unearthed."It's so ridiculous. It's a joke," Barrett said of US energy policy. "We're done listening to false solutions [like the promotion of coal] and things we know don't work.

"Elections have consequences".

"White House representatives arrive at climate talks in Poland on Monday to promote coal and other fossil fuels."

lol wtf?

Coal isn't even viable from a general free market standpoint thanks to natural gas, much less from the perspective of climate change. We've gone full retard by promoting it.

Natural gas doesn't output enough which is why power companies are over extended with nuclear power.

Yeah, the party in charge is full of sociopaths. We know already.

Sometimes it seems like there's people actively going out of their way to screw over the planet. Coal, really? Wtf.

Now the future makes more sense. Because of the global warming, climate change and whatnot, rising tensions all over the world and economic disability in the upcoming decade, especially in the USA, which describes itself as worse than the 2008 Recession, we going the the "de-evolution" of the American society.

america is going to reach its peak than after that will all go downhill from that.

The last chance until the next chance.

Precisely.

Huh? Was there a major consensus in the past the Earth would be in peril with no options left by now, or whatever you are insinuating? Link? Seems like a straw-man to lessen these fact based studies and reports.

I guess that's one way to argue against the unarguable overwhelming data, by posting vague memes.

What the science says...

Global surface temperature measurements fall within the range of IPCC projections.

Climate Myth...

IPCC global warming projections were wrong

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm

Conclusion

Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

Climate models are complex because of the all the elements that are in flux within Earth’s systems. If our atmosphere was like the moon’s, climate modeling would be fairly easy because the moon barely has an atmosphere. On Earth, climate scientists must account for temperature fluctuations, wind patterns, ocean currents, land surface characteristics and much more. Because of this, the models always consider some level of uncertainty – but models measuring smaller areas with higher resolutions produce more accurate models. Despite a small amount of uncertainty, scientists find climate models of the 21st century to be pretty accurate because they are based on well-founded physical principles of earth system processes. This basis solidifies the confidence of the scientific community that human emissions are changing the climate, which will impact the entire planet.

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/05/18/climate-models-accuracy/

The Trump administration should probably not try to undermine 13 Federal Agencies, NASA, and NAS by putting on coal comedy shows at Climate Summits and having the entire world laugh at us.

As for these new predictions by the above agencies, even the lowest temperature scenario/model used is bad for Earth. If you disagree feel free to show me which page of the most recent 1600 pages report (and 400 of volume I) are incorrect with peer-reviewed citation. Thank you.

As the wise philosopher Ben Shapiro once said, facts don't care about your feelings. Your "side" is categorically wrong on this issue.

Talk about overreaction. I'm on record (won't speak for vl4d_l3nin) that anthropogenic climate change is supported by scientific evidence.

This is the "last chance" to talk or do something about climate change until the next conference they decide to hold. There will always be a last chance until just about they decide there isn't a chance anymore.

Was reading an AP story on presidential hopefuls and the New Green Deal and I was like "well this sounds interesting but where are the details" and then I read this sentence:

The Green New Deal deliberately omits details on how to reorient the United States toward the drastic carbon emissions reductions it calls for, instead calling for a select committee in the House to devise a plan by 2020.

I mean, they are calling for "nationwide transition to 100 percent power from renewable sources within as little as 10 years".

Yet: "It’s a shift from where Democrats laid down their symbolic markers on climate change as recently as last year. Sanders and Booker, as well as potential presidential hopeful Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., introduced legislation then that aimed to shift the nation to 100 percent renewable and clean energy sources by 2050".

Last year the ambition, "symbolic" I might add, from some of the most liberal senators in the United States was to shift the nation to 100 percent renewable and clean energy sources by 2050. A year later that timeline has been compressed by possibly 20 years, yet no details are available on how to "reorient" the United States toward the "drastic" carbon emissions reductions.

I'm eagerly awaiting that 2020 House plan.

I would rather hope they introduce a carbon tax on big polluters to price in negative externalities with a dividend toward the public.

@zaryia said:

US undermining 'last chance' climate talks, experts charge

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/10/world/climate-change-us-coal-cop24/index.html

Katowice, Poland (CNN)The American delegation came to promote coal.

And the kids laughed in their faces.That was the bizarre and symbolic scene that unfolded Monday at the UN COP24 climate talks at a spaceship-shaped conference center in Polish coal country.The nations of the world are meeting here to hash out a "rulebook" to help ensure the viability of humanity -- preventing runaway global warming from causing even greater calamity in the form of superstorms, searing droughts and deadly heat waves.Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts warnThat work, which follows up on the 2015 Paris Agreement, is seen as more critical now than ever. A damning report from the United Nations this fall said there's only about a decade left to avoid the worst of climate change. The message: cut fossil fuel pollution to "net zero" in just a few decades.Yet the United States held a discussion on Monday that was meant, among other things, to "showcase ways to use fossil fuels as cleanly and efficiently as possible."Vic Barrett says US energy policy is "a joke."Vic Barrett, a 19-year-old college student in Wisconsin, was among those who decided that was too much to take. She and dozens of other protestors erupted in mock laughter as Preston Wells Griffith, an official at the US Department of Energy, spoke about how fossil fuels "will continue to play a role" in the global energy picture. They temporarily stopped the US-led discussion, shouting, "shame on you!" and "keep it in the ground!" -- a reference to fossil fuels that they say should be left unearthed."It's so ridiculous. It's a joke," Barrett said of US energy policy. "We're done listening to false solutions [like the promotion of coal] and things we know don't work.

"Elections have consequences".

"White House representatives arrive at climate talks in Poland on Monday to promote coal and other fossil fuels."

lol wtf?

I wonder if they are going to show them that AWFUL article, that a user here linked to us.

As another used pointed out, Coal isnt even economically viable anymore from a free market capitalist standpoint. Keeping it around is nothing more than tribalist, gotta do the opposite of the opposition.

Which is why, I, despite my liberal leanings are not too keen on the green party.

Going carbon neutral is a great idea, but there is no magic fairy dust of renewable energy, there are challenges that need to be worked out such as better storage methods. While it is possible for the US to eventually go fully carbon neutral, it wont happen until at least the late 21st century. My country, sweden can do it earlier, but that is because of its geography, much smaller population density and the fact that we invested in renewables much earlier than the US.

The green party is simply put, being unrealistic.

Edit: That said, the US needs to reduce its emissions. The republicans, by promoting coal seem to be trying to do the oppsosite.

It won't be possible to go 100% carbon neutral in the forseeable future because of energy density.

Any tasks that require high energy density(mining, space, etc) will require high energy density sources.

Improving technology and infrastructure should make it possible for the US, if they put the effort in. To achieve it by the next century.

And I am fairly optimistic my country will reach its climate goals to become carbon neutral by 2045... it already surpassed its goals.

Listen I'm not saying that you couldn't put a huge dent in Carbon emissions.

What I'm telling you is that some activities require energy density that renewables just can't provide it. It's not a problem of will, it's a problem of physics.

Do you really think solar panels are going to power a rocket into space?

The US has shown that any attempt at a 'bottom down' shift in policy won't work. A carbon tax won't pass and businesses will decry having to reduce shareholder returns due to pollution. Let's be real, it doesn't matter what will be in the 2020 House plan since it won't be passable given the political divide.

I'm more optimistic about a bottom up approach to solving the issue where we start small, not by some mandate ordered down. We've shifted quite a bit over the last couple of decades so it's not a question of IF but WHEN. Trump and team Coal are simply delaying an inevitability.

yup. even the best batteries in existence are still at the bottom of the list. then again, rocket launches aren't exactly a widespread use case. but the point remains. fossil fuels are incredible at storing energy and are not something that are easily replaced.

Terrible example, my country doesnt fire rockets into space. And so far, I dont think anything in my country is in particularly large need for fossil fuels, nothing that can't be worked out.

One of the last major hurdles at this point is storage. As of 2016 56% of all energy we consume is from renewable sources. Issues remain with heating and transportation. But I am sure, that within 3 decades (which is a lot of time, especially considering tech advances faster and faster), something will be worked out.

It's the power of capitalism.

Edit: Made a few changes to the data, to be more honest. 80% of my country's electricity comes from nuclear and hydroelectric.

You are doing better than Norway. Ours are still increasing... Granted we have enough hydropower to power all the electricity our houses and industry uses.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/30/life-on-earth-was-nearly-doomed-by-too-little-co2/

ok..

and what does that little bit of information mean for us or this point?

That's literally a conspiracy blog.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

Nor does that particular article disprove CC or AGW.

https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

what does the 'earth was nearly doomed' because of low C02 have anything at all whatsoever to do with the question of too much?

also..earth will be fine, its life on earth that is the question...derp

CO2 is not the cause of climate change.

that would not be evidence of that claim. in fact its hard to even draw a line between 'planet nearly doomed for not enough' to 'CO2 is not the cause of climate change' the two do not work together.

you need calcium, but you can die from too much, so you are going to have to try harder

Nearly the entire field of science studying this disagrees with you.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

he thinks that if the body cant survive without calories then that means by logic there is no upper limit to calories.

this is his challenge to science...lol

In science, there are constants that never change and the outcome is always the same. Using this fact you should always get the same result with the amount of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. That is not the case. It was because of that fact that global warming was changed to climate change because the science did not support that premise. We have now gone from climate change to severe climate change.

Your example of calories proves my point about constants in science.

ok lets review.

he is saying....

because you cant live without calories that it means you can consume as many calories as possible and never die.

in most things there is a lower AND and upper limit. not having a lower limit is not the requirement for a upper limit to not exist. that is silly

Nothing you are saying is correct.

The science and evidence all disagrees with you.

And nobody was surprised.

Some real dumb posts in this thread. Of course renewables can't take a rocket to space but that has nothing to do with energy efficiency and everything to do with thrust. I mean even a nulear reactor that has about 8 million times more energy on a per gram basis than the most dense fossil fuel isn't going to take you to space, because it doesn't provide thrust.

I'm not even a physicist and have basic level of education in the subject but I can tell you that much. The level of education in the US is seriously lacking and although it's mostly on the right wing side, there's tons of dumb folk on the left too.

Why can't a renewable source of power provide thrust?

@mattbbpl:

If you're talking about biofuels then technically yeah those can give you thrust and also can be thought of as renewables. But direct solar power, or wind or even nuclear isn't going to give you thrust.

You've just gotta convert the energy.

If carbon dioxide was the cause of global warming, climate change, and any other malady involving the weather the outcome would always be the same when carbon dioxide increases in PPM or decreases. That is not the case, ice core samples proved the for the past eons, and when Al Gore got his Nobel Peace for his movie and saying the planet had a fever temperature statics revealed the planet was not warming and was actually slightly lower. If the science methods used to prove carbon dioxide is the cause of climate change humans would not have been able to go into space or develop any modern convivence. The are laws in science that will not change.

@zaryia: So now Polen is last chance, what were Copenhagen and Paris then? the last chance before the last chance before the last chance. And then I am not even mentioning the climate summits before Bonn, Montreal, Bali and Kyoto

"https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32399909"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6701307/Copenhagen-summit-is-last-chance-to-save-the-planet-Lord-Stern.html

CNN does not miss a beat in their attempt to make anything and everything about Trump. While missing that every time there is a summit the "experts" come out with Last chance and since CPH where UN came out with "this is the last chance, and we really mean it this time"

Could you provide some links to back up your claims here?

But Trump's position on climate change is objectively the incorrect one. What else can they report when his administration does and says incorrect things on Climate Change?

To be clear, you do accept the latest climate reports (which these summits use), and scientific consensus on AGW, correct? You seem very wishy washy on this. I want to hear your say it.

The reports these summits are based on have been accurate so far. They keep saying "last chance" because it keeps getting worse. They don't want it to get worse at all.

Well, this is not about Trump and his position, since he clearly is talking against the scientific community. Which I have zero problems with, Humans def. have been a factor in climate change.

My problem is your thread and CNN´s spin, where CNN make this seem like the world is going to burn and Trump is standing with the match. When experts since the first climate summit have been out with "last chance" warnings

It might already be to late for the Greenland ice.

Source

In Greenland, the effects of climate change are quickly proving to be drastic and irreversible. Greenland’s coastal glaciers and ice caps have officially melted past the point of no return. That’s right, past the proverbial tipping point, Greenland’s ice is quickly and significantly melting. Now, if this were due to a freak heat wave and conditions returned to normal, it is theoretically possible that the ice would return. But, scientists agree that in current conditions and predicted future conditions, it is incredibly unlikely that this would ever happen.

Now, while there is no dire immediate catastrophe following this news, it is definitely not something to ignore. If these glaciers were to melt fully (researchers predict they will be gone by 2100) they would raise sea levels drastically, by 3.8 cm (1.5 inches). Of course, other large formations of ice will also continue to melt and add to this rising, but that 3.8 cm alone could yield serious consequences.

Of course he can't. But I'm curious to see what garbage he posts. I'm betting on a blog from the 'Americanthinker'?

READ THIS PART CAREFULLY

if you do not have enough calories you die

if you have too much calories you die

that is true for almost everything.

so evidence that not enough CO2 is deadly is not evidence that there is not an upper limit as well