They say that Sarcasm is the lowest for of wit.
Well if so, we should all be showering large doses of it on the recent UN Climate Change Summit in New York the first such meeting on climate in five years.
The World leaders held back on making new commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions or to give significant climate finance to developing countries, leaving it to business, cities and campaign groups to produce the real action on climate.
Because our world leaders who were present at the Summit once again showed their in dept knowledge of the Defining problem facing the world. Climate Change.
Those who were not present obviously had more pressing engagements.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi India and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the heads of the world’s two most populous nations. In empirical terms, it’s hard to think of two more important leaders in the world right now: Together they lead more than 2.5 billion people, more than a third of the world’s population. They also were the first- and third-biggest producers of carbon dioxide emissions (the United States holds the No. 2 spot).
President Vladimir Putin the veto man. Russia is the 10th-most-populous country in the world and the fourth-largest producers of carbon dioxide emissions.
Both Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, two leaders known for their relative skepticism about climate change not in attendance.
So what happened in response to thousands of world citizens marching. Not much according to reports I have read.
The oceans which cover 73% of the planet’s surface, was not on the agenda.
China, which has surpassed the US as the world’s biggest emitter, said it would also do its bit, by curbing emissions “as soon as possible”
The UK prime minister, David Cameron, also touted his government’s environmental policies. “As prime minister I pledged to lead the greenest government ever and I believe we have kept that promise.”
The president of France François Hollande, who obviously need to go to speck savers told an investors’ event on the sidelines of the summit.
“We can’t just limit ourselves to words, expressions of regret and exercises in stock-taking,” “What will come out of Paris is a new economy,”
France went on to commit to providing $1bn to a climate change fund for poor countries – the first significant contribution since Germany threw in $1bn last July.
Sweden has also contributed.
South Korea and Switzerland went on to pledge $100m each.
Denmark pledged $70m.
Norway pledged $33m.
Mexico said it would give $10m.
But the total of $2.3bn pledged for the Green Climate Fund so far fell short of the $10bn to $15bn that UN officials and developing country said was needed to show rich countries were committed to acting on climate change.
It also was unclear whether Tuesday’s pledges represented new money. A lot of “climate financing” is just existing aid repackaged under a new name.
More than 400 companies from 60 countries all signed on to support putting a price on carbon.Some of the world’s biggest palm oil and paper producers committed to stop destructive logging by 2030, and restore an area of forest equivalent to the size of India.
But Brazil, despite its critical role protecting the Amazon rain forest, said it had been left out of the negotiations. It refused to sign an anti-deforestation pledge, dealing a blow to the Climate Change summit in New York.
“The lungs of the planet”
A number of campaign groups did not sign the agreement, saying it did not go far enough to protect the rights of indigenous people who rely on the forest, or to hold the big forestry companies to account.
So where are we?
This Summit was not a formal negotiation on climate change but an “extraordinary meeting to try to jump-start the whole thing and get it back on the rails.” to lay the groundwork ahead of a UN climate conference in Lima, Peru, this December.
Does that sound drearily familiar? It should. The world’s leaders have been hammering out various climate agreements for decades now.
There was the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
The 2009 Copenhagen Accord.
But despite all these talks, global greenhouse-gas emissions have kept rising, putting the world on track for more warming in the years ahead.
So why should this newest round of climate diplomacy be any different?
UNDER THE 1992 CLIMATE TREATY, COUNTRIES AGREED TO TAKE ACTION — BUT NEVER SPECIFIED WHAT, EXACTLY.
They certainly haven’t achieved the goal of stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere. The world is burning more fossil fuels than ever, and carbon-dioxide emissions keep rising each year: THE CURRENT PLEDGES ARE INADEQUATE TO PREVENT 2°C OF WARMING.
THE US AND EUROPE HAVE HAD THEIR FOSSIL FUEL PARTY, NOW INDIA AND CHINA WANT THEIRS EMISSIONS.
Why are emissions FROM WEALTHY NATIONS DECLINING.
Because rich nations are “outsourcing” their carbon
By the end of 2015, they hope to hammer out an agreement with “legal force”
Believe that, you believe anything.
Here are two suggestions that would make a difference. One world wide the other Country wide.
1. If the earth is going to fry why not convert the sun-rich deserts of the world into energy producing and storage Units. 90 percent of the world’s population lives within 3,000 km of deserts.
Think of the employment it would create, not to mention the Energy and the resulting reduction in Co2.
2) Create tax cuts of the use of clean Energy.