Breaking: leaked Climate Talks Text Makes Disturbing Conclusions

[kgrandia]

Cross your fingers that this latest revelation is another Yes Men hoax.

A draft copy of a confidential memo to the UNFCCC Secretariat has surfaced here at the Copenhagen climate talks that has some pretty disturbing analysis. The memo dated December 15, concludes that at this point in the climate talks:

"Unless the remaining gap of around 1.9 to 4.2 Gt is closed and Parties commit themselves to strong action prior and after 2020, global emissions will remain on an unsustainable pathway that could lead to concentrations equal or above 550ppm with the related temperature raise around 3 degrees Celsius."

In layman terms this means that if the developed nations, like the US, Canada, Germany and France don't commit to deeper emissions cuts at the talks underway in Copenhagen we're screwed.

Based on the best scientific research, experts in the field have concluded that in order to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, we need to stabilize carbon emissions at or below 350 parts per million.


Download the entire document here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/leaked-climate-talks-text_b_395770.html

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Bookmark this post for a decade for the "I Told You So" moment.

[kgrandia]

2. Good call

Great idea. This could be a very historical document.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. You know, when it comes to these things, I find I don’t bother to say “I told you so” any more

It’s really of no comfort to me.

I could already say “I told you so” on this topic, on the invasion of Iraq, on the invasion of Afghanistan, on the election of George W. Bush…

[glitch]

12. We should just put "I told you so about everything" in our sig lines and be done with it. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Getting the last word

[glitch]

14. Lol! I bet that guy was a lot of fun. nt

[roguevalley]

15. I remember when Jacques Cousteau said in the 1970's that we

had 20 years to fix the ocean or we would be toast. that was ten years ago, his line in the sand.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Doesn't look like a hoax to me

It agrees with my feeble understanding of things…

[fascisthunter]

5. nope... not a hoax

now keep this in mind next time you meet an idiot online who claims global warming is some kind of hoax. A dying environment on our planet is not a fucking hoax.

[kestrel91316]

6. The big boys WON'T commit. We ARE screwed.

It's up to individuals, and NGO's, and local governments. I have done my part: among other things, car-free and doing fine since September.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. The trouble is that the cuts need to be so big, we need everyone in the developed world to do it

not just individuals.

For instance, one suggestion is to cut global emissions to 50% of the 1990 levels by 2050. But in 1990, about 50% of the world emissions came from the richest 20% (these figures are very rough, and for illustration) - call them the developed world. Say the average per capita emissions of someone in the other 80% was '1'; and that the 1990 global population was 6 billion, that it'll be 9 billion in 2050, and all the population growth will be in the developing world; and that 5 out of 6 people in the developed world get their emissions down to half of what the developing world had in 1990; and that the developing world also gets their emissions down to that. And the remaining one sixth of the developed world keeps their the same. What we get is:

               pop  1990 per cap total  2050 per cap total
dev (cutting)  1.0        4.0      4.0        0.5    0.5
dev (greedy)   0.2        4.0      0.8        4.0    0.8
undev (1990)   4.8        1.0      4.8        0      0
undev (2050)   7.8        0        0          0.5    3.9
total emission                     9.6               5.2

End result? Even if the rest of the world decreases their personal emissions to half that of the undeveloped world now, 1 in 6 of the developed world can push the total over the top of the 50% cut needed. By 2050, they'd just be 200 million out of 9 billion, but they'd still be the ones damaging the planet.

That's why this has to be done by all the governments working together, and setting enforcable policies for their countries. If anyone in the world ignores the problem, they screw us all.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. You’re absolutely right!

I mean, what would be the point of 99% of the world cutting their carbon emissions? That wouldn’t accomplish anything. (Right?)

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. How easy do you think it would be to cut your own footprint to half the global average,in isolation?

And do you think that it would be easy for 95% of people in the industrialised countries to do that, if there wasn't any legislation forcing business to cut their own CO2 emissions?

It wouldn't just mean giving up cars; you'd have to give up bus travel too, and train travel until a boycott had forced the train companies to use only non-CO2-producing sources for electricity. You'd have to initiate a mass boycott of any companies that use fossil fuels directly or indirectly, so that they'd get the signal they had to switch their energy suppliers, who'd then get the signal to build only renewables. You can't have a mass boycott of food producers (we just can't all grow our own food - most people don't have the land for it), so you greenhouse gas ration would be mostly taken up by that.

And if you kept these boycotts up for years, that 5% of the industrialised countries' population, by now emitting at 8 times the rate of people around them, means those countries are still emitting a third more than they should. To make up for those 5% of your countries' population being greedy, you'd have to reduce you by another third or so.

Wouldn't it be easier to pass some laws about emissions, if 95% of the population agree on it? Rather than leaving it up to the free market and boycotts of CO2-producing companies?

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. I understand your point however

If only half the world cuts their carbon emissions, then we’re better off than if no one does.

This whole notion that without a 100% solution there’s no point in doing anything simply isn’t rational.

Imagine an accident victim lying on the ground in front of you. An arterial bleed is spurting blood. You can’t stop the bleeding, but you can slow it down (by applying direct pressure to the wound for example.) What do you do?

[bhikkhu]

18. One person at a time works too

You can work out a thousand ways it will all fall to ruin because of other people, but all we can really do is our own part.

[GliderGuider]

21. +1

:thumbsup:

[kestrel91316]

22. "Can't" isn't in my personal vocabulary when it comes to the environment.

I have stepped up to the plate and made the hard decisions and PERSONAL SACRIFICES that I need to. Time for every other individual to do so. I am tired of lame excuses.

It's called setting a good example.

If the government won't act, then individuals must. Even if the gornment does act, individuals also must. There is no "try"; there is only "do".

[TxRider]

7. Obama cannot commit to anything in Copenhagen

Anything he "commits" to there must be ratified by 2/3 vote of the senate I believe.

He could try to bypass that, but it would be a huge battle.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. 2/3

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html#2.2

…

(The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; …

[TxRider]

9. Sorry about that

2/3, 67 votes? Not an easy thing to get these days.

[joshcryer]

17. I've been saying this for several months now.

:shrug:

[Kablooie]

19. Ummm, does anyone really expect anything productive to come from these talks?

We will get pages of scary numbers about how the world will be destroyed and they may very well be true.

But do you really think that our government leaders, who are crammed so tightly under the dirty fingernails of fat cat corporations, will do anything about it?

Of course not!

The basic nature of capitalist corporations is to only be interested in becoming bigger and richer in the immediate future. If the world ends in ten years because of it, that's not their problem.

Long term ramifications are not a consideration in our current modern corporations. And altruistic sacrifices have NEVER been a part of capitalist corporate culture.

Only when the problem is actually diminishing their profits will they begin to consider doing anything. If it's too late, well, that's the way it crumbles, cookie-wise.

Sorry, but that's the nature of capitalist cultures today. The only way this could be changed is to restructure the whole foundation of our society which, of course, is not going to be done.

Or get a government that is responsible to the people, not the corporations, which also is not going to be done.

I'm afraid we will just have to deal with higher temperatures, fluctuating weather patterns and vanishing land surface when it happens. You won't find our current government doing anything substantial to prevent it today.