Several good talking points in here, thank you sir. But I was somewhat disappointed that you didn't provide a list of accomplishments of the previous 28 conferences. Yes, you said they have done an "okay job" reducing fossil usage. Have they?
The purpose of the Conference of the Parties is to limit greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change; essentially, to tackle climate change on a global scale. The first COP conference was held in 1995, a mere 29 years ago. Since then, global fossil fuel consumption has gone up nearly 60 percent. Of that, coal is up 75 percent, oil up 38 percent, and gas up 90 percent. Global emissions, since 1995, have risen 60 percent. It is also interesting to note that during those same 29 years, global life expectancy rose from 65 to 71 years.
Given the global statistics, I would say the COP is not doing their job!
In a recent report, Department of Homeland Security stated quite clearly that there is a low probability of global catastrophic or existential risk in the coming decade or until the end of the 21st century. The projected trajectories of warming in the next three decades are relatively similar despite disparate assumptions about rates of GHG emissions and feedback loops. Warming on the order of 2 to 3 degrees C are expected. We’ve had 1.3 degrees of that warming so far.
Mr. Podesta, the remainder of the US contingent, and other members of the party would do well to pause their crusade against fossil fuels to re-examine the climate question in light of these findings. Far better use of their time, expenditures, and private-jet emissions would occur if they asked how can we improve our methods of burning fossil fuels and accelerating nuclear deployment in ways that minimize effects to climate while maximizing our benefits to the lives that climate supports?
Environmentalists have long been crying for sustainability. Is it sustainable to base our livelihoods on the least energy dense resources available (wind and solar)? There are measures available to economically reduce emissions without reducing our access to reliable and affordable energy. How can we better apply these measures to reduce our climate risk and extend life expectancy?
To say we are going to “tackle” climate change is an exercise in bullshit-rhetoric. Humans will never, ever stop the climate from changing. Since man first walked upright, he has been struggling to control his climate – he moved from the plains, to caves, to mud and thatch huts, eventually to the homes we have today with their controlled heating and cooling and fresh water and sanitation. Humans may alter its trajectory, but we are far better at adapting to climate change as it occurs and living within climate’s offerings. COP needs to figure out how we can do all of that better.
I began by asking for a list of accomplishments of the COP. Would it fill a Post-it note?
Several good talking points in here, thank you sir. But I was somewhat disappointed that you didn't provide a list of accomplishments of the previous 28 conferences. Yes, you said they have done an "okay job" reducing fossil usage. Have they?
The purpose of the Conference of the Parties is to limit greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change; essentially, to tackle climate change on a global scale. The first COP conference was held in 1995, a mere 29 years ago. Since then, global fossil fuel consumption has gone up nearly 60 percent. Of that, coal is up 75 percent, oil up 38 percent, and gas up 90 percent. Global emissions, since 1995, have risen 60 percent. It is also interesting to note that during those same 29 years, global life expectancy rose from 65 to 71 years.
Given the global statistics, I would say the COP is not doing their job!
In a recent report, Department of Homeland Security stated quite clearly that there is a low probability of global catastrophic or existential risk in the coming decade or until the end of the 21st century. The projected trajectories of warming in the next three decades are relatively similar despite disparate assumptions about rates of GHG emissions and feedback loops. Warming on the order of 2 to 3 degrees C are expected. We’ve had 1.3 degrees of that warming so far.
Mr. Podesta, the remainder of the US contingent, and other members of the party would do well to pause their crusade against fossil fuels to re-examine the climate question in light of these findings. Far better use of their time, expenditures, and private-jet emissions would occur if they asked how can we improve our methods of burning fossil fuels and accelerating nuclear deployment in ways that minimize effects to climate while maximizing our benefits to the lives that climate supports?
Environmentalists have long been crying for sustainability. Is it sustainable to base our livelihoods on the least energy dense resources available (wind and solar)? There are measures available to economically reduce emissions without reducing our access to reliable and affordable energy. How can we better apply these measures to reduce our climate risk and extend life expectancy?
To say we are going to “tackle” climate change is an exercise in bullshit-rhetoric. Humans will never, ever stop the climate from changing. Since man first walked upright, he has been struggling to control his climate – he moved from the plains, to caves, to mud and thatch huts, eventually to the homes we have today with their controlled heating and cooling and fresh water and sanitation. Humans may alter its trajectory, but we are far better at adapting to climate change as it occurs and living within climate’s offerings. COP needs to figure out how we can do all of that better.
I began by asking for a list of accomplishments of the COP. Would it fill a Post-it note?