[HN Gopher] COP26 agrees new global climate deal
___________________________________________________________________
COP26 agrees new global climate deal
Author : blacktulip
Score : 31 points
Date : 2021-11-13 19:54 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| blacktulip wrote:
| The language that has been agreed on for coal and fossil fuel
| subsidies has been "further watered down as the result of an
| untransparent process".
|
| >The Indian delegate has just called for a change to the wording
| of the draft climate agreement.
|
| >He asks for the line to call for the "phase-down" not the
| "phase-out" of unabated coal power.
|
| >This would be a major change to the text.
|
| >The line around coal and fossil fuels is seen as unprecedented
| language in a COP agreement.
| yesbut wrote:
| Binding?
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Not unless the Westphalian model is deconstructed.
| MaxGanzII wrote:
| The Paris agreement has not been kept to.
|
| This agreement will not be kept to.
|
| What will happen is climate change will continue, perhaps
| accelerating a bit more slowly than it would otherwise have done,
| becoming more and more destructive and harmful, until the
| situation is so up-front right-now deadly serious that action is
| finally taken, by which time action will not matter, because of
| the huge lag between cutting emissions and reduction in the rate
| of climate change.
|
| What will be needed at that point is geo-engineering, on a global
| scale. The technology for this does not exist, it will need to be
| invented, and then cost-reduced, and then deployed on a global
| scale on a point-blank timescale - like going from zero to
| manufacturing every single car in the world in five or ten years.
| I have no hope this will actually work, and it's madness for
| civilization as we know it, and to avoid the deaths of billions,
| to depend upon it.
| ahevia wrote:
| I agree with you except the last part. We are certainly on
| track to experience the worse case scenario and have to
| fallback on geoengineering. However there is work we can do to
| start testing geoengineering in the field today. Some countries
| like the UAE already work on cloud seeding pilot projects & the
| cooling effects/mechanics of volcanos are still being
| understood.
|
| I am hopeful that the generation of leaders who will be in
| power by then will have what it takes to deploy even a fraction
| of a geoengineering solution. What the solar geoengineering
| field needs today is funding for research & modeling methods
| syshum wrote:
| None of these agreements are worth the paper they are printed on
|
| The only realistic solution from global warming will not come
| from government action, or attempting to force nations into
| economic untenable positions that have the effect of lowering
| living standards for their populations.
|
| The only realistic solution is via technological innovation where
| by coal, oil, etc are made obsolete by natural market forces, not
| artificial tax schemes, fines, or other such agreements.
|
| People that continue down the path that making these fuels more
| expensive by artificial government actions will continue to be
| disappointed in the results, as people need to heat their home,
| move goods, etc and they will always want do to that by the
| cheapest means, injecting government policies that simply
| increase prices of those basic needs of society to make
| alternatives more attractive will never ever be popular with the
| majority citizens of any nation which is why nations look to
| water down the language.
|
| This is a PR event with no substance, like most international
| agreements.
| framecowbird wrote:
| I have three counter points.
|
| First, my concern with technical innovation is that it will
| simply be exploited for increased output. If the process for
| making widgets is made twice as efficient, people will make
| twice the widgets and pollute just as much.
|
| Second, in your example of coal being made obsolete by market
| forces: governments are already skewing these forces with
| massive subsidies for fossil fuels. We need governments to stop
| doing that.
|
| Third, bringing new technology to market requires huge
| investments and risks. We need governments to incentivize and
| support this development so that it can happen as quickly as
| possible. Free markets are not some efficient force that just
| always magically do the right thing when left to their own
| devices. They are marred by countless modes of failure.
|
| The underlying social and political issues are almost
| intractable, but they cannot be ignored just because it's too
| difficult. I don't believe we can simply technology our way out
| of this.
| syshum wrote:
| >>Second, in your example of coal being made obsolete by
| market forces: governments are already skewing these forces
| with massive subsidies for fossil fuels. We need governments
| to stop doing that.
|
| 100% agree, my entire post is about government inaction... My
| ideal government does nothing ;) that that applies to both
| sides of this, they should neither subsidize nor fine
| technologies. It should be up purely to market forces.
|
| >>Third, bringing new technology to market requires huge
| investments and risks. We need governments to incentivize and
| support this development so that it can happen as quickly as
| possible
|
| This has never been true for any advancement, Governments are
| TERRIBLE at picking winner and losers from a technology
| standpoint (see Ethanol) , and often time they SLOW not
| accelerate advancement. It has been proven in many sectors,
| including energy production, that once the government gets
| out of the way real progress begins.
|
| >I don't believe we can simply technology our way out of
| this.
|
| All of human history proves you wrong, but this time is the
| one time we should ignore history right?
| xg15 wrote:
| > _All of human history proves you wrong, but this time is
| the one time we should ignore history right?_
|
| Except all the actual scientists are agreeing with GP.
|
| The "tech will save us" mantra seems to come mostly from
| business types and libertarian pundits, not from the people
| actually working on those technologies.
| sofixa wrote:
| > This has never been true for any advancement, Governments
| are TERRIBLE at picking winner and losers from a technology
| standpoint (see Ethanol) , and often time they SLOW not
| accelerate advancement. It has been proven in many sectors,
| including energy production, that once the government gets
| out of the way real progress begins.
|
| You probably know this, but without government intervention
| we'd still have leaded petrol, and renewables wouldn't have
| been as developed without the massive subsidies.
| syshum wrote:
| Do we really know this? For decades various government
| agencies shielded many companies from liability, and
| continued to make public statements that leaded gas was
| "safe".
|
| in the 70s' public pressure, and outcry became large
| enough that companies started phasing out leaded gas as
| customers were demanded alternatives, it is at this point
| that government, working with industry developed the
| phase out plan that the public was demanded.
|
| This is often how regulations go, technology advances (in
| this case alternative anti-knock additives), public
| pressure builds, and at a critical junction industry
| allows (yes allows) government to "pass" regulation
| outlining something they were already going to do anyway
| based on public pressure.
|
| Now often the question is well if they were going to do
| it anyway why would they have government pass regulation.
| That is easy to answer because there is always some fear
| that some company will buck the trend, large companies
| hate competition but they can not coordinate on their own
| as that would be anti-trust violations, Thus government
| provides a nice avenue to ensure no competition on some
| matters or topics
|
| This is why facebook is currently asking the government
| for regulation. This is why Amazon supports a national
| sales tax, and why Walmart now supports increasing the
| minimum wage...
| gefhfff wrote:
| In Germany the government went out of the way when it came
| to digital technology Look where we ended up
| martythemaniak wrote:
| To your first point, yes it will. The effect has a name:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)
|
| This a good thing. The point of taming climate change isn't
| to inflict random punishment on people, it is to stop
| changing the climate. I drive an EV powered by carbon-free
| electricity. Political programs that are aimed at curbing how
| much I (and other people) move around aren't going to get
| voted in.
| xg15 wrote:
| Except, it's often not even caused by "people" (i.e.
| consumers) but by businesses and the general growth-above-
| all-else mindset: If we could produce a widget at half the
| resource cost and even if there were no demand for twice as
| many widgets, companies would try to drive up demand for
| widgets, _then_ produce twice as many widgets - because
| this is the only way growth can be realized.
| reitzensteinm wrote:
| I'm curious how you're sourcing carbon free electricity -
| would you mind elaborating.
| varelse wrote:
| But at this point you don't actually need to subsidize solar
| with respect to coal you just have to discontinue all coal and
| oil subsidies and the free market does this organically.
|
| There are places where nuclear makes more sense but now that
| solar has dropped in price by 10x it is incredibly competitive.
| Can't we just let the free market work this out?
| have_faith wrote:
| What are the consequences to the poor of removing these
| subsidies in the short term? It reminds me of Chesterton's
| fence. It doesn't feel like a problem of markets, it seems
| like a problem of will from people in power. What's the
| guarantee that the free market will move in a favourable
| direction with regards to the environment?
| varelse wrote:
| Because people are cheap and they don't like spending money
| and as soon as coal and oil are expensive they'll stop
| using it just like when you tell them they're fired if they
| don't get vaccinated most of them get vaccinated but please
| more downvotes because you want the world to work
| differently even though it doesn't.
|
| And by people I mean the 0.1 percenters who provide
| electricity and love those dividends they got off the backs
| of the rest of us not upgrading their systems and then
| whined about bankruptcy the minute anyone tried to hold
| them accountable.
|
| We're talking the same people who now want to put a tax on
| going off grid and installing solar because reasons and
| racism and s___
|
| https://calcoastnews.com/2021/11/pge-claims-home-solar-is-
| ra...
|
| I mean if coal is such a great solution why isn't it
| competitive and why do you hate free markets? Starting to
| think you might actually hate freedom and America. What
| could be more freedom(tm) than an open level playing field
| competition for our future?
| syshum wrote:
| >>Because people are cheap and they don't like spending
| money and as soon as coal and oil are expensive they'll
| stop using it just like when you tell them they're fired
| if they don't get vaccinated most of them get vaccinated
|
| While true, it does not make these actions ethical. Using
| threats of violence( and yes the mandates are threats of
| violence) to obtain a result you desire is unethical no
| matter how much you believe that action to be necessary.
| Once you use coercion via state violence to get your way
| you have lost all moral and ethical authority.
|
| >>And by people I mean the 0.1 percenters
|
| The problem here is the comment you were replying to
| asked about the poor, who if their heat bill goes up by
| 20% will have to choose between food and heat, will have
| to tell their kids "no Christmas for you this year" etc.
|
| You seemly have no concern for these people.
|
| To be clear, I am on your side when it comes to ending
| subsidies, though all subsidies including though on
| "green" energy as well
|
| I just do not think your argumentation is valid or going
| to win the hearts and minds of anyone
| wiz21c wrote:
| OK, I'm the president of a huge country. 50% of its population
| tells me it wants me to leave fossil fuel. I write down my plan
| in a COP26 agreement. That plan is everything but leaving the
| fossil fuel.
|
| I sleep well at night because I absolutely don't represent my
| citizen's choice (cynical scenario)
|
| OR I know something they don't know which allows me to sleep
| well... (hopeful scenario)
| im3w1l wrote:
| Biden is 78 years old, Putin is 69. Xi Jinping is 68. Ram Nath
| Kovind is 76.
| ahelwer wrote:
| Not very mysterious. The reason you were elected was due to an
| intensely-expensive PR and media campaign. This requires a lot
| of money. A potential source of this money is a small group of
| people who financially benefit from the country's use of fossil
| fuels, and who are wealthy enough to never be affected by
| climate change. So you either comport your policies with their
| desires or your opponents do, and get elected instead.
| pyrale wrote:
| > A potential source of this money is a small group of people
| who financially benefit from the country's use of fossil
| fuels, and who are wealthy enough to never be affected by
| climate change.
|
| They are not wealthy enough to never be affected by climate
| change, no one is.
|
| What I believe is happening is that these people are high on
| power. They may realize that their course is self-
| destructive, but they don't know how to avert it, and asking
| them to abandon their power is antithetical to who they are.
| ahelwer wrote:
| If you can live anywhere in the world at negligible cost to
| yourself with little change to your standard of living then
| you will not be affected by climate change. The earth will
| not be uninhabitable; just large swathes of it. The rich
| will never be affected by climate change. They are not in
| the same boat.
| gefhfff wrote:
| Depressing Frustrating
|
| I don't know what to say
| s5300 wrote:
| Dear HN: What should those of us who are completely powerless in
| this do?
|
| I am a fairly empathetic person, and the fact that over a billion
| people are likely to die from wet bulb or whatever else, purely
| in the name of money, greed, & systematic buffoonery has me
| pretty mentally fucked up already.
|
| Would it be in my best interest to find some sort of drugs that
| completely turn off my empathy for the next two decades? Because
| the other options I can think of aren't very compatible with
| life.
|
| The outcome at this point is essentially inevitable, the U.S.
| seems pretty incapable of rolling out the amount of nuclear we'll
| need to divert a global catastrophe.
| ahevia wrote:
| You are not powerless. Cities & states have huge power to help
| curb emissions. Check out the work by David Roberts over at
| Volts on WA's amazing climate legislation that was passed in
| the last year.
|
| Legislation like that is possible because of average citizens.
| Find a local political climate group in your area. Work with
| them.
|
| Check out the recent Green Amendment that was passed in NY.
| That movement started from the everyday person. It's passing as
| huge implications for future environmental law cases in the
| state. A similar amendment in other states has stopped the
| passage of expanding fracking operations, etc
|
| Keystone XL was stopped by everyday people. Line 3 is facing a
| resistance made up of everyday people.
|
| This narrative that we are "powerless" is exactly what the
| powers against us want. Research shows that climate anxiety
| increases inaction. Research also shows that people involved in
| community campaigns have lower rates of climate anxiety.
|
| If you live in WA or FL feel free to PM me. I have a lot of
| resources that could get you started
| ahelwer wrote:
| I'm thinking the only way forward is building an alternative
| power structure to electoral politics that bullies the
| politicians around. Corporations and money control the
| government - it's a truism at this point. Place that which
| controls the government under democratic control and you have a
| democracy. So either building organized labor power within
| existing corporations or starting entirely new democratically-
| run cooperative companies to outcompete existing corporations.
|
| People want to keep politics separate from work, but this seems
| like nonsense to me. Reductively, politics revolves around who
| does the work, who pays the costs of that work, and who
| receives the benefits from that work. To separate politics from
| work when politics is about work is to throw away the greatest
| power you have - your contribution to the world through work.
| Voting every few years is so unimaginably paltry compared to
| using your economic output to have a say.
|
| People have this idea that cooperatives are inefficient, but
| ensuring profits stay within the company instead of being
| extracted off to people who had no hand in its creation is a
| burden they do not share.
|
| Microsoft spends $250k/employee/year on dividends and stock
| buybacks for shareholders.
|
| If this idea sounds interesting read the book _Democracy at
| Work_.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Deconstruct the idea that this is the best we can do - our
| current political economy is not some inevitability. Human
| nature, politics, and economics are not fundamental facts.
| These are ideas are inherently self-limiting. They are
| constantly reconstructed in social interactions. Anyone telling
| you otherwise is unaware of how social knowledge works or has a
| vested interest in maintaining this illusion. Spread this idea
| and the idea of it spreading to everyone you know. Things are
| impossible, until suddenly they aren't.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-13 23:02 UTC)