Showing posts with label Climate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate. Show all posts

14 June 2017

Robert Steele: Beyond the Paris Climate Deal – Can Russia Lead the Way?

Robert David

The President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, pulled out of the Paris Climate Deal for very good reasons – political reasons, economic reasons, cultural reasons, and intelligence reasons. He understood that the Paris Climate Deal is yet another attempt by the globalists led by the Rothschilds and the Vatican and the undisclosed higher levels of Freemasonry, to subvert all nations and all peoples for the profit of the 1%.

The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, has refused to condemn his fellow President, while also indicating that Russia will continue its commitment to the Paris climate change agreement, seeing no alternative. I humbly propose an alternative that has not been discussed.

While some might dispute the science behind the climate deal, I do not. What I dispute is the assumption that we can continue with the Western economic and engineering practices that continue to favor the 1% over the 99%, and focus only on reducing the symptoms of those bad practices.

I also note that there has been no discussion of the Western practice – largely led by the United States of America and its rogue Deep State elements in the military-industrial complex – of weather modification, nano-plastic pollution of water, and the deliberate federally-sanctioned sale of a wide variety of foods, beverages and medicines, especially vaccines, that are poisonous. The hidden agenda of the globalists is de-population.

11 June 2017

COME HELL OR HIGH WATER: THE PENTAGON’S POSTURE TOWARD CLIMATE CHANGE

JOHN CONGER

By now, most people have heard much about the implications of President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. They have heard critics denounce the dismissive message this sends about a global crisis and the implications for U.S. global leadership at international fora addressing the issue. They have heard Trump say it was a bad deal and that it was going to have a negative impact on American jobs (despite being non-binding).

But are there any implications of this move for the Department of Defense? Not directly, though there will be indirect consequences as it engages international partners.

Trump’s decision creates more tension across the international environment in which the United States must work. Our allies in militaries across the world are likely to be able to compartmentalize the fact that Washington isn’t the partner it could be in addressing this global crisis, but they will also be aware that Trump thumbed his nose at them. This snub may make America’s allies less willing to cooperate with or trust the United States, which in turn makes the Defense Department’s job harder than it needs to be. Trump’s decision will create a leadership void in the international community that could provide an opportunity for nations like China to gain more global influence. In sum, the strategic environment is now more challenging, and that will make the Defense Department’s mission more challenging as well.

9 June 2017

*** The U.S.: A Hostile Environment for Climate Change?


It can be difficult to separate the important from unimportant on any given day. Reflections mean to do exactly that — by thinking about what happened today, we can consider what might happen tomorrow.

Just days before the election that won Donald Trump the U.S. presidency, the Paris Agreement on climate change was enacted. The deal's list of signatories grew to include most of the globe in the months that followed. Then on Thursday, Trump announced his plan to pull out of the accord, confirming rumors that have been circulating for the past week. Though he left the door open to renegotiation, the United States will now join the lonely ranks of nonparticipants, which currently comprise only Nicaragua and Syria. For the most part Trump's rejection of the deal, touted as a landmark achievement in December 2015, is symbolic. As various forces advance the effort to address climate change, the industries, investors and military interests underpinning Washington's environmental policy will continue to dictate its actions on the issue. But the United States' withdrawal from the pact nevertheless raises an important question: Will China be able to fill the hole in global leadership that its Western rival will leave behind?

Despite the overwhelming consensus it inspired, the Paris Agreement itself has always been weak at its core. International courts, after all, have few ways to enforce it, and without consequences for those who fail to comply with its stipulations, there is little opportunity to hold shirkers accountable. Instead, compliance with the deal is — and will continue to be — largely driven by technological progress, economics and the political imperatives of individual nations.

The Consequences of Leaving the Paris Agreement

By James McBride

President Donald J. Trump has strongly criticized the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate reached by President Barack Obama’s administration, arguing that the global deal to cut back carbon emissions would kill jobs and impose onerous regulations on the U.S. economy. As a result, in June 2017 he announced that the United States will exit the agreement. With the United States producing nearly one-fifth of all global emissions, the U.S. withdrawal from the accord could undercut collective efforts to reduce carbon output, transition to renewable energy sources, and lock in future climate measures.

Debate over the impact of withdrawal continues. While Trump has rolled back climate regulations at a federal level, thirty-four states, led by California and New York, have undertaken their own ambitious carbon reduction plans.

What is the status of the Paris Agreement?

The Paris Agreement was finalized at a global climate conference in 2015, and entered into force in November 2016 after enough countries, including China and the United States, ratified it. The nearly two hundred parties to the deal—only Syria and Nicaragua have failed to sign on—committed to voluntary reductions in carbon emissions with the goal of keeping global temperature increases below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), a level that the assembled nations warned could lead to an “urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet.”

5 June 2017

Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement Is Immoral And Irrational

Gwynne Taraska

Ditching the climate agreement would run counter to the economic and security interests of the American people.

The Paris Agreement is a historic pact to curb climate change and build global resilience to its effects. A decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from the agreement would be a moral violation—and an attack on the interests of the American people.

The Significance of the Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement is a major feat of diplomacy, given that more than 190 countries are signatories. It is also a major feat for the planet, given that it is well positioned to be effective in limiting carbon pollution. First, the agreement is a springboard for sustained efforts to curb climate change. Every five years, countries submit new national-climate goals and take stock of their collective progress in limiting warming.

Second, the agreement draws all countries into the climate effort, making it a truly global movement. Both developed and developing countries—including the major emerging economies, such as China and India—submit national goals under the pact. In fact, it was leadership from the United States that was pivotal in bringing all countries to the table.

3 May 2017

** U.S.-China Climate Relations: Beyond Trump

By Jackson Ewing

Jackson Ewing is the Director of Asian Sustainability at the Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI) in New York, where he leads projects on environmental cooperation, responsible resource development, and international climate change policy. This piece is part of a special RCW series on the U.S.-China geopolitical relationship. The views expressed here are the author’s own.

The days of cooperative climate change action in Washington and Beijing were short-lived.

After decades of friction in the climate arena, the United States and China spent the last three years of former U.S. President Barack Obama’s second term in office building a partnership that caught even close observers by surprise. In a March 2016 joint presidential statement, Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared climate change a “pillar of the U.S.-China bilateral relationship” and committed to ratifying the lauded Paris Agreement. The countries were by then drawing on more than two years of bilateral agreements on clean energy and emissions reduction targets, along with subnational agreements between cities, states, and provinces to bolster technical cooperation in areas ranging from carbon pricing to clean energy to sustainable urban infrastructure.

This cooperation reversed a history of recriminations and posturing that long defined the Sino-American climate change relationship. China would often emphasize its continuing poverty challenges, development needs, and relative lack of historical culpability for the climate problem, while the United States trotted out the common refrain that holding negotiations is well and good, but ultimately pointless if China fails to reduce emissions in internationally verifiable ways. For years, this divide between Beijing and Washington stubbornly persisted.

1 May 2017

The US View On Climate Change


-- this post authored by Martin Armstrong

As one of the 97 countries to ratify the Paris Climate Change Agreement which came into force last year, the United States government has been starting to show signs that it takes the threat of global warming seriously.

As our infographic below shows, this proactive approach is supported by 79 percent of the population. Despite this, only 36 percent of US citizens see climate change as a serious problem - compared to 52 percent globally - and when asked if they would be prepared to contribute an extra dollar each month to combat the issue, almost half said they would not.

This chart looks at the US attitude towards climate change in 2016.

29 April 2017

The World's Climate Will Suffer if China Decides to Convert Its Coal Into Natural Gas

Matthew Brown

(BEIJING)—China's conversion of coal into natural gas could prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths each year. But there's a catch: As the country shifts its use of vast coal reserves to send less smog-inducing chemicals into the air, the move threatens to undermine efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, researchers said Tuesday. 

The environmental trade-off points to the difficult choices confronting leaders of the world's second largest economy as they struggle to balance public health and financial growth with international climate change commitments. 

Between 20,000 and 41,000 premature deaths annually could be prevented by converting low-quality coal in the country's western provinces into synthetic natural gas for residential use, according to the findings of researchers from the United States and China published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

If the gas were used for industrial purposes, fewer deaths would be averted and they would carry a steeper price — a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide emissions, according to the researchers and a separate report released Tuesday by Greenpeace. 

26 April 2017

Pathways and obstacles to a low-carbon economy


The energy transition is happening. But the pace of change depends on a range of technical, business, and societal factors. 

Technological advances and falling prices are driving the momentum toward low-carbon energy production across the globe. In this episode of the McKinsey Podcast, McKinsey partner Arnout de Pee and Lord Adair Turner, chair of the Energy Transitions Commission and the Institute for New Economic Thinking, speak with McKinsey Publishing’s Cait Murphy about the shift toward renewable resources and the future of sustainable development. 

Podcast transcript 

Cait Murphy: How can the world produce the energy it needs to broaden prosperity without damaging the environment beyond repair? The Energy Transitions Commission, whose members comprise leaders from the public, private, and social sectors, is dedicated to answering that question. 

Speaking with us today is Lord Adair Turner, head of the Energy Transitions Commission, and Arnout de Pee, a partner at McKinsey’s Sustainability and Resource Productivity group. I’m Cait Murphy of McKinsey Publishing. 

Let’s start with the broad question. Lord Turner, what is meant by the term “the energy transition,” and why is such a transition necessary? 

Lord Adair Turner: The term “energy transition” describes the fact that over the next several decades, we are going to have to achieve a really dramatic transition in the world away from reliance on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have been absolutely essential to the original industrial revolution, to the growth of prosperity that we’ve achieved in an increasing number of countries over the last 200 years. 

In order to limit global warming to below two degrees centigrade above preindustrial levels, we will have to really very significantly move away from fossil fuels, while still delivering in many countries even more energy use than there is today. 

25 April 2017

Comparative Assessment of China and U.S. Policies to Meet Climate Change Targets


China and the United States together emit more than 40 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) according to the latest available data.[1] Therefore any successful global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must include meaningful contributions from both countries. Each country has started down this path by committing to reduce CO2 emissions and both have announced plans, policies, and programs to meet those commitments. However, the character of the carbon problem in each country is different and so while the plans, programs, and policies they are pursuing have some similarities, the emphasis is different.

China and the United States have different fundamental energy supply potential. China’s energy resource base is coal-intensive, while the United States has large oil and gas reserves. China does not have the option of dramatically increasing natural gas or oil supplies unless it chooses to import them. In fact, China has become the world’s largest importer of oil—importing 6.71 million barrels per day in 2015.[2] Energy security, which has historically been a political priority in the United States, now receives less attention due to the recent boom in shale oil and gas. The opposite is true for China, which faces no significant growth in domestic oil and gas production, forcing it to import more oil and gas. Due to a combination of logistical obstacles and slow growth in coal reserves, China is now a net importer of coal, and thus energy security is becoming more of a concern.

20 March 2017

Trump’s Defense Secretary Cites Climate Change as National Security Challenge

by Andrew Revkin

James Mattis’ unpublished testimony before a Senate panel recognizes a threat others in the administration reject or minimize. 

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real, and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon’s assets everywhere, a position that appears at odds with the views of the president who appointed him and many in the administration in which he serves. 

In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the U.S. military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if. 

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.” 

11 March 2017

Who's Still Fighting Climate Change? The U.S. Military

By Laura Parker

Who's Still Fighting Climate Change? The U.S. Military

Despite political gridlock over global warming, the Pentagon is pushing ahead with plans to protect its assets from sea-level rise and other impacts. Here's how.

Tests of the Orion spacecraft were made at Naval Station Norfolk in August 2013. The low-lying base is at risk from rising seas. 

NORFOLK, VIRGINIATen times a year, the Naval Station Norfolk floods. The entry road swamps. Connecting roads become impassable. Crossing from one side of the base to the other becomes impossible. Dockside, floodwaters overtop the concrete piers, shorting power hookups to the mighty ships that are docked in the world’s largest naval base.

All it takes to cause such disarray these days is a full moon, which triggers exceptionally high tides.

Norfolk station is headquarters of the Atlantic fleet, and flooding already disrupts military readiness there and at other bases clustered around the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, officials say. Flooding will only worsen as the seas rise and the planet warms. Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built. By 2100, Norfolk station will flood 280 times a year, according to one estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

4 February 2017

Ancient Indus Civilization’s Adaptation To Climate Change

Source Link
BY EURASIA REVIEW



With climate change in our own era becoming increasingly evident, it’s natural to wonder how our ancestors may have dealt with similar environmental circumstances. New research methods and technologies are able to shed light on climate patterns that took place thousands of years ago, giving us a new perspective on how cultures of the time coped with variable and changing environments.

A new article in the February issue of Current Anthropology explores the dynamics of adaptation and resilience in the face of a diverse and varied environmental context, using the case study of South Asia’s Indus Civilization (c.3000-1300 BC).

Integrating research carried out as part of the Land, Water and Settlement project — part of an ongoing collaboration between the University of Cambridge and Banaras Hindu University — that worked in northwest India between 2007 and 2014, the article looks at how Indus populations in north-west India interacted with their environment, and considers how that environment changed during periods of climate change.

27 December 2016

There is a third pole on earth, and it's melting quickly

Alex Gray

Temperatures in the Third Pole region have increased by 1.5 degrees – more than double the global average. 

When we think of the world’s polar regions, only two usually spring to mind – the North and South. However, there is a region to the south of China and the north of India that is known as the “Third Pole”.

That’s because it is the third largest area of frozen water on the planet. Although much smaller than its north and south counterparts, it is still enormous, covering 100,000 square kilometres with some 46,000 glaciers.

Scientists conducting research in the area have warned of disturbing global warming trends, and how, if they continue, they could affect the lives of 1.3 billion people.

The importance of the Third Pole

What happens to ice in the polar regions is taken as clear evidence of climate change. When the ice melts, we know that the planet is warming up.

19 November 2016

Finance And Investment Key To A New Dawn In Climate Change – Analysis

By J Nastranis
NOVEMBER 18, 2016

While there is “a new dawn for global cooperation on climate change”, greater efforts are required to mobilize funding to address climate change, especially to support developing countries, according to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

“Finance and investment hold the key to achieving low-emissions and resilient societies,” Ban said in remarks read by his Special Advisor on Climate Change, Bob Orr, to a High-Level Ministerial dialogue on climate financing at the 22nd Conference of Parties Conference (COP 22) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

According to UN News, Ban underscored that one of the core objectives of the Paris Agreement, which entered into force on November 4, 2016, is “to make all finance flows consistent with a pathway to low-emissions climate-resilient development.” He noted that there has been progress, in particular in renewable energy.

In December 2015 at COP21, 196 Parties to the UNFCCC adopted the Paris Agreement, so-named after the French capital where it was approved. It aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The Agreement entered into force in time for COP 22 from November 7-18, 2016, where parties are expected to define the rules of implementation of the Paris accord and establish a viable plan to provide financial support to developing countries to support climate action.

18 November 2016

A Lesson for India in a Fog So Thick It Could Kill a Cow


NOV. 10, 2016

A thick fog shrouded Trafalgar Square in London on Dec. 7, 1952. This heavy smog episode — from coal-burning fireplaces and cooking ranges — left as many as 12,000 dead.CreditBettmann Archive/Getty Images

In December 1873, London was blanketed for a week in a yellow fog so thick that people could not see their feet. “Ladies & gentlemen,” Mark Twain saidin a public lecture at the time, “I hear you, & so know that you are here — & I am here, too, notwithstanding I am not visible.”

Some 780 people died and 50 prize cattle on display at the Smithfield Club panted, wheezed and eventually died of asphyxia. Still, it took 83 more years of noxious air before the country passed the Clean Air Act in 1956.

This history, described in “London Fog: The Biography,” is a lesson in just how difficult it is for governments to put public health first when it comes into conflict with economic development, the political power of industry and even the polluting habits of their people.

The government of India is up against all of those things. The capital, New Delhi, a sprawling city of 20 million, just lived through an extraordinary episode of air pollution that closed schools for three days. India is one of a number of middle-income countries, including China, grappling with pollution problems that have ballooned along with economic growth and rapidly expanding cities.

A decade ago, the scope of the problem was poorly understood because the numbers on air pollution levels and deaths were spotty. But that has changed. Satellites have given scientists far more detailed pictures, allowing them to perform ever more precise calculations.

15 November 2016

Asia’s megacities are running out of water


Brahma Chellaney

Asia’s cities are ballooning, and the accompanying upsurge in the consumption of water and production of waste in urban areas is placing new pressures on the environment.

Home to 53% of the world’s urban population, Asia has the highest concentration of megacities, including Shanghai, Tokyo, Karachi and Beijing. Not only are Asia’s cities big and numerous, they are among the most polluted. The urban explosion has made providing safe water and sanitation a massive challenge for the region.

Historically, the availability of local water resources has determined not only where major cities have been established but how well they have fared. But in Asia, rapid — and often unplanned — urban growth in recent decades has overwhelmed water systems.

30 October 2016

Taiwan Should Be a Partner in Addressing Climate Change

October 27, 2016

The Paris Climate Agreement, negotiated within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions starting in the year 2020, was adopted by consensus on December 12, 2015. The agreement will take effect on November 4, after more than eighty of the 197 parties to the treaty to date have submitted their instruments of ratification to the United Nations, accounting in total for more than 55 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as a necessary threshold. This is a promising move forward in international efforts to mitigate the grave impact of climate change.

The 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 22) to the UNFCCC is scheduled to convene from November 7 to 18 in Marrakech, Morocco. It is the crucial next step for governments to operationalize the Paris Agreement.

Taiwan, as the fifth-largest economy in Asia and the 22nd largest in the world, should have a place at the table in Marrakech. Taiwan cannot be left as a mere spectator to a problem which encompasses the entire international community. Its voice must be heard in the councils where viable solutions are vetted and adopted.

Global warming and the El Nino phenomenon have contributed to record-breaking temperatures and extreme weather events around the globe. Dangerous weather conditions were recently seen in the United States as well, with historic flooding in Louisiana, tropical storms hitting Hawaii, and Hurricane Matthew causing deaths and destruction in Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas.

7 October 2016

The climate after Paris


Being a large and fast growing economy gives India an additional responsibility, especially for climate change actions

MK. Gandhi famously said,

“The world has enough for everybody’s need, but not for everybody’s greed.” It was most appropriate that on his birth anniversary, India announced its ratification of a global treaty signed in Paris last December. That global treaty signed by 191 parties will come into force only after at least 55 countries, representing 55% of global emissions of greenhouse gases, have ratified it. India became the 62nd country to ratify. It ratified ahead of the normally enthusiastic European Union. But India was behind the US and China, who jointly ratified it in Hangzhou, exactly a month ago.

Incidentally, the US had never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the earlier landmark global treaty with similar goals as the Paris treaty. The world has changed since Kyoto. The US under President Barack Obama took a leadership position on climate change. It is also at the forefront in trying to forge a global consensus around this issue, including cooperation in technology and financing. The Paris treaty, among other things, promises funding of $100 billion from developed countries to help developing countries switch to greener technologies. Much of this will have to originate from the US. Whether the next president will be equally keen and passionate about US leadership on climate change remains to be seen.

21 July 2016

The real problem in addressing climate change is the relation between emissions and power of nation states: Amitav Ghosh Interview with the author of 'The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable'

Nitin Sethi 
July 18, 2016  
Source Link


Amitav Ghosh, the author of 'The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable' speaks to Nitin Sethi about the language of concealment in which theParis agreement was scripted

You make an argument that turning it into a moral issue will not work to resolve climate change. But that is the argument globally civil society deploys. Do you think it's the failure of civil society to use the moral argument better or the argument is inherently built to fail?

I think it is an approach that is very ill suited to this particular problem. This whole issue of presenting it as a moral issue to my mind that actually is a capitulation to a kind of neo-liberal ideology which tries to reduce all collective action to cases of individual choices. As I say in the book, I think that you can actually argue the morality of it very easily. What are the dominant parameters of morality, especially in the English-speaking world in neo-classical economics of one kind or another? Looking at a lot of literature on the justice literature on climate change, which was very striking to me. How many approach it from a Rawlsian perspective. Essentially within that perspective the results that you get in relation to morality are not at all what you and I would imagine.

It's been very interesting for me to especially think of it in terms of Gandhian approach to politics and morality. Part of our political priority is this whole idea that you have to be the change that you want to see. Actually, it is in some sense an embrace of complete neoliberal model that you reduce all collective action problems to individual action problems and let all collective institutions off the hook. That for me is really one of the major problems with the morality thing. Secondly, to approach this issue from moralistic perspective you shall always be weakened by the deniers. They are going to reduce it to a question of individual sacrifice: What have you sacrificed? Why are you wearing that shirt? Why are you sitting in an air-conditioned room? You are actually handing them the tool with which to bludgeon you. I have seen this so often, repeatedly. People have become accustomed to this neo-liberal individualising morality. What they want is to reduce the question of individual sacrifice. Not institutional and not collective.

Conversely, you enter this problem and you get caught up in it at so many levels. Many major climate scientists Kevin Anderson and several others, Michael Mann, they also have now started talking about this in terms of individual sacrifice.

Yes, they drive the conversation along these lines very often…

Kevin Anderson particularly. I really admire the man. I think he is great. But you can see he is filled with this kind of anger, at the same time you can see equally that this is a kind of protestant thing. He feels that he is in a church.

At a pulpit you mean…