Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UN Summit Strikes Climate Deal Promising "Damage Aid" To Poor Nations

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the that-should-take-care-of-that dept.

Earth 212

Hugh Pickens writes writes "BBC reports that UN climate talks in Doha have closed, with a historic shift in principle agreed to by nearly 200 nations, extending the Kyoto Protocol through 2020 and establishing for the first time that rich nations should move towards compensating poor nations for losses due to climate change. Until now rich nations have agreed to help developing countries to get clean energy and adapt to climate change, but they have stopped short of accepting responsibility for damage caused by climate change elsewhere. 'It is a breakthrough,' says Martin Khor of the South Center — an association of 52 developing nations. 'The term Loss and Damage is in the text — this is a huge step in principle. Next comes the fight for cash.' U.S. negotiators made certain that neither the word 'compensation,' nor any other term connoting legal liability, was used, to avoid opening the floodgates to litigation – instead, the money will be judged as aid. Ronny Jumea, from the Seychelles, told rich nations earlier that discussion of compensation would not have been needed if they had cut emissions earlier. 'We're past the mitigation [emissions cuts] and adaptation eras. We're now right into the era of loss and damage. What's next after that? Destruction?' While the United States has not adopted a comprehensive approach to climate change, the Obama administration has put in place a significant auto emissions reduction program and a plan to regulate carbon dioxide from new power plants. 'What this meeting reinforced is that while this is an important forum, it is not the only one in which progress can and must be made,' says Jennifer Haverkamp, director of the international climate programs at the Environmental Defense Fund. The disconnect between the level of ambition the parties are showing here and what needs to happen to avoid dangerous climate change is profound.'"

cancel ×

212 comments

Ah, so there we go.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233257)

With this, we see their real purpose.

Climate change.... Well, it's always changing, so the money will always have to flow. Another unending stream.

What a shock.

Re:Ah, so there we go.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233793)

Do you seriously think that these negotiators are so stupid that they cannot distinguish between natural and anthropomorphic climate change?

Do you seriously think that these negotiators are so stupid than they cannot understand the consequences of climate change, may it be caused by human activities or otherwise, and are offering aid to ensure political and economic stability on behalf of the parties that they are negotiating for?

The only shock here is that one individual believes that they are more intelligent and have a better grasp of the environment, economics, and politics than the thousands of people who (directly or indirectly) contribute to these negotiations.

Re:Ah, so there we go.... (1, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233907)

yes, they and you are that stupid. Name one disaster due to AGC

Re:Ah, so there we go.... (2, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233957)

Do you seriously think that these negotiators are so stupid that they cannot distinguish between natural and anthropomorphic climate change?

Well, a large portion of them probably are that stupid. Most of the rest are looking for loot.

The only shock here is that one individual believes that they are more intelligent and have a better grasp of the environment, economics, and politics than the thousands of people who (directly or indirectly) contribute to these negotiations.

What's sad here is that the individual is probably right. When you have a revenue stream of tens to hundreds of billions per year, then that's plenty of incentive to be as wrong as you can get away with. It's interesting how this move followed a round of discoveries which claim harm of global warming is worse and more urgent than first claimed,

Maybe there's a real threat from AGW, but this looks to me more like a bunch of corrupt scientists sexing up their research (and possibly just making stuff up) in order to justify a transfer of wealth large enough to make the oil industry envious.

Re:Ah, so there we go.... (3, Insightful)

flaming error (1041742) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234399)

"this looks to me more like a bunch of corrupt scientists sexing up their research (and possibly just making stuff up) in order to justify a transfer of wealth large enough to make the oil industry envious."

As you evaluate the various competing claims before you, consider that perhaps laymen swayed by appearances and compelled to impute motives on strangers might not have the intellectual high ground over people who have studied and debated the topic for decades and live by the scientific method.

Re:Ah, so there we go.... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234659)

And by what standard do you judge corruption?

Re:Ah, so there we go.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42234441)

As a matter of fact I do think we are any able to distinguish between natural and anthropomorphic climate change. In order for that to work, we'd need a closed form solution that could reproduce the natural signal going back 500,000 years. Good luck with that.

Re:Ah, so there we go.... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233851)

Just like US elections, the majority voted to take money from the successful minority and have it given to themselves. Now we see the same electoral pattern going on globally. I wonder what those in the US expecting more welfare will think now that their precious money is going to be given to other countries instead of them?

Its getting to the point where its now impossible to move up classes because of taxes on income. No taxes on wealth, so the rich politicians (or those who don't pay taxes) are still fine, but if you are the hard worker there is no chance of moving up with all those in the US that refuse to take care of themselves and now the world. It has now gotten to the point where only suckers still work to better themselves off, because if they actually accomplish something there is now a line of thousands waiting to take from them.

Bwahahaha! (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234723)

Just like US elections, the majority voted to take money from the successful minority and have it given to themselves.

Mod parent funny!

Re:Ah, so there we go.... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42235439)

Troll = Unpleasant truth told.

Re:Ah, so there we go.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42234271)

Climate change is real. But you do have a point. This agreement plays into the worst fears of Republicans in the US Congress. It is almost like it was designed to antagonize them. It is a pity because this new treaty will only embolden them. Something similar to the original Kyoto Treaty might have a chance of passing, but mandatory "damage aid" is dead on arrival. So congratulations to the UN for again alienating one of its biggest members and by doing so making its politics more extreme.

Re:Ah, so there we go.... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235177)

It's worse than that. Read this description from the BBC:

There was last-minute drama as the talks were thrown into turmoil by the insistence of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus that they should be allowed extra credit for the emissions cuts they made when their industries collapsed.
After a long delay, the chairman lost patience, re-started the meeting and gavelled through the agenda so fast there was no chance for Russia to object.
A cheer exploded into prolonged applause. Russia bitterly objected at what it said was a clear breach of procedure, but the chairman said he would do no more than reflect the Russian view in the final report.

What kind of agreement is that??

Re:Ah, so there we go.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42235673)

Yes, the UN has invented yet another way to waste money. We all know the "aid" will end up in assorted Swiss Bank accounts while the real purpose for the money comes last in a long queue of snouts in the trough.

Re:Ah, so there we go.... (4, Interesting)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235707)

It's always, nakedly, been about wealth redistribution.

Why do you think India and China - the fastest growing (and now largest) emitters of CO2 - were omitted from the original Kyoto accord?

Oh, there's a pastiche of 'let's save the planet' but then the road to hell has always been paved with what, again?

There's a reason they so bitterly hate the term ecomarxists....it strikes waaay too close.

Go ahead mod me down as 'flamebait' and 'troll'. As the 'climate changers' keep telling everyone, truth isn't based on popular opinion.

Re:Ah, so there we go.... (3, Insightful)

lennier (44736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42236409)

It's always, nakedly, been about wealth redistribution.

Oh, the humanity! Those nasty, wicked, impoverished nations teeming with starving people who have all the money and social rank and political power and weapons will force - at gunpoint, even! or maybe just with their hectoring, angry words! or their faces! - a tiny beseiged elite of virtuous billionaires to solve a problem facing everyone and which just drowned New York. But the problem can't be solved, because drowning countries is right and just and honourable and we all know it. And yet they pass bad laws like this. It's horrible, that's what it is. But oh well. It's not like educated billionaires who own mega-corporations have any power in the world, is it? Always they're the ones who get downtrodden and stepped on by the naked jackboot of the filthy masses. All those poor people, swarming everywhere! Eating and breeding and voting! Every day, vote vote vote! Like it's a democracy or something! Filling the world's governments with twisted, perverse policies that benefit the middle-class! Don't the billionaires get any say at all? Those long-suffering saints! One day things must change! One day, just once, a billionaire will stand up and say "No!" to a poor person! One day Atlas must shrug!

Yeah, I don't think that's how the balance of social power actually works anywhere outside Ayn Rand or Paul Ryan's mind.

Get the Koch brothers to pay (0, Flamebait)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233321)

They profit extremely well from trashing the Earth; make them pay.

Re:Get the Koch brothers to pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233379)

Soros has done much more to trash it. Make him pay.

Re:Get the Koch brothers to pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233441)

That can't be. Soros is a socialist, and those people never do anything bad to anyone. Time for more reeducation comrade!

don't forget Algore (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235661)

...whose old man [father] was into dirty coal, too.

Better Yet (1, Interesting)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233449)

Best off, just like I recall my grandfather to say...
"Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S."
Because we know the only real agenda of the Mickey Mouse Club is for U.S. hating countries to manipulate and bleed the U.S.(although it's been handy to screw with Israel too)
Gosh, if so many countries get together and decide what other countries should do, well that just makes it official,yup,yup,yup.
That beautiful building could be used to house homeless, then it wouldn't be a total waste of time.
Let the poor and foolish countries be cared for by the rich and socialist countries China,Russia, S.A., Dubai, etc. That is their gig after all.
Pretty sure they are big offenders anyway ,even if it is a round about way. Charity starts at home.

Re:Better Yet (1)

Admiral Valdemar (2553412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233815)

Translation: fuck you, I got mine.

Re:Better Yet (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234163)

Better translation: Fuck you, I got mine ... and yours.

Re:Better Yet (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235485)

Assuming it was anything but a control ploy anyway.
If they gave a damn about environmental concerns they would do something themselves rather than forming a club to agree that someone else should do it for them. Doesn't work in real life, ridiculous to assume it would work in their fantasy land.

Israel? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233975)

Israel is a shitty ally - so shitty, that I really don't see the point in having them for an ally. The French do more for us.

Secondly, Israel's lobbying undermines my voice in my own government. I resent MY tax money going to support them and I resent my country's military technology going to them.

I have never seen a logical reason for the US' support of this country. None. I've seen bogus ones like: "They are the only stable democracy in the Middle East." (So, what. And they're really a democratic theocracy); "Our, the US and Israel's, interests are aligned" (No, they are not. Israel fucks us over all the time for their "security" and in the meantime,undermines the US' security.); and then there are the religious nuts who "need" Israel around so that they can go to Heaven or some such superstitious rot.

So, as an American, I don't give a rat's ass about Israel.

Everything happening to the Israelis is bad karma for being dicks - like stealing land for their "security".

Yeah,yeah, yeah, Nazis, 1967, Blowhard Islamists calling for its destruction - not my fucking problem.

Israel is already dead (3, Interesting)

Weezul (52464) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234349)

Israel will die within 100 years. An average increase of 4 degrees C translates into a much greater increase over land because the earth is 70% covered by water and the temperature won't change as much over water. In the Mediterranean, that average 4C increase should translate into a 9C overland increase. Israel routinely hangs out above 36C during the summer. Israel routinely has 98% humidity in the summer. Humans cannot survive 100% humidity at 45C. I'd therefore expect that Israel will be effectively uninhabitable by humans in 2100, although obviously their humidity might change before then.

Re:Israel is already dead (1, Troll)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235133)

You're working under the assumption that the climate will increase nonstop until then. This is unlikely, however it has happened before. Many, many times before.

And you know, during these warm periods, the earth was much more green than it is now. Macro scale life was also much larger.

Re:Israel is already dead (1)

tsa (15680) | about a year and a half ago | (#42236007)

I truly hope Israel has destroyed itself long before that. If the US wouldn't pump billions of dollars into their 'economy' every year (billions they could use better for themselves) they would have ceased to exist long ago. I completely agree with Anonymous Coward above. Hopefully Netanyahu and his cronies will be voted out of the government soon and then the peace process can start for real.

Re:Israel? (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42236127)

I'm thankful for them for several reasons, the least not being the burr they figuratively place under the saddle of certain mid-east nations.
The maintenance of a beautiful country that keeps it friendly for me as a u.s. American to visit. Krav Maga, small machine guns and sexy women. These are a few of my favorite things...

I agree what happens to Israel is karma, but for disobeying YHVH when originally told to eliminate those inhabiting the promised land to the last breath. In retrospect this would probably made today quite different. Sometimes pity really is a weakness,in spite of not, most of the time.

Nazis I won't consider part of the equation, since they would've gladly eliminated the local Islamic along with the Jews, both are Semitic.

As far as blowing taxes, I recall we aren't Constitutionally allowed to do much of anything outside of defending our own borders. This policing the ungrateful assholes of the world came along with the "New Deal" horseshit back when the Repubmocrat tyranny first conspired. None of it is our fucking problem and I don't want to hear anyones lame ass excuses about foreign business interests. That is why we set borders to begin with and outside investments are a worse GAMBLE than chances taken on domestic ones. Tough droppings.

Re:Get the Koch brothers to pay (5, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233983)

hypocrite. the use of coal and oil fueled western civilization and increased average human lifespan by over two times, Modern material, medicine, health, food, all the blessing of hydrocarbon fuel. you are alive and well fed because of it. without it you would likely be dead already.

yes, we need to go to something else with little pollution, like well designed nuclear power reactors. but the planet has been made better for humans by fossil fuel

Re:Get the Koch brothers to pay (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234631)

A short term improvement that directly leads to long term devestation is not a benefit. At any rate, the benefits of cheap hydrocarbons are now being outweighed by the dangerously ill effects.

already given... (2)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235787)

Actually most people alive today would never have existed without the fossil fueled economies. Some might argue that this is bad for the species since so many are marginally independent at best, a la Heinlein. Consumers only...

Re:Get the Koch brothers to pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42234317)

you get the Biggest Douche award...

Sorry, but unsustainable (0)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233331)

These countries need to be dissolved and integrated with another. Things are just going to get worse. What's better, preserving a nations identity or preventing the inevitable extinction of it?

Re:Sorry, but unsustainable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233417)

Why don't we just let them go extinct?

Re:Sorry, but unsustainable (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234127)

These countries need to be dissolved and integrated with another. Things are just going to get worse. What's better, preserving a nations identity or preventing the inevitable extinction of it?

Oh, that works out all the time. Look at the history of, say, the Middle East and Africa. Historical political boundaries chopped up by England and France (with a little help from other largely European countries) starting before WWI and going on to the present day. Trying to make larger political entities from little ones doesn't actually usually work. The US, India and China appear to be the major 'success' stories using this schema. Russia, not so much.

It's a pretty slow, messy process and nobody has any sort of idea how to make it work. Not that the US hasn't tried.

Re:Sorry, but unsustainable (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234269)

You seriously need to learn some history, Germany and Italy would be a good place to start.

Also the origins of the word 'balkanization'.

There is only so long the third world can blame the Brits, especially if they are still using the British built railways.

Just another money grab. (0, Flamebait)

dlt074 (548126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233359)

And now we see the real reason behind this entire charade. Take from the rich give to the poor. More class warfare.

Re:Just another money grab. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233411)

What an idiotic comment. Rich countries have generally contributed to the problem far more than the rest, but the rest will (and are) facing the brunt if the problems. Sandy was bad, but others have had it worse. This principle has been around for decades but rich countries have dragged their feet in doing anything I even this latest deal doesn't amount to much. The charade is the rich countries pretending that they are concerned.

Re:Just another money grab. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233521)

What a retarded comment, prove it last i heard weather does not target based on a country's wealth, it targets based a the amount of it populous that masterbates and kills kittens.

Re:Just another money grab. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233551)

As if the wealthy countries have done nothing for the poorer ones. Nope, no foods exported to the starving, no medicines provided to the ill, no classrooms built for the illiterate, no cell phones for the disconnected, nope, none of that stuff and more. The wealthy got that way by building on what their forbears built. The developing countries are following that example. I am waiting for the undeveloped countries to get a clue and start doing the same. Till then, the developed world can pour endless monies into the undeveloped world, and it will be for naught.

The charade... (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235809)

is that "rich" countries are pretending that they are rich. Most appear to be insolvent and much of their educated populations are headed for extinction for failure to reproduce.

Re:Just another money grab. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233491)

Nope, it's take from the rich and give it to the richest individuals, but the money first needs to pass through the most corrupt countries in the world to make it untraceable.

Re:Just another money grab. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233843)

It's like a situation where rich people are sending their sewage down the river to where the poor people live for 200 years, and when the poor eventually say "pay up for the damages", shortly before being completely immersed in the stuff, it's "class warfare". Yeah, it is in a way. But only because one side finally realized they were getting completely screwed over and decided to do something about it. If the alternative is for poor countries to keep getting steamrolled, then I'm all for "class warfare". This isn't a money grab, it's paying dues for services already rendered (i.e. the global atmosphere and oceans absorbing ~200 years worth of CO2 input from industrialized countries). We in the industrialized countries have been getting globally-subsidized mitigation of our pollution by being able to spread it out everywhere rather than having to contain it inside our own countries.

Re:Just another money grab. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42236369)

No, this is a take from the moderately well off and give to the wealthy and powerful under the guise of helping the poor. Some among the current poor will find a way to become wealthy out of this, but only so far as they help the currently powerful accumulate more wealth and power.

If they can still print the email (4, Funny)

paiute (550198) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233361)

Dear Seychelles,

We are sincerely sorry that your small island nation has been covered over by the Indian Ocean.

Attached is a coupon for 10% off any Boeing or Raytheon product. Simply print the coupon and present it at your local dealership to redeem.

Best wishes,
The United States of America

Re:If they can still print the email (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233393)

Amen

Re:If they can still print the email (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233427)

So . . . what will actually, legally, happen when the Seychelles go under? I mean, no land, no country, right? Or will they have some legal entity elsewhere that represents the waters over the islands? Another empty seat at the UN? What about long term debt? Can you still own land underwater? Maybe real estate investors might want to start building under water hotels? Maybe the submerged country will be a scuba divers' paradise?

Re:If they can still print the email (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233465)

So . . . what will actually, legally, happen when the Seychelles go under?

See the Scarborough Reef for an example of a couple rocks barely above sea level. You'll have a lot of whining about who owns it, and ham radio guys will visit every once in a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough_Shoal [wikipedia.org]

Note that its probably not going to collapse under the sea in moments... for years they'll just be less and less above high tide, then the day will come when there's only a couple rocks above average high tide, then finally those rocks will occasionally go under, then ...

Re:If they can still print the email (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233841)

It would not be hard for them to build up their land. With the money they bleed from the US, Canada, and UK (They will be the only ones really paying) they will be able to rise their land and turn it into a 2nd Venice. Then they can make lots of money from rowing people around in boats.

Re:If they can still print the email (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233679)

They can use the aid money to ship trash consisting mostly of cheap junk items manufactured in China and used once or twice before they broke in the United States to the Seychelles, where they can pile them on top of the island, creating a new surface a few meters higher.

Re:If they can still print the email (1)

Kelzar (1642061) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233875)

I think you've got to have land to have territorial waters and whatnot, so I'd think they would at least want to keep a few bits peeking above the surface. Otherwise I suppose they could either go the route of the Knights Hospitaller see Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and still have recognition without a jurisdiction, or they could just let their country dissolve.

Re:If they can still print the email (2)

budgenator (254554) | about a year and a half ago | (#42236375)

Most of the islands of the Seychelles are coral islands and atolls, which means they will always look like they are on the verge of becoming inundated, no matter what the sea levels do. Sealevel rises measured in millimeters per decade just don't seem that scary, hasn't been any significant warming for 16 years; these people are more worried about the gravy-train ending than anything else.

Re:If they can still print the email (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233663)

This is not funny. This is exactly how US "aid" operates. The target country never sees the first dollar.

Re:If they can still print the email (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233859)

So I guess if the US was to stop all their food programs, no one would mind? We can save a lot of money if we stop feeding the world.

Re:If they can still print the email (1)

dodobh (65811) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235643)

It would help if the food programs were aimed at purchasing from the local farmers *before* shipping food from the US.

Re:If they can still print the email (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233871)

This is exactly how US "aid" operates. The target country never sees the first dollar.

[Citation needed]

LOL (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233375)

I want to know where all of this "compensation" is going to come from. Our debt to gdp ratio is approaching 100 percent and rising, and the Europeans aren't exactly in good shape either. I don't know how Europeans feel, but I think when there is a choice between maintaining social security, medicare, and the military or giving money to brown people in a foreign country, Americans will choose the former.

Re:LOL (2)

ashelton (826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234015)

It doesn't really commit anyone to anything. It's mostly so they could get something out and not look like they'd just had a junket.

Voluntary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233389)

This better be voluntary.

One, I believe global warming is happening. However, I am skeptical that a majority (50% or greater) of it is human-caused. However, in any situation, we should be reducing pollution for the sake of pollution. We should be investing in alternative energies in order to have clean air, water, and hopefully cheaper electricity. I'd hope cheap electricity would correlate with people not having to work so much in order to pay their electric bills. (It bugs me so much when people use wood-burning fireplaces when it's not their primary source of heat, save for special occasions.)

I believe it is dangerous for something like that to be proposed. It may be called voluntary, but we know it's not. What it does is it strips national sovereignty away from nations. That isn't to say we (Americans) shouldn't be doing good for other nations. However, I don't want an outside group telling us we should even if it's "voluntary".

Let's assume the premise that these rich nations are at fault for global warming to an extent exceeding 50%. Let's say that global warming is having a substantial effect on poor nations' economies. So what? We should be helping those poor nations regardless, but by our own volition. And how many of those poor nations are struggling because of past atrocities involving forms of slavery and they being forced to grow cash crops (thus eliminating their own cultural food supply)?

I'm sure this will end well... (1)

GrimShady (2714901) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233429)

clear cutting the rainforest was a net co2 producer. Who will collect that fine?

Re:I'm sure this will end well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233665)

Spain? They seems to hate trees, at least historically...

BLOW HOOKERS BLACKJACK & CLIMATE CHANGE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233431)

....and then forget the climate change.

What ! you want me to give money to you for some unproven scientific THEORY that plots current temperature variations that are still well within the MARGIN OF ERROR !

Go to hell all you greedy bureaucrats that are hellbent on destroying my economic future. Even if you convince my bent Westminster politicians to scam me and take money, and it somehow turns out that this climate change does have exponential runaway feature, i know there is a fat chance in Hades that you would use the money to do anything constructive about it. You will just sit in your armored fortresses that you built with the money you collected, doing blow and hookers and playing blackjack with your carbon derivative futures market wall street friends.

You people make me sick.

Re:BLOW HOOKERS BLACKJACK & CLIMATE CHANGE (1)

Admiral Valdemar (2553412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233845)

Science is wrong because people can be shits? And the Grand Master of Logic Award 2012 goes to...

Re:BLOW HOOKERS BLACKJACK & CLIMATE CHANGE (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234037)

science can be and has been "wrong", scientists welcome a better model or falsification of an accepted one. Letting scientifically ignorant politicians use science to push an agenda invoving restribution of wealth, that is folly.

Re:BLOW HOOKERS BLACKJACK & CLIMATE CHANGE (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234591)

We always judge others by ourselves. I suppose.

All the Mice that ever Roared.... (0)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233493)

are coming to the trough.
Sorry, I gave at the office.

I pledge by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
~John Galt

And if you live on a coral atoll, move onto solid land before you start whining about sea level. You actually have a land level problem.

Seems like (3, Informative)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233515)

There are two different stories here. One says that wealthier nations will offer humanitarian aid to disaster struck areas, the other claims that general compensation is due for damages. Two completely different things, and the actual facts of the matter seem to be more towards humanitarian aid.

Re:Seems like (1)

ashelton (826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234089)

And even that is fairly non-binding and has a proviso of "when their financial circumstances permit" apparently. I believe the first confidence pledged some serious amounts of assistance most of which never eventuated.

Re:Seems like (3, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235259)

It looks like they agreed to encourage the member states to set aside up to $10billion a year, in order to aid countries affected by global warming. It also appears that money will not go to those countries until they actually have a disaster. In order to get countries like the US to agree to this, they chose to add that money to the crisis relief fund, instead of creating a new global warming relief fund. In other words, an imaginary line on a budget somewhere was increased. Also, the Kyoto agreement was extended for a few years.

If you pay attention, you'll see when a disaster strikes a country, hundreds of countries around the world promise millions, or even billions, in aid to the affected country. As time passes and the world news stops focusing on the disaster, everyone forgets, and most of those countries that promised aid don't actually deliver. I suspect here is nothing different.

Annnnnd.... (5, Insightful)

HappyCycling (565803) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233765)

This is why people think climate change is just a huge scam masquerading as an environmental cause.

Re:Annnnnd.... (2)

timeOday (582209) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233887)

Mind if I ask where you live? I have a few truckloads of garbage to dump somewhere.

Re:Annnnnd.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233919)

Garbage is a different issue. At least be intellectually honest.

Re:Annnnnd.... (4, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233977)

Garbage is a different issue.

Perhaps, since garbage can always be carted away later.

Maybe a better analogy would be a government that decides not to compensate residents when it builds a dam to make a reservoir out of a valley where people were living.

Re:Annnnnd.... (1)

sauvesean (1806910) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234009)

At leas in that situation it would go to a real court, not some kangaroo lobby groups

OR ... Judge Roy Bean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42234109)

From www.qsl.net/w5www/roybean.html
But with the nearest courtroom a week's ride away, and County Commissioners eager to establish some sort of local law enforcement. They appointed Roy Bean Justice of the Peace for Precinct No. 6, Pecos County, Texas. Roy was just crazy, or drunk enough to accept. He packed up and moved north from Vinegaroon to a small tent city on a bluff above the Rio Grande named Langtry in honor of a railroad boss who had run the Southern Pacific's tracks through it.
- - - - -
I am coming to belive that the Smith and Wesson, or its modern equivalents, will soon be the ONLY true law, as justice no longer exists outside any individual's willingness to die or become a slave to either corporate or bureaucrat power mongering.

Re:Annnnnd.... (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234307)

First of all, when a dam is built the consequences for the upstream residents are pretty easy to determine. A better analogy would be like building a dam and a fish hatchery and then refusing to compensate some tribe a hundred miles downstream because they don't consider hatchery fish to be actual fish.

With dams, we compensate all the property owners upstream (or none). So, what will we be paying The Netherlands for sea level rise due to AGW? Or all the residents on Long Island when the hurricanes wash their ocean front properties away?

Re:Annnnnd.... (1)

timeOday (582209) | about a year and a half ago | (#42236201)

So, what will we be paying The Netherlands for sea level rise due to AGW?

No, from the article, I think this is mainly what to do about the most accute cases - tiny island nations that will be underwater 50 years from now.

Or all the residents on Long Island when the hurricanes wash their ocean front properties away?

This has nothing to do with the UN, but yes, to the tune of $60 BN from Sandy alone [nydailynews.com] . (Of course not all that damage is due to sea level rise).

But going forward, this is going to be a huge issue, as owners of expensive waterfront property feel ripped off by rising sea levels (which they are not exclusively responsible for), but people who live far away don't want to subsidize millionaires' foolishness [greeniacs.com] .

Re:Annnnnd.... (2)

bunratty (545641) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234013)

Ah... so disbelieving AGW has nothing to do with scientific evidence. Thank you for clearing that up once and for all.

Re:Annnnnd.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42235045)

Ah... so disbelieving AGW has nothing to do with scientific evidence. Thank you for clearing that up once and for all.

It doesn't. Generally speaking, believing in it doesn't either. People react emotionally then construct rationalizations to validate their emotions. The scientific evidence hands down supports the AGW side, which means that they have a much better rationalization, but I'm not sure that granting carte blanche to the side with the better rationalization is a good approach to public policy.

My view is that both sides of the political spectrum have things they think are quick fixes which, while they may at times be an element of an effective solution, if implemented without delicate consideration or in circumstances where they are ill-suited tend to make things worse. We have this endless game where both sides look for excuses for why they should be allowed to implement their quick fixes without any impediments.

The left tends to think that you can mandate an optimum (i.e. that you can just figure out what the best setting of some social parameter is and just set it there). The right tends to think that regulation only ever impedes achievement of optima and there is never need for regulation to exclude any kind of perverse rewards in the system. Both of these tendencies are delusional. Interestingly, both sides are capable of correctly diagnosing these tendencies in the other, but incapable of understanding their own diseases.

Re:Annnnnd.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42236115)

Amen!

Re:Annnnnd.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42234335)

Because the rich nations where all the climate scientists live have voluntarily agreed to give money to poor nations where they don't live?

That makes no sense.

Re:Annnnnd.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42234781)

If by "give", you mean "make poor countries economically dependent on rich countries so that they are forced to cooperate with us when it comes to military policy, free trade and natural resource extraction, deportation and extradition, and sharing of internal information", then sure.

Re:Annnnnd.... (0)

artor3 (1344997) | about a year and a half ago | (#42235415)

No, people think that because they've been force-fed propaganda for decades and are no longer able to make rational, evidence-based decisions about the world.

Because the rich and corrupt won't admit it exists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42233831)

It's hard to make any real advancements when the people controlling the country won't admit it's a problem, (which as any alcoholic knows, if the first step to any solution).

They're not serious about it yet. (1)

ashelton (826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42233973)

It's a by product of the UN requiring consensus from every nation to pass anything. The smaller nations know we're not going to stop increasing global carbon emissions (and maybe believe they can continue on mostly as usual) so hope they can get some money out of the process. And it's pretty convenient for the US as they can justify doing nothing on the basis of the UN being ineffectual. Meanwhile China says it doesn't apply to them (despite being the biggest global emitter) because they didn't get to poison the planet in the first place so they deserve their turn (In UN terms that's referred to as "equity"). I recommend http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U/ [youtube.com] for the current numbers. Basically if we want a planet that looks remotely like the comfortable one we occupy now we'd need to peak carbon emissions soon (before 2020) and start reducing at unheard of rates. Instead most of the planet has no intention of stopping, some of the nations just want to get some money out of it, and a small group (15% of global emissions) are trying to cut their emissions by numbers that are a small fraction of what would be needed globally. We're pretty much guaranteed to blow through any manageable carbon trajectory in the next decade. Probably sooner because most of the news out of the climate scientists is bad and that they may have badly underestimated how sensitive the system is. Be thankful though, we'll basically get to watch mankind fumble their first highly probable global crisis (barring miracle discoveries or climate science being wrong in a good way) which should be entertaining. Given the current prediction is 4c by by 2050 (twice the "acceptably dangerous" level of 2c, 6c by 2100) we'll even get to see many of the effects start to kick in.

Soooo..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42234165)

what does this mean for the poor countries ravaging rainforests all over the world? Am I going to start seeing "rainforest money" in my mailbox!?

So Obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42234327)

This is an obvious and thinly veiled talk about redistribution on a global scale that uses environmental issues as the backdrop.

Bad deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42234371)

The outcome of these talks is just not enough. An extension of Kyoto is not nearly enough. I just ran out of hope. This issue will not be solved and a lot of people will die as a result.

Screw Africa (0, Flamebait)

p51d007 (656414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234383)

Look at the continent of Africa...pretty much everything south of the oil fields IS A WASTELAND. A black preacher said it best...."you blacks ain't built nothin' ". Yep, pretty much hits the nail on the head! Why should countries, that actually BUILT up their nations, be forced to once again prop up countries that want to run around barefoot, shooting each other with spears? Oh, but their countries are run by dictators? Yeah, and where do you think the trillions already handed to these countries (unicef) has gone?

Re:Screw Africa (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234563)

What a hideous distortion. First of all the "First World" has been plundering sub-Saharan Africa for over five centuries, and second of all a good deal of the economic woes of the region are due directly to those policies.

Third; you're an ignoramus (and probably a crypto racist). There were sub Saharan kingdoms of a fairly sophisticated nature.

Re:Screw Africa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42235593)

Look at the continent of Africa...pretty much everything south of the oil fields IS A WASTELAND. ...that want to run around barefoot, shooting each other with spears?

This level of ignorance in 2012 is just unacceptable.

You're on Slashdot so evidently you are capable of basic internet use - do yourself a favour and actually read up on the facts about Africa before spouting this drivel in the future. If you can't be bothered to do that at least look at a map. South Africa is an oil producing country and it is literally the southmost country on the continent. So your assertion that everything south of the oil fields is 'a wasteland' is wrong - south of the oil fields isn't land at all, it's the ocean.

Even if we presume that your comment is only referring to the relatively oil rich north, south of that we have Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique...none of which are particularly known for "shooting each other with spears".

Here's something for you - this is a file photo of Maputo [wikipedia.org] in Mozambique. Man, there are so many spears flying from those apartment windows you can barely see anything else!

Wasteland indeed.

where to spend money on a raft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42234433)

I guess no one offering to take in refugees from Maldives or Bangladesh?

Greed (1)

lorinc (2470890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234657)

'We're past the mitigation [emissions cuts] and adaptation eras. We're now right into the era of loss and damage. What's next after that? Destruction?'

Obviously, the ultimate answer to this question is the same as for the Fermi paradox: greed.

Sounds like a bad version of emission credits (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42234835)

Countries paying an undefined compensation in proportion of their wealth won't solve anything. If we want to incentivize emission cuts, we should require countries to pay up (or receive aid) in proportion of their emissions. That's what the old emission credit system did, and while it wasn't perfect it was still much better than the current treaty. But that wasn't good for the radical greens, now look at what we've got as a result.

UN: Threat or Menace? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42235093)

Don't worry, Hugh, Jennifer and her bankster elite puppet-masters will pay for saving the planet. Using your pension and tax funds, of course. I seriously doubt the UN is going to bother Arab oil sheiks, Chinese Party bosses, or the Indian Parliament to fund this "aid". Damned sure better not bother me.

A few hundred triillion in "damages" would not do a DAMNED thing about climate change, WHATEVER it's cause. This is a shakedown, pure and simple.
I will suggest to you that Ms. Haverkamp and her pals have a much, much bigger disconnect to deal with. There's more than a tort here, there's hanging offenses.
Not the least of which is the perversion of science.

Sorry to be blunt. I wish more people would drink less Kool-Aid(tm), though.

What's the real story here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42235727)

This whole discussion makes me puke.

You think that artifically driving up the cost of energy in "carbon trading or fines" is going to somehow save the planet? It's really, really simple, even you retards can get it if someone explains it in simple enough terms. So here goes:

You make my gas artifically expensive, I use a little bit less of it. Maybe I use a whole lot less of it. In any case, I demand less. The price drops a bit. This means that China/India/Whoever can access more of that resource, and get the habit too.

Does overall comsumption go down? No, of course not. I remains stable, but perhaps gets burnt in a less efficient, more polluting engine.

It's this simple: While the resource is there, humans will use it. When it's gone, humans will look for something else. This has nothing to do with rich or poor.

So, my suggestion is this: Go to the Chinese government, get them to stop burning their shitty brown coal for their energy needs, and while you're there, get them to pay for the flood damage on my house.

And look how well "institutionalization culture" has done in Africa so far: The more money arrives, the more it feeds the corruption and the more it ends up in the wrong pockets. That's the real story here: we've got a band of banana republics lobbying for more corruption fodder...

Its a faith issue, really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42235811)

People of 'Science' believe that the earth was created billions of years ago, based on research.

People of 'Faith' believe that the earth was created thousands of years ago, by a supreme being, because he could.

People of 'Climate Change' believe the earth was created 200 years ago, because that's when the base their temp data, because its convenient.

If all the Climate Change people would simply run into the chipper/shredder (I'll make a solar powered one if they fear the emissions) we can get on with life.

Glenn Beck was Right!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42236315)

And everyone called Glenn Back a scare monger when he mentioned this was their purpose. Have the rich countries pay the poor countries. He has been saying this is the purpose of climate change advocates for the past 5 years. Everyone says he is a loon, but then when he is right, nobody says anything.

So here you go all you anti Beck guys who never listen to him and just listen to what people say about him. He was right and has been on so many things...like the 08 fiscal cliff and the endless wars in the middle east, and all the Bush spending, and all the Obama spending.

Glenn Beck Was Right!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42236373)

He predicted this 5 years ago.
Please don't delete this comment like the last one I posted saying the same thing.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...