Having vision to address climate change

So is the UN now irrelevant as well regarding addressing this adequately? And why does this overshadow and take precedence over the conference in Cochabamba? Because the indusrtrial nations didn't condone that? And why don't people really give a damn about the very issues that decide their very fate? Questions, questions....
~~~~
http://pwccc.wordpress.com/

"Why do we need a second commitment period?

The world doesn’t need a second commitment period of the KP just for the sake of it. It needs it, because ambitious and binding mitigation commitments are terribly needed. The IPCC stated in its last report that developed countries in aggregate should reduce between 25 and 40% of their emission level of 1990. That was back in 2007, since then climate change symptoms have worsened at unpredicted speed.

One of the major benefits of the Kyoto Protocol, is that it had a ‘top down” approach: first define what is the aggregated level of mitigation needed, and then see how to share the task among the developed countries. That is why article 3.1 of the Protocol states that parties shall “reduce their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels”. It is striking that the proposed amendment just fills out this number with a big X. The Peoples Agreement of Cochabamba demanded that this number should be 50. If that is impossible, it should at least be something within the IPCC range.

So, pledging to reduce 13-17%2 is not an answer to the world’s needs. Stating you pledge to this, with a 1,5 degree or even a 2 degree goal in mind, is just fooling the public opinion. Those pledges lead to a 4-degree increase.

But it becomes even worse checking the proposed amendment to Annex B, where all pledges should be listed, and verifying that several countries are not offering their pledges for this KP process: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Russia, and of course the US will not be part of the second commitment period".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This appears at the end of document in what appears to be an out to get nations off the hook and as it is the U.S is not bound by the extention because the U.S. never ratified the treaty :

"Option 1:

Decides to establish a permanent forum as a means for Parties to report and evaluate impacts and consequences of policies and measures; this would offer a common space where Parties may provide information on their specific needs and concerns relating to such consequences, and identify ways to minimize negative consequences of the policies and measures adopted by Annex I Parties on non-Annex I Parties.

Option 2:

Decides that Parties should use existing channels, including national communications, and report on observed impacts and specific needs and concerns relating to social, environmental and economic consequences of mitigation actions taken by Parties."
page25
~~~
"The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would ensure that countries will be legally bound to carry out any pledges they make. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.

The deal doesn't explicitly compel any nation to take on emissions targets, although most emerging economies have volunteered to curb the growth of their emissions.

Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for at least another five years under the accord adopted Sunday"

~~~~
response:

So I suppose since the U.S. is the only signatory to have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. is absolved from this extension as well, so in reality this along with "voluntary" cuts in emissions means NOTHING. This if anything was a victory of "intent."
~~~~~

" It would take effect by 2020 at the latest."

&

"But the deal's language left some analysts warning that the wording left huge loopholes for countries to avoid tying their emissions to legal constraints, and noted that there was no mention of penalties. "They haven't reached a real deal," said Samantha Smith, of WWF International. "They watered things down so everyone could get on board."

Environmentalists criticized the package — as did many developing countries in the debate — for failing to address what they called the most urgent issue, to move faster and deeper in cutting carbon emissions."

~~~
response:
2020 is TOO LATE, and they know it.

They set up a way to collect money ( and still do not know where it is coming from) to aid or supposedly aid developing countries with effects, though the "cures" for those effects are open ( also wonder if the World Bank will have say in those funds.) I am sure the industrial agriculture companies will now get their foot in the door with the GM seeds. So again, it is up to us to do what these inefficient ineffective oil whores cannot and will not do. Politics simply cannot deal with moral issues and crises as they need to be dealt with. They agreed to "start" which is totally unacceptable now under the circumstances and merely got something on paper to agree to agree. No moral courage whatsoever. Just loyalty to BP, Shell, Chevron, EXXON,....The oil cartels that really run this government and economy.