Climate negotiators in Durban (COP17) put together the stick their fingers in the dyke platform

2020 is far too late!
2012 might even be too late.
What the hell is wrong with people?
Do we subconsciously believe that we deserve doom???

So how many times did this get voted down to move it back so fast when other posts have been in the same spot for two days? Interesting.

I think this is one reason why so many don't post here anymore. Some just want to monopolize the site with only certain content or other entities are here voting these types of posts down.

http://climateactiontracker.org/news/116/Durban-Agreements-a-step-towards-a-glob....TuQwCG42x8A.twitter
Durban Agreements a step towards a global agreement, but risk of exceeding 3°C-warming remains – scientists.
11th December 2011

Durban—11 December 2011-- As the climate talks in Durban concluded tonight with a groundbreaking establishment of the Durban Platform to negotiate a new global agreement by 2015, scientists stated that the world continues on a pathway of over 3°C warming with likely extremely severe impacts, the Climate Action Tracker said today.

The agreement in Durban to establish a new body to negotiate a global agreement (Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action) by 2015 represents a major step forward. The Climate Action Tracker scientists stated, however, that the agreement will not immediately affect the emissions outlook for 2020 and has postponed decisions on further emission reductions. They warned that catching up on this postponed action will be increasingly costly.

The Climate Action Tracker estimates that global mean warming would reach about 3.5°C by 2100 with the current reduction proposals on the table. They are definitely insufficient to limit temperature increase to 2°C.

A warming over 3°C could bring the world close to several potential global-scale tipping points, such as:

o Possible dieback of the Amazon rainforest
o Corals reefs being irreversibly replaced by algae and sea grass
o Irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheets of many centuries to thousands of years
o Risk of release of methane hydrates in ocean floor sediments further adding to the warming
o Permafrost thawing due to fast rising arctic temperatures

A depiction of the types of impacts likely from 1.5°C of warming, through 2°C and 3-4°C has been posted on the Climate Action Tracker website today.

The costs for adaptation and the residual damages from climate change will increase rapidly with warming. Approximate estimates indicate that the most extreme costs will be felt in West Africa and South Asia, with residual damage of 3.5% of regional GDP for 2°C warming and 5-6% for 3°C warming. With a 2°C warming, adaptation costs would be half those associated with a 3°C temperature rise.

The Climate Action Tracker today released an infographic to show the range of impacts that the world risks on a pathway to well over 3°C and beyond.

“What is positive in Durban is that governments have reopened the door to a legally binding global agreement involving the world’s major emitters, a door which many thought had been shut at the Copenhagen Conference in 2009,” said Bill Hare, Director of Climate Analytics.

“What remains to be done is to take more ambitious actions to reduced emissions, and until this is done we are still headed to over 3oC warming. There are still no new pledges on the table and the process agreed in Durban towards raising the ambition and increasing emission reductions is uncertain it its outcome.”

“There are still options available to close the gap between current globally planned mitigation and what is needed to hold warming below 1.5 or 2°C - if action takes place fast,” said Niklas Höhne, Director Energy and Climate Policy at Ecofys. “Emission reduction options are rapidly diminishing.”

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:

"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"

~~~~
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."

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

They set up a way to collect money 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.