Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> As a result, all language in the accord relating to the reduction of carbon emissions is essentially voluntary. The language assigns no concrete targets to any country for emissions reductions. Instead, each government has crafted a plan detailing how they would lower emissions at home, based on what each head of state believes is feasible given the country’s domestic political and economic situation.

I fail to see how this summit differs from previous summits without anything being legally binding.



This had to be added due to those in Congress paid off by Koch brothers to deny anthropogenic climate change. They are abhorrent to any effort to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/senate-bloc...

Getting everyone on board is a huge win and setting targets of 1.5C (max 2C) will help humanity stand together against the threat of climate change.


Mitch McConnell is from Kentucky. That alone is enough to explain his actions. Because, you know, coal mining, Kentucky... likewise whatsisname...ah, Inhofe ... from Oklahoma.

You know that people from states with strong extractive industries have a conservative tendency because of the really large business cycles, right? Throw in that these climes also sport lots of farmers, and.... Not everybody can move to the large, overpriced urban areas.

If Congress/the Senate is bought off that cheaply... which is always a questionable thing ... http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/10/ten_thin...


Note that Kentucky has an Oil Extraction tax of 4.5%.

Meanwhile, solidly blue California has none.


For what it's worth, the joy from the attendance on the final verdict felt like this time it mattered.


The participants will add $100M yearly from 2020.

That doesn't seem insignificant, and I think part of the thing about the deal is that it puts a public focus on green development -- WORLDWIDE.


Just like international development money in Europe has been moved to pay for handling refugees from war locally and military action in Syria, it is a risk that this pledge just becomes recycled money from this previous pot of money. (International development funds were about $130BN in 2014.) And countries like the Netherlands and Finland have been cutting back their spending recently, quite dramatically, if they just spend what they used to spend they could claim they have done their part already, without actually adding anything.

(They will add $100 billion, not million.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: