After a week of heated argument (and "boos") with other countries in Bali, US Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky finally agreed to an amended compromise statement. According to the NY Times,

The agreement notes the need for "urgency" in addressing climate change and recognizes that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required." Still, it does not bind the United States or any country to commitments on reducing greenhouse pollution.


CNN:

The EU wanted an agreement to require developed countries to cut their emissions by 25 to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2020. The United States opposes those targets, along with Japan and Canada. The latest draft of the agreement removes the specific figures and instead, in a footnote, references the scientific study that supports them.


BBC:

The US and the EU earlier agreed that industrialised countries would not set firm emissions targets at this stage. The "Bali roadmap" initiates a two-year process of negotiations designed to agree a new set of emissions targets to replace those in the Kyoto Protocol.
...
The document coming out of the meeting, the "Bali roadmap", contains text on emissions cuts, the transfer of clean technology to developing countries, halting deforestation and helping poorer nations protect their economies and societies against impacts of climate change such as rising sea levels and falling crop yields. The roadmap sets the parameters and aims for a further set of negotiations to be finalised by the 2009 UN climate conference, to be held in Denmark.


So as far as I can tell, this is again an agreement with no teeth. The US has agreed to no tangible results whatsoever. It's progress in that we've agreed that Something Needs To Be Done and therefore are acknowledging that global warming is taking place, but all we've agreed to so far is to continue talking. Well, better that than nothing.
Early January is the AAS (American Astronomical Meeting, "double-A-S") meeting, and as always there's a slew of astro articles / press releases that trickle out from it through the media. The first one I've seen is how Mars missions killed life. Keep in mind that these are press releases and/or submitted presentations. There has been no peer review of the material, even though it's been worked on very hard by the astronomer presenting it and his/her team. It could still be proven wrong. The actual peer review papers associated with these things are usually quite tame by comparison.

And while we're at it, the word of the year is "pluto" - but as a verb! I might've preferred "climate canary" myself - even though Pluto's demotion is exciting, it holds much less meaning for the human race than global warming and those species that it is pushing past the edge of extinction.

Profile

asterroc

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425 26272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 6th, 2026 02:51 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios