E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDOHA, Qatar -- U.N. talks on a new climate pact resumed Monday in oil and gas-rich Qatar, where negotiators from nearly 200 countries will discuss fighting global warming and helping poor nations adapt to it.
The two-decade-old talks have not fulfilled their main purpose: reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are warming the planet.
Attempts to create a new climate treaty failed in Copenhagen three years ago but countries agreed last year to try again, giving themselves a deadline of 2015 to adopt a new treaty.
A host of issues need to be resolved by then, including how to spread the burden of emissions cuts between rich and poor countries.
Focus on Kyoto Protocol, raising money
That is unlikely to be decided in the two-week talks in the Qatari capital of Doha, where negotiators will focus on extending the Kyoto Protocol, an emissions deal for industrialized countries, and trying to raise billions of dollars to help developing countries adapt to a shifting climate.
EPA
South African Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana Mashabane speaks during the opening of the climate talks in Doha, Qatar, on Monday.
Activists hope storm-struck US will deliver at Doha climate talks
"We all realize why we are here, why we keep coming back year and after year," said South Africa Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, who led last year's talks in Durban, South Africa. "We owe it to our people, the global citizenry. We owe it to our children to give them a safer future than what they are currently facing."
The U.N. process is often criticized, even ridiculed, both by climate activists who say the talks are too slow, and by those who challenge the scientific near-consensus that the global temperature rise is at least partly caused by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil.
The concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide has jumped 20 percent since 2000, according to a U.N. report released last week. The report also showed that there is a growing gap between what governments are doing to curb emissions and what needs to be done to protect the world from potentially dangerous levels of warming.
The goal of the U.N. talks is to keep the global temperature rise under 3.6 F, compared to pre-industrial times.
The Maldives, the lowest-lying nation on Earth, is at risk of disappearing from the world map, scientists say.
Obama: 'I won't go' for climate action that hurts jobs, growth
The threat 'today'
But efforts taken so far to rein in emissions, reduce deforestation and promote clean technology are not getting the job done. A recent projection by the World Bank showed temperatures are expected to increase by up to 7.2 F by 2100.
"Climate change is no longer some distant threat for the future, but is with us today," said Greenpeace climate campaigner Martin Kaiser, who was also at the Doha talks. "At the end of a year that has seen the impacts of climate change devastate homes and families around the world, the need for action is obvious and urgent."
Dangerous warming effects could include flooding of coastal cities and island nations, disruptions to agriculture and drinking water, the spread of diseases and the extinction of species.
Many scientists also say that extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Sandy's onslaught on the U.S. East Coast, will become more frequent as the Earth warms, although it is impossible to attribute any individual event to climate change.
The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, is the most important climate agreement reached in the U.N. process so far. It expires this year, so negotiators in Doha will try to extend it as a stopgap measure until a wider deal can be reached.
Ex-climate change skeptic: Humans cause global warming
For thousands of years, permafrost has trapped Siberia's carbon-rich soil, a compost of Ice Age plant and animal remains. But global warming is melting the permafrost and exposing the soil, causing highly flammable methane to seep out. NBC's Jim Maceda reports.
Divisions
The problem is that only the European Union and a handful of other countries -- that together are behind less than 15 percent of global emissions -- are willing to put down emissions targets for a second commitment period of Kyoto.
The United States rejected Kyoto because it did not impose any binding commitments on major developing countries such as India and China, which is now the world's No. 1 carbon emitter.
Climate-changing methane 'rapidly destabilizing' off East Coast, study finds
The United States and other Western countries insist that the firewall in the climate talks between developing and developed countries must be removed so that the new treaty can apply to all nations.
China and other developing countries want to maintain a clear division, saying climate change is mainly a legacy of Western industrialization and that their own emissions must be allowed to grow as their economies expand, lifting millions of people out of poverty.
The Inuit, who survived for centuries by hunting seals and whales, are watching their way of life disappear.
Complete Environment coverage on NBCNews.com
That discord scuttled attempts to forge a climate deal in Copenhagen in 2009 and risks a relapse in Doha as talks begin on a new global deal that is supposed to be adopted in 2015 and implemented in 2020.
The rich-poor divide is also deepened by arguments over climate aid meant to help developing countries convert to cleaner energy sources and adapt their infrastructure to rising sea levels and other effects of global warming.
More world stories from NBC News:
- Egypt's Morsi says he wants to stabilize country
- More than 100 killed in Bangladesh factory fire
- Drug gang bust in Honduras nets $100M assets
- Irish editor who published pics of naked Kate Middleton resigns
- Scientists rush to save manta rays, the 'pandas of the ocean'
- Despite troubles at home, Egypt's Morsi is pivotal player in Mideast
Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
You can't differentiate between poor and wealthy countries when it comes to setting rules. Time has proven the wealthy use the poorer nations to get richer. They do this by using slave labor and skirting the pollution laws in regulated nations. Make all the rules or laws the same for every nation! Stop the slave labor on top of that and we will be here for millions of years.
Thousands of Bangladeshi workers blocked the streets of a Dhaka suburb Monday, not because they lost loved ones but because of the conditions they work and are forced to work in. The gates where locked keeping them from leaving the building. People jumped to their death. Would it shock you to know they where employed by a wealthy American?
Should just stabilize the planet's climate at a level that will prevent any more drastic coolings like the Dryas and Little Ice Age and delay the next glaciation for as long as possible. Unless when speaking of 'our children's future' you continue to be short sighted. If the scientists are correct then we have in our hands the means to somewhat control the climate, right?
Population growth is the real problem. Earth can only support so many people. Cut back on the population and you will cut back on carbon emissions automatically. Increasing the population and expecting to cut back on carbon emissions is impossible. We have been globally aware of this since the 70's and look what what we've accomplished. My money is on expect more of the same, and that will take care of part of the population catastrophically.
Your naivete is breathtaking.
Let's just ignore it and let God take care of it for us.
No, really.
God, I hope not.
Nothing much is going to change until society comes to terms with the need to place restrictions on sociopath individuals from reaching high levels of political and wealth control.
As long as people who have no regard for anyone else other than themselves and their own short term goals can make decisions at the highest levels, accumulating wealth will always take precedence over the greater good.
pullmyfinger get real. You are not NASA and they have been studying it since 1976 since Ford's time. This problem can and will be address with new Tech. MIT has a liquid battery design that support 12 hours to be used with windmills and solar. This will provide continuous energy. CSU Engineering designed a new windmill that does the job of 4 windmills on just 11 miles/hour wind. There is plenty we can do. As for the poor countries if you set them up with new tech they will actually be better off. China last time stated it
couldn’t cut back and now 40% of their rivers are extremely polluted. They are short sighted.
Do nothing and watch crops fail and water shortages. It is a pay me now or pay me later. I live in an upper middle class neighborhood. The area always votes Republican. Most of us built our home Geothermal with all E-star appliances and now some of my neighbors added solar. The beauty of it is that we still have it at 72 degrees all year and energy is cut by 40%. The only down side is the Koch brothers will be upset and who cares about them. Better fuel efficiency in cars is a win-win situation.
The only thing certain in life is change. I've asked many individuals this question and have never gotten an answer that makes sense. What is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?
Svenolafson,
The numerous Ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland, depict almost a Million+years of Earths temperature swings, (8+cycles)... see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore.html
The last 5+climate cycles; when mankind has existed on Earth and the sea levels/land masses are about where they are TODAY. The Earths oceans (70+% of Earth's surface & roughly 97% of the Earth's water supply), help moderate these temperature swings and enable mankind to exist on the Earth's surface...
The last Temperature rise has been SLOWER and is now about 3+degrees C LOWER than the highs reached during the four other temperature highs... see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
BTY - According to this data - The ice core data from Vostok shows that Antarctica is experiencing a long-term (4,000 year) cooling trend mirroring the Greenland GISP2 cooling trend of 10,000 years... article & graph - http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/
Just like the sea ice coverage of the Arctic, which has varied this year between a high of 16+million square kilometer during March and 3.5+million square kilometer low during Sept. Presently covering about 7.00 million square kilometers (2.70 million square miles).... see http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
All references are using NOAA & NASA data sources...
The real issue is the transition of the talks from an effort to control emissions to a wealth transfer agenda by the poor and developing countries.
As for climate change. It took a hundred years of the industrial revolution to create the situation, and the direction cannot be changed in five or ten years, even if all emissions were stopped tomorrow.
It wont be stopped there is money involved
There is an important factor called rate of change. Reduce the rate and you can see benefits check NASA's site.
So poor countries are so because of big bad greedy America and other western countries and not because of their twisited primitive corrupt governments?
No. Are you drunk?
Poverty = Widespread under education = Autocratic rule = Self serving despots = Poverty = ...
It will take a hundred years to actually have the problem evolve into a solution. All of the UN meetings are just a justification for looking like they're doing something, while the diplomats enjoy a privileged lifestyle.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference during Dec 2009, in Copenhagen...
It was while the EU was experiancing one of their COLDEST events, on record... see http://www.eutimes.net/2009/12/snowy-europe-cold-snap-brings-transport-chaos/
This system was designed by the rich for the rich quit fattening the 1% pocket , dont buy anything u dont need all it does is make them richer and destroys our environment, look at the landfill sites and how they get people to think you need the newest gadget be smarter than them, like monopoly when the rich have it all the game is over and they will not be happy till they do have it all greed is never happy. Same way they rip us all off with the gas prices dont buy and the greedy ones will lower the price, let the people with numbers control not the gas companies.And yes big greedy countries are the problem
Whoever taught you English should be shot.
And I'll buy whatever the hell I please. You do have that "ranting like a lunatic" thing down pat, though.
Yo god
Your Nic tells me everything I need to know about how you feel about yourself. The view from your high horse would be better if you could exract your head from your A$$.
Most of the countries (US included) will just make excuses and stonewall... politically and culturally there is no will.
There is no political will to have our economy further weakened by the pursuit of folly.
China and most of Asia are still producing the R-12 appliances and manufacturing other CFCs...
Folly - Is when you take a heaver than air gas, that is very energy efficent when used in the refegeration process and fire supression. And replace it with a crossive gas that requires MORE ENERGY, higher operating pressures, and provides about half of the R-12 service life. Resulting in many more repaires, higher initial/operational cost, and MORE accidential releases of the gas into the enviroment...
Research the Ozone hole over the Arctic durin the winter of 2011, caused by the extended LOW temperatures... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110321-ozone-layer-hole-arctic-north-pole-science-environment-uv-sunscreen/
BTY - I have a Degree in HVAC (commercial, residential & vehicle), a permit to work with CFCs sense the early 1990s, and worked on AC systems sense the 1960s. The half-life of the average CFC is around 90+years in the atmosphere...
The republicans are looking for the reason they've lost to president obama ??? let me help you guys , first thing , drop MORONI , and turn back to JESUS CHRIST !!! drop the GREED , drop the LYING , drop the HIPOCRICY , drop the SELFISHNESS , drop the SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS , drop the WELFARE ENTITLEMENT FOR THE RICH , drop the ARROGANCE , drop the OFFSHORE TAX DODGING , drop the OBSTUCTIONIZM. IN OTHER WORDS , '' DROP THE REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE TEA PARTY OF THE 1% '' , AND IT WILL GIVE SANITY A FIGHTING CHANCE !!!!!!!
Drop dead
Most of what you just ranted about has nothing to do with the tea-party. You listed some of the basic agenda of the progressives.
A lecture by Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture
January 17, 2003
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
….
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
So what is your point? The science of global warming is now being discussed by politicians.
I would remind you that Chichton writes science fiction. Medical doctors depend on "consensus science" all the time to decide when a drug is safe and effective, there is never enough testing for a rigorous proof. You can take "consensus" here to have about the save meaning as "the preponderance of the evidence" suggests in legal speak.
Your shorts are tied in the wrong knot here.
I don't get my science from fiction.
Nice argument Pro, if you follow it to the core it essentially removes any and all responsibility for human beings when it comes to how we effect the climate. Don't worry folks, climate change will eventually happen, granted it might take another dozen or so super storms which literally wipe out whole coast lines and islands but it will come. The one thing i am not going to be able to handle well is when my grand kids ask me point blank "WTF did your generation screw us over?"
Get the UN out of the US. We pay the bills for these goofballs. Let 'em move the headquarters to Europe and they can argue and regulate all they want. We have our own problems to deal with... Article mentioned CO2..... well if we can just get all the leeches to stop breathing, we'll kill two birds with one stone. Less gas and more cash!
And yet... you just won't stop! You should be setting an example.
Why don't you just change your handle to Troll. It would most certainly be the truth. But then for people like you truth is an unknown concept.
The earth's climate has gone through warming and cooling trends long before man was on the planet. There is little if any evidence to suggest that we can significantly impact those long term trends.
Plenty of evidence, Peter.
Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4–5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[38][39] Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.
Yes humans have been causing a rise in co2.
We have altered it by an astounding 35 percent by some standards.
Nature, on the other hand, has caused co2 amounts to change by 2000 percent on occasion.
Yes, we need to reduce co2 emissions.
Don't get all heady about it.
These changes will occur with or without us.
Were you around five hundred million years ago? Is that the type of climate you would like to live in?
Yes, the Earth has gone through changes, but those changes are partially the reason we are here. It has gradually become a planet friendly to life.
Hell, 4 billion years ago, almost nothing could live on the planet. How about we do our best to make the climate like that!
The study, published in the June 19 issue of the journal Science shows that peak CO2 levels over the last 2.1 million years averaged only 280 parts per million; but today, CO2 is at 385 parts per million, or 38% higher.
“We know from looking at much older climate records that large and rapid increase in C02 in the past, (about 55 million years ago) caused large extinction in bottom-dwelling ocean creatures, and dissolved a lot of shells as the ocean became acidic,” he said. “We’re heading in that direction now.”
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/32769/more-atmospheric-co2-today-than-in-the-past-2-1-millions-years/#ixzz2DLFczRs6
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/32769/more-atmospheric-co2-today-than-in-the-past-2-1-millions-years/#ixzz2DLFA8WRM
These changes will occur with or without us. Sure, but only a suicidal maniac would be wanting to speed it up.
The article is pointing out the biggest obstacle we have in fighting global warming.............a conscensus that allows action. It will be hard to achieve for many reasons. An obvious one is the impact of the large amounts of money being spent by certain industries trying to avoid spending money on cleaning up their act. Another is that it is global, and that includes governments very different than our own with concerns and pressures unique to them. Trying to catch us with the rest of the industrialized world, for example. That leads them to cut corners to catch up. Many do not have the resources to invest in clean energy.
I wouldn't hold my breath in hopes of something actually being done.
And many of them will take the money and then do what they want with it and the H**l with the rest of the world.
If man-made global warming is real, then according to the experts we have to cut carbon emissions back to about the same level as in 1910. Not the "per capita' emissions, the total emissions. Since Kyoto, China has gone from insignificant to the major emitter. They could have chosen to take the high ground with clean energy at the cost of slower economic growth, but they didn't, and they've made things far worse than they were before.
Any plan that is going to work has to:
Instead we're getting "cap and trade" and other such plans to redistribute the wealth, that don't actually do a thing to reduce emissions.
We also have to accept the reality that the only technology that exists at this time that has zero carbon emissions and is developed enough to start building plants immediately is nuclear. We should certainly put significant effort into developing a viable means of using solar power to replace fossil fuels, but that technology is not in a place where it can start replacing fossil fueled power plants on a wide scale. Nuclear is.
Nuclear is unsafe you say? Perhaps it is. So which of two bad choices do you take, continued global warming or the risk of nuclear power plant failures? If you vote against nuclear you're saying that global warming is the lesser evil in your opinion and you give up any moral right to complain about nobody doing anything.
But in practice, nothing is going to happen because the developing nations don't want to have to use clean energy and the developed nations are prevented by politics from wide scale use of nuclear power and so we go on.
Anyone presumptious enough to say that man can have more than a minor impact on our climate has a badly hidden agenda.
There is no consensus about the economies of the world, hence there will be no consensus about greenhouse gas emissions. The wealthy will perish with the poor, just die in more comfort I suspect. If ocean levels rise, for instance, metropolitan areas along the existing coast(s) will perish, and there go both your wealthy and poor of those areas. New ports will be located further inland, and new groups of people will be wealthy and poor.
Look at Hurricane Sandy as an example and the barrier islands off of New York. Is it economically justifiable to rebuild in the areas demolished by the storm, with tax dollars generated in the nation's interior, or build up the nation's interior infrastructure instead, knowing now that New York's barrier islands will be subject to a Sandy like catastrophe in the future? It will mean displacing wealth from the New York, New Jersey area, just like raising sea levels would displace wealth in a place like Singapore.
At one time there were no railroads. At one time there was no interstate highway system, no cell phones, no online stock trading and banking. Could there be online stock trading and banking and cellphones, without New York train tunnels, and highway systems linking the existing port facilities of this country? Do people actually have to live on Fire Island? When one looks at natural catastrophe, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic activity, droughts, floods, are we actually looking at the victims of Hurricane Katrina, or the Port of New Orleans as a way of getting the grain harvest out of the American Midwest to the hungry around the world? If the latter is the case, then it is in the interest of the poor of the world to protect the Port of New Orleans from flooding.
Anyone presumptious enough to say that my schitting in my own back yard can have more than a minor impact on my health has a badly hidden agenda.
CHINA AND INDIA may want to lift millions outta poverty and that is good but..If they dont curb there Carbon emissions it wont be a lasting class change...because they wont have the Food they need to feed all these newly minted middle class people....because it aint raining in North America where most of there food is grown...
I fear it's to late..we have danced around this issue for so so very long that now...we have not just kicked the can down the road but over the edge...We have PRETENDED that global warming was like Santa Clause ..SOmthing either one took as fact or not...Well REAL SCIENCE has been telling us the grimm truth for a good 15-20 years...and America and her Western buddies have stick there collective heads in the sand ...and done NOTHING..we have even had ADMINISTRATIONS that have actively covered up or SILENCED any science that pointed toward global warming being REAL ...SO the game was on in the U.S. has been on for a long time..Only instead of moving toward real CHANGE in the way we produce power...We have made the scientest and serious politicians who have been WARNING AMerica about this ..Appear...foolish or tree huggers..or some new fringe hippie EARTH CHILD MOVEMENT....The ENTRENCHED POWER MAKERS BIG OIL,,have been running a smear campaign so there profits flow...but the Planet DIES...Now that makes sense...right...
I highly recommend the MOVIE narrated by Al Gore.........THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH...
Saw it years ago and had the apiphany.....America is about money and short term planing..There is no long view...we have NO PLAN..we learch from year to yearor from election cycle to election cycle ...trying to maintain..trying to consume more and more so our economy grows...The only REAL PLAN...in America..Is Profit....at the cost of life of the very planet we live on......Do the Powerful ENTRENCHED INDUSTRIALIST ....do they CARE that they are KILLING EVERYBODIES WORLD.....We all live on this spinning ball together..There is no place to hide.....EARTH IS IT....There is no life boat for the rich and powerful on this TITANIC...with enoughtime they to will parish..under the weight of there own unstoppable shortsighted GREED..The planet will in the end consume them as well......
All the politicans NEGOTIATING greenhouse emissions....in DOHA..is just plain STUPID...our destruction of our world has gone way beyond that....either we STOP producing CARBON or WE DIE...and that should be the PROGRAM for the Conferance....that is what we are facing are kids are grandkids....The INDUSTRIAL AGE IS OVER...we have come to the edge of the ice...and it's melting from under our feet...Do we pick MONEY.....OR LIFE.....Hummmmmmmm.....it's a tough question...It's up to ever one of us to make that choice for himself or her self....Whats it going to be....Things...Consumerism.....or ......a planet to live on...????
Give New Tech the freedom to do their job and stop oil lobbyist from getting in the way. I was a young Engineer when I heard radio companies claim that Cellular would never take off. They were wrong. It started
analog and new developments in semi-conductors made it smaller. When the analog changed to digital it opened up a whole new market. This is total success. It needed money in R&D but it has paid itself off.
New batteries, solar, wind and fuel efficient products will take off if lobbyists are not allowed to get in the way.
There is an important factor called rate of change. Reduce the rate and you can see benefits check NASA's climate site.
Sorry, good bye Maldives. Better start building barges and get agreements on which countries those barges can be towed to, with all your people on them.
may i suggest a pontoon party?
IMHO-2730490
The longest running sea-level measurements are recorded at Amsterdam, in the Netherlands, beginning in 1700.[38] Since 1850, the rise averaged 1.5 mm/year (about 0.060")...
Records dating from 1843 Australian data taken by an amateur meteorologist at the Port Arthur convict settlement, when merged with data recorded by modern tide gauges, indicated sea level rise of about 1 mm a year (about 0.040").[39]
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year from 1950 to 2009 and at a satellite-measured average rate of about 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[5] an increase on earlier estimates.[6]
The satellite-measurement accuracy is still in question due to their very short data period and many other factors...
WELLINGTON, New Zealand 6/3/2010 — Some South Pacific coral atolls have held their own or even grown in size over the past 60 years despite rising sea levels, research showed Thursday... see http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2010-06-03-coral_N.htm
..and we're all screwed....