Starting today, all eyes are on the northern city of Copenhagen where experts and heads of state will meet for 10 days to try and agree on an action plan to stop global warming
Starting today, 07/12/2009, all eyes are on the northern city of Copenhagen where experts and heads of state will meet for 10 days to try and agree on an action plan to stop global warming.
The nickname given to the conference is "COP15" because it is the 15th conference dealing with climate issues, a conference whose decisions are supposed to replace the Kyoto Convention. According to the Kyoto Convention, signatories to the Convention were required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5% (within five years) from the level of emissions in 1990.
The Kyoto Convention was ratified by 185 countries (excluding the USA) and entered into force in 2005. Since the Kyoto Convention expires in 2012, an exchange agreement must be prepared. A binding convention to which the congregants are supposed to commit, that is why some define the convention as "the most important since the end of World War II."
why? Most scientists dealing with the climate agree that "the climate is flowing in a negative direction". In the last century, temperatures rose by more than half a degree. It is important to emphasize that this is a statistical figure, as there are areas where the temperature increased by more than 2 degrees.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "the increase in heat is due to greenhouse gas emissions as a result of human activity."
According to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) - the body that organizes the conference in Copenhagen, a small increase in temperature already causes heat waves, storms, droughts, floods and floods.
UNFCC experts say that there is a "narrow window of opportunity" to mitigate climate change, a window of opportunity that remains to save the situation.
Therefore, the United Nations Climate Change Organization (UNOCC) will not introduce the main goal: stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to a level that will not cause a dangerous tilt of the climate.
Before the industrial revolution, the concentration of DTP in the atmosphere was 278 ppm (parts per million). Today... 381. Although there is still a debate about what level is considered "dangerous", it is agreed that the level should be reduced to 1/2 by 2050.
To realize this, the congregants must decide:
1 - To what level of emissions will developed countries such as: Australia, USA, Japan and the like limit themselves.
2 - To what level of emissions will be limited developing countries such as: Brazil, India, China, a limitation that will not harm economic growth.
3 - Examining the possibilities for stabilizing the economy of (non-developed) countries by helping to reduce emissions, help and financial support by developed countries, financial support that will allow countries affected by climate change to adjust and adapt.
4 - Identify and take ways that will allow developing countries to enjoy equality in decision-making and the possibility of using advanced technologies.
According to the International Institute for Environment and Development, there are options for a number of results for the gathering:
1 - Without an agreement, the discussions will resume next year ……?
2 - As a result of the convention, countries will accept (voluntary) goals for reducing emissions. Opponents of the procedure claim that without international commitments the process of reducing emissions will take a long time or will not occur at all.
3 - Binding agreements that will ratify the Kyoto Convention and replace it in 2012.
Now assuming that all participants will reach positive conclusions, how can greenhouse gas emissions be reduced? According to the UNFCC, the industry including electricity generation, transportation, production and disposal of garbage and construction are responsible for about 80% of GHG emissions. The remaining 20% comes from ... deforestation!
That is why there are many who believe that the cheapest and correct way to reduce emissions is by stopping the destruction of forests:
reducing emissions from deforestation - REDD. "Red" Deaf and forest conservation will provide the quick solution, faster than changing laws and regulations to control emissions in the industry, therefore "Red" will be one of the focal points in discussions to reduce emissions.
In the Kyoto treaty there is no reference to the destruction of forests, according to "Red": developing countries that reduce the destruction of forests in their territories will earn carbon credits, worth a lot of money. "Red" projects are already being established by conserving reserves in the Baru district in Indonesia, the Makira forest initiative in Madagascar and other projects in each and every one of which the residents earn money from preserving the forest, money that is paid to them by industries in developed countries.
At the same time as the preservation of the forests, there is also the trade in emissions. Industries pay for the "right" to emit, meaning those who emit less earn more, the trading procedure has been in place since the Kyoto Treaty, but in order for it to continue, it is necessary to renew the agreements.
Many developing countries are concerned about the possibility of being committed to a deal that will harm their chances for economic development. Leaders of countries are demanding that developed countries recognize their "historical responsibility" for climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, a responsibility that will require developed countries to reduce emissions at much higher levels than developing countries, a commitment that will allow "developing" countries to continue to develop.
Alternatively, developing countries could reduce emissions in exchange for financial support that would enable development. In many cases, developing countries are the most vulnerable to climate damage, many of them live on low-lying coasts that are flooded, many of them live near deserts and are affected by droughts and dryness, they also need support to adapt to changes, therefore the place of the developing countries in the conference is important and their position is significant.
The "main player" in the conference is the USA, the second in the amount of emissions per person, (the first is Australia). The US representatives come to the conference when their country is in the process of revising environmental regulations and laws. The legislation that began (in the Senate Environment Committee) about a month ago will reach the Senate in the spring. President Obama stated that "the Copenhagen conference is a way station... not the end of the road", on the way to a climate agreement.
According to Obama "a global climate agreement must lead to actions", an agreement whose articles will be implemented immediately, "not a partial agreement or a political statement, but an agreement that will cover all the issues brought up for discussion", after such a statement from Obama it is important to check the cost of implementing the agreement (if and will be accepted).
The World Bank estimates that $400 billion will be needed each year to mitigate climate change, plus another $75 billion for adjustment and adaptation needs: treating climate refugees, preventing floods, planting mangroves, etc., as a result of diverting resources, "green jobs" will be created. In the US, 150 billion dollars have been allocated for the next ten years for jobs in clean energy.
In a limited but prominent and loud article, we will mention that our delegation represents a government that is building a coal-fired power station!
If all the parties agree, if all the participants agree on courses of action, they will not only agree but also commit, it is possible that we are at the beginning of a period when the leaders of the countries will also understand that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
51 תגובות
tall:
I am truly lost to those who try to drag me into complicity in her past.
Beyond our argument about the interpretation of things, which I have no doubt I'm right about - all this attachment to one person (that you actually allow yourself to argue with me when I say he's not a conspirator like you and you say I say he is - a funny thing in itself) - it has nothing to do with The real thing.
Even if Faldor was a conspirator (in the sense I have already explained - one who attributes to other scientists a motivation that is not of the kind) he would not have changed the statistics and I have already explained that someone who is not an expert - it makes sense to base himself on the statistics - that is, on the answer to the question of what position the majority of experts hold.
By the way - do you still think that distortion is friction or have you already recovered from it?
Good. you won You really are a lost cause.
What you can see here is a live example of how you hear 1 and understand 0.
DA just for the sport, if they didn't block links here I would send you several, I'm interested in what kind of crazy analysis you would produce.
By the way, even Pinchas Alpert, who knows Faldor well, confronted him on the air at least twice and thinks he is completely wrong (and even pointed out to him a number of incorrect factual claims on which he based his assessments - claims that since the confrontation with Alpert Faldor has stopped using them) - defines Faldor as a skeptic and not as an infidel
Apparently, perceiving a "problematic" reality according to Tamir's definition is a recipe for success.
And again, tell me, do you think the fact that I say that you are definitely a redhead and it's definitely possible that you're a brunette - means that I think you're both a redhead and a brunette.
tall:
there's nothing to do.
You know what people tend to do and you don't notice the fact that you are the one doing it.
My only problem is the dishonesty of some people and you are among them.
sweet Dreams.
The cute Michael.
No one hates you, you obviously have a problem with the perception of reality.
I asked several people to listen to the interview, I asked them what they understood Faldor to say, no one came to your conclusions.
There is an interesting phenomenon that I read a long time ago, people with problems tend to blame the people around them for their problems.
I mean that I "don't understand" I "pervert" and I insist....
Draw your own conclusions. If you can't, you're probably really lost.
In the hope that people will have enough honesty not to come down on me for my desire to be honest, I would like to add a fact that can be used as a weapon by the haters of the masses.
I listened to the article with Faldor one more time and heard something that escaped me in the previous listens.
When asked if it is possible that the money is being poured into the void, he said - as I mentioned - "definitely" but then he laughed a little and while laughing said something else that until this moment I did not hear because he was involved in the laughter. He said: "Even with a pretty good chance."
That is - contrary to what I argued before - he did talk about the chance (and he also understood - like me, and contrary to Tamir's understanding - that him saying "definitely" does not mean anything about the chance - at least he and I speak the same language).
Of course, the phrase "pretty good chance" is also rather vague (for example, if the chance of winning a million shekels in the lottery was 10%, I would define it as an excellent chance, that is - the phrase "pretty good chance" is a relative phrase that is difficult to estimate its magnitude)
And by the way - tell me, Tamir: are you really a redhead? Because I definitely think it's possible.
I also think it's definitely possible that you snorted.
So are you - in your Hebrew - both a redhead and a brunette?
And do you think Fermat's theorem was not true 30 years ago?
Who sacrifices Hebrew on the altar of faith?
It turns out that despite all the efforts I have devoted to you - you do not understand.
In retrospect - a waste of time.
Really call out to God because you are a religious person and prefer not to face the facts as they are.
Although I am an atheist. But you make a cry of "Oh God!"
fed up!!!! Stubborn donkey! Sees sun, says moon. Take a line, that's it, the world will die, don't move from it. We will change the Hebrew to continue in the faith.
tall:
You just don't understand Hebrew.
When you say that something is definitely possible, it does not mean that you say that something is true, but only that it is possible.
If someone asks me if it is possible that you are a redhead - I say - it is definitely possible.
It doesn't mean I think you're a redhead and it doesn't even mean what probability I attribute to your being a redhead.
When you say that something is not proven - it does not mean that you think it is not true, but only that it is not proven.
For example - 30 years ago - Fermat's theorem was not proven.
He was right after all - just as he is today.
Michael, we probably didn't hear the same interview.
Actually maybe yes, but you have a filter.
Just an example of a problem I understood:
you wrote:
He also didn't talk at all about the possibility that pouring money on a DPF would turn out to be a waste - except that he answered affirmatively "definitely" to the interviewer's question if it might turn out to be a waste.
Ask him if it is possible that the mallards they pour will turn out to be a waste, his answer is "definitely"
Does that mean he didn't say the Mallards would turn out to be a waste? Who here does not understand logic?
He emphatically said that there is no connection between CO2 and warming: Quote: "The causality between the rise of CO2 and temperature is not proven"
Does this also need to be put through a filter of faith??
You are the one who is trying to get hung up on wording. For all people, "causality is not proven" - equals - "no connection". You don't.
Apparently it's really hard for some people to admit a mistake. And it makes them behave in strange and illogical ways.
The Copenhagen conference is based on the claim that man is the (anthropogenic) cause of global warming, a claim that has not been scientifically proven. The claim that "the debate is over" is indicative of an anti-scientific approach. All political activity in the Al Gore style is based on intimidation and the selection of data and/or conclusions that are there to prove that the leaders of the conference are locked in on the solution they decided on in advance.
And another link to a summary of the opinions of several scientists:
http://www.sviva.gov.il/Enviroment/Static/Binaries/mechkarim/kliot_6-103_1.pdf
Interesting link:
A summary based on the conclusions of scientists in Israel (including Pinchas Alpert and Nir Shabiv)
http://www.actcool.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/GWREPORT.pdf
One of the interesting things in this summary is that it also refers to temperature changes in the oceans (which - according to Faldor in the given link - are not measured)
tall:
The problem with your determination is not as serious to me as the fact that you attribute the same determination to Faldor.
When you quote someone inaccurately it's not exactly telling the truth - especially when the inaccuracy is in a direction that "suits" you to "sell" your opinion.
Regarding your same quotes - they continue to be trending.
He didn't say (I listened to things again to check if I was wrong and I just didn't hear him say) that there is no connection between DPF and global warming but that the correlation does not seem to be proven. This is a huge difference.
He also didn't talk at all about the possibility that pouring money on DPF would turn out to be a waste - except that he answered affirmatively "definitely" to the interviewer's question if it might turn out to be a waste.
In other words - he thinks that it is definitely possible that it will turn out to be a waste, but he does not say that the chance of this is high.
You say that to the best of your knowledge no one dares to say that man affects the water vapor, but I make it clear - if it wasn't clear from my previous comments - that Tel Aviv University clearly dares to say so. They say there that the emission of DPF by man increases the temperature which increases evaporation and causes an increase in the amount of water vapor in the air.
What happened to him does not clearly show what happened to the entire scientific community.
What happened to the scientific community was reflected in the conference in Copenhagen.
I repeat. There are enough valid claims that can be made. Faldor is reduced to these claims and you are not.
Note that he also says nothing about all the outlandish claims of financial gain by people involved. He just thinks the others are jumping to conclusions too quickly.
That's why no one would think to call him a "conspirator" either.
When I used this term before - I was not referring to people who concoct conspiracies (which is actually the correct meaning of the word) but to those who accuse others of conspiracy.
Faldor is not like that. You are like that.
I repeat - despite the fact that you continued to quote Faldor in a way that does not correctly reflect his words - I would not call you a liar based on this fact alone. It's just not a blatant enough lie for me to consider.
I used this expression because you were talking about the head of the climate department in Tel Aviv and it was simply not true, but it turns out in retrospect that you were just wrong and not lying.
Michael,
Before I was a liar, now I am determined….
I heard what he said. And he said clearly that there is no connection, no no the connection is not clear.
On the issue of water vapor, he said that the connection is not clear, and it is not under our control at all. As far as I know, no one dares to say that man affects the water vapor. That is, man does not affect the warming.
He was also polite and said that the billions being poured into reducing CO2 are most likely wasted.
The fact that he has changed his mind since 2002 clearly shows what is happening to the entire scientific community, especially the free one. Little by little, but soon there will be no one left who will continue to support what is known today as a blatant lie.
Boaz:
There are a lot of things I can't say anything smart about.
The issue you raised is one of them.
You are welcome to read A recent conversation I had with another person posted the same link:
The topic of global warming is also a topic that I don't have much to say about, so I simply rely on the opinion of most experts (and if they change their opinion, I will also change my belief).
I took part in the discussion only because I have a personal (not global) warming as soon as I see that people are trying to mislead others.
I admit that in the current case of Tamir - the attempt to deceive is less blatant than it seemed to me at first because he did not just make up the story but only interpreted in a trending way the words of a different person than the one he was talking about. I assume that he would have brought the link directly and not started talking about Tel Aviv University - I would not have interfered in this part of the discussion at all because I have no doubt that Faldor understands climate matters much more than me and who should argue with him (if there is even a need, since he is not really an infidel in the prevailing theory but only questioning the foundation) these are other climate scientists.
Because it was about Tel Aviv and my investigation revealed that no one in Tel Aviv said the things, I thought that the deception was much more blatant than it actually was.
Michael and Avi Shalom
Can you refer to the article on nuclear fusion that appears in Calcalist?
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3371253,00.html
By the way, in an interview with him, Faldor cites the software crisis of 2000 as an example of a mountain that gave birth to a mouse.
I think he is simply wrong about it.
Software houses worked very hard before the year 2000 and only thanks to this work there was no crisis.
Here are other things Faldor said.
Again - he is not decisive at all:
http://kavpnim.huji.ac.il/articles.asp?artID=758&cat=14
Here he says different things about the ice caps, but it was in 2002 and it turns out that he has probably changed his mind since then:
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/archive/ART/265/169.html
Well, Tamir - it turns out that it's just that you replaced Jerusalem with Tel Aviv.
He does claim something like that but is not as decisive as you.
He merely says that the connection is not clear.
He also talks about the matter of water vapor - exactly what I was talking about - without taking into account the fact that they actually increase the greenhouse effect following warming caused by other causes, when the other causes and not the water vapor are the subject of the discussion.
http://www.iba.org.il/media/?recorded=14
"Moving to Rashon with Liat Regev" 12.12.09 – 17:00 starting at 14:30
Professor Natan Faldor (Head of the Department of Climate and Atmosphere) gives an interview in which he denies the connection between increasing CO2 concentrations and warming.
My father, here is a balance sheet for you from a climate expert professor
Speaking of cooling
Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA. He has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change
You might be interested in posting
You can also write a comment as in the original article
Global Research does not necessarily endorse the proposition of "Global Cooling", nor does it accept at face value the Consensus on Global Warming. Our purpose is to encourage a more balanced debate on the topic of global climate change
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
Moral:
Those who hang themselves from high trees to lie may find themselves hanging on them.
tall:
And here is an article by the head of the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences in Tel Aviv:
http://geophysics.tau.ac.il/images/stories/articles/global-warming.pdf
tall:
It's not nice to lie.
There is no position in Tel Aviv called "head of the climate department".
The closest thing is the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences.
Following your message on the subject yesterday, I sent an email to Pinchas Alpert who was the head of the department until 2008 and asked him if there had ever been anything.
He said that at best this is about taking things out of context and at worst about making things up.
I also talked to him on the phone this morning.
He clearly holds the position that the emission of greenhouse gases is the cause of warming and he knows for sure that Colin Price, who heads the circle today, also holds this position.
The only reason I don't claim it's a lie is that you may not have understood what was said.
The main greenhouse gas is not Co2 but water.
The amount of this gas in the air is a function of the temperature (this is clear - the higher the temperature, the more water evaporates).
This gas - over which we have no direct control - serves - therefore - as a kind of powerful amplifier - for the warming we create with our own hands by emitting other greenhouse gases.
not so complicated. - The information that contradicts your theory is not going to disappear.
You continue to ignore him. A perfume for you. When they are gone, you too will not be able to keep burying your head in the sand.
I didn't find any contradiction, apparently there is a problem with reading comprehension.
My responses come to claims that are not true, and it's true, I'm really tired of talking to walls.
My father, how do you explain the interview given by the head of the climate department at Tel Aviv University on Saturday? He said clearly: CO2 will not cause warming. Is he not from the scientific community either? Is he also a conspirator?
tall:
When you say it's not going to go away - what do you mean? What's not going to go away?
It cannot be that you are talking about any problem because what you are saying is that there is no problem.
Do you mean your comments are not going to disappear? Will you continue to act like a troll?
By the way - this is in contradiction with your response elsewhere, according to which no one will believe the story in a very short time.
This means that at that time your comments will no longer be needed!
Tamir, I'm not ignoring, I've heard all the opponents, for some reason the number of opponents in the public is greater than in the scientific community. There are also many in the public who are against vaccinations, others are against giving Ritalin to children, and there are many who believe in all sorts of other things such as obscenities. That's why you have to start somewhere and that's why when I come to consider who is right, the position of most scientists, certainly of the climate scientists in their field, is the one I adopt.
I believe in the facts that are published in scientific articles, and not in the alleged facts that are the result of hand waving and an attempt to violently establish that a lie that is repeated a thousand times becomes the truth. Not mine. (Eye value the Earth has been cooling for eight years with four of them on the list of the hottest years according to NOAA). If this is the quality of your claims, I'm sorry, I can't accept them.
Father, continue to ignore?
It's not going to go away you know….
I didn't understand, if the scientists are corrupt and the oil companies paid them, then the results of the studies should have shown that there is no warming, not that there is.
I fail to understand what interest the oil companies would have in paying scientists to say that there is warming and that it is man-made.
Ron, the limitation was because of your behavior, that you thought it was a small site of two and a half people and that if you flooded it you would increase the chance that they would believe you, but it is not a small site, and you cannot let one person hijack the conversation.
You exceeded the limits, you will pay.
On top of that, you repeat the same lies a million times. The money is with the oil companies and yesterday's article about the Exxon CEO was especially for you to see who you work for.
Avi, Noah has more interesting data.
http://green-logic.blogspot.com/2009/12/blog-post_10.html
What is the explanation for these data?
Reply to Ron. You are not being censored, we simply had to act after you stopped following the simple request that a comment appear once in the news and added by duplicating comments from news to news.
Even matter-of-factly, you don't renew anything for surfers, they have already read these wrong arguments a million times from you as well. In addition, you continue to avoid the answer to the question - why do you insist on believing wrong data that someone threw out instead of checking. Please go to the website of NOAA - the Oceanographic and Atmospheric Authority and look at the table there, explain where your figure comes from that there has been a cooling in the last eight years if four of them star in the first ten of the warmest years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
and no The answer that it is an American government organization is not accepted, both as a matter of scientists they have integrity and practical - for most of these years George Bush, a confidant of the oil industries, ruled the USA, so he had no interest in pointing out that these were the hottest years.
I explained to you that it is not another truth, that one person can hijack the talkback. Each site is allowed to set its own policy. And besides, some of your comments were disqualified by the system because of parameters we set (eg number of links and a few others I won't reveal) and not by human censorship.
Ron:
I will tell you that I saw the unapproved response and in my opinion it is completely nonsense and shows, among other things, that you did not understand the question.
Slate in honey:
The scenarios in your words do not make sense.
Someone has to finance the research and the side benefiting from the use of fossil fuels has many, many, many, many, many more funding sources and also has much, much, much, much more motivation to fund.
Therefore - according to section 1 in your words, it will be much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much easier to get a budget for research that contradicts the fault of fossil fuels, and this budget will be much, much, much larger.
The story with a similar political agenda.
What makes a trend popular?
A trend becomes popular because people become convinced of it.
You can convince with logical reasoning and you can convince with an advertisement.
Advertising costs money and money - as mentioned - the Naftaites have much, much, much more, so the only thing that allows the "green trend" to become a trend is its ability to convince logically much, much, much stronger.
Besides - the question was beforehand what makes something a trend and not why people ride on an existing trend.
The story about developers of new technologies is no different.
There is no obstacle to developing new technologies based on mineral fuels.
On the contrary! As mentioned - it is much, much, much easier to get financing for this.
Why would the developers make life difficult for themselves?
With regard to "and more..." Of course I can't express myself, but I assume that if you did the logical thing and specifically listed the strongest of your reasons, then "and more..." actually has less...
to Michael Rothschild,
Again, I'm not an expert on the subject, but I can think of a number of economic and other interests that motivate those who work against greenhouse gas emissions:
1. Funding of studies - according to what emerges from the last case and other testimonies of academics, studies that assume a contradiction to the warming theory do not receive funding similar to those whose research assumption supports it.
2. Political agenda - politicians who support a popular trend make money and support programs that match it - again money on the "right" side. Opponents of globalization and simply anti-Americans (who are among the biggest emitters) use the theory as a tool for political confrontation.
3. Promoters of new technologies that replace fuel burning - receive financial and other supports.
And more ..
There are then economic and other interests on both sides of the barrier - which brings me to the unfortunate conclusion that the lay citizen has no way of knowing the real truth. He must exercise common sense and understand that there are enough reasons to reduce the burning of fuels, regardless of "global warming".
3.
Michael I have material for you regarding your legitimate question
Pending approval
Friends:
I keep hearing from the mouths of the conspirators about economic interests that motivate those who work against the emission of greenhouse gases.
That sounds pretty interesting to me.
I actually understand the economic interest of those who support the continued use of fossil fuels, who are probably opposed to restrictions on emissions, but I have no idea what economic interest could motivate those who support these restrictions.
Can someone enlighten me or is the claim of economic interest just nonsense?
Mr. Blizovsky and Dr. Rosenthal,
In my humble opinion, in this section you should devote an extensive chapter, or several chapters, to the questions raised by the Climate-Gate case.
As a layman on the climate issue, I was convinced that no one knew anything about it and that the average citizen had no way of knowing the truth at all. Economic and other interests determine the direction of the spirit and not the scientific truth (if there is such a thing at all).
To be sure, the reader who is in favor of reducing the burning of fossil fuel, which is harmful to health and creates dependence on dark tyrants, is right. It is better to produce sustainable and recyclable products from oil.
As a layman also in the field of energy - I was convinced that the relevant solution in a reasonable time frame - nuclear reactors provided that they are operated under close and strict international supervision with a very large whip.
To Agnus, the intention is to reduce emissions by half, so that less is added and the growth slows down, not to reach half the amount of DTP in the atmosphere. As you explained yourself, this is not realistic.
By the way, I was informed that it is already 388, and that the rate is increasing at a rate of 1.4 parts per million per year.
Nir:
Great bullshit.
You must be happy that even people who have nothing to say can say it here while expressing disdain for others.
So what if the level was like this then and today it is different? The amount of plastic is also greater today than before the industrial revolution, maybe the plastic is causing global warming?
Where is the scientific proof?
Marxism in disguise.
Agnus:
I assume that the problem is only in the wording and that the level on which it is said that it must be reduced to half is not the level of DTP in the atmosphere but the level of DTP emission
two things:
1. Scrabble dressed.
2. Work in the poor of jobseekers.
"Before the industrial revolution, the concentration of DTP in the atmosphere was 278 ppm (parts per million). Today... 381. Although there is still a debate about what level is considered "dangerous", it is agreed that the level should be reduced to 1/2 by 2050 ."
I didn't understand something. If before the industrial revolution the level of carbon dioxide was 278 parts per million, and today the level is 381, why is it suddenly clear to everyone that it is necessary to strive to lower the level to half, and where is the confidence that such a level is even possible. According to my calculation, half of what there is today is 190 parts per million, much, much less than it was before the industrial revolution.
From the article: "The World Bank estimates that $400 billion will be needed each year to mitigate climate change, plus another $75 billion for adjustment and adaptation needs"
That's the whole story…
1 and 2. Even if greenhouse gases have no effect on the climate, it is proven and there is no debate that the pollution created by burning fossil fuels is very harmful to human health more than any other factor. So please stop with the nonsense of "greenhouse gases do not affect the climate" and realize that burning fossil fuels is harmful and the right thing to do is to stop using them.
One might think that if they don't build the coal station in Ashkelon it will save the world. In China, every week a new coal-fired power plant is being built, while we are debating the Ashkelon plant in China, dozens of new plants have already opened. In any case, I also think it is better to use natural gas or geothermal energy found in the Golan Heights to generate electricity because the pollution will have a negative effect on the public in Israel, but there is an immediate need for more electricity and if the only way is a coal-fired power plant, then its construction is inevitable.
The goal is the opposite. Allow the few to get rich at the expense of everyone else. The way: to lie.
Lies upon lies!
The whole purpose of the conference is to convince the public to spend more money and create global responsibility that will force governments all over the world to pay taxes and fines to the committee.
The very concept of an international tax is innovative and without scaring the public I guess the committee would not have happened.
Please address the differing views on the assertions regarding the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on the climate.