↓
 

PLEA Network

Climate change information and resources for change

  • PLEA Network
  • Addiction to Growth
    • Steady State Economy
    • Universal Basic Income
    • The Law vs Politics
  • The Science
    • Impacts Observed & Projected
    • All Things Carbon and Emissions
    • BOM Updates
    • Antarctica
  • Mainstreaming our changing climate
  • Fairyland of 2 degrees
  • Population & Consumption
    • People Stress
    • Food & Water Issues
    • Equity & Social Justice
    • Ecosystem Stress
    • Security & Conflict
  • Communication
    • Resource News Sites
  • Global Action/Inaction
    • IPCC What is it?
    • Paris COP21 Wrap-up
  • Australian Response / Stats
    • Federal Government – checking the facts
  • The Mitigation Battle
    • Fossil Fuel Reduction
  • Adaptation & Building Resilience
    • Downsizing Plan B
    • City Basics for Change
  • Ballarat Community
    • Regional Sustainability Alliance Ballarat
    • Reports & Submissions
  • Brown Hill Community FireAware Network
    • FireAware Network – Neighbourhood clusters
    • FireAware Network – Understanding risk
    • FireAware Network – Be prepared
    • FireAware Network – Role of council and emergency services
    • FireAware Network – Resources
  • The Uncomfortable Corner
  • Archive Library
    • Site Topics Index
    • Links Page for Teachers
  • Countries fail again to decide timing of key IPCC climate science reports
Home→Categories Global Action Inaction - Page 76 << 1 2 … 74 75 76 77 78 … 83 84 >>

Category Archives: Global Action Inaction

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →
PLEA Network

6 October 2015, Renew Economy, UN draft Paris climate pact released – Australian policy under pressure. A new draft of the global climate change pact due to be signed in Paris this December has been released by the UN, calling on all nations to commit to mitigation policies that reflect their highest possible ambition, and to toughen these commitments every five years. The 20-page draft, released by the co-chairs of the UN climate negations in Bonn on Monday, increases the pressure on countries like Australia, whose low-ball emissions reduction target has been roundly criticised for lacking ambition and not having a sufficient policy framework. The Ad hoc working group on the Durban platform (ADP), the body tasked with negotiating the agreement, prepared the greatly pared-back draft – it is less than a quarter of the length of the last version – as the basis for negotiation of the draft Paris climate package. And while it leaves many key details unclear or unstated – namely when parties should reach peak emissions growth, or how quickly curbs will have to be ratcheted up – it does include a commitment to hold warming to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels; a target the science dictates as crucial to avoid irreversible, catastrophic climate change. The report also contain a draft of the decision that will operationalise the agreement from 2020 and a draft decision on pre-2020 ambition. This suggests each party should regularly communicate a nationally determined mitigation contribution or commitment, which should “reflect a progression beyond its previous efforts, noting that those Parties that have previously communicated economy-wide efforts should continue to do so in a manner that is progressively more ambition us and that all Parties should aim to do so over time.” Read More here

PLEA Network

5 October 2015, Science Daily, Global climate agreements could be counterproductive. International climate agreements like the Kyoto Protocol may discourage much-needed investment in renewable energy sources, and hence be counterproductive, according to new research. The climate formula. The world’s environmentalists are counting down to the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris. However, such climate agreements could be counterproductive. Bård Harstad is a professor of economics at the University of Oslo and has done research on climate agreements and international cooperation for many years. In the recent journal article “The Dynamics of Climate Agreements,” Harstad analyses the connections between emissions, negotiations, and the development of new technology. His findings reveal weaknesses of today’s system, but also show how international climate agreements should be designed in order to better stimulate the development of new technology. The bad news is that international climate agreements, like the Kyoto Protocol, may discourage much-needed investment in renewable energy sources. “The main problem with emission agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, is that they do not provide incentives to invest in green technology because they are too short-sighted. Read More here

PLEA Network

23 September 2015, The Conversation, Sustained economic growth: United Nations mistake the poison for the cure. On September 25 world leaders will meet in New York to formalise the new Sustainable Development Goals. These 17 goals will guide efforts to reduce poverty and increase well-being, without destroying the Earth. The Conversation is looking at how we got here, and how far we have to go. On the surface, the Sustainable Development Goals, soon to be confirmed by the United Nations, seem noble and progressive. They seek to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and hunger while creating sustainable and resilient societies. But look beneath the surface of this pleasant rhetoric and one comes face to face with a far more ominous vision of development: a vision that is fundamentally compromised by corporate interests and ultimately doomed to failure, if not catastrophe. The defining flaw in the United Nations’ agenda is the naïve assumption that “sustained economic growth” is the most direct path to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. This faith in the god of growth is fundamentally misplaced. It has been shown, for example, that for every $100 in global growth merely $0.60 is directed toward resolving global poverty. Not only is this an incredibly inefficient pathway to poverty alleviation, it is environmentally unsupportable. By championing economic growth, the Sustainable Development Goals are a barely disguised defence of the market fundamentalism that underpins business-as-usual. But in an age of planetary limits, sustained economic growth is not the solution to our social and environmental ills, but their cause. Read More here

PLEA Network

21 September 2015, The Conversation,  Creative self-destruction: the climate crisis and the myth of ‘green’ capitalism. The upcoming Paris climate talks in December this year have been characterised as humanity’s last chance to respond to climate change. Many hope that this time some form of international agreement will be reached, committing the world to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And yet there are clear signs that the much-touted “solutions” of emissions reduction targets and market mechanisms are insufficient for what is required. In our new book, Climate Change, Capitalism and Corporations: Processes of Creative Self-Destruction, we look at reasons why this has come about. We argue that businesses are locked in a cycle of exploiting the world’s resources in ever more creative ways. Innovating environmental destruction. The disconnect between business and climate action was symbolised by the announcement earlier this year that a significant portion of funding for the Paris meeting comes from major fossil fuel companies and carbon emitters; a situation French climate officials admitted was financially unavoidable. While perhaps unsurprising, this announcement hints at a deeper problem we now face — the global economic system of corporate capitalism appears incapable of achieving the levels of decarbonisation necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. Humanity is locked into a process of “creative self-destruction”. Our economies are now reliant upon ever-more ingenious ways of exploiting the Earth’s fossil fuel reserves and consuming the very life-support systems we rely on for our survival. This is evident in the rush by some of the world’s largest companies to embrace deep-water and Arctic oil drilling, tar-sands processing, new mega-coalmines, and the “fracking” of shale and coal-seam gas. These examples highlight both the inventive genius of corporate capitalism, and the blindness of industry and government to the ecological catastrophe they are fashioning. Read More here

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Archive Library

Access Latest News by date; tags and categories
©2025 - PLEA Network - Weaver Xtreme Theme
↑