Re: Climate Negotiators Hail ‘Historic’ Paris Draft Agreement - Bloomberg Business

[Mark Kohut]

Changing, since getting fossil fuels out of the ground is massively
expensive. That is for new attempts. (That's why the
motherfuckers got subsidies!)
Money moving to alternative energy companies....3.5% rise since Paris
in one of---the?--major aggregated mutual funds (or exchange-traded
package of, whatever)....

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
> In these times, "short term corporate profits" are measured $ / nanosecond;
> "long term profits" are measured over a decade or so. There is little
> motivation to look to sustainable approaches that might eventuate in the
> obsolescence of trade as it is currently practiced, where "profit" is
> measured in, say, degrees of homeostasis, or environmental integrity, or
> some such, wherein all the living might thrive.
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:19 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So the the US must lead from behind?
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 6:17 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does the business interest and short term corporate profit  drive policy?
>>> In the top ten, both in total CO2 emissions, and in emissions per capita,
>>> there is a great deal of government control of business and the economy,
>>> though, obviously, a shift to more market economies is underway.  China,
>>> Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Japan, not exactly "free market economies", so
>>> governments can set policy, more so than in the US. In fact, the governments
>>> in almost all of the top 25 emissions countries can, without the messiness
>>> of either a democracy that has been bought out through leverage and lobby,
>>> or the complex network of public international conglomerates that are so
>>> vital to the US, drive policy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about governments here, i.e., massive business
>>>> aggregates. They are not eager to drop immediate profits in the interest of
>>>> long-term survival. Business is not conducted with the next generation in
>>>> mind, only the profit margin, ergo governments act in kind. Pulled out The
>>>> Sacred and the Profane again the other day and came across a passage that
>>>> struck me as particularly applicable in these times, if only we acknowledge
>>>> that our leaders today honor the gods, not of pre-history, but of recent
>>>> history. The world they know was made by gods such as Pierce Inverarity, not
>>>> those old gods of the Nile, of Beth-el, or of Olympus. Profit, i.e., the
>>>> stronger hand in trade, is the only environment that concerns them.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Dec 12, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If all the pledges are actually fully met it will still lead to a
>>>>> > temperature rise between 3 and 4 degrees C global average( land temps will
>>>>> > be more extreme) That will produce massive global catastrophes.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/10/climate-2c-global-warming-target-fail
>>>>> >
>>>>> >  Naomi Klein: We know, from doing the math and adding up the targets
>>>>> > that the major economies have brought to Paris, that those targets lead us
>>>>> > to a very dangerous future. They lead us to a future between 3 and 4 degrees
>>>>> > Celsius warming. These are figures from the Tyndall Centre and Kevin
>>>>> > Anderson, who have analyzed those numbers. It does not lead us to 2 degrees
>>>>> > Celsius, which is what many of our governments pledged to do in Copenhagen
>>>>> > in 2009.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > KEVIN ANDERSON: The message is that the voluntary submissions that
>>>>> > have been put forward by all of the countries, when you add all of these up,
>>>>> > they are far, far above the level of what we call dangerous climate change,
>>>>> > that all of our leaders have committed to, to avoid going above this 2
>>>>> > degrees C rise, I think about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. But actually, when you
>>>>> > add up all of the commitments that the countries are making in terms of
>>>>> > their reductions in emissions, then actually it’s far, far above that,
>>>>> > nearer 3 or 4 degrees C temperature rise, which is a huge increase. That’s a
>>>>> > global average. Remember, that is a global average. And most of the globe is
>>>>> > covered in water, so on land that’s an average of, if we carry on like we’re
>>>>> > going now, 4, 5, possibly even as high as 6 degrees C temperature rise.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > James Hansen also agreed with this estimate
>>>>> >> On Dec 12, 2015, at 6:56 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-12/climate-envoys-prepare-for-broadest-deal-yet-limiting-pollution
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Sent from my iPad-
>>>>> >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l