From the Research Council of Norway
According to a group of Norwegian researchers, the prospects for achieving an effective international climate treaty are poor. The measures that are politically feasible are ineffective and the measures that would be effective are politically infeasible.
![reaching-climate-change-agreement[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/reaching-climate-change-agreement1.jpg?quality=83)
In the project “The nature, design and feasibility of robust climate agreements,” researchers from the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (Cicero) and Statistics Norway (SSB) posed the following question: What are the conditions for succeeding in achieving an international climate agreement that will substantially reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases?
The backdrop for the question is the extremely slow progress in the UN negotiations on a climate agreement. The world is actually further away from achieving an effective international climate agreement today than it was 15 years ago, when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. Little basis for optimism exists.
Three conditions must be met
Professor Jon Hovi headed the project at Cicero in Oslo. The project was funded by the Research Council of Norway and was concluded in 2013.
Professor Hovi identifies three prerequisites for a robust international climate agreement:
- It must encompass all key countries, i.e., all major emitters of greenhouse gases.
- It must require each member country to cut its emissions substantially.
- The member countries must comply with their commitments.
…
But even with a robust system of this type in place, a number of practical problems would arise, admits Professor Hovi. And even if these problems could be solved or if compliance could somehow be enforced without such practical problems, there is little chance that such measures would be adopted.
Why? Because strict enforcement of a climate agreement is not politically feasible, according to the Norwegian researchers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Good news from a new report: Effective Climate Agreement Not Likely”
Unfortunately, the current ineffective climate agreements are costing us all a lot of money and, arguably, lost lives.
People such as James Watt, with his steam engine, actually saw a way of meeting the unmet needs of human beings. He improved people’s lives because they wanted to use his invention. These climate people still haven’t grasped the significance of that fact.
I also question whether they have any real interest in the welfare of their fellow humans, or just want to feel good about themselves by telling others what to do. I could tell them what to do, but the language might be a bit too “robust” to get past moderation.
Reaching an agreement is the relatively easy part, especially given the propensity of many countries and politicians to sign up to anything.
* Next comes fulfilling the agreement (fat chance)
* Next comes the effect of the fulfilling (will the CO2 actually notice what we puny humans are doing?)
* Next, will the altered atmosphere (if at all) result in a different climate?
* Finally, will the new climate be better than before?
“The measures that are politically feasible are ineffective and the measures that would be effective are politically infeasible.” presupposes the existence of ‘effective measures’.
Effective to reduce global atmospheric CO2? Or to reduce global temperature?
Because we know reducing food plant is tough medicine, we must be sure this reduces global temperatures, and that reducing global temperatures is good for a great majority of the people, plants and other animals.
Do we want to loose those 0.6°C and go back 1975?
CO2 is the exhaust of Capitalism. Isn’t it our duty to destroy it? Maurice Strong writing in Our Common Future, the book that was the precursor to Agenda 21.
I’m confused as to what Australia’s role should be, Are we a large emitter or are we a large sequesterer of CO2, as per IBUKI satellite?
This what happens when people dishonestly exploit emotional blackmail. NIMBY