background preloader

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international environmental treaty negotiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. The objective of the treaty is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".[2] The treaty itself set no binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. In that sense, the treaty is considered legally non-binding. The UNFCCC was opened for signature on 9 May 1992, after an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee produced the text of the Framework Convention as a report following its meeting in New York from 30 April to 9 May 1992. Treaty[edit] Later negotiations[edit] Kyoto Protocol[edit] Bali Action Plan[edit] Copenhagen and Cancún[edit] Parties[edit] Related:  Stato dell'arte

Algeria focuses on the carbon challenge - CNBC: Energy Opportunities Algeria may appear an unlikely leader in clean energy, but the Minister of Energy and Mines says he’s proud his country is an early contributor to the climate change solution. There’s been no real financial gain for Algeria to store the stripped CO2 from its natural gas since 2004, but Dr.Youcef Yousfi says it’s his country’s commitment to the environment that prompted this decision years ago. “These important projects were developed on a voluntary basis, as Algeria has no obligation to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and did not benefit from any funding mechanisms, like the Green Development Mechanism, GDM specified in the Kyoto Protocol.” In the drive to find an ideal combatant to greenhouse gas emissions, the concept of carbon capture and storage, CCS is now gaining popularity on a global scale. The climate change debate is looking for many answers and CCS it is argued, ticks a few challenging boxes. Chapman commends the work and experience in Algeria.

The climate has always changed. What do you conclude? Probably everyone has heard this argument, presented as objection against the findings of climate scientists on global warming: “The climate has always changed!” And it is true: climate has changed even before humans began to burn fossil fuels. So what can we conclude from that? A quick quiz Do you conclude… (1) that humans cannot change the climate? (2) that we do not know whether humans are to blame for global warming? (3) that global warming will not have any severe consequences? (4) that we cannot stop global warming? The answer Not one of these answers is correct. (1) The opposite conclusion is correct: if the climate had hardly changed during the course of the Earth’s history (despite variable incoming solar radiation and changing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere), then we would conclude that there are strong stabilizing feedbacks in the climate system. Paleoclimatologists determine the climate sensitivity from data from the Earth’s history. (2) Imagine there has been a forest fire.

Canada and the Kyoto Protocol Map of Canada showing the increases in GHG emissions by province/territory in 2008, compared to the 1990 base year 50%+ increase 30%–50% increase 20%–30% increase 10%–20% increase 0%–10% increase 0%–10% decrease Each square represents 2 tonnes {{CO2}} eq. per capita Canada was active in the negotiations that led to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997,[1] and the Liberal government that signed the accord in 1997 also ratified it in parliament in 2002.[2] Canada's Kyoto target was a 6% total reduction by 2012 compared to 1990 levels (461 Mt) (GC 1994).[3][notes 1] However, in spite of some efforts, federal indecision led to increases in GHG emissions since then. Debates surrounding the implementation of Kyoto in Canada are informed by the nature of relationships between national, provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdictions. In 2009 Canada signed the Copenhagen Accord, which, unlike the Kyoto Accord, is a non-binding agreement. Canada and Kyoto: a Timeline[edit] Overview[edit] The Energy Sector[edit]

Verso il 2020 senza illusioni Riflessioni sul nostro futuro partendo dal fallimento della COP25. Di Luca Pardi Il fallimento della COP25 non è arrivato, almeno per me, come una sorpresa. Da anni, e in modo accelerato in questi ultimi mesi, si sente parlare di transizione energetica, verde, ecologica, sostenibile ecc. Tutte formule che finora si sono rivelate vuote. Per mettere in crisi la posizione negazionista basta evocare il tema dell’esaurimento delle risorse non rinnovabili: minerali ed energetiche. «La produzione globale di petrolio convenzionale ha superato il picco nel 2008 a 69,5 milioni di barili al giorno e da allora è diminuita di circa 2,5 milioni di barili al giorno.» Il picco produttivo globale della categoria di petrolio più conveniente, il convenzionale appunto, è avvenuto nel primo decennio del secolo (come previsto, peraltro, da Colin Campbell e Jean Laherrere) e questo segna il passaggio allo sfruttamento di categorie di petrolio più difficili e costose da estrarre. "Mi piace":

Status of Ratification Kyoto, 11 December 1997 Entry into force: 16 February 2005, in accordance with article 25 (1) in accordance with article 25 (3) which reads as follows: "For each State or regional economic integration organization that ratifies, accepts or approves this Protocol or accedes thereto after the conditions set out in paragraph 1 above for entry into force have been fulfilled, this Protocol shall enter into force on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.". Registration: 16 February 2005, No. 30822. Status: Signatories: 83. Parties: 192 Note: The Protocol was adopted at the third session of the Conference of the Parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“the Convention”), held at Kyoto (Japan) from 1 to 11 December 1997. "w" indicates withdrawal End Note: (3) With a territorial exclusion to the Faroe Islands (5) With the following declaration:

Will the Collapse of Civilization Begin With Global Corporatist Totalitarianism? I‘ve just finished reading Dmitry Orlov’s new book The Five Stages of Collapse. It made me realize that I have probably been making two fundamental errors in my thinking about how our civilization culture will collapse, and what we should do to become more resilient in the face of that collapse (taking steps like learning new personal and collective capacities, and re-learning how to create communities). My two errors were the failure to recognize: The Need to Stop Collapse at Stage 3: I have been thinking that there is only one type of collapse, one ‘end game’, though there are many different scenarios about how it will play out. But let me take a step back and start with a brief overview of The Five Stages of Collapse. If you look at the Signs of Collapse in the table above, it is not hard to conclude that the first three stages — Financial, Commercial, and Political Collapse — are already upon us, and we just haven’t recognized them yet. After us, the dragons.

Kyoto Protocol The Kyoto mechanisms Under the Protocol, countries must meet their targets primarily through national measures. However, the Protocol also offers them an additional means to meet their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms. The Kyoto mechanisms are: The mechanisms help to stimulate green investment and help Parties meet their emission targets in a cost-effective way. Monitoring emission targets Under the Protocol, countries' actual emissions have to be monitored and precise records have to be kept of the trades carried out. Registry systems track and record transactions by Parties under the mechanisms. Reporting is done by Parties by submitting annual emission inventories and national reports under the Protocol at regular intervals. A compliance system ensures that Parties are meeting their commitments and helps them to meet their commitments if they have problems doing so. The road ahead More information on targets

The Collapse of the Modern Western Empire. What Future for Humankind? These notes are not supposed to disparage nor to exalt an entity that has a history that goes back to at least a couple of millennia ago. Like all Empires, past and present, the Modern World Empire went through its parable of growth and glory and it is now starting its decline. There is not much that we can do about it, we have to accept that this is the way the universe works. On this subject, see also a previous post of mine "Why Europe Conquered the World " For everything that exists, there is a reason and that's true also for that gigantic thing that we call sometimes "The West" or perhaps "The American Empire," or maybe "Globalization." As someone might have said (and maybe someone did, but it might be an original concept of mine), "geography is the mother of Empires." Like all empires, though, the Roman one carried inside the seeds of its own destruction. In this way, the Europeans created a gentle and sophisticated civilization. But things never stand still.

Party Groupings Each Party to the Convention is represented at sessions of the Convention bodies by a national delegation consisting of one or more officials empowered to represent and negotiate on behalf of their government. Based on the tradition of the United Nations, Parties are organized into five regional groups, mainly for the purposes of electing the Bureaux, namely: African States, Asian States, Eastern European States, Latin American and the Caribbean States, and the Western European and Other States (the "Other States" include Australia, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the United States of America, but not Japan, which is in the Asian Group). The five regional groups, however, are not usually used to present the substantive interests of Parties and several other groupings are more important for climate negotiations. Developing countries generally work through the Group of 77 to establish common negotiating positions.

Etica della reciprocità L'etica della reciprocità o regola d'oro è un valore morale fondamentale che "si riferisce all'equilibrio in un sistema interattivo tale che ciascuna parte ha diritti e doveri; la norma secondaria della complementarità afferma che i diritti di ciascuno sono un dovere per l'altro"[1]. Essenzialmente si tratta di un codice etico in base al quale ciascuno ha diritto a un trattamento giusto e il dovere e la responsabilità di assicurare la giustizia agli altri. L'etica della reciprocità tra individui è il fondamento della dignità, della convivenza pacifica, della legittimità, della giustizia, del riconoscimento e del rispetto tra individui, delle religioni civili. La "reciprocità" sintetizza con viva autenticità in sé le parole "libertà" e "uguaglianza". La regola d`oro ha radici in molte culture diverse. Filosofia greca antica[modifica | modifica wikitesto] La regola d'oro, nella sua forma negativa, era un principio comune nella filosofia dell'Antica Grecia. ^ Marc H.

Kyoto Protocol Kyoto Parties with first period (2008–12) greenhouse gas emissions limitations targets, and the percentage change in their carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990 and 2009. For more detailed country/region information, see Kyoto Protocol and government action. Overview map of states committed to greenhouse gas (GHG) limitations in the first Kyoto Protocol period (2008–12):[8] Dark grey = Annex I Parties who have agreed to reduce their GHG emissions below their individual base year levels (see definition in this article) Grey = Annex I Parties who have agreed to cap their GHG emissions at their base year levels Pale grey = Non-Annex I Parties who are not obligated by caps or Annex I Parties with an emissions cap that allows their emissions to expand above their base year levels or countries that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol The European Union as a whole has in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol committed itself to an 8% reduction. Background[edit] Asia[edit]

If we want to stop the climate breakdown, we need new words to communicate it - Kinder World The end of the year is a popular time to give to charity. Historically, Americans have made 30% of their annual donations in December. Many of them get a head start on the first Tuesday after Thanksgiving during the global online fundraising campaign known as Giving Tuesday. But no matter what time of year it is, donors want help deciding which charity to support. Because I conduct research about nonprofit evaluation methods, I’ve been studying the approach of ranking charities depending on how much of their budgets they spend on everything from paperclips to insurance. A dangerous obsession Known as the overhead ratio, this metric encompasses expenditures that might appear to be unrelated to work that advances a charity’s mission. Nonprofits typically have overhead ratios of around 20%, meaning that they spend about 1 out of every 5 dollars on fundraising expenses, accounting, publicity and everything else needed to operate. Fortunately, five large foundations have realized this.

Victory for developing nations as rich countries abandon effort to kill off Kyoto | Environment Rich nations have abandoned an attempt to kill off the Kyoto protocol in a last-gasp effort to salvage a deal at the climate change summit in Copenhagen. Negotiations have been deadlocked for a week as developing countries resisted efforts to replace or downgrade the 1997 protocol, which places legally binding commitments on rich – but not poor – nations. Now, less than a day before more than 115 world leaders take over the reins, the chair of the talks gave up an attempt to ram through a "Danish text", leaked to the Guardian last week, which would have ended Kyoto. In a victory for the developing world, negotiators will now move forward on a two-track basis, one part of which maintains the integrity of Kyoto. Hillary Clinton gave a further boost to the flagging negotiations by pledging US involvement in the $100bn (£62bn) a year international fund to help poor nations adapt to climate change. But huge differences remain over levels of emissions cuts, financing and monitoring.

Natural Language – George Monbiot If we want people to engage with the living world, we should stop using such constipated terms to describe our relationship to it. By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 9th August 2017 If Moses had promised the Israelites a land flowing with mammary secretions and insect vomit, would they have followed him into Canaan? Though this means milk and honey, I doubt it. So why do we use such language to describe the natural wonders of the world? Even the term “reserve” is cold and alienating – think of what we mean when we use that word about a person. Our assaults on life and beauty are also sanitised and disguised by the words we use. Words possess a remarkable power to shape our perceptions. Words encode values, that are subconsciously triggered when we hear them. The catastrophic failure by ecologists to listen to what cognitive linguists and social psychologists have been telling them has led to the worst framing of all: “natural capital”. Those who name it own it. www.monbiot.com

Related: