All Parties, (click here) taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and their
specific national and regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances, without
introducing any new commitments for Parties not included in Annex I, but reaffirming existing
commitments under Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and continuing to advance the
implementation of these commitments in order to achieve sustainable development, taking into
account Article 4, paragraphs 3, 5 and 7, of the Convention, shall:
The paragraph below is asking pretty please. There is no solid language of which can't be circumvented. Kyoto Protocol was so vital, recognized only cooperation to the fullest extent. That didn't happen. Where Kyoto asked please do your best, it was replied by the petroleum industry as a myth. Instead of countries taking the climate seriously as did their scientists, they laughed at the idea of substituting one wealth venture for one yet untried. Kyoto was abandoned rather than embraced.
(a) Formulate, where relevant and to the extent possible, cost-effective national and, where appropriate, regional programmes to improve the quality of local emission factors, activity data and/or models which reflect the socio-economic conditions of each Party for the preparation and periodic updating of national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, using comparable methodologies to be agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties, and consistent with the guidelines for the preparation of national communications adopted by the Conference of the Parties;
There is no agreement. There is just doing. There is finding what works, what is
completely benign and what makes things worse. There is no agreement that has to be reached. It is all black and white. Either it works and emissions of greenhouse gases come down or it is making the emissions worse. What is benign is recorded. But, there is no agreement anymore. There are no negotiations. There is setting it right and maintaining it.
(b) Formulate, implement, publish and regularly update national and, where appropriate, regional programmes containing measures to mitigate climate change and measures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change:
Get rid of "where appropriate." There are only measures that are appropriate.
(i) Such programmes would, inter alia (among other things), concern the energy, transport and industry sectors as well as agriculture, forestry and waste management. Furthermore, adaptation technologies and methods for improving spatial planning would improve adaptation to climate change; and
Waste management is vital to containing reentry of greenhouse gases to the environment. I have noted in other places on this blog that waste management of CO2 by Wall Street has been to condense it to a liquid or solid for recycle. Recycling CO2 is not containing it. It simply redistributes it for re-release.
That is partially why electric cars are a far better choice for the First World than cars that use ethanol. Ethanol uses vegetable based oils mixed with regular petroleum fuel to provide a lower emission of CO2. Supposedly, that is a recycling effort.
I can point to a dozen different environmental reasons as to why that is not so, but, in a country such as the USA it is considered "something" that leverages CO2 to lesser amounts. It is that very idea of 'doing something at least' that has to go. We are not saying pretty please anymore.
Ethanol cannot deliver direct CO2 reductions because we it burns and releases CO2, it is assuming the climate will be static and not devolving in order to grow crops, plants and trees. The growth of chlorophyll is not static under a climate crisis.
I will say this.
Duke University in North Carolina, USA, did a study about 2004 which stated trees will absorb more CO2 when the CO2 is dense TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT, then no matter the level of CO2 trees will not absorb anymore. In other words, this is abrupt climate change which has brought on the Sixth Extinction. Realizing this is abrupt climate change, trees have not evolved or mutated to change their chlorophyll into better factories of plant energy.
But, ethanol of any kind is better than pure petroleum oil. There should be a mandate in the USA for every internal combustion engine be fueled with at least 10% ethanol. It is also known as E10.
The real change is accepting electric cars as the standard for status in the USA. It simply is. The other necessity in the USA is to value public transportation and use it. Europe already has an appreciation for public transportation, including, water ferries that are an attraction to tourists. The scenic views along Europe's waterways makes a simple ferry boat into something splendid.
If we are to value public transportation it has to be safe and safe guarded against violence of any kind.
(ii) Parties included in Annex I shall submit information on action under this Protocol, including national programmes, in accordance with Article 7; and other Parties shall seek to include in their national communications, as appropriate, information on programmes which contain measures that the Party believes contribute to addressing climate change and its adverse impacts, including the abatement of increases in greenhouse gas emissions, and enhancement of and removals by sinks, capacity building and adaptation measures;...
National communications with the citizens/public should be mandatory. The people have to know what they are doing and what they are up against. Ultimately, it is up to the end users of products to decide. There have been consumer conscientiousness about this in the USA for decades. For decades people have tried to make that change. But, when your electric car is powered by a coal burning power plant, the reasons to have an electric car dulls it's morality and begs to ask how much of a change it that making?
The paragraph below is asking pretty please. There is no solid language of which can't be circumvented. Kyoto Protocol was so vital, recognized only cooperation to the fullest extent. That didn't happen. Where Kyoto asked please do your best, it was replied by the petroleum industry as a myth. Instead of countries taking the climate seriously as did their scientists, they laughed at the idea of substituting one wealth venture for one yet untried. Kyoto was abandoned rather than embraced.
(a) Formulate, where relevant and to the extent possible, cost-effective national and, where appropriate, regional programmes to improve the quality of local emission factors, activity data and/or models which reflect the socio-economic conditions of each Party for the preparation and periodic updating of national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, using comparable methodologies to be agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties, and consistent with the guidelines for the preparation of national communications adopted by the Conference of the Parties;
There is no agreement. There is just doing. There is finding what works, what is
completely benign and what makes things worse. There is no agreement that has to be reached. It is all black and white. Either it works and emissions of greenhouse gases come down or it is making the emissions worse. What is benign is recorded. But, there is no agreement anymore. There are no negotiations. There is setting it right and maintaining it.
(b) Formulate, implement, publish and regularly update national and, where appropriate, regional programmes containing measures to mitigate climate change and measures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change:
Get rid of "where appropriate." There are only measures that are appropriate.
(i) Such programmes would, inter alia (among other things), concern the energy, transport and industry sectors as well as agriculture, forestry and waste management. Furthermore, adaptation technologies and methods for improving spatial planning would improve adaptation to climate change; and
Waste management is vital to containing reentry of greenhouse gases to the environment. I have noted in other places on this blog that waste management of CO2 by Wall Street has been to condense it to a liquid or solid for recycle. Recycling CO2 is not containing it. It simply redistributes it for re-release.
That is partially why electric cars are a far better choice for the First World than cars that use ethanol. Ethanol uses vegetable based oils mixed with regular petroleum fuel to provide a lower emission of CO2. Supposedly, that is a recycling effort.
I can point to a dozen different environmental reasons as to why that is not so, but, in a country such as the USA it is considered "something" that leverages CO2 to lesser amounts. It is that very idea of 'doing something at least' that has to go. We are not saying pretty please anymore.
Ethanol cannot deliver direct CO2 reductions because we it burns and releases CO2, it is assuming the climate will be static and not devolving in order to grow crops, plants and trees. The growth of chlorophyll is not static under a climate crisis.
I will say this.
Duke University in North Carolina, USA, did a study about 2004 which stated trees will absorb more CO2 when the CO2 is dense TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT, then no matter the level of CO2 trees will not absorb anymore. In other words, this is abrupt climate change which has brought on the Sixth Extinction. Realizing this is abrupt climate change, trees have not evolved or mutated to change their chlorophyll into better factories of plant energy.
But, ethanol of any kind is better than pure petroleum oil. There should be a mandate in the USA for every internal combustion engine be fueled with at least 10% ethanol. It is also known as E10.
The real change is accepting electric cars as the standard for status in the USA. It simply is. The other necessity in the USA is to value public transportation and use it. Europe already has an appreciation for public transportation, including, water ferries that are an attraction to tourists. The scenic views along Europe's waterways makes a simple ferry boat into something splendid.
If we are to value public transportation it has to be safe and safe guarded against violence of any kind.
(ii) Parties included in Annex I shall submit information on action under this Protocol, including national programmes, in accordance with Article 7; and other Parties shall seek to include in their national communications, as appropriate, information on programmes which contain measures that the Party believes contribute to addressing climate change and its adverse impacts, including the abatement of increases in greenhouse gas emissions, and enhancement of and removals by sinks, capacity building and adaptation measures;...
National communications with the citizens/public should be mandatory. The people have to know what they are doing and what they are up against. Ultimately, it is up to the end users of products to decide. There have been consumer conscientiousness about this in the USA for decades. For decades people have tried to make that change. But, when your electric car is powered by a coal burning power plant, the reasons to have an electric car dulls it's morality and begs to ask how much of a change it that making?
