Categories
Modi’s net zero in just 49 years is not a good sign – politicalbetting.com
Modi’s net zero in just 49 years is not a good sign – politicalbetting.com
Modi has just said India will hit net zero by 2070. That's a long way out from 2050 from the world's third largest polluter. There had been optimism one UK side that India at least showed up for #COP26, but that's not the headline they hoped for
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Camilla to be Queen de jure, but known as Princess consort, allegedly.
@andrew_lilico
·
4h
Why are politicians bothering to keep pretending they're going to do something to prevent climate change? They know they aren't. We know they aren't. Conferences like this all some weird virtue-signalling theatre for the Great & the Good.
A hundred private jets in Glasgow suggests that’s still a subject up for debate.
How many planes flew from Italy alone? Should have been one.
https://twitter.com/TheScepticIsle/status/1455197546473738249
If I had to pick a least favourite I'd go with Autumn. He seems to have chosen his metaphor with some care, so I'm surprised he was surprised by the reaction. Up to his 'abdication'. Odd that he did not seem to agree that he had indeed done so.
"As we mentioned earlier, China's President Xi Jinping hasn't been attending today's conference - in contrast to many of his counterparts.
But the Chinese leader has released a letter to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
In it he's reaffirmed China's aim for emissions to peak in the country before 2030, and for carbon neutrality to be achieved by 2060."
He has outbid India by 10 years, and done it without getting on a jet plane. Hard to see much to complain about.
And as has been pointed out, it doesn't get much drearier than a Scottish city in November.
Maybe I'm cynical, but aren't international agreements announced at summits about as reliable as an MoD project budget estimate or a government IT procurement?
I’ll be in Sharjah on Saturday for the South Africa match.
UK OK
Given the India-China rivalry, this will be politically possible.
It's basically all over now.
India’s status declined from Free to Partly Free due to a multiyear pattern in which the Hindu nationalist government and its allies have presided over rising violence and discriminatory policies affecting the Muslim population and pursued a crackdown on expressions of dissent by the media, academics, civil society groups, and protesters.
https://freedomhouse.org/country/india/freedom-world/2021
Why is this not a good sign?
England are ruthless
I'm not really sure what people expected though.
I believe this and the Chinese commitment are the first such commitments by their two nations.
The Chinese one is a restatement of a commitment made in 2020, IIRC.
I think the Indian announcement is the first time India has set a target, at all.
Which is massively more, than a couple of years ago, was thought to be likely.
With thousands of delegates arriving from around the world, Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay presents this tongue-in-cheek guide to the various types of Scottish nationalist.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/comment/know-your-nats-handy-guide-25349004
He also seems an incredibly nice guy, always self deprecating, modest and giving credit to others. If we need a god he would do.
Developed world by 2050 and developing world by 2070 seems like progress not a bad thing.
Unless your a zealot who wants us to be zero by tomorrow.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/01/justin-welby-apologises-for-likening-climate-threat-to-nazis
If they do then they will have greater weight to get India and others to come into line too by then
In the lead up, or now at the summit, the USA, China and now India have all committed to Net Zero and set a date on it. Almost every other major country on the planet has done so too, and its only a couple of years ago that the UK was the first major country to do so.
If you'd said a couple of years ago that every single country would have committed to Net Zero and most by the middle of this decade I wouldn't have believed you.
Sharma and Boris have done a good job.
I'm pretty sure that nobody was helped along in their thinking by the application of glue between motorways and daft people though.
Senior French officials tell me Macron - who once thought he could establish chummy relations with Johnson - now regards him as a malevolent clown whose word can't be trusted
The Brits are more polite: Fr oversold fish deal - & is electioneering
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1455236274319724558?s=20
Not sure its going to achieve much else though.
CNBC it is
The arguments for a physical meeting get thinner and thinner; is there really a difference between Modi being there vs Xi not? Brazil apparently are unning a huge lovebombing "how to stop worrying and learn to love the destruction of the rainforest" campaign, so it gives a platform to them and to that bleating ninny Welby. Enough. If this is the 26th in the series, that is plenty.
In some respects we have been on this for 25 years now, and to expect that a country with 1.2 billion people with a GDP of $2100 per head jump straight to a 30 target from now seems like too much.
Surely this is about low carbon development.
I'd say that this (and other similar) is one place to pivot our aid budget as it comes back. We have the model in Astra-Zeneca, and helping 20 or so places develop self-production facilities, whilst EuCo created a big expensive plant in Europe, and plan to export from there.
We should do renewables and zero-c where we can lead - offshore wind, and perhaps modular nuclear - pioneer projects, and encourage development of local industry to drive societal development.
Its a bit like Christmas as a parent, you're not going to get presents 'delivered' on Christmas day unless you've put in the work beforehand. But having that date set provides a date that everyone organises for.
So yes the summit itself probably won't achieve much, but simply by having the summit its concentrated minds and got commitments that might not have happened had the summit not been happening.
At least they will all have fish-tanks as deep and as pretentious as Thierry Henri's.
Let's start with the fact that 70 meters of sea level rise is an awful lot, given that 71% of the earth is covered by water. (And it would presumably be more like 75% in the event of a 70 meter rise in sea levels.)
I think about it like this. What proportion of the earth is covered by glaciers today? Let's go wildly high and say 5%. That's saying almost a fifth of the the land on earth is covered by a glaciers. Now, let's assume that those glaciers are an average depth of 100 meters (which seems awfully high, but we'll go with it).
That means an increase of around 7 meters in sea level. And that's based on some pretty enormous assumptions about amount of earth covered by glaciers, and for their average thickness.
His non attendance is more a declaration that China doesn’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.
A one-minute PPB that my lot are showing at our stand there, in case anyone is curious:
https://youtu.be/OEY64a4TsUI
I think my immediate comments on the 'PPB' (!) would be:
1 - The definition of "factory farming" is not clear, so there is an issue with not setting a goal - rather doing the "MOAR! MOAR! MOAR!" thing that the Green Party do; IMO it is destroying them. I have a problem with "do what we say" where no destination is specified.
2 - I need to see a reconciliation of the aims of more extensive farming (ie lower productivity), more food security (ie local), and lots more land for forests. I have yet to see a credible analysis of that. Does such exist?
A shame I won’t live to see it as a beachside villa.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-is-the-global-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/
(average depth of Greenland ice sheet is c.1500m)
"We won't roll over...."
Liz Truss sounding like Maggie's new tribute act
(.......and doesn't it sound dated?)
And it seems to me that writing a 2060 letter trumps turning up in person to say 2070.
For example Vostok station is 3,488 metres above sea level, and sits on Lake Vostok, 4000m below (ie the lake is below sea level).
Re 2 - we're releasing a detailed "solutions" report on Friday. Essentially the proposed deal is
* substantially less meat consumption in the developed world (but perhaps more in the poorest countries)
* less intensive farming, which becomes a viable solution if we don't have to produce as much meat
* less deforestation, because much of the Latin American clearances are entirely due to growing soya to feed the intensive farms.
The basic issue which this tries to get around is that feeding masses of soya and grain to animals, rearing the animals, and then eating them, is a very inefficient use of grain. We don't deny that if the future is more and more meat consumption, then factory farming is what will meet the demand. But we argue that eventually we will simply run out of land to feed the system.
"malevolent clown" is just rolling around in the gutter.
But let's have a little play there too, shall we?
Firstly, we're going to assume that every single bit of ice is going to melt there. (Which would be an astonishing warming of the earth, given that the South Pole still only gets to around 28 degrees below in summer.
But let's start with the North Pole. According to Wikipedia: "Earth's North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km2." Let's go with 5 meters over the whole lot.
Let's just play with numbers. 10 million km at 5m depth compared to 150 million km of oceans. Now, I'm rounding here, but that means that if the whole North Pole was to melt, that would add about 30cm to world sea levels.
Hmmm... Not getting to a 70 meter increase there.
Let's add the South Pole shall we.
That's 14.6 million square miles. Let's round up to 15 million miles. And let's assume an average depth of 100 meters. That means that Antarctica could add 10 meters to sea levels. But again those seem like pretty chunky top of the head calculations, even ignoring the fact that there's been no diminution of ice levels at the South Pole and that it remains pretty damn cold there.
SYDNEY, Nov 1 (Reuters) - French President Emmanuel Macron said Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison lied to him over the cancellation of a submarine building contract in September, and indicated more efforts were required to rebuild trust between the two allies.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/frances-macron-says-australia-pm-lied-him-submarine-deal-2021-10-31/
If the ice in those areas gets turned into water rising the sea level then the sea level will rise there every bit as much as it rises anywhere else.
#Archimedes
Instead we have what looks closer to 200 than 100 private and governmental planes scattered all over the UK tonight, giving the opponents of such conferences all the ammunition they’ll ever need.
They couldn’t even persuade Gates and Bezos to arrive on commercial flights.
Even a couple of meters floods an awfully large area of the world's most fertile, productive and inhabited land.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10151995/Energy-experts-blast-T-shirt-tweakers-heat-homes-hotter-BARBADOS.html
Wow. Sounds like I could be wrong.
That seems awfully thick. I mean the highest height in Greenland is only about 3km above sea level.