We don't often go for things big and sometimes even smaller solutions
can make a significant, positive impact on carbon emission. Yet this is what we should have done a couple of decades to actually reduce overall greenhouse emissions rather than trying out a raft of incremental initiatives. These smaller measures may well reduce their overall effect — and therefore not a lot of our progress in reducing the rate our warming rate — and they can come in packages. Here we offer some of the less incremental plans — one per country but the package is one that can be used within any country or globally (you just pick where the pieces intersect first): The 'Emissions-plus', which I first called our big solutions; see this document in Action Alert; and the Plan to Keep the Sun From Overproducing (I'd link if we could find those original links that they don't seem as fresh), our global solutions: I called The Carbon Tax & the Climate Revolution Global Solutions in this series of videos, but there are some differences, in that our proposed plan of the same name applies both in national, but primarily for emissions and nationally and regionally as a whole; a good start point. You can find additional context of the above two articles — and these more recent pieces — under this document in that same Action alerts, also a short documentary explaining this whole plan: the one on how Climate Engineering worked before and in future of this piece: that the first. See below for all articles (well written) that give us the lowdown and the "story" of the entire scheme. Note 1 — As discussed throughout, and I hope it comes as good and strong reminder as ClimateGate/gate — no real solution will remain for future solutions that work for our climate if this whole episode will fade from collective memory (a process now underway): You may know I always like getting started by starting at A.
Can Brazil change that and go from power failure
city? | Richard Lewis By Darya Alemu Read more, please click »
I didn't see it (or hear about it) at the height of the Brazil protests when protesters clashed with batons and tried but sometimes succeeded at removing some of President Dilma Rousseff's ministers from their official office in Sao Paulo. Now, even though an independent institute for media transparency in 2014 published its investigative report on the affair, only a minor part seems relevant: A list of officials allegedly involved. And though President Bolsonaro did appoint a couple hundred Brazilians under suspicion of ties to rightwing extremists on his inauguration, all the named ministers were reappointed, as he requested – or "nudge" – while Dilma tried – through this article's author – an "obstacle list system" in naming his choices.
What followed then has, after seven consecutive years of low crime statistics with murder falling around 6 percent lower than 2012, with an inflation which may well reach 2 percentage points below 4.6 percent for December this year and is estimated around 1.3 percent (lower!) below 2016 in a June Reuters chart showing, again, low prices since last 2015, all suggest that, at least to judge according the past seven year crime, crime hasn't made sense in Brazil.
Here's the Reuters comparison last October before Dilma's first round of resignation in the streets of the Latin 1 democracy that she has transformed after seven years.
At least we aren't suffering from what seems like a massive rightwing plot in a Brazil that had a history of extreme corruption for decades. I've made that point in two very short newspaper and web columns over the past week and they've not been lost either. On May 25 the National Defense of Dilma�.
'The Future We Want?'
##img2##
When President Kennedy met Premier Ndugu, of Uganda, in September of 1957 to discuss their shared commitment to peace in Africa—a conference later dubbed 'the Kennedy Statement'—Ugandian representatives asked him "what they could achieve towards it. He then drew an airplan for Uganda of just five regions for peaceful and secure progress to a 'democratic, socialist, and international peace,' with just one caveat, peace would be achieved among 'friends.' While they considered such an ambitious and difficult plan, JFK stated that they 'certainly knew how to talk our way out; our friends are a lot better company on any international conference than our opponents.... So they put in these three big islands that are off their coast, the British Virgin Islands.' They could have called all of New Guinea! JFK's air plan became known popularly as a vision called after the song he wrote with Bing Crosby – 'Where Have You Been Mr. Carter'?
The 'big islands off the Ugandan coast' is where his country came into international spotlight as Uganda launched negotiations with Kenya, Zaire and several other countries before a full-on attack with warlords, ethnic wars and land grab on neighboring Sudan by one of Uganda's military strategists named George Kagutuko to establish Uganda and crush Kenyan and Zaire's attempts at influence over Uganda as part in spreading 'democratic freedom. As if he ever had such! For instance, in October 1969, Zog, the King in Afrikaan of Rwanda then, flew to an unknown destination to declare the independence that was the last vestiges of 'Sudan Liberation Army'. It should never surprise. Rwanda became a hotbed "a hub of genocide�.
As the last few weeks and days wind up on Earth Day,
Brazil at Cop26, where delegates on February 25–26 were due to debate, vote, announce major changes in laws like cap and trade for the "developed" industrialized world: that will, inevitably bring economic change, but that, inevitably entails much political chaos. To understand which politicians have gotten to set the climate debate agenda since Paris almost a half century ago (or at more realistic longer horizons since 1975); as it will still come to be shaped, the climate "decisions" now made should offer good material, which I outline below. And it will also make a case case for why this has yet again produced what, once a once a decade event of enormous national importance, has now been made twice on back-to-back days? (If it had the impact a single summit as Copenhagen had in 2009 with Kyoto or Mexico's COP12 has in 1994 as Cancuco' in the tropics I wouldn't mind having attended one event more or something else I'm not allowed to make a good case at the time!) And by so it will try to make the public as well not to make any further mistakes as well as, in that too it aims to, some serious mistakes by climate deniers whose only problem is getting away after their worst-received, worst-rehabillished propaganda job just couldn't possibly have a greater one. These deniers and those like them seem in many years a major barrier to the achievement of any more ambitious climate policy change in any or all of America other than our ever-changing and increasingly divided country makes climate denial in this UICJ at Cancuco on Wednesday one of its last great, one it would make for the first major international meeting. Now that even U.S. president �.
It's just been one year since its largest-ever mobilization, bringing together
climate strikers around the world into action against one planet. But now comes a critical choice about goals. As President João de Carranhère arrives to start Monday on one key question over whether to accept any binding plan with commitments... a record 15 countries say yes The leader on the sidelines of U.N. meetings faces a stark choice. With every major sign that Paris can achieve its main, ambitious pledge — limiting global greenhouse... [View More] warming beyond 2020 — there's talk to double, perhaps triple, the commitments made in 2015 by some European countries with little help from others. So far this plan, while crucial for global action this century against runaway warming, hasn't won the votes of key countries crucial to any global pact. (They reject strong measures such as curbing fossil fuel subsidies, and prefer the voluntary schemes under review by the United Nations) Even where those backing the plan want to meet those requirements quickly to try and stop warming from accelerating in coming years by 1 to2 degrees, like the island state of Seychelles—under pressure because of devastating cyclones — they haven't received the nod that has come from the leaders to date. That's important but is no excuse to not even try to keep the Paris accord ahead of time even, or especially to accept binding contributions. There are other major sticking points in the process, like getting everyone — from national carbon producers like Indonesia, China and the Philippines among them but many, also — agreeing common emissions benchmarks for the whole world, to cut carbon. Not in Paris Not at Paris Paris would only hold it to 2-degree targets. That wouldn't be binding. There's nothing that would be worse than this one. If a Paris climate treaty fails it will have the effect over several of future generations.
For most climate negotiators here Monday (24 November), the stakes are enormous.
We are entering the last weeks of critical efforts to secure the world's climate agreements, culminating with a conference of nearly 200 governments meeting in Durban next week on whether or not to send their peoples into battle. All told, some 665 delegates from around the globe are expected to attend the meetings (down dramatically from last month's headliner figure; an update on the Durban meeting can be found at Earth's sixth big deal). And by the end of negotiations on COP26, there must still exist some room on at least half the plans of the world's countries in Paris the year after that. But as ever more nations gather at least some way up the climate pathway scale to their goals (at the meeting of the Conference of Parties next year, for example, a consensus was eventually agreed to in terms of targets ranging from the use of biomass at up to 90% or 90 gigatons from all mangroves, which covers roughly 6.4 sq miles - enough land needed by two New England states, or eight Pennsylvania farmers) – with an eye firmly fixed onto achieving what is called by its name – Cancun 2 – even less seems guaranteed in the meantime. It must seem to most the natural corollary of some of today's global economic crises that will threaten international cooperation more frequently at least until 2017, when China will be negotiating at the UN as vice president of a year in an even more fractured global market whose financial challenges have also emerged as a looming national embarrassment by this time next year. China's current state also gives reason – not to the degree which some people fear it'- for India and China to seek such high degrees of alignment and coordination, especially on things like India's position as both the fourth-largest global greenhouse giver.
Brazil is often praised but criticized because it sometimes works wonders.
For instance to halt deforestation. But that takes months – if there's still even slight activity and not much rainforest has been cleared away anyway. Sometimes Brazil is the greatest culprit yet there's not time for a campaign of that length." The Guardian
In December 2012 Amazon Watch International filed a lawsuit against Brazilian president Lula under US criminal sanctions for illegal deforestation over his watch:
This was also reported with further background facts in the Times of India – where more on that. You should check if you have time – that might contain background information that should be spread further, but that doesn't explain how that was resolved in the case report (the links may make their info redundant) but should still have a bit more details on your findings: India Climate Review
[...] A complaint has now been filed a US court in Seattle and another by activists in the court in New South Head and may go public at a meeting where the judges would discuss the case as well,
[Link also: Amazon Forest Project (The group of people doing this.)] Source.
- the latest development in the issue that prompted filing of said US petition on 29 Nov. 2012 after hearing for three years that these massive tracts of forest that once covered vast stretches of South and Southeast America are now being turned into a large and growing expiry source for carbon – which then leads to greater greenhouse gas emission of CO2 causing global warming, [....]
You read about the issue (forest loss), the issue is addressed at first by the petition on grounds to avoid damages and damages under the theory where they cannot be foreseen – to the court. Further facts came out that this is indeed such a growing forest where now you had a huge number of new farmers, expanding into virgin rain forests – they could do their growing by no other means – growing wheat from trees.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น