By ENVIRONMENT REPORTER SARA PHILLIPS.
The United Nations climate meeting in Paris from November 30 to December 11 is possibly the last chance the world will have to create an international treaty to prevent dangerous climate change.
Temperatures are a whole degree above the long-term average and scientists predict more warming unless the world acts to limit fossil fuel use and forest clearing.
Climate change has the potential to affect all of humanity as well as countless plants and animals the world over.
Here is everything you need to know about the Paris climate talks:
Who’s meeting?
In 1992, a new global treaty was drawn up at a United Nations meeting in Rio de Janeiro to try to address climate change. It became known by the not-very-catchy name of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNFCCC.
Since then countries which signed up to the convention (which is almost the whole world) have met regularly. This meeting in Paris is the 21st Conference of the Parties, making it COP21. Much like any 21st, there will be many long, rambling speeches.
Why are they meeting in Paris?
The location for the COP moves around each year. In 1997 it was in Kyoto, where the famous Kyoto Protocol was written up. In 2009 it was in Copenhagen, a meeting which ended in anti-climax. It was decided two years ago in Warsaw that the 2015 COP21 meeting would be in Paris. Country representatives also have smaller meetings all throughout the year mostly in Bonn, Germany.
Top Comments
How much money and "carbon emissions" are wasted by thousands of planet saving bureaucrats, flying halfway around the world every couple of years to attend these climate shindigs? Surely if they were serious about "saving the planet", then they could organize their talk-fests using modern technology such as the internet and Skype, rather than all flying around in private airplanes.
Why do all "solutions" to "climate change" involve the redistribution of wealth from wealthy people/nations, to poorer people/nations, with a healthy slice taken off the top for the UN and other assorted climate bodies?
Why has the warming of the planet stubbornly refused to match, or even come close to the alarmist predictions of the 102 global warming computer models? One of them must be wrong, is it the models? Or the planet?
1) Because politicians and bureaucrats love to spend the taxpayers money on luxurious overseas events, when there are far more efficient and effective methods.
2) Because it is far easier for the wealthy nations to provide financial aid to poorer nations rather than take responsibility themselves and aim for a poor pragmatic approach.
3) Because the the global warming sector decades ago took a far too extreme approach, where we ended up today with two extreme sides. In one corner we have the climate change lobby groups who use scare tactics to push for immediate green energy, in which they will benefit. In the other corner, we have the climate change deniers who are in bed with coal lobby groups.
The reality is man made climate change is real, but is a slow process, whereby we will see major effects on our flora and fauna, ocean levels/temperature etc. in the next 60-80 years. In Australia's case, we are far too dependent on the coal industry. We should support the transition from our reliance on coal to cleaner energy over a specific time frame, so our economy isn't drastically affected, but I don't see this happening.
All animals including humans live across a vast range of temperatures. Just think of the temperature difference in a single year from the depths of winter to the heights of summer. Where is there any evidence that a slight increase in the average global temperatures, of just 0.1 degree per decade, is having any negative effects on any flora and/or fauna? If anything, global crop yields have increased due to slightly higher levels of co2 in the atmosphere, and slightly higher average temperatures.
There is evidence that our climate changes, as it has for the 4.5 billion years that the earth has existed. Despite all the billions of dollars of funding for climate science, there still is zero evidence that humans, and our carbon dioxide emissions, are the cause of any of it.
"All animals including humans live across a vast range of temperatures."
You're using layman's login to justify your argument. There is academic evidence supporting climate change, whether you accept it or not.
I'm saying the models suggest that in future decades, an increase in temperature will have an effect on our ecosystems. There is already evidence to prove the slight increase in ocean temperatures has killed off certain parts of the Great Barrier Reef.
My other issue is our dependence on the coal industry. What will drive our economy once we have depleted our natural resources? The last big boom was the internet and the technology and innovation that spawned from it. Investing in clean energy technology, rather than subsidising the coal industry is a better pathway.
you have no understanding of the science. look at www.scepticalscience.com for a starting point. Do not read Jo Nova, the Bolta or and sceptic shills. Simple.