Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Blogging for a sustainable energy future.

Get Energy Smart!  NOW! header image 2

Putting a smile not just on my face: Paris accords go into effect

November 4th, 2016 · 5 Comments

The Paris Accords are not a magical solution to the world’s ills. As a static document, what was signed will not solve climate change, will not prevent many degrees Celsius of warming.  They do, however, bring to the table every key nation with agreed-on commitments for action and, even more importantly, have a built ‘ratcheting process’ that will enable a race to accelerate progress in the years and decades to come.

Thus, let me join others greeting with celebration its going into effect …
Triumphant Celebration at Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile

even while recognizing that there is much, much work to be done …


Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: Energy

5 responses so far ↓

  • 1 John Egan // Nov 8, 2016 at 11:36 pm

    No. The Paris Accords will not go into effect. They are going to be gutted by the Trump administration.

    Truly horrific … and quite possibly reality.

    And it is something which I have been trying to point out to you for ten years. Because you and other kept upping the climate ante – among other issues – you drove more and more people away from progressive and moderate views into the hands of right-wing populists. Not just in the U.S. but in countries across Europe, too. How much climate legislation do you think you are going to get out of Trump and a Tea Party Congress??

    You … you … you … you … you

    Yet another example of your attacking me as if I had some great influence on the world and on world’s developments.

    I simply wish that I had the sort of omnipotence in driving economic-environmental policy that you assert.

    If I had such great influence, the sort of win-win-win strategies that I’ve promoted/suggested would create a very different ‘green’ approach than what you so vehemently attack.

  • 2 John Egan // Nov 9, 2016 at 9:47 am

    Adam – I know you have seen my previous comment –

    An example of assumption w/out merit. My blogging, as you are clearly aware, is episodic and, well, hadn’t seen either of these comments for several days.

    you don’t get many visitors and blogging is just passe. Our concerns – even the manner in which we present them – are increasingly irrelevant to the younger generation.

    I hold Clinton herself responsible for her loss – but I do hold you in part responsible, as well, for stoking an atmosphere which made a Trump more viable. I distinctly recall when you abruptly changed the terms of our discourse and spoke to me in disparaging language

    You should go back in history and embrace the reality which is different than you assert.

    as if I were some sort of Neanderthal. I am educated and a lifelong progressive – so I could brush it off.

    You have been systematically advocating for continued investment in polluting infrastructure with ‘we’ll deal with climate change at some point in the future’ without any indication as to when/if that future might be and, even worse, zero acknowledgment that this is an explicit path toward worsening the problem.

    You have given zero credence, that I can ever recall, to the vast majority of my work which emphasizes/emphasized paths to seek win-win strategies, that would create jobs & prosperity for people while reducing emissions. (As per this Win to the Sixth Power discussion.) You have, in essence, articulated for ‘let’s dig more coal and pollute more’ indefinitely rather than ‘how can we address climate change while addressing fundamental economic/prosperity/equity/social issues?’

    Let us take an example directly in coal country: Building wind farm +, even more interestingly, hydro-storage in a part of West Virginia would have created more jobs than mountain-top removal of the coal. And, that revenue stream from selling electricity would have meant continued funding for local government for decades to come.

    But when you do it to a large segment of the American public, they will give you the middle finger. And they just did.

    I have also engaged you about the connection between climate issues – particularly when they take priority over core economic issues – and the growth of right-wing populism worldwide. Well, welcome to that reality. Every one of the right-wing demagogues uses climate over-reach in their arsenal of weapons.

    Am I a bit harsh? You betcha. And I am harsh precisely because you chose to change those terms and claim a hubristic moral high ground. I would posit to you that your so-called high ground is now quicksand.

  • 3 A Siegel // Nov 13, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    To emphasize the disingenuous (or outright deceitful) nature of attacking me, here is substance from one item that I linked above:

    As we strive to stop digging the holes deeper and climb our way out, we can seek to deal with these challenges in a stove-piped manner or address them with W6 solutions that have wins across multiple arenas:

    – Support energy independence
    – Create and protect jobs
    – Foster economic activity (cost effectively)
    – Strengthen long-term economic prospects
    – Address negative environmental impacts (from local pollution to acidification of the oceans)
    – Help mitigate climate change

    As some are wont to say, crises create opportunities. One good piece of news, amid all the serious concerns that that list above should create for all of us, is the reality that many Win-Win-Win-Win-Win-Win (Win to the Sixth) opportunities lie before us, if we choose to seize them.

    Look at those six bullets — at least three (and more honestly four) directly address the issue arenas/constituencies that you falsely assert that I somehow casually, cynically, or otherwise ignore. There are easily hundreds of my posts and concepts along these lines, seeking to find and share paths for creating value streams while attacking climate change. With me, all you have done is continuously (falsely) assert that ‘green’ is the reason for downfall of progressive policy and tarring me as somehow the instigator of/in the middle of all the policies that you attack/despise.

    Also, you do seem to forget that there are a myriad of issues in this campaign and the failure of Clinton to get across the line.

    In addition, it is rather sad that you share/support the “right-wind demagogues” truthiness, abusiveness, and outright reality rejection in their attacks on efforts to address “climate”. It is, according to you, the people who are actually trying to associate themselves with science and knowledge who are at fault for America’s potential decline into a realm of anti-science dark age.

  • 4 John Egan // Nov 13, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    Still can’t claim the error in your ways – even with devastating losses. Not just in the U.S. but throughout Europe, too.

    Still, you absolutely refuse to deal with what I have proposed and engaged … and continue your attack on climate science which has a long history across the web. Your engagement in and reaction to the ClimateGate was right in line with the impacts that science attackers wished to see … and it hasn’t cease

    My argument has never denied the science, but acknowledged that the political possibilities were more constrained. It’s an argument that Dr. Judith Curry and Bjorn Lomborg have used. Of course, those two have been thoroughly discredited by climate activists.

    What a sad joke. Both have thoroughly discredited themselves. Let’s take Bjorn, for example. He is in the rare world of having a Yale University Press book solely focused on deceit in footnotes & sourcing.

    One path of Lomborg’s deception is through massive citations. After all, Lombor’gs Skeptical Environmentalist has almost 3000 endnotes. That number, that quantity, is a rather damning point seemingly hammering the last nail in the coffin to prove Lomborg right. With so many citations, he must be right? No? That, of course, is the common assumption. The reader assumes that the author is (at least somewhat) honestly citing work that backs up his comments, that going to those notes will provide the reader additional information — but won’t contradict the point the author makes. And, even more fundamentally, that the footnote will actually lead to something relevant to the sentence (or paragraph) the note is attached to. Well, in case after case after …, this is simply not the case with Lomborg’s citations as Friel lays clear.

    Page after page, citation after citation, Friel’s forensic work finds situations where cited material doesn’t seem to exist, the cited documents don’t have material relevant to Lomborg’s point, and — all too frequently — the cited material actually contradicts Lomborg’s point.

    Lots more out there on both Curry & Lomborg deception and ‘truthiness’ on basic facts, science, economics, etc …

    How dare they disagree.

    You can have all the science in the world, but if you don’t have the legislators, governors, and presidents – you can’t get to first base. And we are at that juncture today.

    You have spent over a decade blaming the world’s ills on environmental movements/environmentalists.

    Do you spend anything like the same attention on

    * distorted media environment (look at how falsehoods drove FB in US election)
    * International cyber intervention/election tampering (Russia)
    * Voter suppression
    * Etc …

    Right, it is all climate concerned people’s fault.

    So, thank you. I hope you are happy.
    It’s your baby.

  • 5 You are not the only one seeing emergence of dystopian nightmare in America // Nov 14, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    […] ← Putting a smile not just on my face: Paris accords go into effect […]