Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141209101308.htm

Temperature anomalies are warming faster than Earth's average, study finds
Date: December 9, 2014
Source: Indiana University
Summary: It's widely known that the Earth's average temperature has been rising. But new research finds that spatial patterns of extreme temperature anomalies -- readings well above or below the mean -- are warming even faster than the overall average. It may seem counterintuitive that global warming would be accompanied by colder winter weather at some locales. But scientists say the observation aligns with theories about climate change, which hold that amplified warming in the Arctic region produces changes in the jet stream, which can result in extended periods of cold weather at some locations in the mid-northern latitudes.

I's widely known that Earth's average temperature has been rising. But research by an Indiana University geographer and colleagues finds that spatial patterns of extreme temperature anomalies -- readings well above or below the mean -- are warming even faster than the overall average.

And trends in extreme heat and cold are important, said Scott M. Robeson, professor of geography in the College of Arts and Sciences at IU Bloomington. They have an outsized impact on water supplies, agricultural productivity and other factors related to human health and well-being.

"Average temperatures don't tell us everything we need to know about climate change," he said. "Arguably, these cold extremes and warm extremes are the most important factors for human society."

Robeson is the lead author of the article "Trends in hemispheric warm and cold anomalies," which will be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters and is available online. Co-authors are Cort J. Willmott of the University of Delaware and Phil D. Jones of the University of East Anglia.

The researchers analyzed temperature records for the years 1881 to 2013 from HadCRUT4, a widely used data set for land and sea locations compiled by the University of East Anglia and the U.K. Met Office. Using monthly average temperatures at points across the globe, they sorted them into "spatial percentiles," which represent how unusual they are by their geographic size.

Their findings include:
Temperatures at the cold and warm "tails" of the spatial distribution -- the 5th and 95th percentiles -- increased more than the overall average Earth temperature.
Over the 130-year record, cold anomalies increased more than warm anomalies, resulting in an overall narrowing of the range of Earth's temperatures.

In the past 30 years, however, that pattern reversed, with warm anomalies increasing at a faster rate than cold anomalies. "Earth's temperature was becoming more homogenous with time," Robeson said, "but now it's not."

The study records separate results for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Temperatures are considerably more volatile in the Northern Hemisphere, an expected result because there's considerably less land mass in the South to add complexity to weather systems.

The study also examined anomalies during the "pause" in global warming that scientists have observed since 1998. While a 16-year-period is too short a time to draw conclusions about trends, the researchers found that warming continued at most locations on the planet and during much of the year, but that warming was offset by strong cooling during winter months in the Northern Hemisphere.

"There really hasn't been a pause in global warming," Robeson said. "There's been a pause in Northern Hemisphere winter warming."

Co-author Jones of the University of East Anglia said the study provides scientists with better knowledge about what's taking place with Earth's climate. "Improved understanding of the spatial patterns of change over the three periods studied are vital for understanding the causes of recent events," he said.

It may seem counterintuitive that global warming would be accompanied by colder winter weather at some locales. But Robeson said the observation aligns with theories about climate change, which hold that amplified warming in the Arctic region produces changes in the jet stream, which can result in extended periods of cold weather at some locations in the mid-northern latitudes.

And while the rate of planetary warming has slowed in the past 16 years, it hasn't stopped. The World Meteorological Organization announced this month that 2014 is on track to be one of the warmest, if not the warmest, years on record as measured by global average temperatures.

In the U.S., the East has been unusually cold and snowy in recent years, but much of the West has been unusually warm and has experienced drought. And what happens here doesn't necessarily reflect conditions on the rest of the planet. Robeson points out that the United States, including Alaska, makes up only 2 percent of Earth's surface.

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by Indiana University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference: Scott M. Robeson, Cort J. Willmott, Phil D. Jones. Trends in hemispheric warm and cold anomalies. Geophysical Research Letters, 2014; DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062323

Abstract
Using a spatial percentile approach, we explore the magnitude of temperature anomalies across the northern and southern hemispheres. Linear trends in spatial percentile series are estimated for 1881-2013, the most recent 30-year period (1984-2013), and 1998-2013. All spatial percentiles in both hemispheres show increases from 1881-2013, but warming occurred unevenly via modification of cold anomalies, producing a reduction in spatial dispersion. In the most recent 30-year period, trends also were consistently positive, with warm anomalies having much larger warming rates than those of cold anomalies in both hemispheres. This recent trend has largely reversed the decrease in spatial dispersion that occurred during the 20th century. While the period associated with the recent slowdown of global warming, 1998-2013, is too brief to estimate trends reliably, cooling was evident in NH warm and cold anomalies during January and February while other months in the NH continued to warm.

The middle panel illustrates spatial patterns of temperature anomalies for April 1998. The top panel shows locations that are below the 25th percentile, and the bottom panel shows locations that are above the 75th percentile.
Credit: Image courtesy of Indiana University
 

Attachments

  • 141209101308-large.jpg
    141209101308-large.jpg
    100.5 KB · Views: 30
Analysis: Latest IPCC Findings Undermine Climate Claims – ‘Regardless of its cause. [IPCC] isn’t claiming that these observed impacts are necessarily a result of human activities’
A single sentence on page 4 of the Summary for Policymakers puts the IPCC’s conclusions in a different perspective:
'Attribution of observed impacts in the WGII AR5 generally links responses of natural and human systems to observed climate change, regardless of its cause.'
That’s right. Regardless of its cause. Working Group 2 isn’t claiming that these observed impacts are necessarily a result of human activities. They could equally well be the result of natural climate change – the IPCC makes no distinction.
 
Liquefied Natural Gas and Climate Change
The Global Context
Published Oct. 27, 2014 by Matt Horne, Josha MacNab
http://www.pembina.org/docs/lng-and-climate-change-the-global-context-pi-pics.pdf

Developing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry is currently the main focus of the British Columbia government. Despite concerns about the increase in domestic carbon pollution that will result from this development, the February 2014 provincial speech from the throne claimed that exporting LNG is the “greatest single step British Columbia can take to fight climate change.” This paper explores the validity of this claim and examines the role of natural gas in the transition to a low-carbon future.
 
Wellhead to Waterline
Opportunities to limit greenhouse gas emissions from B.C.’s proposed LNG industry

Published Feb. 24, 2014 by Matt Horne, Adam Goehner


British Columbia is attracting and promoting extensive liquefied natural gas (LNG) development, including associated shale gas extraction and processing. Its 2012 LNG strategy targets three export terminals in operation by 2020, but the province's revenue and jobs estimates for LNG development would require five to seven plants.

Despite the province's focus on the liquefaction terminals proposed for the coast, carbon pollution would be released across the LNG supply chain. The processes of extracting, processing, transporting, liquefying and eventually burning natural gas all produce carbon pollution. While three-quarters of that pollution would come from end use combustion, the scope of this report is extraction through liquefaction within B.C., and the infrastructure required to minimize carbon pollution.

Read the report. http://www.pembina.org/reports/pi-wellhead-to-waterline-goehnerhorne-022014.pdf
Read the op-ed. http://www.pembina.org/op-ed/2527
See the infographic. http://www.pembina.org/pub/2526
 
Briefing Notes for Minister Joe Oliver in response to IEA's World Energy Outlook 2012
Received under an Access to Information request

Published Aug. 26, 2013 by Government of Canada (Natural Resources Canada)

The Pembina Institute submitted an Access to Information request to Natural Resources Canada requesting records prepared for Minister Joe Oliver concerning the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2012. The excerpted briefing notes provided here are relevant to the consideration of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal.

Download the briefing notes. http://www.pembina.org/reports/nrcan-oliver-briefing-climate-keystone-2013.pdf
 
Beneath the Surface
A review of key facts in the oilsands debate

Published Jan. 28, 2013 by Simon Dyer, Nathan Lemphers, Marc Huot, Jennifer Grant – on leave


This report examines some common claims about the environmental performance of oilsands producers and the environmental impacts of oilsands production. Many of the claims included in this document are not false, but they selectively present information to minimize the negative impacts of oilsands production or overstate the positive strides that industry or governments have made toward addressing those impacts.

The information presented draws on independent research, public information and expert analysis to put key facts about oilsands production in their proper context.

Download:
Report http://www.pembina.org/reports/beneath-the-surface-oilsands-facts-201301.pdf
Backgrounder http://www.pembina.org/reports/oilsands-key-facts-backgrounder-201301.pdf
 
British Columbians’ Perspectives on Global Warming and the Carbon Tax
Opinion poll

Published Oct. 19, 2012 by Tom Pedersen, Matt Horne, Kevin Sauve

While British Columbians want more action on global warming and are supportive of further rate increases, they have some dissatisfaction with the policy in its current form. This backgrounder summarizes the polling results of over 1000 British Columbians' commissioned by the Pembina Institute and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions and conducted by Strategic Communications Inc. in July of 2012.

Download the backgrounder http://www.pembina.org/reports/carbon-tax-polling-results-2012-backgrounder.pdf
See the raw data http://www.pembina.org/reports/2012-bc-global-warming-and-carbon-tax-polling-results.xlsx
Read the press release http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2377
See the 2011 poll http://www.pembina.org/pub/2233

Find more content by topic: Climate Change, Britis
 
British Columbia’s Carbon Tax
Exploring perspectives and seeking common ground

Published June 25, 2012 by Matt Horne, EMRG, P.J. Partington


British Columbia is preparing to review its carbon tax in the 2012 budget. To gather perspectives on the impacts of the tax to date, and to document the range of perspectives regarding the future design of the carbon tax, The Pembina Institute and the Energy and Materials Research Group out of Simon Fraser University conducted a series of interviews with representatives from a wide variety of sectors in the province.

This report presents the results of these interviews, along with recommendations on how to best navigate carbon tax design issues and communication challenges that were identified.

Read the report http://www.pembina.org/reports/carbon-tax-interviews.pdf
See the PowerPoint summary http://www.pembina.org/reports/environmental-taxation-presentation.pptx
 
Booms, busts and bitumen
The economic implications of Canadian oilsands development

Published Nov. 13, 2013 by Steven Guilbeault, Sarah Dobson, Nathan Lemphers


This report, jointly published by Equiterre and the Pembina Institute, examines how the rapid pace of oilsands development is creating economic risks and regional disparities that could have long-term implications for Canada's economic prosperity.

The report also provides pragmatic recommendations to address these concerns, such as improving the management of one-time resource wealth and eliminating preferential tax treatment for the oil and gas sector.

Learn more: Report http://www.pembina.org/reports/booms-busts-bitumen-en.pdf
 
Forecasting the impacts of oilsands expansion
Published June 20, 2013 by Simon Dyer, Jennifer Grant – on leave, Eli Angen


Pembina has quantified a number of metrics of oilsands production on a per-barrel basis, including land disturbance, air emissions, water use, greenhouse gas emissions, and tailings production.

This provides a comprehensive assessment of current and potential future impacts based on approved projects as well as growth projections.

Download the backgrounder.http://www.pembina.org/reports/oilsands-metrics.pdf
 
Risky climate policy
Why governments do the energy sector no favours with a status quo approach

By Amin Asadollahi

Published in Published in Oilsands Review (September 2014).

Amin Asadollahi

Download PDF version

The future of the oilsands industry depends in part on the sector’s ability to convince customers and critics it is serious about being a responsible corporate citizen and reducing carbon pollution. Given what’s at stake — pipeline proposals, social licence and the long-term viability of a fossil fuel industry in an increasingly carbon-constrained world — it’s worth exploring what’s gone wrong with Alberta’s approach to managing emissions to date, and how the oilsands industry could chart a more competitive course.

Download the full op-ed http://www.pembina.org/docs/oilsands-review-september-2014.pdf
View original http://www.oilsandsreview.com/
 
Liquefied Natural Gas in British Columbia
Sources and solutions for carbon pollution

Published Feb. 25, 2014 by Steven Cretney, Matt Horne, Kevin Sauve, Adam Goehner


The climate impact of B.C.'s proposed LNG industry could be massive. If the scale of development matches the five to seven LNG terminals the province is counting on for its revenue and jobs projections, carbon pollution could be nearing that of the oilsands by 2020. Fortunately, those estimates aren't fixed. They depend in large part on the technologies used along the supply chain. This infographic illustrates a few options the province has for minimizing carbon pollution from LNG.

Download a PDF copy http://www.pembina.org/reports/pi-lng-supply-chain-infographic-022014.pdf
Read the report http://www.pembina.org/pub/2524
Read the op-ed http://www.pembina.org/op-ed/2527
 
Pipeline and Tanker Trouble
The impact to British Columbia's communities, rivers, and Pacific coastline from tar sands oil transport

Published Nov. 29, 2011 by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Nathan Lemphers, Living Oceans Society


The proposed Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline would carry more than half a million barrels of raw crude oil (known as bitumen) daily across important salmon-bearing rivers, coastal rainforests, and sensitive marine waters in British Columbia. From Canada's Pacific coast, the extracted bitumen would be transported by supertanker to refineries in Asia, California, or elsewhere.

This report examines the environmental risks associated with transporting oilsands through the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, and includes policy recommendations.

Learn more: Full report http://www.pembina.org/reports/nrdc-pipeline-and-tanker-trouble-for-web.pdf
Fact sheet http://www.pembina.org/reports/nrdc-1353-pipeline-fact-sheet-for-web.pdf
Media release http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2290
 
http://www.iflscience.com/environme...changed-even-after-experience-extreme-weather
Climate Change Skepticism Unchanged Even After Experience With Extreme Weather
November 25, 2014 | by Lisa Winter

photo credit: DVIDSHUB via Flickr, CC BY 2.0

The phrase “global warming” gives the impression that only hot weather is associated with the phenomenon. Many scientists have largely adjusted the language away from that phrase in favor of “climate change” to more accurately reflect what those warming temperatures actually entail. Weather to the extreme, including droughts, floods, and storms, are becoming more frequent as average global temperatures increase.

However, despite having experienced this extreme weather first hand, a new study has found that some climate change skeptics are unwilling to change their position. This position was largely influenced by an individual’s political persuasion. The study’s lead author is Aaron McCright of Michigan State University, and the results were published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Winter 2012 was the fourth warmest in the last 115 years, and nearly 80% of Americans polled by Gallup reported feeling that temperatures during that winter were higher than normal. McCright’s team was initially encouraged, because those who claimed the weather felt warmer actually lived in areas where temperatures were higher than normal.

“Those results are promising because we do hope that people accurately perceive the reality that’s around them so they can adapt accordingly to the weather,” McCright said in a press release.

However, this optimism was short lived, as only 30% of the 1000 people polled attributed that warming to climate change. Forty-six percent of people polled attributed the changes to normal temperature fluctuations.

“Many people already had their minds made up about global warming and this extreme weather was not going to change that,” McCright added.

The study also found that political persuasion correlated with how pollees felt about the cause of the warmer temperatures. Of the Republicans that reported warmer weather, only 19% believed climate change played a role. While that number did increase to 28% of Independents, 43% of polled Democrats pinned the warm weather on the changing climate. Sadly, this means that even when experiencing the problem first hand, it isn’t enough to change the mind of those who are skeptical.

“There’s been a lot of talk among climate scientists, politicians and journalists that warmer winters like this would change people’s minds,” McCright explained. “That the more people are exposed to climate change, the more they’ll be convinced. This study suggests this is not the case.”

A recent, unrelated study from Duke University found that people are more likely to believe a particular issue is a problem if they are in favor of the solution. The study got as many as 55% of Republicans on board with climate change, by framing the solution around new technologies in the free market, opposed to the 22% who believed it was a problem that could be solved with government restrictions.

Understanding how certain groups of people approach problems could help change how the conversation regarding the important matter of climate change will proceed.

The impacts of temperature anomalies and political orientation on perceived winter warming

Aaron M. McCright Riley E. Dunlap Chenyang Xiao
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature Climate Change 4, 1077–1081 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2443
Received 28 January 2014 Accepted 20 October 2014 Published online 24 November 2014

Although perceptions of common weather phenomena moderately align with instrumental measurements of such phenomena1, the evidence that weather or climatic conditions influence beliefs about anthropogenic climate change is mixed2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. This study addresses both foci, which are important to scholars who investigate human–environment interactions and observers who expect greater exposure to weather or climate extremes to translate into stronger support for climate change adaptive measures and mitigative policies. We analyse the extent to which state-level winter temperature anomalies influence the likelihood of perceiving local winter temperatures to be warmer than usual and attributing these warmer temperatures mainly to global warming. We show that actual temperature anomalies influence perceived warming but not attribution of such warmer-than-usual winter temperatures to global warming. Rather, the latter is influenced more by perceived scientific agreement; beliefs about the current onset, human cause, threat and seriousness of global warming; and political orientation. This is not surprising given the politicization of climate science14, 15 and political polarization on climate change beliefs16, 17 in recent years. These results suggest that personal experience with weather or climate variability may help cultivate support for adaptive measures, but it may not increase support for mitigation policies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/our-taste-meat-and-dairy-risking-climate-goals
Our Taste For Meat And Dairy Is Risking Climate Goals

December 3, 2014 | by Justine Alford

photo credit: Martin Gommel, via Flickr. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0


When you pick up that bacon double cheeseburger with a side of six chicken nuggets and a vanilla milkshake, your first thought is probably not “perhaps I shouldn’t eat this; it’s bad for the environment.” But maybe it should be, because our lack of awareness about the environmental impacts of livestock could be preventing us from reaching climate targets, a recent report has warned.

Included in the document are the results from a large survey, which found that around twice as many respondents believed that emissions from transport were greater than from livestock. However, in reality, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock actually account for a higher percentage of the global total. And if we don’t do something soon to change consumption patterns, there’s no way that we are going to be able to reach our goal of keeping the global temperature rise below 2oC (3.6oF).

It’s easy to frown upon gas guzzlers, but many people don’t realize that eating meat and dairy products is also contributing to climate change in a big way. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the livestock sector account for around 14.5% of the global total; that’s more than the emissions from road vehicles, trains, ships and planes combined. And despite the fact that new technologies and changes in agricultural practices could help reduce livestock emissions, in reality they won’t make much of a dent because our demand for animal products is on the rise. By 2050, consumption of meat is expected to have risen a whopping 76%, compared with only 40% for cereals.

The reason that livestock contributes to global warming is because producing meat and dairy creates a huge amount of methane and nitrous oxide, two potent GHGs. Furthermore, livestock production also fuels deforestation because land is needed not only to keep the animals, but also to grow crops for their feed.

Despite these problems, the livestock sector attracts very little attention, and consequently public knowledge about the issue is remarkably low. To assess consumer awareness and public opinion on the issue of livestock emissions, a 12-nation survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI, a market research organization in the UK.

The results revealed that 64% of respondents could recognize emissions from transport as a major contributor to climate change, but only 29% considered emissions from livestock production as a major source of GHGs. Consumers also tended to base their food choices on taste, price and health, rather than climate change. However, consumers with a greater awareness were found to be more willing to reduce their meat and dairy intake for climate objectives.

But it’s not all negative; respondents in emerging countries such as India and China demonstrated high levels of acceptance of human-driven climate change and were more willing to change their meat and dairy consumption behavior than other countries assessed. This is encouraging because much of the forecasted increase in consumption is predicted to occur in these countries.

To tackle this growing problem, public awareness needs to increase, because without it, there won’t be enough pressure on politicians to make this issue part of the political agenda. Likewise, if politicians aren’t pursuing it, it’s unlikely that the public will be aware of the problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KANCI KULON, Indonesia (AP) — About $1 billion in loans under a U.N. initiative for poor countries to tackle global warming is going toward the construction of power plants fired by coal, the biggest human source of carbon pollution.

Japan gave the money to help its companies build three such plants in Indonesia and listed it with the United Nations as climate finance, The Associated Press has found. Japan says these plants burn coal more efficiently and are therefore cleaner than old coal.

So here is the article telling us that the money supposedly for global warming is being spent on coal.
This is your group.

And note that they still have NO Decisions to stop this.
So, why then care about Global Warming?
Where are all the people who supposedly care about global warming.
Why is this not in all the papers?
What defence is there for such stupidness by the IPPC and the U.N.
Guess global warming is not really a big concern, otherwise just plain common sense
should have ensured this could not happen.
Unless this is all about money.

KANCI KULON, Indonesia (AP) — About $1 billion in loans under a U.N. initiative for poor countries to tackle global warming is going toward the construction of power plants fired by coal, the biggest human source of carbon pollution.

Japan gave the money to help its companies build three such plants in Indonesia and listed it with the United Nations as climate finance, The Associated Press has found. Japan says these plants burn coal more efficiently and are therefore cleaner than old coal.

Japan, a top contributor of climate finance, denies any wrongdoing and has done nothing illegal — there are no rules against counting such projects as climate finance in the U.N. system.

"There are countries ... that cannot afford to have other methods than coal," Japanese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Takako Ito said. "For these countries, we'd like to provide the best method of reducing carbon dioxide."

However, U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres, who was unaware that the Japanese-funded coal plants in Indonesia were labeled as climate finance, said "there is no argument" for supporting such projects with climate money.

"Unabated coal has no room in the future energy system," she told AP. "Over time, what we should be seeing is a very, very clear trend of investment into clean renewable energy."

Even the newly launched Green Climate Fund, a key channel for climate finance in the future, still only has vague guidelines on how to spend the money. Board member Jan Cedergren said he didn't believe the fund would support fossil fuels but acknowledged no decision has so far been made.

UN Climate Funds build coal plants — do we call it corruption, or is it success?

One more reason not to give funds to the UN, but do enjoy the contortions.

Japan claimed it spent $1b on a particular action against climate change, which made the UN happy. But it turns out that money went to Japanese companies to build coal fired power stations in Indonesia, which makes the UN very unhappy because the UN does not support coal-powered projects, even if they lower CO2 emissions. Coal is evil, after all.

Newsweek: U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres was apparently unaware of where those funds wound up until it was brought to her attention by the AP. Figueres told the AP that “there is no argument” for supporting coal-powered projects with climate money, and that “unabated coal has no room in the future energy system.”

Watch the anamorphosis as the PR picture turns inside out. Good money becomes bad money. What was UN money becomes not-UN money. What was a CO2 reduction (with a more efficient coal fired power) becomes unsupportable.

The journalists at Reuters had to correct their Newsweek article within hours:

This article was corrected to clarify that the nearly $1 billion were not specifically U.N. funds, but rather Japanese funds that Japan claimed at the U.N. were part of its contribution to a U.N. initiative on climate finance.

So it was UN money and part of the “climate momentum” in 2009, but now that it might embarrass the UN (because coal is evil, after all) it’s called Japanese money.

Despite the update the article still says the money is UN money:

The funding came from a pot of money established by the U.N. in 2009, when wealthy nations pledged to accumulate $30 billion in climate finance over the following three years. At the time, Japan agreed to provide about half that sum.

Is it rorting, cronyism, “success” or all three?
So the UN didn’t have any watchdog or clear directives in place, and they’ve been caught. But against their finest intentions, quite possibly the new coal fired stations are reducing CO2. Though they won’t be changing the climate.

The Japanese defend themselves saying there was never a formal definition of what constitutes “climate finance”, and they’ve broken no law or treaty. According to Associated Press “Japan says these plants burn coal more efficiently and are therefore cleaner than old coal plants.” This is quite likely — the new hotter super-critical coal plants which cut emissions by as much as 15% , but oh the dilemma.

If environmentalists really cared about CO2 emissions, they would love the new coal power. Wind and solar dream of being that environmentally useful. The more we use renewables, the less CO2 they save. In South Australia residents pay 150 times as much for energy that produces almost as much CO2 as would have been made anyway.

Rinse, Repeat, recycle that corruption
The UN is not too concerned about whether the environmental donations get wasted, or achieve anything for the environment. Apparently they value the PR more.

Meanwhile, the recently-established Green Climate Fund, which has similar goals to help poorer nations adapt to the warming climate, also has no watchdog agency or formal definition of climate finance, according to the AP. President Obama recently pledged $3 billion to the fund.

You could be forgiven for thinking that the priority UN outcome is not about getting the weather to change, but about getting more of your money in order to continue to not change the weather.

I can tell that you can read but it's the comprehension you seem to be having a problem with on this news piece. Let me help you by putting this in such a way that might help. I'll use the Tom, Dick and Harry approach.

Tom = UN/IPCC
Dick = Japan
Harry = Indonesia

Tom, Dick and Harry sit down to talk about Harry's problem with drinking and partying. It was agreed that something needs to be done. Dick steps up to pledge money, in the form of a loan, and support to help Harry change his ways. Tom takes him at his word and trusts Dick to do the right thing. When all is said and done the press find out that Dick didn't help Harry, in fact he used the money and took Harry out for a night of drinking and partying. When confronted with the truth Dick blames Tom for the whole mess. The moral of the story is don't be a Dick.

Anthony at "tony's house and Pizza and climate change " spins the story to blame Tom and the fanboys, on Tony's blog site, eat it up like fresh pizza from the oven. They tell all their friends that there is fresh pizza and Tonys house.

Sound about right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top