Comments
RagiModi t1_je8aqz3 wrote
> Although the advisory opinion will be non-binding, it will carry significant weight and authority and could inform climate negotiations as well as future climate lawsuits around the world.
Ah yes, the non-binding opinions that carry "significant weight". Wonder why governments don't make filing our taxes "non-binding" if that's all ya needed for compliance.
SameOldBro t1_je8q5x7 wrote
Which means countries such as Sweden or Germany will feel compelled to comply while China and Russia ignore it.
Marthaver1 t1_je6qh9v wrote
And this is exactly why climate change is inevitable.
_Svankensen_ t1_je6v5x0 wrote
It is already happening, of course it is inevitable. But we can halt it.
The_Humble_Frank t1_je8yia3 wrote
No... we can't halt it. What gave you the idea that we could?
What we can do at this point is mitigate it. I'd use a car wreck analogy but that would still give the incorrect sense that it's over at some point. Mitigating it would be like the difference between turning the thermostat being turned up to 80 instead of 95.
MetzgerWilli t1_je9j0n0 wrote
The current IPCC report has a scenario (the very low emissions one) that let's us reduce the global temperature long term (return to +1°C by 2100).
Not like that scenario is happening or anything close to it, but that would pretty much halting climate change.
The_Humble_Frank t1_jea1wlq wrote
That's not halting it, that's slowing the rate.
_Svankensen_ t1_jeabhob wrote
Nope, that's reversing it a bit. The consequences remain, but the warming slowly goes away.
The_Humble_Frank t1_jeaggac wrote
Adding one to anything, does not make it less. the average global temperature heating at a lesser rate, does not mean warming goes away, it means its still getting warmer, just not as fast as it would at a higher rate.
I have actually worked with climate scientists, there is no accepted scenario, given technology that actually exists, where things get cooler.
_Svankensen_ t1_jeahaia wrote
We hit +1°C in 2017. We are above that already. So, yes, going back to +1°C would indeed be reversing it a bit. And you got shared a scenario already. "I have worked with climate scientists" is the most pathetic appeal to authority I have seen. I am an environmental scientist. It doesn't give me authority to override facts or to make shit up.
The_Humble_Frank t1_jeana4k wrote
And I'm going to trust the climate scientists I've worked with over someone claiming to be one on the internet.
_Svankensen_ t1_jeapsqb wrote
Whut? I didn't say I was a climate scientist man. Those most likely studied physics. I said I am an environmental scientist. And as I said, I'm not asking you to trust me. What the other guy said is true.
>scenarios with very low and low GHG emissions and CO2 emissions declining to net zero around or after 2050, followed by varying levels of net negative CO2 emissions23 (SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6), as illustrated in Figure SPM.4.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
As we all know, that is very unlikely. But hey, it's conceivable. Anyway, become an environmental activist. Don't give up. There's good reasons to fight.
trict1 t1_je7kuy9 wrote
…but can’t stop China from making nuclear bombs should be done in 2 months but, it was a fun run right?
Pons__Aelius t1_je7ne8k wrote
Sorry, but what are you trying to say?
trict1 t1_je8j4un wrote
Something nuclear I think
9035768555 t1_je7o77r wrote
China has had nukes for nearly 60 years.
trict1 t1_je8j08o wrote
Nuclear missiles though…
9035768555 t1_je8knts wrote
They've had those for 40+ years.
trict1 t1_je9lpin wrote
Why are they getting everything to make one
9035768555 t1_jeaj3a3 wrote
They have hundreds and want thousands.
trict1 t1_je9lq2b wrote
???
_Svankensen_ t1_je7nj15 wrote
Whut?
[deleted] t1_je8zssf wrote
[deleted]
CaiusRemus t1_je6eo4d wrote
This just in! Court with no actual authority gives ruling with no method of enforcement.
Dedsnotdead t1_je6ntw3 wrote
It’s non-binding, how is it the “Worlds Highest Court” when it has no actual authority?
I feel like this article was written by the worlds highest journalist.
SpaceTabs t1_je89mim wrote
You obviously haven't had a tongue-lashing from Tony "two-times" Guterres.
RichBoomer t1_je6dpnh wrote
“Although the advisory opinion will be non-binding, it will carry significant weight and authority and could inform climate negotiations as well as future climate lawsuits around the world. It could also strengthen the position of climate-vulnerable countries in international negotiations.”
Key weasel words being: advisory, non-binding, and two instances of could.
KorgX3 t1_je7os9b wrote
Reminds me of my old boss, "stop saying 'please' so damn much because it makes things sound optional." Courtesy is vulnerability in our modern era.
RumpleCragstan t1_je6fqsp wrote
"obligations". I don't think that word means what you think it means.
red_foot_blue_foot t1_je7gy5b wrote
A court with out authority is not the "world's highest court". It holds the same weight as if I passed a judgement on China over youtube LOL
m48a5_patton t1_je6zs88 wrote
I hate click-baity headlines.
Strong_Magician5084 t1_je8wb49 wrote
Can’t wait for Australia to completely ignore this. Getting pretty in-climate down here
[deleted] t1_je6gkme wrote
[removed]
Possible-Mango-7603 t1_je8cdsx wrote
And as always they will be promptly ignored. I don't know why the UN exists other than to demonstrate how much money. An be wasted to support the lifestyles of the rich and impotent.
_Svankensen_ t1_je6v1om wrote
"Advisory opinion". And the US is the biggest responsible for climate change. And has already established precedent of passing laws that directly threaten the Hague. This is just a token of goodwill. Which isn't nothing, mind you, since international relations are slow to build trust. But I wouldn't call it a win of epic proportions.
EDIT: I seem to have offended some nationalists?
sldunn t1_je760cr wrote
Huh. Not anymore.
Top 15 Countries with the Highest CO2 Emissions per Capita (t) - EU JRC 2020 Palau — 55.29 Qatar — 35.64 Trinidad and Tobago — 21.97 Bahrain — 21.60 Kuwait — 20.91 United Arab Emirates — 20.70 Brunei Darussalam — 17.95 Saudi Arabia — 16.96 Oman — 16.9 Australia — 15.22 Canada — 14.43 Kazakhstan — 14.22 United States — 13.68 Turkmenistan — 13.37 Luxembourg — 13.24
DoomsdayLullaby t1_je7j9n4 wrote
Non trade adjusted emissions makes me a sad panda.
[deleted] t1_je7clvn wrote
[removed]
IAmYoda t1_je7fq1u wrote
Ah yes, Palau. The true problem country.
Monsoon_cloud t1_je8d6od wrote
True. Almost half of reddit users are Americans. They will downvote you for stating the truth and find some way to blame China , India or other developing Nations for climate change.
_Svankensen_ t1_je8ifhu wrote
Heh, the same comment got upvoted in environment. Guess the average US American is more worried about nationalism than about the environment.
No_Sense_6171 t1_je65sop wrote
Next week's headline: G20 countries ignore world's highest court.