[dragracer567]

The ongoing COP26 summit taking place in Glasglow, Scotland is probably one of the most consequential conferences which will decide the fate of humanity as a whole. So, let me explain what's going on in a series of Q&As.

What is COP26?

The conference is the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the third meeting of the parties to the Paris Agreement. Effectively, the parties will monitor the progress by the signatories to the Paris accords and ideally find ways to enhance their commitments.

What is at stake?

Our future. The ideal scenario would be that the rise in global temperatures since the industrial revolution do not exceed 1.5 C after the emissions have peaked and the net carbon emissions begin to decline leading to carbon neutrality or eventually carbon negativity where we absorb more Carbon than we emit. At this point, we are already at 1.1 C above pre-industrial revolution temperatures. The Paris accords effectively declared that the signatories will strive to achieve a maximum increase of 2.0 C from industrial revolution temperatures which can still lead to significant changes to the climate leading to erratic climatic phenomenons like cyclones & droughts. An increase of 3.0 C by 2050 which is projected based on the current rate of emissions will effectively lead to a climate catastrophe making life very difficult for most of us humans.

Can climate be really influenced by human-kind? What's the proof? Hasn't climate changed in the past?

Yes, the climate can & is being influenced by human-kind. The diagram below (courtesy BBC) will give you an indication why. Climate has changed in the past, but over thousands or even millions of years, not over a mere 150 years which is unprecedented.



What has India pledged?

India has basically pledged that it will reach carbon-neutrality by 2070. This is 20 years later than US & EU while its 10 years later than the pledge by China. But the fact remains that despite being the fourth largest emitter (including the EU), India's per capita emissions is still relatively small especially given that a lot of India's population still don't have access to reliable electricity.



India also claims that it will reduce its carbon intensity which is its carbon output in relation to economic growth. This is a fair point as it doesn't matter if US & EU reach carbon neutrality by 2050 if they emit too much carbon on the way to carbon neutrality. The journey to carbon neutrality is just as important as the destination.

India makes some good arguments that while the western countries used fossil fuels to industrialize, developing countries are being denied the opportunity to do the same. However, developed countries argue that developing countries do not have to make the same mistakes as developed ones but can use the opportunity to leapfrog technologies which is a valid point. But all this requires money. Developed countries had pledged $100 billion to help developing countries achieve their targets but this couldn't be achieved with the US under Trump pulling out. Overall, the shift would cost trillions of dollars but still lower than the projected impacts of climate change.

My take: it is true that the developed countries enjoyed the fruits of fossil fuels but at this point, we are in this together & India will be among the countries most affected by climate change. If it manages to transition away from fossil fuels manner, it will be a model for other developing countries to follow.

Where does India stand now?

India remains one of the most reliant countries on coal with 70% of the energy coming from coal. But conversely, India has also made strides in renewable energy and famously has the cheapest prices for solar energy in the world. India has pledged that 50% of its energy will come from renewables by 2030 (which is a revised target from 40% provided at the Paris accords). It was 23% in 2019.





How can carbon neutrality be achieved?

Carbon neutrality can be achieved by a combination of limiting emissions and absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. Some of the ways include:

1) Shifting to renewables & nuclear energy.
2) Shifting to electric modes of transportation.
3) Electrifying rail & using high-speed rail instead of flights for short distances.
4) Shifting to alternate forms of energy such as green hydrogen.
5) Reducing consumption of cattle like beef & lamb or find ways to make them more sustainable by formulating new types of feeds.
6) Aforestation.
7) Carbon capture using CCS (Carbon-Capture & Storage) technology or large microalgae & seaweed farms.

PS: while I've tried to explain everything in layman's terms, do let me know any point that requires further explanation, I would be happy to answer or find the answer if I don't know it myself.

[V.Narayan]

Whether you are true believers like dragracer567 and me or heretics like Trump fact is climate change and shortage of water are the two gravest global crises facing humankind. Both crises of our own making. Regrettably even today many of us argue that climate change has occurred before, that global warming cant be proved, that the arctic cap melting is a conspiracy theory and so on. When I was born the global population was estimated at 303 crores. Today China+India alone stand at 280 crores or so!!! And the global number at 775 crores. That is how much pressure we are exerting on mother Earth's resources and fragile ecosystem.

India achieving carbon neutrality by 2070 sounds a stretch but doable. My vote is for India taking the lead here and showing a thing or two to both USA and China both of whom are nations with a poor record so far in acceptance and adoption.

For the young on this lovely forum of ours bear in mind that in 2050 it wont be the wars in the Middle East, or the sabre rattling over Iran's nuclear quest, or China's ambitions over Taiwan, or Europe's ageing, or the nuclear stockpiles but climate change and water which will weigh down the globe. USA has lost both the moral and operational lead on this. The EU alone, among the richer or larger economies, is pushing ahead in both letter and spirit. Speaking in more narrow and petty terms for all the sabre rattling Pakistan indulges in we control all their river flows! Wars in the future will be fought over water.

With climate change and challenges over water our basic ability to breathe, drink and grow food get affected fundamentally.

Thank you @dragracer567 for this lucid summary.

[Indian2003]

The COP26 is a scam. The West got rich by looting and killing in the colonies and now they are pointing fingers at former colonies for polluting. They got rich with dirty energy.

President Biden arrived in 2 jets and in Italy in an 85-vehicle motorcade of limos, SUVs, and vans. He later traveled to Glasgow.

The rest flew in on over 400 private jets releasing more Co2 than 1600 Scots release in a whole year. They are not riding horses there. Even Greta Thunberg flew in.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...blast-25338840

[V.Narayan]

Chart below of where we stand. China, USA, EU, Japan and India have a lot to do. Not surprising given that these 5 countries/blocs are the largest economic generators in the world. Given that it is likely that over the next generation India will move to being the third largest economy in nominal terms even {we are already there in PPP terms} it behooves us to take the high ground and be seen as a leader rather than a "sulky sue lost in atrocities of the past" reflected in the comment below being quoted by many in the media. Just because the West got rich through the atrocities of colonialism and coal burning does not mean we need to descend down to their level to get economically strong. But insightful thinking is usually not the forte of second rate journalism. No offense meant to @Indian2003 whose posts I usually read with great interest.

Originally Posted by Indian2003

The COP26 is a scam. The West got rich by looting and killing in the colonies and now they are pointing fingers at former colonies for polluting. They got rich with dirty energy.

President Biden arrived in 2 jets and in Italy in an 85-vehicle motorcade of limos, SUVs, and vans. He later traveled to Glasgow. The rest flew in on over 400 private jets releasing more Co2 than 1600 Scots release in a whole year. They are not riding horses there. Even Greta Thunberg flew in.

To drive climate change we need world leaders to meet and debate and decide. It cannot be done effectively via video given the conflicts, complexities and need for consensus. The only way dozens of key world leaders can get to a point to meet in person is to fly. So be it. The CO2 of 1600 Scots wont move the needle but a global agreement will and has in the past. With this hackneyed comment by a rag like the dailyrecord we all should stop driving any car in order to earn the right to debate climate change, and toss out our cooking gas and air conditioners at home too. Such comments by yellow papers unfortunately divert attention from serious and much needed discussion & decisions to cliches. If the dailyrecord has a better answer on how to get 180+ countries to agree then let it state its suggestion.

[WorkingGuru]

Countries which have developed since 200 years (while plundering dozens of other countries on pretext of nuclear weapons / democracy) are bullying the developing countries & tainting our aspirations even for basic necessities as a sin, and we're supposed to lap it up and probably be subject to Carbon Tax ?

Make no mistake, as soon as these developed countries reduce any significant carbon emissions, they're going to demand sanctions against developing countries, especially ones like ours where the administration has more or less reduced to tax collectors while having sold off most of Govt PSUs & assets to industrialists all while being glamourised by PR agencies & paid media as-if they're some kind of messiahs/saviours.

All these theatrics about bringing change is just a way to force citizens of developing nations into further penury & destitution. Reminds me of a quote by Winston Churchill, "Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way, that they look forward to the trip!"

Even if India did achieve anything, it'll never be acknowledged, just like India doesn't have a permanent seat at UN Security Council, or as historically seen - how the world won't even acknowledge our army's voluntary support during WWII. We'll always be labelled as backward casteist snake charming tribals by the international media.

Like 2002-2012 is considered as a lost decade for our economic opportunities, the next 50 years will be considered as a lost century for our country. And just like the present generation doesn't realise the value of the freedom struggle & refuses to fix our country's governance & justice system, our next generation will be further indifferent to each others strife.

[hrk997]

Ah my head aches when I see educated people make misinformed statements. I always wondered if educated people were gullible enough to fall for propaganda spewed from mainstream media, but the posts here clearly show that they are. Instead of reading biased news articles, take a look at the 3000 page IPCC report that clearly states how dire the situation is.

What is required, is a 50% reduction of all emissions by 2030, a mere 8 years by now. Net zero? Scam. If you look at the metric by which it is calculated, it is so far fetched and borderline impossible. The reason politicians keep announcing 2050 and 2070 and what not is because it enables governments and businesses to keep acting with impunity at the present. How many such past environmental targets have been met? Very few, if not zero.

Amidst this desperate scenario, the Indian government says it needs development because of historical injustices. Development is euphemism for more capitalism, the root cause of all pollution, consumption and global warming. When we reach the critical mark by 2050, the world will be a very different place where there would be greater concern about water prices than fuel prices. Climate change has already arrived and is taking a toll in India, rural landscapes are increasingly dealing with drought and desertification, or cyclones and extreme weather events. But the gullible masses would still talk about developing the nation by increasing capitalism and emissions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is a systemic problem that concerns the very nature of capitalism, infinite economic growth in a planet with finite resources. What we need is systemic change and degrowth, not green capitalism or net zero or whatever else you might hear from politicians, who will be far more insulated to climate change than you and I. You really and truly want to make a difference? Stop eating meat, stop buying tons of things you don't need. Capitalism relies on consumption, and the day people realise they don't need the majority of the things they purchase is the day capitalism will fall. Ofcourse, that's utopian thinking and it's very obvious we'd rather purchase our way into ecological collapse than to stop and think for a bit.

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by hrk997

Ah my head aches when I see educated people make misinformed statements. I always wondered if educated people were gullible enough to fall for propaganda spewed from mainstream media, but the posts here clearly show that they are. Instead of reading biased news articles, take a look at the 3000 page IPCC report that clearly states how dire the situation is.

What is required, is a 50% reduction of all emissions by 2030, a mere 8 years by now. Net zero? Scam. If you look at the metric by which it is calculated, it is so far fetched and borderline impossible. The reason politicians keep announcing 2050 and 2070 and what not is because it enables governments and businesses to keep acting with impunity at the present. How many such past environmental targets have been met? Very few, if not zero.

Amidst this desperate scenario, the Indian government says it needs development because of historical injustices. Development is euphemism for more capitalism, the root cause of all pollution, consumption and global warming. When we reach the critical mark by 2050, the world will be a very different place where there would be greater concern about water prices than fuel prices. Climate change has already arrived and is taking a toll in India, rural landscapes are increasingly dealing with drought and desertification, or cyclones and extreme weather events. But the gullible masses would still talk about developing the nation by increasing capitalism and emissions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is a systemic problem that concerns the very nature of capitalism, infinite economic growth in a planet with finite resources. What we need is systemic change and degrowth, not green capitalism or net zero or whatever else you might hear from politicians, who will be far more insulated to climate change than you and I. You really and truly want to make a difference? Stop eating meat, stop buying tons of things you don't need. Capitalism relies on consumption, and the day people realise they don't need the majority of the things they purchase is the day capitalism will fall. Ofcourse, that's utopian thinking and it's very obvious we'd rather purchase our way into ecological collapse than to stop and think for a bit.

Your points are valid in general. However it is grossly unfair to expect that certain countries were allowed to develop causing extreme pollution and today they reap the benefits of having a high standard of living whereas recently developing countries have to stop their development and should not lift their people out of poverty due to environmental concerns. If we take the example of the most egregious polluter, the United States, we have people living in 3000 to 5000 sq feet homes spread over acres of gardens which are heated and cooled 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. even while at work or on vacation, the AC systems stay on. Billions of gallons of water is used on watering the lawns. People drive huge fuel guzzling SUVs. They never shut off lights in offices or computers at work or home. On the other side, in India we have millions without even a home let alone air conditioning. Why does the common man in India not have the right to own a home with air conditioning? Why can't he or she drive even a small fuel efficient car? Why should our per capita income languish at under $ 2k while others are near 100k? So it is wrong to preach without making any sacrifices.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

So it is wrong to preach without making any sacrifices.

Agreed. And for a long time I too held this opinion and sneered whenever a climate change advocate from one of the developed nations gave developing countries some gyaan on reducing emissions. But here's the thing- most of the developing nations because of location, population/density, and a far greater percentage of population that is closer to just basic survival are also far more vulnerable on average to the worst effects of climate change as compared to the developed nations. Undoubtedly the developed nations have contributed and are still contributing more to this problem than the developing countries. But should the developing nations refuse to change course even though they're going to get hit much worse?

[dragracer567]

Very interesting comments and all of them are extremely valuable and insightful, the only ones I would ignore would be the climate-deniers.

While I’ve already shared my views in the OP, let me summarise my thoughts again.

1) The statement that developed countries reached where they are by emitting fossil fuels is absolutely true. Infact, the industrial revolution was very much dependent on the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels. But as Narayan sir rightly said, it doesn’t mean that we have to take the same path. This transition to a green economy gives an once in a lifetime opportunity to be at the forefront of a new type of economic transition not seen since the industrial revolution.

2) Expecting the developed world to repent and begin to live a hermit life because they emitted most greenhouse gases just doesn’t make sense. It’s easy to beat our chest and say ‘you caused this problem’ but just like it would be extremely difficult for a typical Bhpian (by that, I mean an urban upper middle class Indian) to live as a poor landless farmer in Bihar, you can’t expect an average American or German to live like an average African. That doesn’t mean that the African doesn’t deserve the lifestyle of an American or German but rather it is the responsibility of the developed countries to finance the transition of developing economies away from fossil fuels while helping them grow. This is a real problem we are facing and we are all in this together (though the poorest living in poor countries will suffer the most). I get your arguments, none of this is ‘fair’ and there is certainly a hypocrisy involved but life ain’t fair.

3) COP26 was not a failure. I’d rather say that it’s a moderate success. Infact, the projected increase in peak temperatures have dropped from 2.7 C to 1.8 C based on the revised pledges, below the quintessential 2 C mark. This will reduce even more in future pledges as we technologies become available and get cheaper. It’s very difficult not to overestimate the sheer problem progress we’ve made in COP26 since the Paris accords. It’s a sad state of affairs with our tabloid like press that trivial things like the mode of transports of heads of states and governments are given more focus than what was actually accomplished at the conference.

I am a glass half-full kind of guy, some of you aren’t and honestly both kinds of commentators are required to pressure our political elites in ensuring this transition. Hence, I respect and agree with all the views in this thread (except the deniers offcourse).

[v1p3r]

There are two sides to this argument, and for once both sides actually make sense. At its core, it remains the most basic of human conflicts - wanting more for oneself, or making sure all of humanity is better off.

Honestly, I do not see any real movement from governments and countries - whether rich or poor. There are commitments and promises of 'net-zero', itself eyewash, achieved by 2060-70, by which time most of us will anyway be dead.

Everyone who currently pollutes, or commits to 'reducing' emissions, is unlikely to be around to see the worst effects of climate change. And because of that, it's SEP - somebody else's problem - that they can pay lip service to and go their merry way.

Believe you me, I've been in this field for nearly half a decade now, and the apathy that governments (even the 'progressive' kind) and corporates display is just mind-****-boggling. I have long since given up trying to either educate or sensitise people to the fact that unless they act in the next few years, their children will not live to see 2060.

Originally Posted by hrk997

You really and truly want to make a difference? Stop eating meat, stop buying tons of things you don't need. Capitalism relies on consumption, and the day people realise they don't need the majority of the things they purchase is the day capitalism will fall. Ofcourse, that's utopian thinking and it's very obvious we'd rather purchase our way into ecological collapse than to stop and think for a bit.

I completely agree with your statement of fact, but I counter it by saying that what you expect goes against the very basic foundations of the human mind, namely desire and the quest for more. Without any offence or disrespect, you would not have multiple expensive cars in your garage otherwise. Similarly, expecting poor and socially rising classes to forego their first motorcycle, car, or airconditioner because some politician made some promise is both unfair and unrealistic.

[Indian2003]

Meanwhile at the COP26. The eco warriors paying attention. They seem to be dozing off. You save energy when you sleep.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Indian2003

Meanwhile at the COP26. The eco warriors paying attention. They seem to be dozing off.

Isin't that Nawaz Sharif and David Cameron in the last photo? Are they even at the COP26 summit? Seems to be a photo from some other conference from a long time ago.

http://www.thanhniennews.com/world/r...ank-35327.html

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Indian2003

Meanwhile at the COP26. The eco warriors paying attention. They seem to be dozing off. You save energy when you sleep.
Attachment 2228400

Biden dozing off was caught on TV by CNN. Must remind him to stay awake. As for the other three photos I am not sure whether they are from COP26 or some earlier event. Camerron, Nawaz, Abdullah (of Afghanistan) and John Kerry seem strange bedfellows to be seated together at COP26. Were they even invited??!! This thread so thoughtfully started by @dragracer567 on the most important global issue of the next few decades surely deserves more thoughtful or factual inputs than curated memes (and apparently partly faked) trying to trivialize the subject. Disagree if you wish to but do so with data not memes cobbled together. By the way I have a photo of my dozing in my verandah. Add it to the post.

[dragracer567]

By far the best speech at the COP26 was the one given by the former US president Barack Obama IMHO. He gives a good oversight on what has and has not been achieved in both the Paris climate accords and the COP26, gives you an idea of where we stand and what still needs to be done. This is much better than just endless ranting on ‘blablabla’, though I still admire Greta for inspiring young people to rise up - something the scientific community including myself (rather frustratingly) could’t do!

https://youtu.be/69EMd4csZRY

[gthang]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

PS: while I've tried to explain everything in layman's terms, do let me know any point that requires further explanation, I would be happy to answer or find the answer if I don't know it myself.

How is the global average temperature calculated? What are the methods and variables used to calculate and what is the accuracy?

Cheers