UN report warns climate change may soon be ‘irreversible’

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49232#.VFiJd_nF854

[FONT=Times New Roman] ‘Leaders must act,’ urges Ban, as new UN report warns climate change may soon be ‘irreversible’[/FONT]

Participants at press conference to launch Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), including (centre) UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri. Copenhagen, Denmark (2 November 2014) UN Photo/Amanda Voisard

2 November 2014 – Citing “clear and growing” human influence on the climate system, a United Nations report issued today has warned that if left unchecked, climate change will increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.
Echoing that dire warning, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that if the world maintains its “business as usual” attitude about climate change, the opportunity to keep temperature rise below the internationally target of 2 degrees Celsius, “will slip away within the next decade.”
“With this latest report, science has spoken yet again and with much more clarity. Time is not on our side…leaders must act,” declared the UN chief, in Copenhagen, Denmark on an official visit that included a press conference to launch the final installment of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
According to a press release from the panel, the so-called “Synthesis Report” confirms that climate change is being registered around the world and warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Since the 1950s many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.
“Our assessment finds that the atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, sea level has risen and the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased to a level unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years,” said Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I, which participated in the compilation of the final report along with two other expert working groups.
Calling the report the “most comprehensive assessment of climate change” ever carried out, the Secretary-General urged worldwide action in light of its stark findings, saying that “even if emissions stopped tomorrow, we will be living with climate change for some time to come.”
He went on to say that the report found that the world is largely very ill-prepared for the risks of a changing climate, especially the poor and most vulnerable who have contributed least to this problem.
“I have seen for myself those rapidly melting glaciers, most recently in Greenland together with the Prime Minister of Denmark,” he said emphasizing that though he is not a scientist, he has traveled the world over, “to see the impact for myself and…add to the voices of scientists in a political way, as a common man.”
Yet, the “good news is that if we act now, we have the means to build a more sustainable world,” he said, explaining that quick and decisive action that draws on many readily available tools and technologies can put the world on the right track. Renewable energy sources are increasingly economically competitive. Energy efficiency has long proven its value. It was a myth that climate action would be costly, he said, stressing that in fact, inaction “will cost much, much more,” he added.
R. K. Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, underscored that the means to limit climate change are at had. “The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change, which we trust will be motivated by knowledge and an understanding of the science of climate change.”
Speaking later at the Copenhagen Energy Security Dialogues, the Secretary-General commended the global vision of European Union leaders who had taken decisive action to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent from by 2030.
“This is one of the major achievements immediately after the Climate Change Summit which I convened,” in late September, said the UN chief, adding that while he has made the issue one of the Organization’s top priorities, he wanted to broaden the scope of measures aimed at tackling it.
Indeed as climate change “is not just a matter for environmentalists and/or scientists. It is a major development challenge that can also lead to serious security threats”, Mr. Ban said, noting that mobilizing for climate change is also mobilizing for sustainable development.
As such, the United Nations would focus on three linked priorities for next year: accelerating continued efforts to meet the targets of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); shaping a “bold and ambitious” post-2015 development agenda by the end of next year; and agreeing a meaningful climate change agreement by next December next year in Paris.
“A transformative approach to energy can drive all these priorities to a successful realization,” of those aims, said the Secretary-General, noting that the Sustainable Energy for All initiative he had launched in 2011is mobilizing governments, businesses, finance and civil society to transform the world’s energy systems.
“The United Nations is bringing the world together on energy because energy is central to our future well-being as a human family,” he said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/climate-change-dangers-are-higher-ever-u-n-report-n239401

I saw this on the news yesterday. It will be irreversible by the end of the century they say and I agree. China and other developing economies will put the icing on this cake. We are humans and we will screw this up. Somewhere, someplace in America, someone is building another ridiculous, jacked up diesel truck and dropping an " oh well". We are already seeing the higher temperatures, more violent stoms, higher insurance rates, etc. People better get on board.

Pure B.S.

Very interesting and can you tell us where you get your information from . Thanks … Roy

The UN is nothing but a political organization. It has never accomplished anything it was originally designed for. The UN is not qualified to pick up my trash, let alone comment on the climate. This was a political piece!

Interesting .
Is that a personal opinion or do you have the facts to back up your statement .

Roy is not a scientist or even very well educated.

He does know how to cut and paste though so I guess that’s something.

This term comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nations#Current_members

Member states of the United Nations (USA is one of the 193)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Map of the United Nations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) (UN) member states, with their territories (including dependent territories) recognized by the UN in blue[1]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nations#cite_note-1)
Flags of the UN member states, in front of the Palace of Nations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Nations) (Geneva,Switzerland).
There are 193 United Nations (UN) member states, and each of them is a member of the United Nations General Assembly](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly).[2]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nations#cite_note-2)
The criteria for admission of new members are set out in the United Nations Charter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter), Chapter II, Article 4:[3]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nations#cite_note-charter_ch2-3)

  1. Membership in the United Nations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
  2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council).
    A recommendation for admission from the Security Council requires affirmative votes from at least nine of the council’s fifteen members, with none of the five permanent members](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council) voting against. The Security Council’s recommendation must then be subsequently approved in the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority vote.[4]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Nations#cite_note-4)

A lot of the world resents the freedom and success of the USA.

They would like nothing better than to cripple our economy and reduce our influence and that is exactly what the enviro wackos want too.

What they keep missing is that the world is dependent on fossil fuels and will be for a very long time.

It’s a well educated opinion. That is different than the politically driven opinion of the UN report that is only using articles and people that will further their agenda. Looking at the facts and taking the politics out and you have your answer. Choose to believe what you want but people are making millions and billions off this fear. Climate change people charge oil companies of the same thing but ignore the fact that people like Al Gore have made billions off of fear. Once again come to me with facts not bologna from political money grabbers! Notice how hard that will be and that should tell you a lot!!

I see lots of statements made on this forum , Many are the posters own ideas .
Unfortunately they seldom post believable facts .
Some get a little information and become an instant expert who think they know more then those who have worked in their industry for years.

Also if this was truly about saving the worlds climate then where is the outrage with China. Ever looked at the air quality over there. I would start over there. Oh wait. That doesn’t work, there is no money to make over there. Again this speaks volumes

And you are free to believe what you want. Either way is fine with me but don’t put political crap that is played as fact when it is not fact. It’s all about the money!

I certainly do. You just do not like them so you ignore them.

The world was, is and will remain dependent on oil and so called fossil fuels long after both you and I are dead and buried.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/china-finding-ways-to-cut-back-on-coal-20120711-21w91.html

China finding ways to cut back on coal</SPAN>

[FONT=“Arial”]
CHINA’S hunger for Australian coal is likely to wane as it moves to a more energy-efficient economy, says Australia’s leading climate change and China expert.
Ross Garnaut, who led the government’s review on climate change and served as ambassador to China in the 1980s, told an economics conference in Melbourne yesterday that China’s ‘‘quite radical’’ efforts to tackle climate change and an ageing workforce had shown early signs of success - leading to a potentially dramatic impact on Australia’s second most important export earner, coal.
‘‘Coal use [in China] has hardly increased at all despite the growth in the economy,’’ Professor Garnaut said. ‘‘That’s contributing to a surplus of coal in China and internationally, and putting big downward pressure on prices, with implications for Australia.’’
His comments came as a report revealed that not a single Chinese steel mill surveyed by Platts, an influential international energy and metal consultant, had a positive outlook for domestic demand and exports, potentially dampening demand for the fuel further.
Advertisement

Professor Garnaut was upbeat on the prospect of China successfully rebalancing its economy, saying there was no reason why China would not continue to grow ‘‘very rapidly’’ despite structural changes in the world’s second-largest economy, including a shrinking workforce due to China’s low fertility rate - a byproduct of its one-child policy.
‘‘My guess is that [Chinese economic growth] will settle in the 7 to 8 per cent range, but everyone has to recognise that there is a bit of a risk of overshooting on the downside,’’ he said.
With China having undergone decades of fast-paced urbanisation, he said the Asian giant’s economy would no longer benefit as much from the ‘‘easy boost’’ of people moving from rural areas to the cities. But he said rising wages would force labour to be used much more efficiently.
China’s once-huge current account surplus was also shrinking and had the potential to push up the cost of borrowing money, he said.
He predicted China’s current account surplus was likely to fall within the internationally acceptable range of 2 to 3 per cent in the coming years.
A senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Wing Thye Woo, who also addressed yesterday’s conference, said the obsession with China to unpeg its exchange rate and greatly increase its domestic consumption was misplaced and ‘‘lacked common sense’’.
To reform China’s skewed economic model, Mr Woo said, required a much more fundamental change in its political and economic structure, with particular emphasis on private-sector - rather than state-backed - growth.

Read more: [FONT=“inherit”]http://www.smh.com.au/business/china-finding-ways-to-cut-back-on-coal-20120711-21w91.html#ixzz3I77Ortq0](http://www.smh.com.au/business/china-finding-ways-to-cut-back-on-coal-20120711-21w91.html#ixzz3I77Ortq0)[/FONT]
[/FONT]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/china-finding-ways-to-cut-back-on-coal-20120711-21w91.html

China finding ways to cut back on coal</SPAN>

[FONT=“Arial”]
CHINA’S hunger for Australian coal is likely to wane as it moves to a more energy-efficient economy, says Australia’s leading climate change and China expert.
Ross Garnaut, who led the government’s review on climate change and served as ambassador to China in the 1980s, told an economics conference in Melbourne yesterday that China’s ‘‘quite radical’’ efforts to tackle climate change and an ageing workforce had shown early signs of success - leading to a potentially dramatic impact on Australia’s second most important export earner, coal.
‘‘Coal use [in China] has hardly increased at all despite the growth in the economy,’’ Professor Garnaut said. ‘‘That’s contributing to a surplus of coal in China and internationally, and putting big downward pressure on prices, with implications for Australia.’’
His comments came as a report revealed that not a single Chinese steel mill surveyed by Platts, an influential international energy and metal consultant, had a positive outlook for domestic demand and exports, potentially dampening demand for the fuel further.
Advertisement

Professor Garnaut was upbeat on the prospect of China successfully rebalancing its economy, saying there was no reason why China would not continue to grow ‘‘very rapidly’’ despite structural changes in the world’s second-largest economy, including a shrinking workforce due to China’s low fertility rate - a byproduct of its one-child policy.
‘‘My guess is that [Chinese economic growth] will settle in the 7 to 8 per cent range, but everyone has to recognise that there is a bit of a risk of overshooting on the downside,’’ he said.
With China having undergone decades of fast-paced urbanisation, he said the Asian giant’s economy would no longer benefit as much from the ‘‘easy boost’’ of people moving from rural areas to the cities. But he said rising wages would force labour to be used much more efficiently.
China’s once-huge current account surplus was also shrinking and had the potential to push up the cost of borrowing money, he said.
He predicted China’s current account surplus was likely to fall within the internationally acceptable range of 2 to 3 per cent in the coming years.
A senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Wing Thye Woo, who also addressed yesterday’s conference, said the obsession with China to unpeg its exchange rate and greatly increase its domestic consumption was misplaced and ‘‘lacked common sense’’.
To reform China’s skewed economic model, Mr Woo said, required a much more fundamental change in its political and economic structure, with particular emphasis on private-sector - rather than state-backed - growth.

Read more: [FONT=“inherit”]http://www.smh.com.au/business/china-finding-ways-to-cut-back-on-coal-20120711-21w91.html#ixzz3I77Ortq0](http://www.smh.com.au/business/china-finding-ways-to-cut-back-on-coal-20120711-21w91.html#ixzz3I77Ortq0)[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Come on Roy, really? Everything on the internet is true right?

http://m.wsj.com/articles/BL-CJB-21543

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/25/china-toxic-air-pollution-nuclear-winter-scientists

Roy is is 100% about money and if you can’t see that then I can not help. You are only seeing what you want to see

I am quite sure he likes receiving 80 cents/kW for his solar systems electricity. :shock: