Didn't take long for word to get out that the UN climate change talks underway in Valencia, Spain are already bogging down.
The French Press Agency is reporting that, "... there had been by sharp exchanges over what the document should include and whether it should reflect findings published after a cut-off date for new material."
The Australian Age is reporting that the report "... has been watered down as a result of influence from government officials from countries opposed to taking radical action."
We have a copy of the pre-negotiation report and will be comparing it to the final publicly released document to be issued this Saturday, November 17.
Stay tuned.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
This post is the second of a two part series. Read the first installment, Unreported Emissions From Natural Gas Blow Up BC's Climate Action Plan.
Methane leaks from British Columbia's natural gas industry are likely at least 7 times greater than official numbers increasing the entire provinces' carbon footprint by nearly 25%. That's like putting 3 million more vehicles on BC's roads.
As...
read more
Comments
Ground rules?
The IPCC cut-off deadline for new information on climate change for their reports seems rather foolish...no, very foolish.
AGW doesn't seem to obeying any sort of "deadline"!?
Is there a valid reason for this or is there a restriction placed on them by politics?
Perhaps they are concerned
Perhaps they are concerned that without a firm deadline release of the reports (and any positive action that might result) would be delayed while material trickled in over time. Or that contributors would be less committed to meeting the deadline. It can be problematic. And material that misses the deadline can always be released independently in journals as "addenda".
I see your point...
I guess that even if some information missed the boat, at least the boat left the dock.