If you're asking if these forms are non-binding: the Dutch government lost a court case because they ignored the pledges.
Of course, then the cabinet fell in January for completely different reasons, and instead of taking responsibility for that they've been acting in-place until a new coalition is formed. For which they've been dragging their feet (the technically-former prime minister Rutte is on record with saying they're basically free to do whatever because "they can't kick us out any more"). So drunk on nothing-to-lose power they've decided to ignore the fact that they have been ordered by Dutch court of law to do something about the emissions. This is not just my opinion by the way, there's an actual interview where they say that meeting the criteria of the ruling is not a top priority. Because who cares about rule of law? Not the Dutch prime minister, apparently.
The paris agreement is very specific: "Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels." Basically everyone has agreed to that.
It's impossible to interpret this in any other way as that emissions need to be massively reduced within the next couple of years.
The second thing, at 90% of the effect is to educate girls. I didn't realize that this would help with global warming at all, but it seems an excellent use of money regardless.
This is useful to understand what this report actually is. It lays out the physical science basis for climate change. The full impacts, and possible mitigations will come in later months as two separate reports. Finally, there will be a summary next September (2022).
Unfortunately, it looks like these won't be published in time for COP26 in Glasgow later this year.
Bear in mind, everyone, that the Summary for Policymakers is very much a political document because it must be agreed on by the political representatives of each country.
Man, given how fucked up the situation is/will be, this snoozy-feeling press conference doesn't give the vibe of urgency. I'm just watching a lady with a French accent talking with a monotonous voice.
Sorry to sound shallow, but IMO they do need a bit more Hollywood to get people's attention. But then again, the deniers would say "over-dramatic".
This way of presenting the data is the most legit. Only if you are a scientist, climate journalist or have a general interest in climate collapse you are watching this.
If they used PR language and used big, visual metaphors, the deniers would nitpick every little detail of it. See how the grand statements of Al Gore's documentary are still used nowadays to prove the climate is not collapsing at the moment. (You can even scroll down here to see it happen).
Flashy educational presentations can quickly backfire - see DARE program or "You wouldn't download a car".
I've noticed again and again that some people just seem unable to accept the vast amount of evidence that has been piling up in front of their eyes for the last forty years. They do not seem able to process the data, primarily because they cannot accept the conclusion this would lead to, namely that the global human civilization faces a collapse.
This does not have to do with education it seems. Lots of school smart people seem fall into this category and conversely I've had uneducated lower-class people come to that conclusion a long time ago.
There's a saying that a new paradigm does not get accepted into mainstream because of it convincing its detractors but because they all die in the end.
I think this is somehow the same with the climate crisis. The detractors and denialists will never accept any evidence that we put in front of their eyes; they cannot accept the conclusion, no matter what.
Readit News
Of course, then the cabinet fell in January for completely different reasons, and instead of taking responsibility for that they've been acting in-place until a new coalition is formed. For which they've been dragging their feet (the technically-former prime minister Rutte is on record with saying they're basically free to do whatever because "they can't kick us out any more"). So drunk on nothing-to-lose power they've decided to ignore the fact that they have been ordered by Dutch court of law to do something about the emissions. This is not just my opinion by the way, there's an actual interview where they say that meeting the criteria of the ruling is not a top priority. Because who cares about rule of law? Not the Dutch prime minister, apparently.
It's impossible to interpret this in any other way as that emissions need to be massively reduced within the next couple of years.
Since the pandemic, my personal food waste is finally near zero. In a nutshell, switched to mostly bulk foods, pressure cooker, baking.
Unfortunately, it looks like these won't be published in time for COP26 in Glasgow later this year.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...
and yet so far it's just a dummy PDF with just "TEST PDF - Please Replace".
Edit: It's up now
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#SPM
which besides being already up is called "AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis". It also says the PDF is supposed to be "39 pages".
Sorry to sound shallow, but IMO they do need a bit more Hollywood to get people's attention. But then again, the deniers would say "over-dramatic".
If they used PR language and used big, visual metaphors, the deniers would nitpick every little detail of it. See how the grand statements of Al Gore's documentary are still used nowadays to prove the climate is not collapsing at the moment. (You can even scroll down here to see it happen).
Flashy educational presentations can quickly backfire - see DARE program or "You wouldn't download a car".
Because it obviously looks theatrical, the dramatization reading the paper...
— Albert Allen Bartlett
First time I hear the expression, but it might be key to unlock any action.
This does not have to do with education it seems. Lots of school smart people seem fall into this category and conversely I've had uneducated lower-class people come to that conclusion a long time ago.
There's a saying that a new paradigm does not get accepted into mainstream because of it convincing its detractors but because they all die in the end.
I think this is somehow the same with the climate crisis. The detractors and denialists will never accept any evidence that we put in front of their eyes; they cannot accept the conclusion, no matter what.