To solve a problem, three things are necessary： awareness, means, and will. The 2015 COP21 Paris accord was a masterful, perhaps even world-saving, diplomatic advance toward making the world aware of climate change. ...To solve a problem, three things are necessary： awareness, means, and will. The 2015 COP21 Paris accord was a masterful, perhaps even world-saving, diplomatic advance toward making the world aware of climate change. Some of that success may have been because publications from the IPCC and the National Academy of Science were made available, on line, as prepublication offerings, in order to be widely viewed before the Paris Climate Conference. This provided diplomats and nego- tiators with the latest information about climate change, its nearness in time, its consequences, and how well current mitigation technologies can succeed. Whatever the rea- sons, the ParAs Climate Conference, was a success. Leaders of 195 nations agreed that climate change is a real and present danger to life as is known to all. This important understanding was accomplished despite the presentation of well established scientific facts which, without very diplomatic handling, could easily have evoked over- whelming political opposition to an agreement and thus another COP failure. In this paper, the fact that how some scientific truths, written specifically to be overlooked, were presented in order to prepare COP21 participants for the conference is explained. Besides, the effectiveness and efficiency of currently favored mitigation policies, the extent of ongoing progress to better ones, and finally, how a new appreciation of climate change consequences can strengthen the will of nation states and industries to work toward solutions are evaluated.展开更多
We resurrect the 1896 paper in the frame of which the great Swedish physical chemist Svante August Arrhenius explains why what he called “aqueous vapour” and “carbonic acid” should be regarded as determining clima...We resurrect the 1896 paper in the frame of which the great Swedish physical chemist Svante August Arrhenius explains why what he called “aqueous vapour” and “carbonic acid” should be regarded as determining climate warming agents. We suggest that the designation “Green House Effect Gas” as applied to carbon dioxide should be officially banished from the climate vocabulary as being misleading.展开更多
文摘To solve a problem, three things are necessary： awareness, means, and will. The 2015 COP21 Paris accord was a masterful, perhaps even world-saving, diplomatic advance toward making the world aware of climate change. Some of that success may have been because publications from the IPCC and the National Academy of Science were made available, on line, as prepublication offerings, in order to be widely viewed before the Paris Climate Conference. This provided diplomats and nego- tiators with the latest information about climate change, its nearness in time, its consequences, and how well current mitigation technologies can succeed. Whatever the rea- sons, the ParAs Climate Conference, was a success. Leaders of 195 nations agreed that climate change is a real and present danger to life as is known to all. This important understanding was accomplished despite the presentation of well established scientific facts which, without very diplomatic handling, could easily have evoked over- whelming political opposition to an agreement and thus another COP failure. In this paper, the fact that how some scientific truths, written specifically to be overlooked, were presented in order to prepare COP21 participants for the conference is explained. Besides, the effectiveness and efficiency of currently favored mitigation policies, the extent of ongoing progress to better ones, and finally, how a new appreciation of climate change consequences can strengthen the will of nation states and industries to work toward solutions are evaluated.
文摘We resurrect the 1896 paper in the frame of which the great Swedish physical chemist Svante August Arrhenius explains why what he called “aqueous vapour” and “carbonic acid” should be regarded as determining climate warming agents. We suggest that the designation “Green House Effect Gas” as applied to carbon dioxide should be officially banished from the climate vocabulary as being misleading.
