A Typo Almost Derailed Paris Climate Deal (nytimes.com) 339
An anonymous reader writes: On Saturday, world leaders completed an ambitious international agreement to address climate change. But when the officials received the first copy of what was supposed to be the final draft, a one-word mistake threatened to derail their progress. Part of the agreement involved language that encouraged wealthy nations to provide monetary aid to poorer nations in order to help transition to more sustainable systems. But the draft used the word "shall," which would have made it a legally-binding requirement. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry pushed back on the change, noting that previous versions of the document had used the word "should" instead. Officials tried to quickly figure out whether the swap had been made intentionally. Ultimately, they classified it as a typo, and hurriedly prepared a corrected version of the document, which was adopted without incident.
A typo my ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They tried to pull a fast one...
OTOH - mistakes do happen. Negotiating a treaty between 100s of nations is not something where you can play silly games with words. Children do that; governments have to go back to their parliaments, congresses or maybe even populations where it will be scrutinised in great detail. A small, unfortunate wording would have been very embarrassing, of course, but nothing more than that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Err, just a point of clarification, it is NOT a treaty.
This agreement is not legally binding, it is merely a suggestion of good intentions, but there is no enforcement or legal obligation to participate in it.
Aside from some mandatory reporting, which I don't know how binding that reporting is....nothing here is binding with any sort of penalties for breaking it.
If it were a treaty, it would have to
Re: (Score:3)
this is why the error is not just a "typo". everybody may have been comfortable with the "should", but the "shall" makes it binding. This is why you should always read the contract! A multinational agreement is much more serious than just clicking OK on a TOS.
Re: (Score:2)
So please realize what the difference in an executive order and a formal treaty is.
Re: (Score:2)
well, yes. a Shall would make it a binding agreement, which in the US means the senate would be involved, and in other countries means that there are other complications. I'm talking in general contractual language. it's not just a typo.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This is why you shall always read the contract?
No, you sign the contract then read it.
--Nancy Pelosi
Re: (Score:2)
And that's exactly why I don't understand why people get excited like kids with ADHD when such an "agreement" is being signed.
IMO it has NULL value. It's just words which countries are going to ignore.
Again and Again (Score:5, Funny)
Negotiating a treaty between 100s of nations ... Children do that;
But then, you repeat yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
They tried to pull a fast one...
OTOH - mistakes do happen. Negotiating a treaty between 100s of nations is not something where you can play silly games with words. Children do that; governments have to go back to their parliaments, congresses or maybe even populations where it will be scrutinised in great detail. A small, unfortunate wording would have been very embarrassing, of course, but nothing more than that.
You're right, and sometimes they stick around for a long time. I seem to remember a story about UN resolution 242 (1967) where the translators made a mistake (deliberate or not) over whether Israel should withdraw from "occupied territories" or "the occupied territories". The latter would have meant all of them, and was the intent of the version negotiated in French. But Isreal stuck to the former and moved out of a small portion of them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The "shall" would have made it a treaty. Then the U.S. Senate would have had to ratify it. Obama's playing games, doing his best to evade constitutional limits on his authority, in this case by making non-binding "executive agreements".
Re: (Score:2)
It would be subsequent administrations which would have to be forking over capital to fulfill that "shall" obligation.
Not necessarily. There is precedence for the President to cancel a treaty. In Goldwater v Carter, the Scotus basically declined to get involved in the canceling of a treaty while saying it was a political question. Basically, congress needs to bitch about it before it becomes a issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now after its ratified ...
It is not going to be ratified. It is an non-binding agreement, not a treaty.
Re:A typo my ass... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a Potsdam agreement. Not worth the paper it's printed on.
This has all been essentially a dog and pony show where they can consume expensive food and drinks, probably get some hookers, and then have a press conference and crow about their "accomplishment".
Their mendacity is EPIC!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the whole agreement is nothing more than a suggestion. Because absent it being submitted as a Treaty, it means squat with respect to American Law.
Obama Punked them all.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was probably a few smaller nation's representatives just looking for cash. In terms of greenhouse gasses per capita, the US is something like 13th place, with at least some of the intended beneficiaries being not much better, and some being worse (i.e. Trinidad.)
Re: (Score:3)
John Kerry can read.....?
Why fast ones are a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole climate change debate worries me. First I'm not a climate change denier nor am I asserting man cant change the climate. What worries me is when the right things get done for the wrong reasons it distorts the policy objectives. Climate change is not a threat to life on the planet. There have been previous brief (1000 year) warming periods with temperatures 3 to7 degrees warmer than today. such as the period 300 to 1100 AD. That period was a time of relative food abundance and population growth
Re: (Score:2)
This why it's bullshit when someone decides to switch words like shall and should. we'll need years of trust and seeing each other take steps before everying will be on board.
And this is why hiding e-mails about climate research agendas and the details of that research is bullshit as well.
Re:Why fast ones are a bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
I utterly discard the idea of some shallow island nations going under water as any sort of logical reason to curtail the economic development of a gazillion more people.
You *do* realize that much of the coastline around the world is at or about the same elevation above sea level as places like the Maldives and that there are many large cities (including first-world cities), industrial complexes and military bases, etc... on the coastline - right? And you *do* realize that a rising sea level will very negatively affect *those* cities, complexes and bases too - right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed 100%. Rather than the leaders of the world getting together and negotiating to try to keep the planet from changing, maybe they should all get together and plan for how to handle change. The climate will get colder, it will get hotter. Weather patterns will change. Land features will rise and fall. Ocean shores will move over time.
Rather than trying desperately to engineer ourselves against nature, maybe we should engineer ways to adapt to changing environments. A good example on a smaller scale is N
Re: (Score:2)
Except this isn't "nature", this is due directly to massive barfing out of carbon through the use of fossil fuels.
Why are your type so opposed to ending the use of fossil fuels? It's almost as if you've decided that fucking over future generations is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, because you're too selfish to absorb some of that cost now.
Re: (Score:3)
Gradual climate change isn't a problem. By dumping all this CO2 in the atmosphere, we're causing rapid climate change. That's the problem.
There's ice core evidence that "natural" climate change can also be very rapid. Much faster than what we're seeing now, actually.
Re: (Score:3)
Care to cite where global temperatures were 3 to 7 degrees warmer during the Medieval WArming Period. Go on, I openly challenge you. Provide a citation.
Re: (Score:3)
There have been previous brief (1000 year) warming periods with temperatures 3 to7 degrees warmer than today. such as the period 300 to 1100 AD.
No. No there has not. Not for the global temperature, in the time that humans have been around.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The medieval warm period wasn't as warm as you're suggesting (I can't find any citations for more than 2 degrees, and the delta may well be less), and it wasn't world-wide: northern Europe (and some other parts of the northern hemisphere) was warmer, and as it turns out, europe ended up writing a disproportionate part of modern history, so that was remembered.
Globally, temperatures were lower than they are now.
This isn't a secret, nor is the information hard to find; e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Th
From binding to useless in one "typo" (Score:4, Insightful)
Diplomacy at work.
Perfect Illustration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perfect Illustration (Score:4, Insightful)
This story perfectly illustrates why the climate agreement is completely useless.
The climate agreement is useless because the US energy industry has purchased Congress and has been seeding disinformation for decades.
.
Re:Perfect Illustration (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but per-capita the US is the biggest emitter of green house gases (with Australia, and some smaller countries), therefore it is important that in the US legislation against climate change proceeds.
Re: (Score:2)
First, you are erroneously assuming that current emissions are what counts; in fact, historical emissions and deforestation should both count.
Second, what doesn't matter is absolute emission, but what those emissions are used to produce. Likewise, it's easy to have low carbon emissions if your economy just do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita emissions are a good measure. In international negotiations, you can't seriously ask someone to reduce CO2 emissions when your own per capita emissions are higher. It's a matter of credibility.
Re: (Score:3)
I see you've fallen into the typical USian trap of thinking America is the center of the world....
Not really. I just acknowledge that the US is one of the largest emitters of climate gases and, because of that, no agreement is worth much if the US does not agree to abide by it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good, I guess we don't have to do anything about this whole climate change thing then. You guys got this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The whole world has to pull together if we want to reach the targets.
So what's your alternative to an agreement between nations? You said it's completely useless in the root post without saying why, or what the alternative is... so what is your better idea?
Re: (Score:2)
You said it's completely useless in the root post without saying why
I said the climate agreement is completely useless. I could have been more clear and said, "this particular climate agreement is completely useless." It especially annoys me because all the politicians are going to return home and pretend that they've done something. Nothing particular about this set of politicians, most politicians would do similar things.
so what is your better idea?
Rather than agreeing to nothing and pretending it was something, I would try to find something that could be done. Practically speaking, the only way to
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The whole world has to pull together if we want to reach the targets.
Perhaps we can just keep the temperature down around the US and our surrounding sea level won't rise. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yet this deal almost didn't happen because of a small group of GOP politicians that control the senate.
Re: (Score:2)
I discussed how I thought it should have happened over here [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
What country do you come from so I can mock your nations word for their own people?
I would tell you, but Slashdot doesn't allow the unicode to be written!
Tied with Canada, Saudi, Australia, and Kazakhstan (Score:3)
The U.S. is currently the second largest source of CO2 emissions
Is that true per capita, or only because the United States has the fourth biggest population? The 2013 chart in Wikipedia's article [wikipedia.org] places the United States in what amounts to a statistical tie with Canada, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Kazakhstan (~16 t/p/year), with the United Arab Emirates emitting more (~21 t/p/year). If you think per capita figures are unimportant, that just gives the EU a free pass because it is a confederation of theoretically independent countries rather than a federal state.
and the number one source of CO2 emissions of all time.
I don't
Re: (Score:2)
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
People will pick the statistic that works best for their situation, including placing restrictions to limit the numbers to a hand-picked subset which they will then toss freely (without clarification of the applied caveats), and make it seem their numbers apply to the general case even though they don't.
This is actually the exact same thing advertisers do all the time. Try watching a commercial and then ask yourself what they really said versus what they wanted you
Re:Perfect Illustration (Score:4, Interesting)
No, only between 1970 and 2013 (you really need to read your sources more carefully).
Properly accounted for, we should count all emissions since 1800, and we should penalize countries based on the carbon release related to deforestation. If you do that, Europe looks pretty bad.
Re: (Score:2)
A continent is a convention. Not everyone has the same convention as the number of continents. In some models, America is a continent. Like on the Olympic flag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Perfect Illustration (Score:4, Funny)
When does a nortamericano become a gringo?
When he leaves the room.
Re: (Score:2)
The climate agreement is useless because voters in all rich, Western democracies would have their leaders' heads on platters if they actually mandated the kinds of economic changes that a mandatory agreement would require.
The US energy industry doesn't care; they get their subsidies whether they ship you oil or solar cells; in fact, many fossil fuel companies have pretty muc
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's bullshit rhetoric.
"I am not going to go green because it would change nothing" - multiply this by 7 billion and you get a clear picture.
If total disaster looms 200 years away and by going green you delay it by 1000 years, that's pretty awesome. Gives you enough time to convince (or coerce) the rest of the world to follow your path.
Re: (Score:2)
Delaying it by 800 years would require a lot more than the fringe of society to "go green". It would require more than half of it to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Where are my mod points ... please vote parent up. What is the point in having a treaty which everyone can just ignore!
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a treaty, it is an expensive photo-op.
That being said, the real point of it is to show that people can get even this far, it is a first step towards working together for the future, not the final lap.
The idea is to start here and work towards better agreements in the future. Without the first one, you have nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also useless since there have been 500 coal-fired power plants brought online in Asia in the last 9 months. Why should the US and other countries destroy their economy in the name of of a climate agreement if it's not all inclusive?
Re:Perfect Illustration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Politics, like medicine, should adopt the priniciple: "first, do no harm". We might be willing to agree to things that are not all that harmful (increased funding for research, monitoring, etc.). But mandatory emission caps threaten to do a large amount of harm right now, and the evidence that limiting warming to below 2C is necessary, and there is even less evidence that emi
Re: (Score:2)
That energy is not very portable as it stands. The US lacks the political will to build new clean cheap efficient reactors. We have multiple lobbies who's interests are served by raising the costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Hrmmm... isn't that kinda like saying, "why should I stop shitting on the pavement, other people do it?". Someone has to make a start!
But there's no incentive for the others to join. If fact, it's the opposite. The countries not participating will see huge economic benefits as other countries lose their industries and jobs and move to the less-regulated counties. It's already happened before. Let's not be stupid and pretend it won't happen again.
Re: (Score:3)
So don't let them. Don't let capital leave the country. Establish a border between participating and non-participating countries and assing a heavy tariff for trade moving across it.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't let them. Don't let capital leave the country. Establish a border between participating and non-participating countries and assing a heavy tariff for trade moving across it.
That sounds nice, but it really would just lead to war...
Why do you think Japan bombed Pearl Harbor?
Re: (Score:2)
Hrmmm... isn't that kinda like saying, "why should I stop shitting on the pavement, other people do it?". Someone has to make a start!
Yes, but that start has to be enforcement, not random actions.
If 500 people take a dump in the swimming pool, and you don't, the pool is still full of crap.
If even HALF the people stop doing it, the pool is STILL full of crap.
You have to be able to have a rule that says NO ONE can take a dump in the pool, or none of it matters.
Re: (Score:3)
This story perfectly illustrates why the climate agreement is completely useless.
Oh yeah? Looks like Barry & Barney were right after all. There have been ZERO terrorist attacks in Europe or the United States since they signed this sucker!
Defective by design (Score:2)
What I find amusing is the comparison to everything being said and done about climate change and all those evil masterminds from scifi, fantasy, and comic books hell-bent on world domination by trying to manipulate the weather. It never works out well for them.
It's Happening (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
How about you go look up what communism is first before proclaiming stuff.
"Should" (Score:2)
The worlds most useless word.
So What? (Score:2)
I watched as some in the media applauded this agreement. It's simple to get agreement when everyone realized that you've got a completely unenforceable document. One that will bring change only to those who willfully wanted it anyway. I'm putting my money on no meaningful outcome...nothing that impacts climate change, or any action on the part of the U.S., China, or Russia. Call me back in five years and we can see if I'm Nostradamus.
Revision control (Score:2)
Shame they can't just run `svn blame climate_change.doc` and figure out who's trying to be tricky...
Careless words (Score:2)
From the title here: "A Typo Almost Derailed Paris Climate Deal"
To "derail" something implies that it was on the rails. It never was, and it still is not. The only thing these parties of this "agreement" have "agreed" upon is that they'll make a big dog-and-pony show for their political constituents. Mr. Kerry: declaring oneself to be responsible and caring does not make one so.
It's all just for show (Score:2)
Agreement, or wishlist? (Score:5, Insightful)
When they literally have to fix an "agreement" so that it isn't enforceable, is it really an agreement?
Maybe it would be better termed a "wishlist".
Legally binding (Score:2)
Couldn't they just GoToMeeting? (Score:2)
Language? (Score:2)
What language is the agreement written in? Sure, it can be translated; but there must be one language which is the 'officlal' version. If you have more than one you run into problems because the two never precisely agree.
And how does a government of a country agree to an agreement written in a foreign language?
we have a solution to this (Score:3)
How the hell do we continue to write legislation (and agreements) without using git?
git blame Paris_Accord.txt
This would tell you everything you need to know about who changed that word.
Can someone please tell lawmakers that this is a solved problem? I keep seeing stories that like "someone slipped in a rider to this bill, but we don't know who did it". Don't know!? What the hell are you talking about? How can you possibly not know?
We call them "watermelons" (Score:3, Insightful)
What is a "green" environmentalist on the outside but a "red" communist on the inside?
This climate change summit is just an excuse for poor nations to demand more and more money from wealthier nations. They will claim this is to build "green" energy sources and provide accommodations for those displaced by the effects of climate change but in reality it will just line the pockets of the dictators that run these backward hell holes.
This summit is a bunch of watermelons getting together to make themselves look like they are going to save the world from the knuckle dragging troglodytes that actually built the buildings, farmed the food, and drilled the oil that made this summit possible. The solution to this problem isn't taking from the rich and giving to the poor, as if the wealthy nations don't already send billions of dollars to poorer nations every year. The solution is more freedom.
I believe a large part of the poverty in these poor nations is dictators stealing from the populace. People that don't have the freedom to benefit from their labors tend not to work very hard. People that are not free to defend their own property and lives from thugs and the government (but I repeat myself) cannot build up the wealth needed to create a functioning economy.
(In case anyone is confused about what I mean by defending life and property I mean that people are permitted to arm themselves with effective tools of self defense, and carry them freely no matter where they go. Given the technology we have today that means firearms, but just being able to carry a sword or club may be sufficient.)
Most of all people need to be free to take advantage of the most abundant energy resource we have on this earth. That means nuclear power. As it is right now any nation that wishes to develop nuclear energy must be granted permission to do so by those that have already developed it. This "non-proliferation treaty" is supposedly about preventing the development of nuclear weapons but it has effectively only prevented the development of peaceful nuclear power. Those nations that have the desire to obliterate their neighbors under a radioactive mushroom cloud will not be deterred by such a treaty. Those that wish to provide their children with food, warmth, shelter, and education are being held back. These nations must choose between a certain death by not burning oil and coal, or the possibility of living by doing so.
The only way to avoid this dilemma is nuclear power.
Wind and solar power is nice for wealthy nations to experiment with since they already have benefited from centuries of burning coal and decades of nuclear power. Current wind and solar technologies are too expensive for these poor nations to have that luxury. They will either have to develop nuclear power, burn coal, or continue living a second class existence.
I get so frustrated with these watermelons. They claim to be so righteous and helpful but in reality all they are doing is spending other people's money on things that do nothing to address the real issues that brought them to the summit. I have little doubt that this is by design. If they actually solved the problem then that means these "elites" will no longer remain in power. That is because the people they claim to be helping will be free enough to not have to go to these "elites" to ask for more of their "help" in the future.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Waste of time from whose point of view? From their point of view, it was very valuable. Getting drunk together, spending some quality time doing nothing useful, heh, my dream vacation! :(
Oh, you meant from Average Joe's point of view? Meh, who gives a fuck about Average Joe...
Re: (Score:2)
And because of that change, the planet is safe now!
I think you probably know better than that. The fact that we have actually been able to agree about a somewhat clear wording is remarkable, especially when you consider how far away everybody was from each other in Copenhagen. But of course, if it was only up to what the governmets' negotiators were able to do, then it would indeed be nothing - what makes this rather more hopeful is the fact that business has come on boards to agreat extent, and that there is optimism about a way forward, that may even mea
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I can't argue with an agreement, but I still think it's mostly worthless.
Stopping this at two degrees is a pipe dream. It's worse than that, it's delusional. We need to certainly halt the increase of CO2 emissions, but the reality is that everything bad that will happen at over two degrees *going to happen*.
We need to start preparing for evacuations and projects to deal with rising sea levels. We need to consider "superdroughts" and how to cope with them.
Those people in the Marshall Islands who
Re:Sad to see Kerry... (Score:5, Informative)
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls... but on the off chance that you are ignorant and not just an angry little elf.
He didn't go "full on Republican retard" - he knew he could not get a binding treaty past the Republican-controlled Senate. This forced him to sign an agreement that is non-binding. If that single word had been allowed to pass, it would have triggered a Senate vote and inevitable rejection of the entire agreement.
Re:Sad to see Kerry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because allowing warming to continue until rain belts are seriously altered isn't going to lead to mass starvation, wars, migrations, and yes, lots of fucking death.
CO2 traps energy in the lower atmosphere, and it interacts with seawater to alter the ocean's pH levels. The more we puke out, the worse both these things get. This isn't even controversial, no matter how many Koch talking points you spew. Using fossil fuels is just plain bad for everyone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seeing angry trolls (swearing, assuming debating points are from shills) like this get modded to +5 insightful tells me all I need to know about groupthink when it comes to climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't about theory and science, it is about the reality of people's daily lives. You simply cannot ask people to turn their lives upside down because of this. They won't do it. You'll have a revolt on your hands.
There are hundreds of millions of lives on the line. People will have their lives turned upside down either way. They may not choose the smaller upheaval now to avoid the larger upheaval later, but that does not mean we should stop trying to convince them.
Telling them not to worry, the Titanic is unsinkable is a disservice.
Re: (Score:3)
Using fossil fuels is just plain bad for everyone.
Except for those using the fossil fuels.
You want to solve this problem? You want people to stop burning fossil fuels? There is a simple solution to this, give them a better option.
By "better" I don't mean "this won't raise the sea levels in 100 years" but "this is cheaper than what you use now". People don't burn fossil fuels because they are dicks to the environment, they burn fossil fuels because it gives them food, shelter, transportation, warmth, information, and entertainment. You seem confused on
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
yet the criminals still had no problem acquiring them from outside sources
No problem? It's a hell of a thing to get a gun in the UK. Yes, criminals can and do get them - but not your low-level drug dealers who do the majority of the shooting in the US. They can't afford them. You had to very carefully word your language to make it true, but even so it is extremely misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the only thing that ever counts is your freedom. Other peoples' freedom from being shot, well fuck them, they're not as important as little ol' you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
see how that works???
Re: (Score:3)
When Europe goes 100 years without a government going out of control on them, we will consider if their method has been 'shown to work'.
Until that date (which I make to be about 2085-2090) shut the fuck up and be glad NATO still has your back.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No actually, in the numbers I was looking at, suicide was listed separately from homicide. Even Wikipedia has a page on this topic... here take a peek, they have references to their information sources and they broadly agree with my ballpark figure. 0.06 gun homicides per 100000 population in the UK (2011) compared to 3.55 gun homicides per 100000 population in the US (2013). Considering violent crime has been generally falling in both countries, the two year difference in the measurements should bias in fa
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, with the money problems the US has, its debt, etc. I don't understand why we're sending any money to outside countries.
We should shut that fucking money pump off right now....and examine to see if any of them are truly justified. I personally can't think of any...possibly some medical help here and there, but that's about it
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. You don't contribute to charity while you are carrying a balance on your credit cards... Writing checks to foreign governments seems a bit stupid when we are hemorrhaging money at home.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not really charity. It's more a bribe.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more of "evil eye" punishment. If you flake, then other countries can point to that if they flake on something else when called on it, or embarrass you a bit. It's not binding, but one can lose some UN credibility. Some nations are bothered by that more than others. Some nations want more international respect and recognition, while some care little.
Re: (Score:2)