25 years of climate talk history in one comic: Richard Monastersky & Nick Sousanis explore the history of climate treaty negotiations in Nature's special Paris Climate Talks issue. The goal of the Paris Talks is to limit emissions so that Earth won't warm by more than 2°C, and there are many reasons to be optimistic about the prospects for an agreement - but what will it really take to limit warming to 2°C??
Climate change a 'questionable truth'. Margaret Wente looks beyond the hysteria surrounding the climate change debate. Hysteria her own newspaper has been contributing to.
The Toronto Globe and Mail on climate-change denial in Canada. Includes a description of how donations from oil companies to anti-Kyoto groups like Friends of Science are laundered through the Calgary Foundation and the University of Calgary's Science Education Fund. Previously.
It's official. 2005 was the hottest year on record. Despite this new alarming evidence that the world is heating up, countries like Australia and the United States are still refusing to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol. But with many (mostly on the conservative side of politics) claiming that the Kyoto Protocol is a failure, what else can be done to stop the now clearly visible effects of climate change to our world?
A White House aide with no scientific training edited government reports to weaken the language linking greenhouse gases with climate change. Example of editing here. This comes on the heels of news that ExxonMobil was instrumental in the Bush administration's decision to reject the Kyoto Treaty.
The world's weather is going haywire. So says the World Meteorological Organisation. "The unstable world of climate change has long been a prediction. Now, the WMO says, it is a reality." Where is the Kyoto Protocol when you need it?
Alberta will face a disastrous competitive and economic disadvantage if Canada signs the Kyoto accord. Meanwhile, this year has been one of the worst for smog in Toronto. Some municipalities in Ontario are voluntarily looking towards alternate energy sources because they feel, in the long run the costs will be lower (lower health costs, avoiding higher fossil fuel costs, etc. - sorry, no link) What do you think? Is it possible to have economically viable alternative energy, and is the US setting a bad example for countries that feel they need to compete?
The world has agreed on a watered-down version of Kyoto. One populous country has declined to have anything to do with it, though. Can you guess which it is?
Most of the world rejects the USAmerican attempt to end-around-run the Kyoto protocols. Surely we'll get our way (I use the pronouns reluctantly in this case). Who can stop us? Besides, who cares? Not President-elect (de facto) Bush. Add the guiltless bloodshed in Israel/Palestine to this and my last post and it's hard to be thankful at the global level.