Go to ...

THE TRUTH DENIED

RSS Feed

May 24, 2017

Climate Change Conference 2015 Did not address Geoengineering



 

 

  2015  UN  Climate Change Conference
Date 30 November 2015–
12 December 2015
Location Le Bourget in the suburbs of ParisFrance
Also known as COP 21   -or-   CMP 11
Participants Parties to the UNFCCC
Website Venue site
UNFCCC site

Visit Roxy’s profile on Pinterest.

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change ConferenceCOP 21 or CMP 11 was held in Paris, France, from 30 November to 12 December 2015. It was the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 11th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The conference negotiated the Paris Agreement, a global agreement on the reduction of climate change, the text of which represented a consensus of the representatives of the 196 parties attending it. The agreement will become legally binding if joined by at least 55 countries which together represent at least 55 percent of global greenhouse emissions. Such parties will need to sign the agreement in New York between 22 April 2016 and 21 April 2017, and also adopt it within their own legal systems (through ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession).

According to the organizing committee at the outset of the talks, the expected key result was an agreement to set a goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (°C) compared to pre-industrial levels. The agreement calls for zero net anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to be reached during the second half of the 21st century. In the adopted version of the Paris Agreement, the parties will also “pursue efforts to” limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C. The 1.5 °C goal will require zero emissions sometime between 2030 and 2050, according to some scientists.

Prior to the conference, 146 national climate panels publicly presented draft national climate contributions (so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, INDCs). These suggested commitments were estimated to limit global warming to 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100. For example, the EU suggested INDC is a commitment to a 40 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to 1990. The agreement establishes a “global stocktake” which revisits the national goals to “update and enhance” them every 5 years beginning 2023.However, no detailed timetable or country-specific goals for emissions were incorporated into the Paris Agreement – as opposed to the previous Kyoto protocol.

A number of meetings took place in preparation for COP21, including the Bonn Climate Change Conference, 19 to 23 October 2015, which produced a draft agreement. 

 

 Climate Change: Science or Weather Modification?  (5 minutes) 

Problems with the Climate Change Agreement 2015

 

  1. There are no consequences if commitments are not met, no fines, imprisonment, or liabilities for Corporations. There is nothing mentioned in the trade sanctions either.
  2. The Paris Agreement also acknowledges that even if the individual country climate plans are fully and perfectly implemented, they would be insufficient, potentially resulting in temperature increases of over double the limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius above  Pre-industrial levels “pursued” by the agreement.
  3. The Paris Agreement does not address the 19.5 million people who are displaced yearly due to natural disasters. It does not address the loss of lives either.
  4. It does not address the the needs of the most vulnerable countries, communities and people of the world. It fails to address the structures of injustice and inequality which have caused the climate crisis. It does not address the impoverished.
  5. Economic damage to developing countries from climate change, in the form of droughts, floods, hurricanes, agriculture loss and more, is estimated to reach $1.7 trillion a year by 2050. The Paris Agreement pledges $600 billion through 2025, which is not enough to cover the losses or adaptations to climate change.
  6. That financial pledge is poorly defined, leaving gaping loopholes, such as detailing which country is going to pay for what, when, where, or what the source of that payment will be, (public or private). Faulty accounting by donors has led to a great deal of debate as to how much money has already been put up by nations, with estimates ranging from $5 billion to $60 billion. “At the behest of the U.S., the agreement includes an exemption, explaining that it “does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation.” In other words, developing countries cannot ask (or sue) wealthy ones to compensate for the loss and damage suffered as a consequence of the latter’s past or current greenhouse gas emissions.”

 

“On December 16, a coalition made up of partners in 12 countries, including 350.org, Greenpeace International, WoMin-African Gender and Extractives Alliance, Oilwatch, Coalizão Não Fracking Brasil and the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, launched “a global wave of resistance to keep coal, oil and gas in the ground.” It is a “global escalation against the fossil fuel industry” involving “coordinated actions of thousands of people on iconic fossil fuel projects and companies across the globe.” They’ll build off of the successful organizing that, many argue, has led in recent years to mass  divestments  from fossil fuels, stopped the Keystone oil pipeline, pushed Shell out of the Arctic, shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and banned a great deal of fracking. The goal now, though, is even more ambitious: end the fossil fuel economy and begin the era of 100 percent global renewable energy.”

 

“Both shale gas and conventional natural gas have a larger greenhouse gas footprint than do coal or oil, especially for the primary uses of residential and commercial heating.” – Dr. Robert Howarth, a professor of ecology and environmental biology.

 

To see a nationwide list of 600 coal mines in the United States, click here. For a list of over 40 proposed coal mines, click here. To see a listing of coal mines in a particular state, click on the map above.

 

(PHOTO)  European Space Agency satellite images from 2002, left, and 2012 reveal the disintegration of the Antarctic ice shelf.

Larsen Ice Shelf NASA antarctic-ice-shelf-horizontal-large-gallery

 

NASA Study Shows Antarctica’s Larsen B Ice Shelf Nearing Its Final Act

A new NASA study finds the last remaining section of Antarctica’s Larsen B Ice Shelf, which partially collapsed in 2002, is quickly weakening and likely to disintegrate completely before the end of the decade.

A team led by Ala Khazendar of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, found the remnant of the Larsen B Ice Shelf is flowing faster, becoming increasingly fragmented and developing large cracks. Two of its tributary glaciers also are flowing faster and thinning rapidly.

“These are warning signs that the remnant is disintegrating,” Khazendar said. “Although it’s fascinating scientifically to have a front-row seat to watch the ice shelf becoming unstable and breaking up, it’s bad news for our planet. This ice shelf has existed for at least 10,000 years, and soon it will be gone.”

 

"NASA Study Shows Antarctica’s Larsen B Ice Shelf Nearing Its Final Act A new NASA study finds the last remaining section of Antarctica's Larsen B Ice Shelf, which partially collapsed in 2002, is quickly weakening and likely to disintegrate completely before the end of the decade. A team led by Ala Khazendar of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, found the remnant of the Larsen B Ice Shelf is flowing faster, becoming increasingly fragmented and developing large cracks. Two of its tributary glaciers also are flowing faster and thinning rapidly. "These are warning signs that the remnant is disintegrating," Khazendar said. "Although it’s fascinating scientifically to have a front-row seat to watch the ice shelf becoming unstable and breaking up, it’s bad news for our planet. This ice shelf has existed for at least 10,000 years, and soon it will be gone." NASA

“NASA Study Shows Antarctica’s Larsen B Ice Shelf Nearing Its Final Act
A new NASA study finds the last remaining section of Antarctica’s Larsen B Ice Shelf, which partially collapsed in 2002, is quickly weakening and likely to disintegrate completely before the end of the decade.
A team led by Ala Khazendar of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, found the remnant of the Larsen B Ice Shelf is flowing faster, becoming increasingly fragmented and developing large cracks. Two of its tributary glaciers also are flowing faster and thinning rapidly.
“These are warning signs that the remnant is disintegrating,” Khazendar said. “Although it’s fascinating scientifically to have a front-row seat to watch the ice shelf becoming unstable and breaking up, it’s bad news for our planet. This ice shelf has existed for at least 10,000 years, and soon it will be gone.” NASA

Global warming-ICE-PasterzeMatch

 

UC Irvine glaciologists aboard the MV Cape Race in August 2014 mapped for the first time remote Greenland fjords and ice melt that is raising sea levels around the globe. Maria Stenzel/for UC Irvine funding provided by UC Irvine, NASA, National Science Foundation

UC Irvine glaciologists aboard the MV Cape Race in August 2014 mapped for the first time remote Greenland fjords and ice melt that is raising sea levels around the globe.
Maria Stenzel/for UC Irvine
funding provided by UC Irvine, NASA, National Science Foundation

 

 

How Climate Changes affects us all.

 

Did you know that ….

  1. 26 million people are displaced every year due to natural disasters. Seventy-five percent of those catastrophes “are now climate-related, with the overwhelming majority of lives lost in developing countries,” -U.K.-based anti-poverty organization Oxfam International Report.
  2. The complex politics of global warming results from numerous cofactors arising from the global economy’s interdependence on carbon dioxide emitting hydrocarbon energy sources and because carbon dioxide is directly implicated in global warming] – making global warming a non-traditional environmental challenge:
  1. Implications to all aspects of a nation-state’s economy – The vast majority of the world economy relies on energy sources or manufacturing techniques that release greenhouse gases at almost every stage of production, transportation, storage, delivery & disposal while a consensus of the world’s scientists attribute global warming to the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This intimate linkage between global warming and economic vitality implicates almost every aspect of a nation-state’s economy.
  2. Perceived lack of adequate advanced energy technologies – Fossil fuel abundance and low prices continue to put pressure on the development of adequate advanced energy technologies that can realistically replace the role of fossil fuels – as of 2010, over 91% of the worlds energy is derived from fossil fuels and non carbon-neutral technologies. Developing countries do not have cost effective access to the advanced energy technologies that they need for development (most advanced technologies has been developed by and exist in the developed world). Without adequate and cost effective post-hydrocarbon energy sources, it is unlikely the countries of the developed or developing world would accept policies that would materially affect their economic vitality or economic development prospects;
  3. Industrialization of the developing world – As developing nations industrialize their energy needs increase and since conventional energy sources produce carbon dioxide, the carbon dioxide emissions of developing countries are beginning to rise at a time when the scientific community, global governance institutions and advocacy groups are telling the world that carbon dioxide emissions should be decreasing. Without access to cost effective and abundant energy sources many developing countries see climate change as a hindrance to their unfettered economic development.
  4. Metric selection (transparency) and perceived responsibility / ability to respond – Among the countries of the world, disagreements exist over which greenhouse gas emission metrics should be used like total emissions per year, per capita emissions per year, CO2 emissions only, deforestation emissions, livestock emissions or even total historical emissions. Historically, the release of carbon dioxide has not been historically even among all nation-states and nation-states have challenges with determining who should restrict emissions and at what point of their industrial development they should be subject to such commitments;
  5. Vulnerable developing countries and developed country legacy emissions – Some developing nations blame the developed world for having created the global warming crisis because it was the developed countries that emitted most of the carbon dioxide over the twentieth century and vulnerable countries perceive that it should be the developed countries that should pay to address the challenge.
  6. Consensus-driven global governance models – The global governance institutions that evolved during the 20th century are all consensus driven deliberative forums where agreement is difficult to achieve and even when agreement is achieved it is almost impossible to enforce.
  7. Well organized and funded special-interest lobbying bodies – Special interest lobbying by well organized groups distort and amplify aspects of the challenge (environmental lobbying, energy industry lobbying, other special interest lobbying);
  8. Politicization of climate science – Although there is a consensus on the science of global warming and its likely effects – some special interests groups work to suppress the consensus while others work to amplify the alarm of global warming. All parties that engage in such acts add to the politicization of the science of global warming. The result is a clouding of the reality of the global warming problem.
  9. The focus areas for global warming politics are Adaptation, Mitigation, Finance, Technology and Losses which are well quantified and studied but the urgency of the global warming challenge combined with the implication to almost every facet of a nation-state’s economic interests places significant burdens on the established largely-voluntary global institutions that have developed over the last century; institutions that have been unable to effectively reshape themselves and move fast enough to deal with this unique challenge. Rapidly developing countries who see traditional energy sources as a means to fuel their development, well funded aggressive environmental lobbying groups and an established fossil fuel energy paradigm boasting a mature and sophisticated political lobbying infrastructure all combine to make global warming politics extremely polarized. Distrust between developed and developing countries at most international conferences that seek to address the topic add to the challenges. Further adding to the complexity is the advent of the Internet and the development of media technologies like blogs and other mechanisms for disseminating information that enable the exponential growth in production and dissemination of competing points of view which make it nearly impossible for the development and dissemination of an objective view into the enormity of the subject matter and its politics.

Among  the many terms to exercise climate mitigation are the following that have been publicized globally, and GEOENGINEERING is on the list, but is not openly addressed in 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference:

 

LIST of CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION (and there terms).

·        Greenhouse gas concentrations and stabilization

·        Energy consumption by power source

·        Alternative energy sources: Renewable energy

·        Nuclear power

·        Coal to gas fuel switching

·        Fossil fuel phase-out: carbon neutral and negative fuels

  • Carbon sink and Negative carbon dioxide emission

·        Reforestation and avoided deforestation

·        Carbon capture and storage

·        Negative carbon dioxide emissions

commerical jet KLM-the-truth-denied

Geoengineering

Geoengineering is seen by some as an alternative to mitigation and adaptation, but by others as an entirely separate response to climate change. In a literature assessment, Barker et al. (2007) described geoengineering as a type of mitigation policy.]IPCC (2007) concluded that geoengineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, remained largely unproven.  It was judged that reliable cost estimates for geoengineering had not yet been published.

Chapter 28 of the National Academy of Sciences report Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base (1992) defined geoengineering as “options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry.” They evaluated a range of options to try to give preliminary answers to two questions: can these options work and could they be carried out with a reasonable cost. They also sought to encourage discussion of a third question — what adverse side effects might there be. The following types of option were examined: reforestation, increasing ocean absorption of carbon dioxide (carbon sequestration) and screening out some sunlight. NAS also argued “Engineered countermeasures need to be evaluated but should not be implemented without broad understanding of the direct effects and the potential side effects, the ethical issues, and the risks.”.[156] In July 2011 a report by the United States Government Accountability Office on geoengineering found that “[c]limate engineering technologies do not now offer a viable response to global climate change.”

Carbon dioxide removal

Main articles: Carbon dioxide removalGreenhouse gas remediation and Carbon sequestration

See also: Carbon air capture

Carbon dioxide removal has been proposed as a method of reducing the amount of radiative forcing. A variety of means of artificially capturing and storing carbon, as well as of enhancing natural sequestration processes, are being explored. The main natural process is photosynthesis by plants and single-celled organisms (see biosequestration). Artificial processes vary, and concerns have been expressed about the long-term effects of some of these processes.[151]

It is notable that the availability of cheap energy and appropriate sites for geological storage of carbon may make carbon dioxide air capture viable commercially. It is, however, generally expected that carbon dioxide air capture may be uneconomic when compared to carbon capture and storage from major sources — in particular, fossil fuel powered power stations, refineries, etc. In such cases, costs of energy produced will grow significantly.[citation needed] However, captured CO2 can be used to force more crude oil out of oil fields, as Statoil and Shell have made plans to do.[158] CO2 can also be used in commercial greenhouses, giving an opportunity to kick-start the technology. Some attempts have been made to use algae to capture smokestack emissions,[159] notably the GreenFuel Technologies Corporation, who have now shut down operations.[160]

Solar radiation management

Main article: Solar radiation management

See also: Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering)

The main purpose of solar radiation management seek to reflect sunlight and thus reduce global warming. The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in climate engineering projects.

 

Movement to improve earths climate, or?

 

On July 27th, 2015   Goldman Sachs joined the “American Business Act on Climate Pledge” at the White House as one of the original 13 signatories, underscoring our long-standing commitment to harnessing innovative financial solutions and market mechanisms to help solve environmental challenges.”Goldman Sachs has had a long-standing commitment to harness markets and deploy capital to scale up clean energy technologies and facilitate the transition to a low carbon energy future. In 2012, we established a ten year goal to finance and invest $40 billion in clean energy globally. Less than four years into that goal, we have already mobilized $37 billion of capital for solar, wind, smart grid and other clean technologies. We expect to achieve the full goal next year and are expanding our existing target to $150 billion in capital deployment for the clean energy sector by 2025.”

 

USA WHITE HOUSE  July 2015 Pledge: “Today at the White House, Secretary of State John Kerry and senior White House officials will host 13 of the largest companies from across the American economy who are standing with the Obama Administration to launch the American Business Act on Climate Pledge: Alcoa, Apple, Bank of America, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Cargill, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, Microsoft, PepsiCo, UPS, and Walmart. The companies making pledges as part of today’s launch represent more than $1.3 trillion in revenue in 2014 and a combined market capitalization of at least $2.5 trillion.”

 

DOW Pledges:  Our 2015 Sustainability Goals: Sustainable Chemistry  Sustainable chemistry is our “cradle to cradle” concept and our  2015 Sustainability Goals states that by 2015, Dow will “increase the percentage of sales to 10 percent for products that are highly advantaged by sustainable chemistry.

 

Hewlett-Packard Company  : Climate change is one of the most critical environmental, economic and societal challenges facing the world today,” said Gabi Zedlmayer, vice president and chief progress officer. “At HP, we are working to reduce our carbon footprint across our entire value chain, fundamentally rethinking the way we do business to help drive a low-carbon economy.”

 

ALCOA   Building on our existing global commitment to reduce GHG intensity by 30% by 2020 (vs. 2005 baseline), Alcoa pledges to:Reduce absolute GHG emissions by 50% in the U.S. (vs. 2005 baseline) by 2025,Deploy our full range of innovations to develop materials, products and technologies that move us toward a low carbon sustainable future, andBy 2025, demonstrate a net reduction of GHG emissions from the use of our products equal to three times the emissions created by their productionAPPLEApple, already running all of its U.S. operations on 100% renewable energy, will bring an estimated 280 megawatts of clean power generation online by the end of 2016 through investments in Arizona, California, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon and Sichuan Province, China. Since 2011, Apple has reduced carbon emissions from its global corporate facilities, data centers and retail stores by 48%.

 

BANK OF AMERICA   Since 2007, Bank of America has provided more than $39 billion in financing for low-carbon activities to help address climate change. Bank of America pledges to:Increase our current environmental business initiative from $50 billion to $125 billion by 2025 through lending, investing, capital raising, advisory services and developing financing solutions for clients around the world.Attract a wider array of capital to clean energy investments by developing innovative financing structures – from reducing investment risk though our Catalytic Finance Initiative to engaging individual investors through our Socially Responsible Investing platform to building new markets for green bonds, yield-cos and other vehicles.

 

  • BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY   Berkshire Hathaway Energy pledges to:Build on our investment of more than $15 billion in renewable energy generation under construction and in operation through 2014 by investing up to an additional $15 billion.Pursue construction of an additional 552 megawatts of new wind generation in Iowa, increasing MidAmerican Energy Company’s generating portfolio to more than 4,000 megawatts of wind which is comparable to 57 percent of its retail energy load in 2017. MidAmerican Energy Company is the nation’s largest owner of wind generation among regulated, investor-owned utilities.Retire more than 75 percent of our coal-fueled generating capacity in Nevada by 2019.Add more than 1,000 megawatts of incremental solar and wind capacity through long-term power purchase agreements to PacifiCorp’s owned 1,030 megawatts of wind generating capacity. PacifiCorp is the nation’s second largest owner of wind generation among regulated, investor-owned utilities. This incremental renewable generation, expected to be online by the end of 2017, would bring PacifiCorp’s non-carbon generating capacity to more than 4,500 megawatts which equates to approximately 22 percent of PacifiCorp’s retail energy load in 2017.Invest in transmission infrastructure in the West and Midwest to support the integration of renewable energy onto the grid.Support and advance the development of markets in the West to optimize the electric grid, lower costs, enhance reliability and more effectively integrate renewable resources.

 

  • CARGILL   Cargill established comprehensive goals around climate, energy, and water 10 years ago. We have improved energy efficiency by 16 percent, carbon intensity by 9 percent, and freshwater efficiency by 12 percent since setting energy goals in 2000 and climate and water goals in 2005. We continue to raise the bar and have set new goals through 2020.From our 2015 baseline, Cargill pledges to over the next five years:Improve greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity by 5 percent.Improve freshwater efficiency by 5 percent.Improve energy efficiency by 5 percent.Increase renewable energy to 18 percent of our total energy use, up from 14 percent.

    Cargill is a signatory to the United Nations’ New York Declaration on Forests, committed to doing its part to cut natural forest loss in half by 2020, and strive to end it by 2030.

     

    THEW TRUTH DENIED- CHEMTRAILS KILL

    The one and only website created by Steve Susman of Texas, and Roxy Lopez of The Truth Denied.  CHEMTRAILS KILL.  Join our Blog and be sure to sub on Facebook!

    COCA-COLA

    Coca-Cola pledges to reduce the carbon footprint of “the drink in your hand” by 25% by 2020.

    Across the Coca-Cola system (our company and more than 250 bottling partners globally), we intend to make significant, comprehensive changes, investments and technology advancements to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020 as our business continues to grow. We estimate that achieving this ambitious goal will prevent approximately 20 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually by 2020. That’s four times the Coca-Cola system’s annual carbon emissions from manufacturing.

    This goal is comprehensive and extends across our entire value chain – ingredient sourcing, manufacturing processes, packaging formats, delivery fleet, and refrigeration equipment.

 

 

 

GENERAL MOTORS

General Motors pledges to:

  • Reduce energy intensity from facilities 20 percent by 2020 over a 2010 baseline.
  • Promote use of 125 megawatts of renewable energy by 2020 over a 2010 baseline.
  • Reduce carbon intensity from facilities 20 percent by 2020 over a 2010 baseline.
  • Reduce water intensity 15 percent by 2020 over a 2010 baseline.
  • Reduce total waste 40 percent by 2020 over a 2010 baseline.
  • Achieve 150 landfill-free facilities by 2020 and set an aspirational goal to have all manufacturing sites send zero waste to landfill.
  • Maximize vehicle efficiencies and reduce carbon emissions around the globe while meeting a variety of customer needs.
  • Help make electrified vehicles become more mainstream.
  • Collaborate with others and proactively look for sustainability opportunities that collectively drive economic, environmental and social improvements.

 

 

GOOGLE

Google pledges to:

Renewable energy: Google is committed to powering our operations with 100% renewable energy. We have purchased 1.1 gigawatts of renewable energy to power our data centers, and we commit to tripling our purchases of renewable energy by 2025. We believe that by directly investing in renewable energy projects, we can help accelerate the shift to zero-carbon power and create a better future for everyone. We commit to continuing our $2 billion/2.5 gigawatts cumulative investments in transformative global clean energy projects, including major investments by 2025 in emerging markets, where there is both great need and great potential.

Transportation: Google shuttles and corporate electric vehicles result in net annual savings of 29,000+ metric tons of CO2, equivalent to taking 5,700 cars off the road or avoiding 87M vehicle miles every year. In our Bay Area headquarters we commit to reducing single occupancy vehicle commuting to 36%, a 10% reduction from today, by transitioning our employees to shuttles, carpool, public transit, biking, and walking.

Water Usage: Google is committed to reducing our water consumption, particularly in the drought-ridden Western United States, through the use of recycled water irrigation, drought tolerant plants, less turf grass, fixture replacements and employee awareness efforts. After exceeding our 20% energy, water and waste reduction goals in 2014 associated with the California Best Buildings Challenge, we are now targeting a 30% reduction in potable water use by our Bay Area headquarters in 2015 from our 2013 baseline.

Products and Platforms: Google’s products help drive carbon mitigation efforts and inform climate science. Our Google Earth Engine geospatial analysis platform makes more than 40 years of satellite imagery available online so scientists and researchers can analyze real-time changes to the Earth’s surface. Through the Climate Data Initiative, we provided one petabyte of cloud storage for data and climate/weather models, plus 50 million hours of high-performance cloud computing. We commit to continuing to develop products and platforms that can help reduce emissions and bring the power of cloud computing to climate science.

MICROSOFT

At Microsoft, we’re committed to driving environmentally sustainable business practices and catalyzing technology innovations that help people and organizations around the world to realize a sustainable future. Microsoft pledges to:

Maintain carbon neutral operations for our datacenters, offices, labs, manufacturing facilities, and business air travel.

Purchase 100% renewable energy for the operations of our datacenters, offices, labs, and manufacturing facilities.

Offset 100% of emissions from business air travel through supporting carbon offset projects that also drive social benefits in emerging nations.

PEPSICO

At PepsiCo, we recognize that limiting global warming to 2° Celsius is absolutely critical to our future and reiterate our call for collective action and our commitment to implementing solutions that will help achieve this goal.  PepsiCo pledges to:

Utilizing PepsiCo’s Sustainable Farming Initiative, expand the use of sustainable farming practices to 500,000 acres of farmland used by our North American agricultural suppliers in our corn, oats, potato, and citrus supply chains by the end of 2016.

Continue to implement hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-free point-of-sale equipment (coolers, vending machines and fountain dispensers) to meet the goal that all of our new equipment in the U.S. will be HFC-free by 2020.

Continue to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from our global fleet through the use of electric, hybrid, compressed natural gas, alternative fuel vehicles and other fuel efficiency programs.

Strive for zero deforestation in our business operations and global supply chain by 2020.

Utilize the data generated and best practices learned at our facilities employing photovoltaic systems in the U.S. to help inform future solar installations and meet our goal of achieving an absolute greenhouse gas reduction.

Strive to increase the amount of recycled content in our global packaging, as we have in our U.S. beverage packaging which included 111 million pounds of rPET in 2014.

UPS

In 2013, successful execution of our global greenhouse gas strategy at UPS enabled us to exceed a 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity three years ahead of our 2016 goal. In 2014, we achieved a 14.1 percent reduction in our carbon intensity versus a 2007 baseline as a result of successfully executing carbon reduction strategies in our ground and air fleet.

Accordingly, UPS pledges:

To double our goal to a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, as measured by our UPS Transportation Intensity Index, off a 2007 baseline. The Transportation Intensity Index normalizes our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to business volume, for instance by reducing the amount of fuel required to travel a given distance or to carry a given amount of cargo or packages; covers 96 percent of our worldwide Scope 1 and Scope 2 CO2e emissions; and combines data from separate carbon intensity metrics associated with our business segments.

To achieve by 2017 a cumulative billion miles of package or freight movement in our alternative fuel/technology truck fleet, which we expect will number over 7,700 trucks by the end of 2015.

Our UPS plan includes:

Network and mode optimization to minimize the miles traveled and energy consumed.

Investments in fuel-saving technologies to reduce our dependency on petroleum-based fuels.

Investments in alternative fuel vehicles to help offset the use of conventional petroleum fuels

Energy conservation through facility design, operational practices, renewable energy, and retrofitting.

Accurate, verified disclosure of global greenhouse gas emissions data per recognized standards.

WALMART

At Walmart, we believe climate change is an urgent and pressing challenge, and we must all do our part to reduce, avoid and mitigate the impact of rising greenhouse gas (GHG) levels.  We remain committed to our role in accelerating the transition to a sustainable future.

In 2014, we operated with 9 percent less energy per square foot compared with our 2010 baseline and 26 percent of our electricity used was generated from renewable sources – keeping us on track toward our goal of being powered by 100 percent renewable energy. Additionally, we’ve reduced the GHG intensity of our operations (Scope 1 and 2) for eight consecutive years, we’re on track to hold our absolute emissions flat over this decade, even with our continued growth as a company, and working with our suppliers, we’re on track to exceed our 2015 goal of eliminating 20 million metric tons of GHG emissions from our supply chain.

Walmart is committed to collaborating with suppliers, NGOs, governments and other corporate partners to continue to enhance the sustainability of our operations and product supply chains for people and the planet.

Walmart puts forth our pledges as follows:

Drive the production or procurement of 7 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) of renewable energy globally by Dec. 31, 2020 – an increase of more than 600 percent versus our 2010 baseline.

Double the number of on-site solar energy projects at our U.S. stores, Sam’s Clubs and distribution centers by 2020, compared with our 2013 baseline.

Reduce the total kWh-per-square-foot energy intensity required to power our buildings around the world by 20 percent by 2020 versus our 2010 baseline.

Gain increasing visibility into key metrics regarding yields, water usage and GHGs in our food supply chains by 2025. Walmart is now working with suppliers, representing approximately 70% of our food sales, to report their yield, water and GHG footprints all the way back to the farm.

Establish joint agricultural partnerships with 17 suppliers, cooperatives and service providers on 23 million acres of land in the U.S. and Canada, with the potential to reduce 11 million metric tons of GHG by 2020.

Achieve zero net deforestation in product sourcing by 2020 as part of The Consumer Goods Forum.

 

 

Sources:

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/01/08/paris-agreement-just-first-step-fighting-climate-change-406655.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference

The twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) and the eleventh session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) took place from 30 November to 11 December 2015, in Paris, France. http://unfccc.int/meetings/paris_nov_2015/meeting/8926.php

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140721123920.htm

https://www.adn.com/article/20151218/after-paris-accords-alaska-would-be-wise-invest-different-energy-future

http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/harnessing-the-markets.html?cid=PS_01_41_07_00_01_15_01

https://www.adn.com/article/20151218/october-landslide-southeast-was-among-worlds-biggest-recent-years

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/27/fact-sheet-white-house-launches-american-business-act-climate-pledge

Table Solely for the purposes of Article 21 of the Paris Agreement, information on the most up-to-date total and per cent of greenhouse gas emissions communicated by Parties to the Convention in their national communications, greenhouse gas inventory reports, biennial reports or biennial update reports, as of 12 December 2015.  http://unfccc.int/files/ghg_data/application/pdf/table.pdf

Journal Reference:

  1. Robert W. Howarth. A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gasEnergy Science & Engineering, 2014; 2 (2): 47 DOI: 1002/ese3.35

roxy-desert2_n-001-550x396

Join Roxy Lopez on Facebook today!

 

Please sub our You tube Channel today!

Please sub our You tube Channel today!

Please follow and like us:
18

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses “Climate Change Conference 2015 Did not address Geoengineering”

  1. January 24, 2016 at 3:08 PM

    Did you have a question?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More Stories From CHEMTRAILS Geoengineering Weather Modification Climate Change

About The Truth Denied,

Owner of controversial website The Truth Denied www.thetruthdenied.com and Chemtrails Kill. Journalist and video maker.