/>

Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured Nebraska Hot News Top News

reads.

The letter to Greta and activists in the Eu: This law on the climate is a yield. I will not allow that to happen
ANY law or policy on climate is not built on the best scientific knowledge available at the time or that does not include at the global level, the aspect of equity and climate justice – the principles at the basis of the agreement of Paris – will do more harm than good. The message that this kind of law will go down in history with the strength would be that you are adopting measures of real and sufficient, when in reality it is not so.

Would suggest, also, that you, our governors-elect, to understand fully the situation in which we find ourselves and that we can "remedy the climate crisis" maintaining current systems without any sacrifice. The fact is that you do not see a trace everywhere you look an awareness or measures any political issue is necessary. We go through a crisis that has never been considered a crisis. Is from more than a year and a half that we sacrifice our education, and we protest against your inaction. Last September we took to the streets in 7.5 million all over the world to ask you to give us a secure future by joining forces under the guidance of the scientific community. Clearly it was too much to ask.

The limits on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), even if they continue to be lowered, to respond in every case to the best scientific knowledge on the climate which we have at this time. To the extent they are insufficient, are perhaps the most exact roadmap that we have to safeguard it for the future conditions of life of the human race. And yet they are totally ignored by political leaders, by the media and by those who hold power. This must change starting right this minute.

No plan, policy or commitment will not even be close to enough as long as we continue to ignore the limits for the CO2 that we need to respect today. "Emissions to zero net by 2050" is the equivalent of saying surrender. It means to surrender. We need not only to set targets for 2030 or 2050 we need for the 2020 and for each month, and the year to come. The goals of the zero emission, distant in time, does not mean absolutely nothing if we continue to ignore the limits for the CO2 to which we hold ourselves today, and not in the far future. If emissions remain high at the current level, even if only for a few years, the amount of CO2 that we can theoretically afford to issue respectfully will soon be completely exhausted.

Until we have technologies that will reduce to zero emissions on a large scale, you should try to forget concepts such as “zero net emissions“ or "CO2-neutral". What we need is zero real. If you intend to fulfill the commitments subscribed to in the Paris Agreement, the issues will at some point reset, and the science is telling us is that this process has – drastically – start today. Since the technologies that should clear the issues, and where you place all your trust, do not exist today on a large scale, we simply stop doing certain things. Even if it means changing our economy.

This is the inconvenient truth which you cannot escape, no matter how much you want to or you try to ignore it – and the longer you avoid, the greater will be your betrayal of future generations. An idea very widespread among our political leaders is the goal to reduce emissions by half by 2030. Let us remember, however, once again, the objective of keeping the increase in global average temperature below 1.5° C, according to the indications of the Ipcc (Table intergovernmental panel on climate change) has a chance of coming true of only 50 percent. And this slim probability does not include the effects of return, the peaks are not linear and the additional heating that is inherent in the dangerous air pollution.

instead, it Includes, yes, the forecast that future generations will be able in some way to aspire, and by subtracting to the atmosphere, hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 with technology that might never come to be available, massively, and certainly not within the time that rispetterebbero those of the Paris Agreement. Since the limits of which we speak are referred to all over the world, is not included in any way change the essential appearance of fairness. In other words, if the Eu is to give this target is already fragile, the reduction from get should be much greater than 50 percent by 2030: in order to compensate the developing Countries that they must have a margin to raise the standard of living of its citizens. This is what it says with clarity the terms of the Paris agreement, this is what you have signed.
Even a child understands that to rely on these probability uncertain represents a high risk. We, meaning the young people who will have to live with the consequences of this crisis that we have created, we consider it unacceptable. We refuse to rely on these odds.

The highest probability that we have to stay below a 1.5° C increase in global average temperature as indicated by the IPCC, is 67 percent. Because it is realistic, the limit of emissions that we can emit globally is 340 Gt of CO2. If the activities of the men remained at the current level, this margin will be exhausted within the next eight years approximately. Remember, also, that the additional risks inherent to a limit of 50 percent – from feedback effects, and from the peaks of the non-linear, in addition to the fact that you are considering the question of fairness – make this hypothesis anything but safe. The limits on emissions are not now an integral part of the policy, nor is it disclosed by means of important communication, but we see you engaged to define laws and policies – disregard of all that once again.

to Claim that your policies, that does not take account of the conclusions of the science, somehow is going to solve the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced; to claim that a law that is not binding on no one is to be a law; to expect to be able to continue to build and finance new infrastructure for fossil fuels, not preventing at the same time that are out of control to disastrous deforestation "green"; demand that ignore the appearance of equity and climate justice at the global level does not put at risk the entire Agreement of Paris; to pretend that words to make disappear the emergency: it is an arrogance that must end. We will meet anything that is less than the path defined by science, which is what offers us the greatest chance to safeguard the future conditions of life for humanity and for life on Earth as we know it. All else is surrender. This law on the climate is a yield – because nature is not contracted and you can't “compromise” with the physical. Not we will allow you to give up on our future.

Until you take it seriously, we will stay here in the squares. Until you take seriously, we will continue to repeat what science tells us. Until you take seriously, and we will tell you to go home, study the facts and ripresentarvi when you have done your homework. Then we will ask you to do the things for which we have elected to lead us.

Translation of Marina Parada



"The Republic will fight always in defense of the freedom of information, to its readers and to all those who have at heart the principles of democracy and civil coexistence"

Carlo Verdelli SUBSCRIBERS TO REPUBLIC © Reproduction reserved Today on The torments of the Count: “But there rialzeremo as after the bridge Morandi”, Giuseppe Sala: “Milan is the trench that must withstand. By the government making the right choices,” The crisis in the airports: passengers on the decline up to 65% off the government to The trade unions: up to 4 billion for the shock absorbers and smes The freedom hostage
the Republic
Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.