Options

Birthrate a topic at 2015 UN Climate Change Conference?

nad
edited December 2015 in News and Information

On our blog it was asked wether birthrates are a topic in the negotiations at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference. Sofar as I can tell by looking at the website this is not the case. Does anybody have other information?

Comments

  • 1.

    At least I meanwhile found a file which seems to hold the concrete text of the draft(s) at unfccc. The draft is for me quite unreadable though - I just spend almost an hour sifting through it and found almost nothing concrete. The wording is very bubbly and it is also very hard to follow their nomenclature. As an example to explain my problems with language and nomenclature:

    On page 49 bottom it is written:

    Option 2: (paragraph 29) 29.
    Encourages Convention bodies to take note of the lessons learned from the process referred to in paragraph 5 above and replicate applicable processes where they contribute to the purposes of those bodies;

    Option 2 alt

    1. Requests the Adaptation Committee, in collaboration with the Least Developed Countries Expert Group, Consultative Group of Experts on National Communications from Parties not included in Annex I of the Convention, the Standing Committee on Finance, the Technology Executive Committee and the Nairobi Programme on impacts vulnerability and adaptation, to consider the process, modalities outputs and outcomes of the technical examination process and to, if appropriate, incorporate the lessons learned and good practices from the technical examination process into their workplans.

    I couldn't find paragraph 5. There is a point 5 right above the text, which says:

    Invites the President of the COP to convene, in conjunction with each session of the Conference of the Parties, a high level event aimed at further strengthening high level engagement on adaptation;

    but it doesn't really make sense to me together with the text under option 2 alt which talks about a "technical examination process" but I couldn't find any "other" paragraphs 5,

    I understand that this is a difficult process which needs a lot of diplomacy and bubblyfluffyness, but I think I would loose my patience in Paris - mildly speaking.

    Comment Source:At least I meanwhile found a file which seems to hold the <a href="http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/in-session/application/pdf/_adp_compilation_3dec15.pdf">concrete text of the draft(s)</a> at <a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/paris/">unfccc.</a> The draft is for me quite unreadable though - I just spend almost an hour sifting through it and found almost nothing concrete. The wording is very bubbly and it is also very hard to follow their nomenclature. As an example to explain my problems with language and nomenclature: On page 49 bottom it is written: >Option 2: (paragraph 29) 29. Encourages Convention bodies to take note of the lessons learned from the process referred to in paragraph 5 above and replicate applicable processes where they contribute to the purposes of those bodies; >Option 2 alt >29. Requests the Adaptation Committee, in collaboration with the Least Developed Countries Expert Group, Consultative Group of Experts on National Communications from Parties not included in Annex I of the Convention, the Standing Committee on Finance, the Technology Executive Committee and the Nairobi Programme on impacts vulnerability and adaptation, to consider the process, modalities outputs and outcomes of the technical examination process and to, if appropriate, incorporate the lessons learned and good practices from the technical examination process into their workplans. I couldn't find paragraph 5. There is a point 5 right above the text, which says: >Invites the President of the COP to convene, in conjunction with each session of the Conference of the Parties, a high level event aimed at further strengthening high level engagement on adaptation; but it doesn't really make sense to me together with the text under option 2 alt which talks about a "technical examination process" but I couldn't find any "other" paragraphs 5, I understand that this is a difficult process which needs a lot of diplomacy and bubblyfluffyness, but I think I would loose my patience in Paris - mildly speaking.
  • 2.

    wether $\mapsto$ whether (always)

    loose $\mapsto $ lose (in this case; they are different words with different meanings)

    Yes, I would find this negotiation process very frustrating. As a mathematician, I'm used to jobs where as soon as I understanding something, the job is done. Politics is very different,

    Comment Source:wether $\mapsto$ whether (always) loose $\mapsto $ lose (in this case; they are different words with different meanings) Yes, I would find this negotiation process very frustrating. As a mathematician, I'm used to jobs where as soon as I understanding something, the job is done. Politics is very different,
  • 3.
    nad
    edited December 2015

    thanks for correcting the spelling errors.

    Yes, I would find this negotiation process very frustrating. As a mathematician, I'm used to jobs where as soon as I understanding something, the job is done.

    I have increasingly problems to say to mathematical work that the "job is done" that is there are often consequences of "your work" and this has to be taken into account as well. It's not easy, because usually you do not really know what the effects of a mathematical work are going to be, but sometimes you may get some unpleasant glimpses.

    Like as in the case of genetical engineering: mathematical work on DNA sequencing etc. is connected to that. There are not many possibilities to steer the overall process for a mathematician, apart may be from shutting up, i.e. cease to work in those areas, thats something at least, but probably only on a small time scale. It is clear that the consequences of your work may be rather "political", that is there are e.g. real life consequences to editing human embryos or cloning animals for meat production:

    "Everything in the supermarket looks good—it's almost all shiny, good-looking, and uniformly shaped. For animals, we weren't able to do that in the past. But with our cloning factory, we choose to do so now," Xu said. "Remember, this is a food. We want it to be uniform, very consistent, very premium quality," he added.

    I don't want food to look too "uniform".

    But regarding the climate change talks. As you may have noticed by my remarks here, I have some doubts with regard to the current understanding of the mechanisms of global warming. If the global warming potential of methane would be way higher as thought then one of the biggest human factors to global warming might be rather cattle and rice fields and not cars and even fossil fueld automization. This would make human reproduction even more center stage for climate discussions. But apart from this it should be a point of discussion already now: it is of course clear that humans per se- even if "environmentally friendly" change the environment and the more of them the more rapidly. And maybe so rapidly that no technology or regulations can mitigate consequences, like ressource wars. But then one problem in here is that it is not even clear to what extend "environmentally friendly technology" could "environmentally" compensate for the tasks of educating and caring for "work-disabled" humans, like sick, old, incapable, infants etc. Regarding this question it seems there are now rather explicit real life examples, like refugee camps where this gets maybe even better visible than through simulation.

    But back to the language problem:

    Encourages Convention bodies to take note of the lessons learned from the process referred to in paragraph 5 above and replicate applicable processes where they contribute to the purposes of those bodies;

    Do I "translate" this correctly as

    "message to convention bodies: read paragraph 5 and see what you could use of it!" ?

    Comment Source:thanks for correcting the spelling errors. >Yes, I would find this negotiation process very frustrating. As a mathematician, I'm used to jobs where as soon as I understanding something, the job is done. I have increasingly problems to say to mathematical work that the "job is done" that is there are often consequences of "your work" and this has to be taken into account as well. It's not easy, because usually you do not really know what the effects of a mathematical work are going to be, but sometimes you may get some unpleasant glimpses. Like as in the case of genetical engineering: mathematical work on DNA sequencing etc. is connected to that. There are not many possibilities to steer the overall process for a mathematician, apart may be from shutting up, i.e. cease to work in those areas, thats something at least, but probably only on a small time scale. It is clear that the consequences of your work may be rather "political", that is there are e.g. real life consequences to editing <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/news/536971/chinese-team-reports-gene-editing-human-embryo/">human embryos</a> or cloning animals for <a href="http://phys.org/news/2015-12-china-clone-factory-scientist-eyes.html">meat production:</a> >"Everything in the supermarket looks good—it's almost all shiny, good-looking, and uniformly shaped. For animals, we weren't able to do that in the past. But with our cloning factory, we choose to do so now," Xu said. >"Remember, this is a food. We want it to be uniform, very consistent, very premium quality," he added. I don't want food to look too "uniform". But regarding the climate change talks. As you may have noticed by my remarks here, I have some doubts with regard to the current understanding of the mechanisms of global warming. If the global warming potential of methane would be way higher as thought then one of the biggest human factors to global warming might be rather cattle and rice fields and not cars and even fossil fueld automization. This would make human reproduction even more center stage for climate discussions. But apart from this it should be a point of discussion already now: it is of course clear that humans per se- even if "environmentally friendly" change the environment and the more of them the more rapidly. And maybe so rapidly that no technology or regulations can mitigate consequences, like ressource wars. But then one problem in here is that it is not even clear to what extend "environmentally friendly technology" could "environmentally" compensate for the tasks of educating and caring for "work-disabled" humans, like sick, old, incapable, infants etc. Regarding this question it seems there are now rather explicit real life examples, like refugee camps where this gets maybe even better visible than through <a href="http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Utopia">simulation</a>. But back to the language problem: >Encourages Convention bodies to take note of the lessons learned from the process referred to in paragraph 5 above and replicate applicable processes where they contribute to the purposes of those bodies; Do I "translate" this correctly as >"message to convention bodies: read paragraph 5 and see what you could use of it!" ?
Sign In or Register to comment.