It is because they have lost their strength:
"Large-scale deal to cut emissions expected, but falls far short of goal" by Justin Gillis New York Times November 28, 2015
The prospect of any progress has elicited cheers in many quarters, yet the negotiators have declined to take up a recommendation from scientists, made several years ago, that they set a cap on total greenhouse gases as a way to achieve that goal, and then figure out how to allocate the emissions fairly.
Oh, yeah? So who is going to decide that?
The pledges countries are making are voluntary, and were established in most nations as a compromise between the desire to be ambitious and the perceived cost and political difficulty of emissions cutbacks.
They aren't serious.
In effect, the countries are vowing to make changes that collectively still fall far short of the necessary goal, much like a patient who, upon hearing from his doctor that he must lose 50 pounds to avoid life-threatening health risks, takes pride in cutting out fries but not cake and ice cream.
The scientists argue that there is only so much carbon — in the form of exhaust from coal-burning power plants, automobile tailpipes, forest fires, and the like — that the atmosphere can absorb before the planet suffers profound damage, with swaths of it potentially becoming uninhabitable.
Well, I'm not going to belabor the point, but it is the methane from the oil and gas drilling and fracking that is far more of a problem.
Related: Government, private sector need to invest in clean energy
Where did he make his money, and where has he been all these decades?
US to decide whether a nuclear plant can outlive average human
Any idea that this government is interested in the environment or clean energy melts down there, and I want you to consider this next thought carefully no matter what your position on this issue.
What we have here is a bunch of New World Order globalists (for lack of a better term) pushing a tax and limits on carbon to save the planet. This is the same crew that has neglected renewable and clean energy while having its pockets filled by fossil fuel interests and fighting wars on their behalf for control of those same resources, thus adding to the alleged problem.
Anybody $ee the di$connect there?
After years of studying the issue, the experts recommended to climate diplomats in 2013 that they consider the concept of a “carbon budget” to help frame the talks. Yet the idea was quickly dismissed as politically impractical, and more recent pleas from countries like Bolivia to consider it have been ignored.
It would require the world's biggest polluter and war machine to be shut down.
If any serious push had been made ahead of Paris to divvy up the emissions budget, the negotiators “would have all run screaming from the room,” said Michael A. Levi, an energy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, in New York. “So that’s not a real alternative.”
What more is there to argue?
The carbon budget will probably not get much attention in Paris for simple reasons.
What $neaky $hit are they up to now!?
Wrestling with a budget would, for instance, throw into stark relief the global inequities at the heart of the climate crisis. And it would underscore just how big the problem really is, how costly the delay in tackling it has been and how inadequate the plans being discussed in Paris are for limiting the risks.
In other words, we are having smoke blown up our you-know-what's by this confabulation of cretins in Paris (nothing on the terrorists today?).
Consider, for example, that Europe, the United States, and China have offered emissions-reduction pledges that are their most ambitious ever. And yet, if their plans are carried out, a recent analysis suggests those regions will use up most of the remaining room for emissions in the atmosphere, leaving relatively little for the other 5 billion people on the planet or their descendants.
The global genocide that some have been screaming about almost makes sense when one reads that from a certain point of view (not mine).
To change that equation, the biggest polluters would have to commit to cutting their emissions at rates that would be difficult to achieve, potentially disruptive to their economies and politically unrealistic.
It's all hot air, as they used to say.
Moreover, any serious discussion of the carbon budget would amplify a point of serious contention, known as “climate injustice,” in the talks. It refers to the idea that poor countries bear little past responsibility for climate change but are first in line to suffer its consequences, without much capacity to protect themselves.
Many of those same countries want to develop their economies by burning some fossil fuels, but because decades of high emissions by richer countries have created such profound risks, they are under pressure to adopt costlier green energy instead.
Given the political realities, some of the scientists involved in devising the carbon budget have resigned themselves to seeing it ignored in this round of negotiations, with the hope that countries will accelerate their efforts in coming years.
Myles R. Allen, a climate scientist at Oxford University and a leading proponent of the budget idea, said it was better for countries to keep negotiating than not. “It was probably the right call to brush it under the carpet for now,” he said.
So you can't see it, citizen!
Tell it to the Southwest:
"A deadly storm that has caused flooding and coated parts of the southern Plains in ice during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend dumped more rain on already swollen rivers in parts of North Texas and Arkansas on Sunday, and made driving dangerous in parts of Oklahoma."
There are ice storms in Oklahoma and 14 people are dead.
I hold conference gatherers responsible for every single one.
Anyway, I don't want to talk about the issue anymore. It's literally been a flood (quick, Chris, you are needed back in New Jersey) of agenda-approved slop this morning and thus it is time to get off the this train (all China's fault anyway).
Globe wishes you the best of Health in any event.