Jpasztor

Yes. The impacts of intensive agriculture are significant, and there are alternatives. Including improved production practices as well as different consumption patterns (read less meat consumption)

It is actually pretty crazy. Imagine 195 countries represented. Think of the views of Samoa, Russia, USA or the Central African Republic. They all come to these negotiations from a different perspective, with different social and economic backgrounds. ANd the fact that climate change affects everybody, but that not all countries are equally responsible for the emissions - neither historically (and don't forget that emissions are cumulative) nor for the future. So countries come with their positions. They present them in meetings (the official meetings are interpreted into the 6 official UN languages), and then they discuss... and discuss... and discuss, until they agree. Usually the agreements come on the last day - actually last night, usually early mornings. Climate Change delegates are notorious for negotiating until they just run out of energy.

I would remind them that climate change is affecting already people everywhere in the world, including those that don't believe in it. Average, measured global temperature rise is already 1 degree celsius. In high latitudes it is already 2 degrees. These are not projections, but actual measurements. People who live in those most affected areas are seeing and feeling the impacts. Whether you call it "climate change" or something else, we are already responding to it, and actually paying for it.

Kyoto was quite different than Paris. In Kyoto only the developed countries had quantifiable emission reduction targets. In Paris, we have already 185 countries who have submitted their national climate action plans to cover both mitigation and adaptation. Also, in Paris, the national plans submitted by countries are "bottom up" (nationally determined). Also, the attitude of the private sector has changed tremendously over the last 20 years, and it now looks for a strong agreement. Also, the science is much more certain than it was back then. Finally, the impacts are now visible and measureable. So we are in a a very different, and much more favourable situation for an agreement.

OF course we want to elect politicians who will bring us economic growth, but we need a different kind of economic growth - one that does not harm the environment, and also helps to achieve social objectives. This is the essence of sustainable development, where you don't have to sacrifice economic growth for environmental protection. It is possible. We have seen many countries who have substantially increased their GNP, while reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.