12 thoughts on “Paul Craig Roberts : l’Ukraine devra vendre ses terres à l’Occident (et sur l’assassinat de Nemtsov)

  1. Nations Agree Draft Text for Paris Climate Treaty …
    Feb 18, 2015 – GENEVA, Switzerland, February 18, 2015

    (ENS) – UN climate talks in …

    The 86-page document agreed Friday in Geneva builds on the December 2014 UN …

    and other types of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) geo-engineering approaches

    Nations Agree Draft Text for Paris Climate Treaty
    Environment News Service-Feb 18, 2015
    … such as bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and other types of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) geo-engineering approaches.


    “We are aware that governments are now discussing inclusion of the land sector in the new climate agreement, and many proposals to use land for mitigation are now being considered,” the groups wrote. “These proposals include sequestering carbon in soils and trees and other technologies such as bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and other types of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) geo-engineering approaches. Not only are these dangerous technologies and false solutions, they will create demand on land and consequently undermine access to food and livelihoods, exacerbate landlessness, and deepen poverty.”



  2. Scientists: Geo-Engineering is Madness, But We Should Study It Anyway:

    Geoengineering is an insane way to deal with climate change. Let’s consider it anyway. (Vox.com)
    Panel Urges Research on Geoengineering as a Tool Against Climate Change (NY Times):
    In two widely anticipated reports, the panel – which was supported by NASA and other federal agencies, including what the reports described as the “U.S. intelligence community” – noted that drastically reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases was by far the best way to mitigate the effects of a warming planet.
    VIDEO WEBCAST: What’s Next for Climate Engineering? (Resources For the Future, Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment):
    On February 10, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released two major reports on climate engineering (also known as geoengineering), to help inform the ethical, legal, and political discussions on climate “intervention.”
    Hack the planet? Comprehensive report suggests thinking carefully first: Geoengineering for climate change could make an expensive mess. (Ars Technica) [emphasis added]:
    All told, the report concludes that “there is significant potential for unanticipated, unmanageable, and regrettable consequences in multiple human dimensions from albedo modification at climate altering scales.” It urges against deploying it at this time and recommends caution about doing any research on it. Any tests have the potential to bring these consequences to any nations near the test site-bad on their own, and made worse by the fact that we have nothing in the way of an international political structure to manage the ensuing problems.
    Geoengineering Is Good Insurance (Op-ed, Bloomberg View):
    The view that geoengineering should be rejected in principle, because it’s wrong to mess with the climate in this way, ignores the possibility that drastic remedies may be needed to forestall an eventual climate catastrophe. Geoengineering solutions, despite the drawbacks, may one day look better than the alternative, and by that time it might be too late to deal with global warming more sensibly.
    Here’s ONE geoengineering scheme that isn’t crazy (Grist)
    Four Reasons To Study A Bad Idea: Geoengineering (Forbes)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s