Greenland May Seek UN Climate Deal Opt-Out Amid Emissions Goal
The ink hasn’t yet dried on the UN climate accord and one of the territories most at risk from global warning is already demanding an opt-out.
“We still have the option of making a territorial opt-out to COP21,” Kim Kielsen, the prime minister of Greenland, said during a visit to Copenhagen on Monday. “We have an emissions quota of 650,000 tonnes of CO2, which is the same as a single coal-fired power plant in Denmark, or a minor Danish city.”
It’s almost as though they’re not worried about the glaciers.
If anyone is worried about greenhouse gasses, why is Canada bringing millions of people from the deserts and tropics to Canada, multiplying their carbon footprint 10 to maybe 100 times? Canada is a lightly industrialized country but is one of the worlds biggest carboners because of our temperature and distance.
“one of the territories most at risk from global warning is already demanding an opt-out.”
How is Greenland at risk? Even if its entire ice pack melted it would experience no sea level rise and would gain some arable land.
WalterF, you need to update your knowledge base. Greenland holds the world’s second largest ice sheet, second only to Antarctica. If it all melted the world’s sea level would rise by about 24 feet. Last time the ice sheet saw significant melt about 1/3 of it disappeared over 6,000 years. So bring lots of popcorn.
Update your science or get a job as a science journalist. If the latter, think of Greenland being on top of the globe and all that melt water running down.
If you’re wanting to update your science, here’s a start:
http://sealevelstudy.org/sea-change-science/whats-in-a-number/attractive-ice-sheets
“Mitrovica discovered that within about 1,000 miles of Greenland, the balance of forces would favor lower sea level, leading to the counter-intuitive conclusion that sea level falls even though water is being added to the ocean.”
Add them to Norway
http://www.thelocal.no/20151214/we-will-continue-with-oil-and-gas-norway-pm
is one of the worlds biggest carboners
such a horrible term. CO2 is a beneficial gas and that would, if it were true, make Canada one of humaniy’s greatest benefactors. But I presume you mean per capita.
What Greenland needs is a multi-trillion dollar electric bus system to link all the folks together around their relatively vast and lightly inhabited country. It could probably be powered by a single coal fired generating station.
Interesting link.
I’ve been to Greenland. Nice people, awesome scenery, but it could stand to be a touch warmer. As far as the ice sheet goes, it’s so thick in the interior of Greenland that the land beneath it is depressed below sea level. And Greenland lacks vast coastal plains. If your coastline is steep, you don’t lose much territory in the event of sea level rise. In the global warming worst-case scenario, Greenland would have a net gain of habitable land, and a nicer climate to go with it.
There’s also the matter of isostatic rebound. Continents, and indeed oceanic crust, too, float on the Earth’s mantle. If a vast load of ice melts off a particular patch of land, it will bob up a little, just like the Queen of Tswassen bobs up when Lizzie May steps ashore. And nearby seabed will subside a little, to maintain equilibrium. Result: little long-term net change in perceived sea level.
Attempting to “control” Earth’s temperature to mitigate the risk of living on flood plains makes about as much sense as attempting to prevent rainfall in lieu of fixing the damn roof.
Greenland like Canada; Global warming?
Is good.
Up here the mild start to winter has saved me 3 months worth of normal heating bills.
Whole lot less idling on my diesel.
Life is good.
Warming? I want more.
You have to be a fools and totally unpatriotic to deny Canada the chance of warmer weather.
Tree haters fall for CAGW.
I would have thought that Greenland would benefit from warming.
Steve, what you state is an impossibility. 24 feet. jeez, not even 2 inches would be possible.