Ask Hansen.

It's the ultimate look good while getting nothing meaningful done agreement.

We're at 400 plus ppm and rising at a rate of 3 ppm per year or more.....

Paris won't even slow it down, much less reverse it for at least 30 years.

You're out of time........

The fact is that this does get things moving in the right direction. Years ago, when he was Senator, Kerry spoke of how legislation to control acid rain was predicted to be too expensive and too late -- in fact, once the goal was there, the markets moved in and the levels were reduced faster and cheaper than predicted. Let's hope that happens here.

It was also clear that the US - given the Congress could not do better than this - and China was at its limit too. It may be that the world will react more than it has in the past. I know history does not offer much hope given the 1992 pact.

I got one. You got one. Everyone got one. The economic systems in play today made sure of it.

The problem is economics. It comes in four forms, three of which are directly related to standard of living as defined today. Production and consumption of goods and services, direct energy consumption and transportation are three major inputs to the carbon, and carbon equivalent problem. Fourth is the release of carbon in the form of methane from frozen sequestrations such as methane content in permafrost. Your carbon footprint is based on what you purchase in goods and services as well as direct energy consumption. Everyone's footprint the world over is related in the same way.

Do you honestly think the Chinese and every other emerging market is going to NOT try to get the same standard of living they see in the current industrialized nations? Between China and India there are more than a billion people who have extremely small standards of living and the countries are attempting to change that, as they should. In other words, dramatically increase consumption, the real standard of living.

To wit, they have no intention, and never had any intention, of stopping massive energy production potential, especially in the near term, using the cheapest sources available, JUST LIKE WE DID. Conversion to green energy sources will probably be given a fast track, but the countries will NOT allow conversion to interfere with economics and increasing the average incomes of their citizens as well.

They told Kerry, Clinton, Obama and everyone else involved in this to eff off, in no uncertain terms. China HOPES to begin massive conversions and begin dropping their total carbon output by 2035.

Too bad, so sad, at that point you are forty ppm short of complete loss of all permanent arctic ice and at least all western antarctic ice with transitioning eastern antarctic ice. That's IF the completely unknown frozen methane deposits don't start really coming out to play, which is already starting to happen.

Because Obama and crew decided to drill baby drill and try to convert to methane from coal, it turns out that methane release from mining, transportation and fracking is overtaking any drops in carbon from coal. Since the price of gas is way down, you and I and everyone else increased our addiction to driving and we out did ourselves last year in gas consumption, which translates to record co2 from driving. Do you think that's going to stop?

Here's the truth. By 2035 the atmospheric co2 will be at least 460 ppm if not higher. The release of methane from mining and fracking will increase methane equivalent co2 to about 500 ppm total atmospheric co2 equivalent at least. This does NOT include methane from frozen sequestration nor other industrial aerosols. Geological studies put the highest global temperature for the last 65 million years with atmospheric co2 from 680 to 1150 ppm.

We will reach 600 ppm. It's virtually guarantied unless we start DRASTICALLY changing our economic systems and curtail consumption, neither of which were addressed in Paris, which doesn't even include any provisions for enforcement of its' meaningless 'limits'.

You're out of time.

. . on science and the public sphere. Everyone - and I mean everyone there - emphasized the importance of the Paris agreement.
It goes much farther than any previous agreement.
It's signed by 195 countries.
The general consensus is that it is a "miracle" (the exact word used by several speakers) that it was signed at all, given, for instance, the opposition of our Neanderthal congress, as well as the many issues for each of those 195 countries.
The other heartening thing is that the USA was a leader in making this happen. Obama and Kerry and other relevant members of the Obama administration deserve thanks for their efforts to make this happen, again, against the opposition of the Obstruction Party.

Yes, we need to go farther, yes we need to continue to push, but this agreement is a landmark, and a foundation, as well as a prod, to keep moving forward.

what do you want to do instead? Just give up because the agreement doesn't go far enough?

Will be the positive legacy of the Obama administration. Each can be said to not be perfect, but each is a hard fought step in the right direction.

ratify ANY climate agreement. All countries knew that the agreement could go no further than what the US can do without congressional action, IOW the more limited scope of Obama's power to issue executive orders.

What rarely came across in American accounts was that we were one of the problems in getting an agreement period. It was a huge achievement to craft something that we could accept and get countries like China too. This is not a criticism of Kerry, whose ties to other diplomats and whose great skill was essential. It is a criticism of all the legislators unwilling to do what is needed and it was not just Republicans.

. . since Sec. Kerry has been so committed to resolution of these issues for his entire career.

"Unprecedented", "ambitious", "durable", "undeniable momentum" - all accurate descriptors of a genuine landmark agreement.

I'm so proud that the US played such a key role in these accords.
We have been so lucky to have Obama and Kerry on board at such a key moment.
I confess that I am worried about the commitment of the next occupant of the White House.
I can only hope that the next administration will be even half as committed, and half as competent in engineering the many international hiccups of this complex agreement, as the Obama administration has been.

So I've read on DU.