https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... -billions/The majority of the carbon emission reduction pledges for 2030 that 184 countries made under the Paris Agreement aren’t nearly enough to keep global warming well below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius). Some countries won’t achieve their pledges, and some of the world's largest carbon emitters will continue to increase their emissions, according to a panel of world-class climate scientists.
Their report, “The Truth Behind the Paris Agreement Climate Pledges,” warns that by 2030, the failure to reduce emissions will cost the world a minimum of $2 billion per day in economic losses from weather events made worse by human-induced climate change. Moreover, weather events and patterns will hurt human health, livelihoods, food, and water, as well as biodiversity.
On Monday, November 4 [2019], the Trump Administration submitted a formal request to officially pull the United States out of the 2015 Paris Agreement next November. Every nation in the world has agreed “to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change,” according to language in the pact.
“Countries need to double and triple their 2030 reduction commitments to be aligned with the Paris target,” says Sir Robert Watson, former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and co-author of the report that closely examined the 184 voluntary pledges under the Paris Agreement.
The Death of Fossil Fuels thread has been doing a fascinating job covering the technological advances that mean that a net-zero-carbon world by 2030 is completely achievable. Unfortunately, the availability and advantages of that technology don't do enough to overcome the economic, societal and political impediments to the effecting the necessary transitions.
With that in mind, I thought it would be interesting and useful to start another thread to collate and discuss sensible actions being undertaken to enact change. In particular, I'd like to think about ideas that utilise as far as possible the current institutions and status quo viz. distributions of wealth and power, because if we have to change politics and the economy in general before we can fix 2030's carbon emissions than we are probably totally f.cked.
f.ck knows if I'll so much as even open it when it arrives because law is boring as f.ck unless you're actually doing it 
but I keep glancing sideways at a couple of masters in environmental law but f.ck me, it's £10-15k and 2 years' work and I'm not sure if I can justify that or even if I have it in me at the moment. I guess it's just that I think I need to accept that I am never going to be getting down to the nitty gritty with the science, reading scientific papers and whatnot, it will always be someone else's narrative of a load of study for the benefit of an ignoramus layperson like me. But I probably would stand a reasonable chance of getting at least a basic working knowledge of environmental law that I could maybe do something useful with? But I dunno, still seems a bit daft. And I would probably end up out of date pretty quickly too. So yeah, I went for the textbook instead, much cheaper 