Paris Climate Summit Was A Waste Of Time And C02 Emissions

[asal]

Without reading the thread I agree with the title.  A waste of time and CO2 emissions.  Definitely/For sure.

[Anonymous]

Without reading the thread I agree with the title.  A waste of time and CO2 emissions.  Definitely/For sure.

The optics of thousands of wealthy people flying hundreds of jets, and riding in private limos, but telling us to cut back is insulting.

[Anonymous]

Without reading the thread I agree with the title.  A waste of time and CO2 emissions.  Definitely/For sure.

The optics of thousands of wealthy people flying hundreds of jets, and riding in private limos, but telling us to cut back is insulting.

It is and the only thing it will accomplish is confiscate your family's money.

[Anonymous]

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/12373156_964233446977043_1190042524287014430_n.png?oh=fa7fe30c9888c8eabb9e82bbb8a05908&oe=571C19D9">

[Anonymous]

Anyone who thinks that the Paris agreement means we are going to stop using oil and it's byproducts any time soon will be disappointed.



http://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/yedlin-science-and-innovation-hold-the-key-to-paris-targets">http://calgaryherald.com/business/energ ... is-targets">http://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/yedlin-science-and-innovation-hold-the-key-to-paris-targets

The agreement reached on the weekend in Paris by 195 countries to work toward limiting the rise of greenhouse gas emissions and cap the global rise in temperatures at two degrees Celsius was the easy part.



Now the heavy lifting begins.



Anyone touting the Paris agreement as marking the beginning of the world's transition to a fossil fuel free future is nothing short of delusional.



Yes, there are mechanisms for countries to outline their plans on how they will address emissions on a five-year cycle beginning in 2020, as well as a commitment by developed countries to help developing nations deal with the impact of climate change marks progress over previous attempts to reach consensus.



But to believe, for a New York minute, that fossil fuels will not be used to keep the global economy moving — and growing — for decades to come is simply unrealistic; wind power is not going to get a fully-loaded Airbus A380 off the ground and across an ocean.



The fact remains more than 90 per cent of the globe's transportation system — that many take for granted — remains dependent on the use of oil byproducts, including diesel, gasoline and jet fuel.  This also includes the ribbons of asphalt that are increasingly covering more square kilometres in the developing world, and let's not forget 20 per cent from every barrel of oil is used as an input in the petrochemical process for the manufacture of products used in every corner of the globe.



There is a simple reason the world still relies on oil byproducts. Nothing, neither liquefied nor compressed natural gas, comes close to meeting the ability of a molecule of oil to generate energy. That means anything else used as a substitute is much more expensive and less efficient.



Think of this in different context: If the proportion of corporate and household spending for transportation-related activities rises, that has the potential to significantly compromise a company's profit margins, not to mention constrain household spending — and hinder economic growth.



None of this can be discounted or ignored.



Which is why the comments made on Monday by federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau on the importance of the energy sector to Canada's economy were important.



And the transportation issue in Canada is not something to be minimized.



According to the Conference Board of Canada, the emissions from road transportation totalled 137 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2013. That's 24.2 per cent of Canada's total emissions and the largest of any other sector of the economy. By comparison, the oilsands come in at 7.8 per cent, agriculture at 9.6 per cent, electricity at 11.1 per cent and industrial activity at 11.1 per cent.



In fact, it doesn't matter where one looks for the facts — oil and its byproducts will remain the primary source of fuel for transportation around the world. That means any climate agreement that seeks to decrease emissions needs to be addressing the transportation quotient.



Cast a bit differently, the use of fossil fuels for transportation purposes remains a key ingredient to what makes possible the quality of life many around the world enjoy today.



From this one aspect of the global economy — and we haven't even touched the hot topic of coal-fired power — it's critical to stop looking at this challenge through rose-coloured glasses and thinking there is a switch or thermostat that can be regulated or turned off at will.



Perhaps the most constructive way to look at bending the emissions curve is to look at financial theory and the portfolio-based approach to managing risk.



In this case, the goal is to manage emissions. The question is what is available in the renewable context that can be applied with minimal investment of money and time versus the Gordian knot of finding a different way to support the fossil fuel dependent global economy.



Calgary's CTrain system, which runs on renewable power, is an excellent example of figuring out how to harness renewable power for transportation needs — that is also realistic. The trick is to leverage that knowledge into other areas that achieve the goal of transporting people, en masse, cheaply and with a minimal environmental footprint.



There is no one in Calgary who would argue there is enough public transportation infrastructure; the 46-kilometre Green Line LRT project is a perfect example of the types of infrastructure that can be built, and have an impact on a jurisdiction's emissions. If the province is serious about its environmental commitments, it seems like a 'no-brainer' for it to commit to providing the necessary funding to see this project move forward.



Beyond the smart harnessing of renewable power to offset the use of fossil fuels, the other element of the portfolio is the need for research that just might uncover a cheap, green technology that can compete with fossil fuels.



For that to happen, however, a good degree of patience, big dollars and brain power need to be focused on looking for solutions. The $20-billion fund announced by Bill Gates and his group of billionaires is a start. But it's only the beginning of what needs to be a co-ordinated, multi-disciplinary effort that sees academic and industry silos disappear.



Think of it as another open-source approach to solving the carbon conundrum that ultimately results in the optimal allocation of resources in terms of costs and emissions — for renewable and non-renewable forms of energy.

[Anonymous]

As this edition of the Post hits the stands, the great Conclave of Catastrophists in Paris will have concluded. The last goose will gladly have surrendered its swollen liver — foie gras does not come without exertion — to the last epicure environmentalist. We have been told that the French did not stint on lending all the arts of its fabled cuisine to assist the Great Deliberators. State dinners took on something of the largesse and abundance last recorded by Gibbon in his descriptions of the Emperor Heliogabalus, who is reputed to have served up the tongues of hummingbirds, peacock brains and mice sauteed in honey, to the jaded appetites of his decadent court.



The reference here to far earlier times is not accidental or flip. Just as in the early centuries of Christianity, when the patristic Fathers struggled with various heresies and sought to stabilize the dogmas of the then-nascent Faith, held their great Councils to parse the finer points of esoteric doctrine, the Parisian analogue gave itself over to even more subtle ruminations: whether, for example, it was best to "commit" to ensuring the planet's temperature doesn't rise more than 1.5 degrees by the year 2100, or whether it was best merely to hold the thermometer to a more expansive two degrees.



And when what they deliciously refer to as the "settled science" does not serve their needs, they have always about them the ancient texts of Earth in the Balance by Reverend Al Gore, or the early press releases of the Dun Scotus of Global Warming, Cardinal Emeritus George Monbiot.





And where the scholiasts of old, wrestling with imperfect transcriptions and dubious translations of Holy Scripture had only prayer to guide them on the knotty questions of global warming — such as how many polar bears can dance on the edge of an ice floe — the priests of Climatology can always consult the Oracles of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club; or when in deeper need — say on the relationship between the decline of the coral reefs and bovine flatulence — refer to the obiter dicta of Bishops Tutu or Suzuki, on which matters such authorities speak with a Truth beside which that of Scripture is a mere contrail.



Not having been in Paris myself, I cannot speak of how they marked the end of their tormented consultations, whether they wafted a few puffs of invisible carbon dioxide over the steeple of the Eiffel Tower, or burnt a few outdated physics texts to mark the beginning of the new era their meeting signified. But they surely could not have ended without pointing to the example — the evidence-based example I should stress — of what happens when governments take the Dogma of New Green seriously.





If one wishes to learn the true value of what a commitment to the New Learning actually involved, then Ontario is both laboratory and experiment

.

The experience of Ontario, as underscored by the very timely report of its auditor general — released as the great Throng was chewing over these very questions — had to have been an inspiration and a comfort. For Ontario provides, as it were, a case-study of what happens to reason and policy when a government truly gives itself over to the new Meditations. Ontario as all the world knows went Green with fervour, with former premier Dalton McGuinty and his successor, Premier Kathleen Wynne, fancying themselves something of the Copernicus and Tycho Brahe of the New Green Learning. And was it not learned from the auditor general that their great dive into a solar and wind powered future has cost the innocent citizens of Ontario a mere $37 billion more than it should have, which could give rise to another, extra $133 billion by 2032?



If one wishes to learn the true value of what a commitment to the New Learning actually involved, then Ontario is both laboratory and experiment. By what fraction of a degree did the world's temperature actually lower itself — was it 0.01 per cent, 0.001 per cent or any fractional mite in between? — for that $37 billion?



Could it even be — Heresy of Heresies — that maybe the global temperature moved not at all, or — Good Gore, save us — went upwards? We cannot know, for it is the nature of this subject that substantive answers are never possible nor welcome. When dealing with the "airy subtleties" of the new Faith, we must settle for ignorance, but as long as it is for the Great Cause, as long as 50,000 can jet to Paris, Rio or Beijing annually, who cares that we have no certainty? As long as the faith holds, there is no call for certainties.





Save the one more important than all the rest: the idea that the vastly imperfect governments of this world, who between them cannot guarantee anything six months out, can speak with serene confidence on the Whole Atmosphere of our Great Dynamic Planet nearly 100 years from now?



I do not wish to end on a cynical turn here. There has been on undeniable improvement wrought from this great Conclave. St. Leonardo di Caprio, patron spirit of The Yachts of the Monaco Basin, learned for the first time this week that there is such a thing as a chinook. So we now know that there is a least one fact in that well-photographed head of his, and that probably makes it superior to many of those other heads that met so urgently in Paris.





How much mental energy must have been expanded over that winsome 0.5 degrees, 80 years down the road? The subtleties involved, the logical intricacies deployed, would have outpaced Aquinas and sent poor Augustine to bed early with a migraine. However, the modern monks of the High Church of Global Warming have resources that the early philosophers and theologians could not even dream of — they have computer models that dance in the direction wished of them.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-the-high-church-of-global-warming">http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... al-warming">http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-the-high-church-of-global-warming



Rex Murphy on the high church of global warming.

[Anonymous]

Good to see the Australian government is putting their economy first.

Australia approves huge coal terminal, off Great Barrier Reef

Canberra has given its approval to the building one of the world's largest coal shipping terminal near the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental groups have condemned the plan for both local and global reasons.



Australia's federal government has formally approved a plan to construct the world's largest coal terminal at Abbot Point in northern Queensland, just 19 kilometers (12 miles) from the Great Barrier Reef.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the project could go ahead, but only under conditions aimed at protecting the reef marine park from the 1.1 million cubic meters of sludge that would have to be dredged to create the port.

All sludge dug up during dredging would have to be disposed of on land rather than at sea, as was originally planned.

Initial plans called for three million cubic meters of material to be dredged and dumped into waters around the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. However, this was later abandoned after protests.

The Great Barrier Reef is just 19 kilometers out to sea, and coal transport ships will have to navigate a passage through.



With the approval, the terminal is set to become one of the largest in the world, providing export facilities for a major expansion of coal mines in Queensland, including the proposed giant Carmichael mine.

Environmentalists have argued that any expansion at Abbot Point would endanger the World Heritage-listed reef and destroy habitats.

Environmental group 350.org has also condemned the approval of the coal export terminal so soon after the Paris Climate Summit and agreement.

Campaign manager Moira Williams said it was a gateway for coal mining corporations to "unlock one of the world's largest stores of climate-wrecking carbon on the planet."

"The government can't seriously sign on to deals which limit climate damage to 2 degrees and then give a green light to massive coal export projects which guarantee that the 2 degree target can never be met."

The 16-billion-Australian-dollar (11.5-billion-US-dollar) mine will consist of six huge open-cut pits and five underground mines. The ultimate destination for the coal is India where it will be used to generate electricity for 100 million people.

Supporters have said the project would provide thousands of jobs and pump millions into the local economy.

http://www.dw.com/en/australia-approves-huge-coal-terminal-off-great-barrier-reef/a-18933488?maca=en-gk_volltext_microsoft_world-13228-xml-atom">http://www.dw.com/en/australia-approves ... 8-xml-atom">http://www.dw.com/en/australia-approves-huge-coal-terminal-off-great-barrier-reef/a-18933488?maca=en-gk_volltext_microsoft_world-13228-xml-atom

[Anonymous]

Chretien committed this country to unrealistic C02 targets and Harper carried on the tradition. If you think this country's economy is stagnant now, you haven't seen anything if True Dope and crew force us into these massive economy wrecking targets.

Does Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government understand what it would have to do to our economy to meet even former prime minister Stephen Harper's fanciful targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?



Last week, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion suggested the Liberals might leave the Harper targets in place, a shift from previous statements by Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna that the Harper targets were a "floor" the Liberals would try to improve.



"I would argue ... because of the inertia of the federal government over the last 10 years, the target we have tabled in Paris is not easy to meet, contrary to common wisdom," Dion told the Globe and Mail. "It is quite difficult, but doable."



Excuse us, but "doable"?



Meeting Harper's short-term target of Canada lowering emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 would require the Liberals to shut down the equivalent of 58% of Canada's oil and gas sector in five years.



Meeting his 2030 target of 30% below 2005 levels, would require the Liberals to shut down the equivalent of all of Canada's oil and gas sector in 15 years and they would still come up short.



The Liberals blame Harper for Canada being far behind its emissions targets, but that's political spin.



The problem started with the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin Liberal government, when Chretien ratified the Kyoto accord, requiring Canada to lower its emissions by an average of 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.



When the Liberals lost power in 2006, they were so far behind that target, Harper would have had to shut down the equivalent of Canada's transportation sector in two years to meet it.



That's because every year Canada missed its Kyoto target, starting in 2008, would have required deeper cuts in the following years, to achieve an average of 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.



The targets Harper set in power -- which environmentalists insist the Trudeau government has to improve upon -- were as unrealistic as the targets Harper inherited from Chretien.



The only way for the Liberals to achieve the Harper targets without wrecking our economy, would be to buy billions of dollars of carbon credits on the fraud-ridden international carbon markets. Is that what they have in mind?

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/12/18/the-folly-of-canadas-carbon-targets">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/12/18/t ... on-targets">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/12/18/the-folly-of-canadas-carbon-targets

[Anonymous]

Chretien committed this country to unrealistic C02 targets and Harper carried on the tradition. If you think this country's economy is stagnant now, you haven't seen anything if True Dope and crew force us into these massive economy wrecking targets.

Does Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government understand what it would have to do to our economy to meet even former prime minister Stephen Harper's fanciful targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?



Last week, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion suggested the Liberals might leave the Harper targets in place, a shift from previous statements by Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna that the Harper targets were a "floor" the Liberals would try to improve.



"I would argue ... because of the inertia of the federal government over the last 10 years, the target we have tabled in Paris is not easy to meet, contrary to common wisdom," Dion told the Globe and Mail. "It is quite difficult, but doable."



Excuse us, but "doable"?



Meeting Harper's short-term target of Canada lowering emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 would require the Liberals to shut down the equivalent of 58% of Canada's oil and gas sector in five years.



Meeting his 2030 target of 30% below 2005 levels, would require the Liberals to shut down the equivalent of all of Canada's oil and gas sector in 15 years and they would still come up short.



The Liberals blame Harper for Canada being far behind its emissions targets, but that's political spin.



The problem started with the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin Liberal government, when Chretien ratified the Kyoto accord, requiring Canada to lower its emissions by an average of 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.



When the Liberals lost power in 2006, they were so far behind that target, Harper would have had to shut down the equivalent of Canada's transportation sector in two years to meet it.



That's because every year Canada missed its Kyoto target, starting in 2008, would have required deeper cuts in the following years, to achieve an average of 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.



The targets Harper set in power -- which environmentalists insist the Trudeau government has to improve upon -- were as unrealistic as the targets Harper inherited from Chretien.



The only way for the Liberals to achieve the Harper targets without wrecking our economy, would be to buy billions of dollars of carbon credits on the fraud-ridden international carbon markets. Is that what they have in mind?

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/12/18/the-folly-of-canadas-carbon-targets">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/12/18/t ... on-targets">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/12/18/the-folly-of-canadas-carbon-targets

Those targets will cause a lot of pain to Canadians, but have no affect on climate change.

[Anonymous]

I like the analogy of comparing today"s "climate crisis" with the horse shit crisis of nearly 120 years ago.

Ever since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his gigantic delegation of Canadian politicians returned from the Paris climate conference they've been throwing around the idea of "decarbonizing" the Canadian and global economies.



To which one can only respond: "Oy, vey."



It's clear from the statements they're making they don't understand what they're talking about.



Wind and solar power are simply not ready to replace the use of coal, oil and natural gas to produce energy.



They aren't reliable or efficient enough to deliver the power required to fuel modern industrialized countries like our own, or developing nations that want to become part of the first world, like China and India.



The two technologies we have that can most effectively lower global greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, while providing the necessary power, are non-emitting nuclear power and low-emitting natural gas, both of which should be used wherever possible to replace coal as a power source for electricity.



But there's another reason all those poobahs who were running around like chickens with their heads cut off in Paris, screaming that the seas will swallow us and the Arctic will melt if we don't decarbonize immediately were so absurd.



That is, their fear-mongering is based on the assumption that 100 years from now, we will be producing energy in the same way we do today.



To understand the absurdity of this, think of someone in 1900 trying to imagine the world in 2000.



Think of all the things they would know nothing about.



The first example of powered flight by the Wright brothers was still three years away, and space flight, to say nothing of nuclear power, was the stuff of science fiction.



In that context, the Chicken Littles at the Paris conference should remind us of another gathering of similar worthies at the world's first urban planning conference held in New York in 1898.



Back then, the delegates weren't obsessed with fossil fuels but with horse manure. Literally.



In New York in 1898, 200,000 working horses each produced an average of 24 pounds of horse manure daily, meaning almost five million pounds of manure were being dumped on city streets every 24 hours.



As Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner recount in their best-seller, Superfreakonomics:



"In vacant lots, horse manure was piled as high as sixty feet. It lined city streets like banks of snow. In the summer time, it stank to the heavens; when the rains came, a soupy stream of horse manure flooded the crosswalks and seeped into people's basements ... All of this dung was terrifically unhealthy. It was a breeding ground for billions of flies that spread a host of deadly diseases. Rats and other vermin swarmed the mountains of manure to pick out undigested oats and other horse feed ... cities around the world were experiencing the same crisis."



Delegates to the conference concluded that given population growth, global cities would soon become uninhabitable, creating a massive refugee crisis as millions fled for their lives.



Except they failed to account for the rise of the electric streetcar and the mass use of the automobile which, ironically, was originally hailed as the environmental saviour of cities.



Just as we will survive the latest climate "crisis", not because of political scientists who call themselves environmentalists, but because of real scientists and engineers who are already hard at work inventing an energy future for us that we cannot possibly imagine today.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/23/climate-crisis-horse-manure">http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/23/cl ... rse-manure">http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/23/climate-crisis-horse-manure

[Anonymous]

Reducing industrial and residential C02 emissions alone will have no impact on climate.

I spent part of my Christmas vacation this year barbequing outside, without a jacket on.



The last time I spent Christmas outside without a jacket on was 1998. I was visiting family in India.



While I recognize it is not only irresponsible but also statistically incorrect to causally link any one given weather event to climate change, the bleak scientific reality is that oceans are becoming increasingly desalinated, sea levels are rising, extreme heat waves and prolonged droughts are worryingly commonplace, and sea surface temperatures are warmer, all due to climate change.



Yes, our planet is getting warmer. And it's our fault. But it might not be for the reasons you think.



After an agreement was reached at this year's climate conference in Paris, questions about the future of pipelines and oil dominated the headlines.



Yet a major cause of anthropogenic climate change -- and according to one study the number one cause -- was curiously left out of the picture: meat and dairy products.



Most people know that carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, and other compounds all contribute to the warming of our planet via the greenhouse effect.



And while some people may indeed point to methane as a contributing factor, the conversation ends there.



Cow farts just don't make headlines the way other emissions do.



And yet, the facts are there – if you're willing to dig around for them yourself.



The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have both released reports citing the effect of the meat and dairy industry on the state of the environment.



It only takes a little rudimentary Googling to figure out that meat and dairy consumption are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than cars, planes and trains – combined.



As someone who enjoys a double bacon cheeseburger more than her arteries and Hindu grandmother would like, the conversation about climate change strikes me as intellectually lazy at its best and willfully dishonest at its worst.



We can only begin to tackle the gargantuan global conundrum that is climate change if we are not cherry-picking solutions.



Aside from the moral imperative to act on climate change, there is an economic need to act as well.



We can literally no longer afford to ignore the fact that the Earth is getting warmer.



During the 1980s, the depletion of the ozone layer was seen as a serious threat to mankind, and people took note.



Similar to climate change, the destruction of the ozone layer was caused by the man-made increase of compounds in the atmosphere, and like many greenhouse gases, these ozone-depleting substances also exist naturally in the atmosphere.



It was the increasing concentrations of these compounds that disrupted the natural balance.



Yet, unlike greenhouse gases, ozone-depleting substances have dramatically decreased in use and production in industrialized countries since the 1980s.



This was because of an aggressive and concerted international effort to do so, but it was only possible because we had an honest dialogue about what the causes of ozone depletion were, and how best to fight it.



We can all agree that there is no place for the state in the kitchens of the nation.



I don't need a politician telling me what I can and cannot eat, and neither do you.



But we could all use a candid and frank discussion when it comes to climate change so that we can be making responsible, informed choices for ourselves.



-- Dwivedi, educated as an attorney, now works as a public affairs consultant

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/26/lets-treat-all-climate-change-culprits-equally">http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/26/le ... ts-equally">http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/26/lets-treat-all-climate-change-culprits-equally

[Anonymous]

Tightening the noose around the West's transportation, petrochemical and power generation will have no affect on stopping climate change.

[Anonymous]

Anyone getting tired of extremists lies every time there is a flood, drought or excessive snow? Anyone getting tired of hundreds of billions of $$ being wasted on things that cannot help people deal with natural disasters. I know I am.
 

REFER to Climate deal urgent after weather-linked disasters kill 600,000 in 20 years that appears on your website http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1618907">www.thesundaily.my/news/1618907.



It is a mistake for the story (by AFP) on weather-linked disasters to make a connection between extreme weather and global warming with the statement: "The link between the planet's changing climate and extreme weather was clear."



This is one of the few areas of agreement between the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).



In 2012, the IPCC asserted that a relationship between global warming and wildfires, rainfall, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events has not been demonstrated. In their latest assessment report released on Sept 27, 2013, IPCC scientists concluded that they had only "low confidence" that "damaging increases will occur in either drought or tropical cyclone activity" as a result of global warming.



In 2013, the NIPCC concluded the same saying, "in no case has a convincing relationship been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in any of these extreme events."



Instead of wasting money trying to stop extreme weather events from happening, we need to harden our societies to these inevitable events (like deadly flooding in south India) by burying electrical cables underground, and reinforcing buildings and other infrastructure.



Yet, of the over US$1 billion spent globally every day on climate finance, only 6% of it goes to helping people adapt to climate change today. This is the real climate crisis.



Tom Harris

Executive Director

International Climate Science Coalition

Ottawa