Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
your own linked reference: "Total new capacity, including small mines, likely to be higher"..... which, of course, speaks to my earlier reference to China decommissioning older less efficient plants for newer higher efficiency plants.


Yabut ARTICLE TITLE supports his agenda.


I am saving this for future pwnage..


 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,209
14,249
113
Low Earth Orbit
High efficiency requiring 820 million MORE tonnes of coal by next year?

back to insulting hey? Didn't you learn your lesson last night? What happened to your post, hey?

My lesson? I learned you are even more f-cked in the head than I thought?
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
My lesson? I learned you are even more f-cked in the head than I thought?

no - what you should have learned... is even this board has limits. Limits you clearly went beyond to the point it just couldn't be left to stand. Hence it was (properly) removed. Are you now wanting to try again? See if you can get there, yet again?

in any case, there was a bit of meaningful discussion in this thread before you decided you needed to stop it. Well done - mission accomplished, hey!
 

grainfedpraiboy

Electoral Member
Mar 15, 2009
715
1
18
Alberta The Last Best West
what's not realized by too many is that both the U.S. and China have been doing things, taking measures. The U.S. is actually on track to meet it's prior 17% reduction commitment (from 2005 levels)... the same lock-step commitment that Harper defaulted to with his "harmonization with the U.S." pledge... one he/Harper Conservatives have completely reneged upon.



in recent weeks announcements, Germany is back on board meeting it's most aggressive 2020 renewables percentage target... as of 2012, renewable energy generated 22% of Germany’s electric power supply... meeting its own 35% renewable power target by 2020 will be a measure of the new plan and resolve of the existing German government.



except now they have no choice given just how bad the air is in its major cities.

Again you are right when looking at certain trees but when you look at the whole forest I just don't share your optimism and here's why (source US EPA):




China is already the world's largest emitter of CO2. The current agreement just signed has no target for China only that it will keep growing until 2030 and then stablilise. That means their emissions during this time could go up 10%, double, triple who knows?




This means that under the current agreement, all the positives you see elsewhere will still be offset just by growth in the Chinese economy for the next 15 years meaning that CO2 emissions still to grow just from China will likely be more than all the globes natural sources combined.

Couple that with a population growth of several billion over the next generation or two and just the increase in nitrous oxide to feed all those people let alone the cars they will drive or the cell phones they will speak on off set a hundred future nuke plants.

I just don't see anything in this agreement to be optimistic about other than a country like China acknowledging there is a problem.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
The current agreement just signed has no target for China only that it will keep growing until 2030 and then stablilise.

I've asked others to expand on this; I've not been answered yet. Again, the concept of peak implies you can't go beyond it... because... it's not peak then. To meet that 2030 peak commitment, significant... radical, no less, changes will be required before getting there... to get there. Do you have a different interpretation/understanding of "peak"?

notwithstanding: - China has pledged to increase the share of energy consumed from nonemissions sources like renewables, nuclear energy and hydro-electricity to 20 percent by 2030
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
I thought my post might be suggestive of how I interpret some people use the word. My impression is too many people use the label alarmist without actually thinking... or knowing... what it means, even to them. Asking someone to qualify how they use the alarmst label appears to be a most confrontational ask. I did ask you once...

I'll ask you again... did you research it?



why the word games? Yes, there are 2 stages: as a signatory of the agreement, the U.S. has made commitments... at that level. Having the U.S. Congress ratify the agreement is another thing... I don't believe Obama can push that through with an executive order... do you know?

How is it a word game? Is there a ratified treaty? If so... show me.

Although he would like to think so... our President is not yet an Emperor so his word is not the commitments of the U.S. Painful as it must be to those who believe it is... it is not. The President came to some agreement with China... already it is being attacked. This will not pass muster with Congress and any executive order will be slashed to ribbons.

There is no U.S commitment.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
If China wants a sustainable economy they can't lean exclusively on a high emissions industry.

It's in their best interest to adapt clean tech.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Yet China is doing just that!

And is economically disadvantageous for them to continue having the reputation as a big polluter.

They already know that a big shift is necessary for them to compete and I would expect that in 20 or so years, you will see a very different global economy.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,209
14,249
113
Low Earth Orbit
1.8t of CO2 to make 1t of steel....

I hope they plan on using bamboo to build the 80 nuke and coal powerplants needed.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
And is economically disadvantageous for them to continue having the reputation as a big polluter.

They already know that a big shift is necessary for them to compete and I would expect that in 20 or so years, you will see a very different global economy.

IF... IF CHINA decides it is economically disadvantageous then they will adjust as they see fit and in their best interests.

But to please the likes of your crowd? EL OH EL
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,209
14,249
113
Low Earth Orbit
1/3 of the coke used on the planet annually to make steel is consumed by China.

Do any of you know what coke is?