can you explain how a peak output level is realized with no lead-up action/change? Peak means... peak... you can't go higher, right?
account numbers? What does this mean? Please clarify what you mean by this - thanks.
Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
can you explain how a peak output level is realized with no lead-up action/change? Peak means... peak... you can't go higher, right?
account numbers? What does this mean? Please clarify what you mean by this - thanks.
U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south
Obama's new 2025 climate goals as announced in a deal with China equates to subtracting 20 to 24 Keystone XLs from the American landscape. Predictably, Republican heads are exploding.
WASHINGTON—Imagine a vast American army of climate-cleaning tractors plowing up dozens of Keystone XL pipelines, dumping their cold steel remains in the recycling bin, quashing their greenhouse gas emissions forever.
If you take the raw U.S. numbers at face value, that is the magnitude of President Barack Obama’s ambitious new 2025 climate reduction targets, announced late Tuesday in a surprise deal with China.
There are many ways to express the scale of carbon removal laid out in the unexpected handshake agreement between the world’s two largest polluters.
You can measure it at the tailpipes of millions of American cars and trucks, you can measure it in millions of homes worth of heating and cooling, you can measure it by decades of global air travel.
Or you can measure it in units of Keystone XL pipelines. And if you do, the new American targets — which aim to double the pace of reductions, bringing U.S. emissions 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025 — add up to 20 to 24 Keystone XL pipelines, according to the U.S. State Department’s own figures.
Here’s the math: Obama pledge would subtract an additional 539.91 to 659.89 million metric tonnes (MMT) of annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions between 2020 and 2025, over and above the earlier 17 per cent target that the U.S. and Canada agreed to in 2009 in Copenhagen.
The U.S. State Department, meanwhile, in its Final Environmental Impact Study in January, estimated Keystone XL’s peak annual life-cycle GHG emissions at 27.4 MMT. The numbers crunch out at equal to 20 to 24 pipelines.
Not surprisingly, Republican head are exploding.
Coming exactly a week after the U.S. electorate handed control of Congress back to the GOP, leading conservatives portrayed the deal as the work of a delusional Barack Obummer, Job-Crusher-In-Chief. They vowed to block the move at every turn, and to push harder than ever for the long-awaited approval of the controversial Alberta-to-Texas Keystone XL project.
How Obama intends to deliver in what is shaping up an extremely combative final two years in power remains nebulous.
But as the Washington Post noted in its detailed unpacking of the agreement, getting China to shake hands for the first time ever on carbon limits is no small thing. Depending on how the rest of the world responds, the China-U.S. climate deal could mark the first big shift back toward global action.
"Reductions by the two countries are not only essential to try and prevent the warming that science links to increased emissions but also set a path forward for other countries,” the Post concluded.
Close watchers of the Canada-U.S. energy file, meanwhile, remain mixed on whether Obama now intends to nix Keystone XL. As recently as last week, the president downplayed the pipeline as a “small aspect” of the total U.S. energy picture, saying “Let’s keep in mind this is Canadian oil, this is not U.S. oil.”
But Obama now faces not only Republican opposition but a boiling revolt by oil-friendly Senate Democrats, who are pushing to bring the pipeline to a rapid vote as leverage to save the seat of embattled Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, who faces withering odds in a runoff election next month.
Obama would then be forced to approve — or veto — the Canadian pipeline, ending once and for all six years of cognitive dissonance. Approval would devastate much the environmental constituency that has built Keystone into a defining climate issue. But others argue that the new deal with China gives him all the cover he needs, enabling the view of Keystone as a tempest in a tarpot, a minor carbon-raising factor in a much grander scheme to bring America’s overall numbers down.
For Canada, Obama’s new climate targets drive home the widening gap between Ottawa and Washington. Though both countries came away from a deal in Copenhagen five years ago with matching targets, only the U.S. is on track to meeting theirs. Canada, by contrast, is expected to fall short by half, according to Environment Canada’s most recent analysis of emission trends north of the border.
“Canada has long justified its own failures to limit the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by pointing to heavy emitters like the U.S. and China, but that excuse does not stand up to scrutiny,” the Calgary-based Pembina Institute said Wednesday in a statement.
But the U.S.-China deal means “Canada has run out of excuses” and now must act comprehensively “both to do our fair share to address climate change, and to help Canadian industry compete in a world that is increasingly pursuing lower-carbon energy,” Pembina said.
Warren Mabee, an energy policy expert at Queen’s University, suggested the overlapping issues of Keystone XL and Canadian inaction on climate could converge, with Obama making pipeline approval conditional on new emissions reduction pledges from Ottawa.
Mabee also noted that China’s promise to curb greenhouse gas emissions would almost certainly involve cuts in coal consumption, with likely consequences for Canada.
“This will hit Canada to some extent as we do export coal from B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan into the Asia-Pacific market, but these are very small exports compared to oil and gas,” he said.
But China’s shift could also involve increased demand for cleaner-burning natural gas, which could be good news for Canada “if we can get our projects off the ground,” said Mabee.
U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south
Republican heads are exploding because the Republicans, unlike Obama, are NOT trying to destroy the United States of America.
Insanity.
Obama agrees to hobble the USA economically, in an agreement that ties China to absolutely NOTHING until 2030.
The man is a lunatic.
Thankfully, this will NEVER get by Congress.
Oh Waldo... the latest alarmist nut to enter our great forum. Can you explain how this is relevant to what I was saying?
China will not have to restructure or do anything until 2030. In fact... in 2030 China will still not have to do anything.
China will do as China does. Anything they wish. The Global Warming zealots know this and they know they need to provide China cover to get what they want.
Clarify your clarification needs.
You're welcome
as a part of the 2011 COP 16, South Africa communicated that it will implement mitigation initiatives:
how is the following your designated "NOTHING"?
- 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
- China has pledged a peak designation point of 2030... which means, of course, China must radically structure it's current infrastructure toward that end
- China has pledged a peak designation point of 2030... which means, of course, China must radically structure it's current infrastructure toward that end
It's just a combination of mild humour and social commentary over the perception of Chinese technology helping to alleviate greenhouse gasses.
Having said that, Chinese carbon emissions will not likely peak in 2030 anymore than the original signatories to the Kyoto protocol hit their targets. It is a feel good arbitrary target almost a complete generation in the future. As for nukes.......China can build all the reactors they want but IMHO it is a moot point as any leveling off or reductions in CO2 emissions will be (are already being) negated by the increased methane being released from the permafrost of a warming Arctic and when that really kicks off look out.
Whether climate change proves to be a good or bad thing for humanity I suppose remains to be seen and while we perhaps can slow it down I really don't see stopping this train.
"alarmist nut"??? Are you yet another member on this board that can't discuss anything without resorting to insult?
let me repeat the question you refuse to acknowledge/answer:
apparently, China wants to do something - see U.S.- China agreement. If nothing else, this is self-preservation on China's part... in its rapid industrialization, major Chinese cities are now exhibiting the same pollution/smog that the U.S. experienced in the 70s.
no problem; I thought you might actually want to back up your statement!
I call them as I see them.
China will do as China has done. Pretty much ignore the likes of you and do what is in the best interest of the Party.
I did back it up. The sad part is that folks like you think you actually bought China cover for 16 years. Sadly for you this agreement means zilch.
China, the U.S. and climate change: Yes, this is a really, really big deal
International agreements to cut greenhouse-gas emissions have always been dogged by simple math: If the two countries that produce 40 per cent of the planet’s emissions aren’t on board, the efforts by dozens of relatively tiny emitter nations to cut back will amount to little. You’ve got to have China and the U.S. – the number one and two emitters, respectively – leading the way. Problem: Neither of the two has wanted to reduce emissions without the other, lest it hurt their economic positions.
Problem solved. The surprise U.S.-China joint agreement on climate change announced Wednesday could be a historic moment in what the deal correctly describes as “one of the greatest threats facing humanity.” A lot has to fall into place in the coming years for this to happen, and the deal will be a tough sell in the U.S. But barring a setback, the agreement opens the door to broader international cutbacks, perhaps as early as next year. Smaller countries can no longer say “Why bother?” now that the big two are in the game in a serious way.
Under the agreement, the U.S. has pledged to reduce its emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels, by 2025. China has agreed to cap emissions by 2030, and to produce 20 per cent of its energy using non-fossil fuels (e.g. nuclear, solar and wind) by the same year. Both countries have also agreed to try to beat these targets.
On the surface, this comes across as a better deal for China than for the U.S. Basically, China gets to keep increasing its emissions until 2030, while the U.S. has to reduce its emissions at a faster rate than it had already agreed to under previous targets. Ever-shortsighted Republicans in Washington have been quick to exploit this angle as they vow to scuttle the agreement.
But that’s not the whole picture. In previous climate deals, China agreed to slow the growth of its emissions, but this is the first time it has agreed that it must eventually cap and then reverse them. That’s as notable as it is exasperating. China had always insisted on its “right” to catch up with Western countries that spent most of the 20th century gumming up the atmosphere in order to grow their economies. Other developing countries have made the same dubious claim, but now that card is finally off the table.
China’s motivation is simple: Its cities are smog-ridden and its people are getting sick. The government has to take steps to reduce a visible threat to public health, and to its own legitimacy. It also wants to be seen as willing to join in the fight against a danger that threatens the entire world.
The deal, in short, is good for China, good for the U.S. and good for the rest of the world. Perfect? No. Significant progress? Yes. It will inject momentum into future climate talks by reducing the skepticism of small countries.
And the agreement stands as a challenge to Canada. The Harper government has been reluctant to get ahead of the U.S. when it comes to regulating carbon output, for fear of harming Canadian industry. But our two largest trading partners have now agreed to take a historic steps on greenhouse gas emissions. Washington and Beijing’s big move on global warming has put the heat on Ottawa.
China, the U.S. and climate change: Yes, this is a really, really big deal - The Globe and Mail
International agreements to cut greenhouse-gas emissions have always been dogged by simple math: If the two countries that produce 40 per cent of the planet’s emissions aren’t on board, the efforts by dozens of relatively tiny emitter nations to cut back will amount to little. You’ve got to have China and the U.S. – the number one and two emitters, respectively – leading the way. Problem: Neither of the two has wanted to reduce emissions without the other, lest it hurt their economic positions.
Problem solved. The surprise U.S.-China joint agreement on climate change announced Wednesday could be a historic moment in what the deal correctly describes as “one of the greatest threats facing humanity.” A lot has to fall into place in the coming years for this to happen, and the deal will be a tough sell in the U.S. But barring a setback, the agreement opens the door to broader international cutbacks, perhaps as early as next year. Smaller countries can no longer say “Why bother?” now that the big two are in the game in a serious way.
Under the agreement, the U.S. has pledged to reduce its emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels, by 2025. China has agreed to cap emissions by 2030, and to produce 20 per cent of its energy using non-fossil fuels (e.g. nuclear, solar and wind) by the same year. Both countries have also agreed to try to beat these targets.
On the surface, this comes across as a better deal for China than for the U.S. Basically, China gets to keep increasing its emissions until 2030, while the U.S. has to reduce its emissions at a faster rate than it had already agreed to under previous targets. Ever-shortsighted Republicans in Washington have been quick to exploit this angle as they vow to scuttle the agreement.
But that’s not the whole picture. In previous climate deals, China agreed to slow the growth of its emissions, but this is the first time it has agreed that it must eventually cap and then reverse them. That’s as notable as it is exasperating. China had always insisted on its “right” to catch up with Western countries that spent most of the 20th century gumming up the atmosphere in order to grow their economies. Other developing countries have made the same dubious claim, but now that card is finally off the table.
China’s motivation is simple: Its cities are smog-ridden and its people are getting sick. The government has to take steps to reduce a visible threat to public health, and to its own legitimacy. It also wants to be seen as willing to join in the fight against a danger that threatens the entire world.
The deal, in short, is good for China, good for the U.S. and good for the rest of the world. Perfect? No. Significant progress? Yes. It will inject momentum into future climate talks by reducing the skepticism of small countries.
And the agreement stands as a challenge to Canada. The Harper government has been reluctant to get ahead of the U.S. when it comes to regulating carbon output, for fear of harming Canadian industry. But our two largest trading partners have now agreed to take a historic steps on greenhouse gas emissions. Washington and Beijing’s big move on global warming has put the heat on Ottawa.
China, the U.S. and climate change: Yes, this is a really, really big deal - The Globe and Mail
As for nukes.......China can build all the reactors they want but IMHO it is a moot point as any leveling off or reductions in CO2 emissions will be (are already being) negated by the increased methane being released from the permafrost of a warming Arctic and when that really kicks off look out.
Whether climate change proves to be a good or bad thing for humanity I suppose remains to be seen and while we perhaps can slow it down I really don't see stopping this train.
of course, we could talk about methane release from permafrost and sea shelves... and how much more "potent" methane is as GHG compared to CO2... with the only "saving grace" being CH4 having a significantly reduced residence time relative to CO2. But, of course, that all flows from whatever CO2 stability measures/timeline can be realized in the first place.
That is a joke, which is the point. The Chinese must be hurting themselves laughing at that incompetent moron Obama.
China will restructure nothing that they would not have done anyway.
And it will not affect the climate one bit! And China does not have to do anything but what they've always done... Nothing!
A big deal indeed for China.
pfft... the US will ignore it too. It's just a deal to give you guys woodys.
you could accomplish your same ends without the added insult
what China has done, in the face of rapid industrialization, is introduce world-leading efforts toward CCS coal-plants, has eliminated older less efficient coal plants in favour of latest technology "more efficient" coal plants, has radically shifted toward nuclear, has been a world leader in renewable research alternatives and installed deployments. Of course, the balance China faces, is to clean-up the toxic air in it's largest cities. And in the face of this U.S.-China agreement, you suggest China "is ignoring the problem"!
you clearly don't have any grasp on the history of China's industrialization relative to the rest of the world, particularly the U.S.:
why are these following pledged commitments, to you, "a joke"?
- 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
- China has pledged a peak designation point of 2030... which means, of course, China must radically structure it's current infrastructure toward that end
what is the point? The point is to..... reduce CO2 emissions by the world's 2 leading emitters.- China has pledged a peak designation point of 2030... which means, of course, China must radically structure it's current infrastructure toward that end
I agree with you in principal except that I believe we have crossed the tipping point already. Having said that, I am still in favour of doing everything possible to reduce carbon emissions I just don't believe either the USA or China will actually do anything given not only the histories of those two countries but the history of every other country in meeting it's own goals and targets as laid out in these agreements.
Looking beyond even that, reference the recent decision by Spain to start restricting and more aggressively taxing solar or the alt energy king Germany now penalizing off grid infrastructure. Both of these liberal democracies saw a surge in renewables....evaluated there was an adverse effect on the overall economy and are working to curb it.
China is not exactly known for tolerating anything that might affect their economy so I highly doubt they will meet their targets even if they honestly try.
All you need to know about China making a fool out of Obama:
China approves massive new coal capacity despite pollution fears | Reuters
China approves massive new coal capacity despite pollution fears | Reuters
I'll stick with alarmist.
All this and they are STILL a "Developing Nation"!
At any rate... this is all more cover provided for China by the alarmist. Everyone knows China isn't going to agree to anything that will stop their progress. They will nod and smile and that is about it. China will do what is best for China as they have always done.
I do not think that this is relevant in any way. China is one of... if not the most industrialized, powerful and capable nations on earth regardless of how much energy the simple Chinese citizen uses. And their power and strength is growing and will continue to grow unchecked and bound by none. That's why your movement cowers and grovels before the Chinese Govt.
China is not exactly known for tolerating anything that might affect their economy so I highly doubt they will meet their targets even if they honestly try.
Well said GFPB.
And they won't even try.
But these poor souls have such faith and such an emotional investment that they need to believe.
Last edited: