Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
no! Again:
ya see... China can't keep on, as many claim, "doing nuthin" (aka Business-As-Usual (BAU)), and reach the peak pledge level (cutting its net carbon pollution between 2015 and 2030 by about 20 billion tons.)... notwithstanding as a part of the U.S.-China deal, China has pledged to increase the share of energy consumed from non-emissions sources like renewables, nuclear energy and hydro-electricity to 20 percent by 2030
in reality, on it's current trajectory, it is the U.S. pledge that will require the U.S. to do, relatively speaking, NOT MUCH MORE than maintain it's current BAU interests... to date, U.S. emissions are already 10–15% below 2005 levels (which aligns with the prior 2009 pledge Obama made to reach a 17% reduction by 2020... the same pledge Harper made but refused to even address). To date, U.S. emissions are falling by about 1.5% per year... for the U.S. to reach the pledged target of 26–28% emissions cuts below 2005 levels by 2025, the U.S. will only be required to continue its current ongoing rate of yearly emission reductions.
No, that was the House of Representatives (House of Commons equivalent). The Senate has yet to take it up.
And don't overdo the comparison. In foreign affairs, the President has pretty much sole power. But the Constitution states that the Senate must consent to treaties by a 2/3 vote or they do not bind the U.S.
KXL is not a treaty.
That is precisely what the article MF posted says. Perhaps you guys should get together and come up with a solid answer for what this deal actually is.
And I did not read 10 pages of this topic nor do I intend to.
Thanks for acknowledging that China is opening up new coal fired power plants at a rapid pace. China is developing energy sources on a full spectrum basis including coal, other fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, etc. China is not wedded to any one form of power generation. Coal will continue to be part of the mix. China will do whatever it has to in order to grow the economy. If the economy doesn't continue to grow the Chinese Communist Party will lose the "Mandate of Heaven."
perhaps someone, anyone... of the "China doesn't have to do anything till 2030" crowd here can finally answer my several times made questioning/challenge as to how China can meet a peak commitment (and not go beyond it, cause it's at its peak) while doing nothing today, continuing 'Business As Usual', in moving towards that peak level. And more pointedly, perhaps someone, anyone... of that same crowd could back up their "doing nuthin claim" with actual reference to/support from the actual U.S.-China agreement itself.
The Clinton Administration signed it... the US Senate did not ratify it. It's that meddlesome "checks and balances" thing. In other words, the ink on Clinton's pen is worthless if it is not backed up by the Legislative branch of the U.S Government. You should read up on the different branches of U.S Governments if you decide to get a clue someday.
So the United States was not part of Kyoto. The United States had no obligation to it nor commitments. That is why it was hilarious when Kyoto fell apart! It was a great laugh and such a good "I told you so" moment.
Canada had commitments though. They were bound by the protocol but when they did not make the grade and owed $14 BILLION they wisely pulled out and smartly turned their backs.
You working on the premise that if you keep reposting the same BS often enough someone besides you and maybe MF will believe it?
of course! As will an assortment of fossil-fuel sources for all countries, for some time. The only question is how far and how fast the dependency is lowered... in that regard, more reputable sources have mapped out 40-to-50 year so-called roadmap plans to accomplish that end. An end that will, of course, still see a dependency to some level/degree on fossil-fuels... how could it not?
I'm not grammar-Naziing you, just trying to help you. At some point somebody's going to jump you and divert by saying the Senate does not "ratify" treaties. Ratification is a technical term having to do with the proper filing of treaties. You probably want to use the terms "consent" or "concur" (both are in the Constitution, Article II, section 2, clause 2).The Clinton Administration signed it... the US Senate did not ratify it. It's that meddlesome "checks and balances" thing. In other words, the ink on Clinton's pen is worthless if it is not backed up by the Legislative branch of the U.S Government. You should read up on the different branches of U.S Governments if you decide to get a clue someday.
So the United States was not part of Kyoto. The United States had no obligation to it nor commitments. That is why it was hilarious when Kyoto fell apart! It was a great laugh and such a good "I told you so" moment.
Canada had commitments though. They were bound by the protocol but when they did not make the grade and owed $14 BILLION they wisely pulled out and smartly turned their backs.
You know and I know what the Senate does is commonly known as "ratification," but I just wanted to give you a heads-up and help you to avoid this particular useless diversion in the future.
I'll post the image again... as you appear intent on ignoring it. Look at the graphic and reconcile it with the year of the Kyoto Protocol and the level of Chinese industrialization at that point. China today: 1.4 billion people... the U.S. today: 315 million people. Would you like to provide a current day number for per-capita emissions... U.S. versus China... sure you would! Notwithstanding, of course, the emissions western countries outsource to China! There ya go!
Millions of tonnes of fossil fuels carbon emissions...
China- 1,955
US- 1,755
And China was given a pass.
Per person usage... pfft... what of it? The per person usage has no bearing on the power of a nation as big as China. Because the average Chinese citizen uses less power than the average U.S citizen has no bearing on the carbon emissions output. China is a highly developed nation, the world's second biggest economy, a massive and capable military, a manned space program... yet they are exempt. Somehow Canada owed $14 Billion and China owed nothing. Suckers.
Yet the UN gave China a pass... the Kyoto Protocol gave them a pass. What a bunch of weaklings.
The Clinton Administration signed it... the US Senate did not ratify it. It's that meddlesome "checks and balances" thing. In other words, the ink on Clinton's pen is worthless if it is not backed up by the Legislative branch of the U.S Government. You should read up on the different branches of U.S Governments if you decide to get a clue someday.
So the United States was not part of Kyoto. The United States had no obligation to it nor commitments. That is why it was hilarious when Kyoto fell apart! It was a great laugh and such a good "I told you so" moment.
you keep repeating yourself and you keep reinforcing exactly what I've said. Again, the U.S. signed the agreement and made committments therein. The U.S. significantly influenced the format/makeup of the agreement. The U.S. significantly influenced what other nations did in terms of their own acceptance and commitments made within the treaty. Again, if it makes you feel better, please continue to ignore the negotiation/signatory side of the agreement and all the U.S. influence played out in that regard, while emphasing the internal domestic ratification side.
yes, as I said, please continue to highlight the Harper Conservative hypocrisy in ignoring then formally abrogating Canada's Kyoto treaty commitments... while instead pushing an alternate Harper Conservative "made in Canada" emission reduction commitment... and ignoring it... while instead committing to a joint U.S.-Canada "harmonized" emission reduction commitment... and ignoring it. That's a Harper Conservative Kyoto treaty abrogation done and rationalized by Harper Conservatives by making other commitments... and ignoring them!
Should do it on something relevant like tons per square mile and see what the results are.
The issue with Kyoto and Canada was Creitien signing knowing there was absolutely no way the targets could be met. But it was a great Lieberal photo-op. Harper was wise to ignore and revoke.
yeesh! I specifically made a point to emphasize you look at the graphic and what it presents in terms of the Kyoto Protocol treaty negotiations... so, of course, you ignore that and look at the 2007 referenced numbers. Do you actually know what date the treaty was negotiated... try 1995 COP 1 in Berlin where negotiations formed the basis for target commitments.
no - I'm working on the premise that you're so far beyond accepting anything that's factual, it doesn't matter what you think to me.
The UN and IPCC don't want to measure in a per sqft basis; interestinly enough, they don't want to give credit for carbon-sinks on that basis either.
An interesting contradiction in light of these Chicken-Littles constantly bleating and moaning about saving Gaia
Last edited: