Wrong. Under our system, the president's signature isn't valid without consent of the Senate. Ergo "with that signature" we did not "commit to targeted emission reductions."
The people that just passed XL?
Wrong. Under our system, the president's signature isn't valid without consent of the Senate. Ergo "with that signature" we did not "commit to targeted emission reductions."
So in essence China will keep and increase their emmissions until 2030. What about this 'we gotta act now before its too late' stuff I keep hearing from the GWers? Sounds like I should not worry about it until then either since it is clearly not an immediate concern.
Also why on Earth would the USA sign such a stupid thing? We do it now and you may do it in 2030.
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.The people that just passed XL?
no! Again:
you keep bringing a lot of anecdote! Yes, China is heavily invested in coal... but is leading CCS R&D and trial deployment... is decommisioning older less efficient plants in favour of new higher efficiency plants. That "one every 10 days" meme is based on a now dated U.S. government projection, one made long before China turned to nuclear:
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.
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.
I'll suggest it to the next Constitutional Convention.One of those levels needs to be axed.
the U.S. signed it and with that signature committed to targeted emission reductions... the U.S. chose to turn its back on it's signed agreement and commitments made therein... and all the influence it brought to drafting the treaty... and all the influence it carried in bringing other nations to also commit to targets and sign the treaty based upon U.S. participation... by refusing to ratify it domestically. If it makes you somehow feel better by emphasing the ratification side while ignoring the negotiation and signatory side... hey, have at er! :lol:
no! Again:
Coal will continue to be part of the mix.
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.
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!
![]()
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.
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.
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!
Millions of tonnes of fossil fuels carbon emissions...
China- 1,955
US- 1,755
And China was given a pass.
Yet the UN gave China a pass... the Kyoto Protocol gave them a pass. What a bunch of weaklings.
You working on the premise that if you keep reposting the same BS often enough someone besides you and maybe MF will believe it?
Should do it on something relevant like tons per square mile and see what the results are.