Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
From the usual suspects.....you can expect charts and graphs and a dissertation on wind currents, jet stream, ect..
When the simple country folks answer is "It's winter you damn fool" :lol:
I don't see the value in it.
Under those circumstances, skip the middle-man (in asking the question) and jump right to the statement that one desires to make
Do we get options here?
(a) Global Warming
(b) Polar Vortex
(c) Climate Change
(d) Not having a Carbon Tax
It's not that it's winter but the fact we are still very much in an ice age.
I'm giving classes in the cooling thread. Bring an apple or better yet an Appleton.
Why would the Chinese Communists sign an agreement that imposes no obligations on them for the next sixteen years, but which imposes immediate obligations on the United States? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer that question.
The question is: 'What excuse will Justine Trudeau give for canning his 2 MPs over sexual harassment'?
no Chinese obligations??? It's the U.S. that simply needs to keep to BAU to realize it's agreement commitment:
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.
Oh look.
A sudden change of heart from chimpman.
I wonder how that happened lol
Abbott decides that climate change thing needs a dust after all
A sudden change of heart from chimpman.
I wonder how that happened lol
Abbott decides that climate change thing needs a dust after all
Rex Murphy: Obama’s climate ‘deal’ with China? ‘Surrender’ might be a better term | National Post
Best comment yet.
Obama is an idiot.
Obama's followers are even more stupid than their leader.
Is Justin Obama's brother from another father??
Best comment yet.
Obama is an idiot.
Obama's followers are even more stupid than their leader.
Is Justin Obama's brother from another father??
Abbott's a changed man... he's seen the AGW/CC light! Ya... how did that happen???
more... yet more... from your favourite geezer past his 'best before date'. Of course, Murphy hasn't a clue. I'd post that graphic I've now posted (twice) previoiusly, but I do believe you're ignoring it! You know, the one that shows/suggests the U.S. need not do much more than maintain it's current Business As Usual (BAU) path and meet it's commitment emissions reduction. You know, the one that shows the Chinease peak level projection and... ah, let me just post it again... so you can continue to, apparently, ignore it once 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 2030in 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.
Abbott's a changed man... he's seen the AGW/CC light! Ya... how did that happen???
Because it was a lie apparently.
Those ears would sport a fluffy set of flip flops.
It took only two days for Abbott's 'conversion' to climate change to be exposed | smh.com.au
Working on the dubious assumption that China would honour a non binding commitment. One that is 15 years down the trail.
that's right... cause no climate change agreements have ever had any mechanisms built-in to monitor countries progress! :lol: Is that what you're saying? Let's be clear here: is it your position that within the recently announced U.S.-China agreement, there are no mechanisms in place to ensure ongoing monitoring of the progress of each of the respective countries in working towards their pledges? Is that what you're saying?
and yet another guy who fails basic logic in presuming that a peak designation means not having to do anything... at all... until 2030! Have another look at the following graphic. I do believe this may be the 4th time I've had to post it for the challenged... follow the trajectory of the "China pledge" line... sure you can!
no silly! Not the graph itself... the link, the link! Just like you do with your buttHurtin' pics. You know, visual aids! Except in my case this actually relates to the OP... your buttHurtin' pics, not so much!