Last edited:
Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I think it's a pretty significant step forward, in that China hasn't been invovled in any of the past deals. I'm not really sure what Obama has in mind to reduce emissions, though, especially with a Republican controlled Congress.
yes; and again, I thought that would be self-evident in how I described my understanding of the label... which appears to be counter to how most people presume to use the label. Do you have a ready-hand definition... particularly one that reflects upon how you use the label? This isn't intended to be a confrontational ask... there appears to be no commonly understood definition out there (yes, I've looked... researched, as you keep saying). Your definition???
it's a word game because no one presumes (or should presume) the agreement doesn't pass the U.S. Congress without ratification internally... I myself made this exact reference earlier in this thread in regards Kyoto. Depending on Obama's resolve, he may pass an executive order... and yes, Congress may pass all manner of legislation against it... which brings it back to Obama's veto power up against possible 2/3 majority votes to defeat respective vetos. There may be nothing the Democrats savour more than to go into the 2016 election with much of the world negatively focused against the U.S.... should it presume to scuttle the U.S.-China agreement and anything that might flow from it as a precursor to the U.S. equally scuttling the much anticipated COP 21 Paris agreement.
OK. Let's look at the 20%. What is better for my bottom line, to earn 100.00 dollars and be taxed 10% or 1000.00 dollars and be taxed 20%? The fact of the matter is that even if the agreement is followed by China to the letter it is possible China might stablilise it's emissions at double today's current rate even with 20% of their energy from renewables. That doubling still offsets Canada, Japan, Korea, Europe combined if we shut down everything 100% Throw in that the US Congress is not likely to ratify anything Obama does and that the rest of the BRIC is ignored and again......I just don't have much optimism.
My interpretation of peak is the amount of CO2 we emit as a species that has a direct impact on the environment and begins to influence the climate irreparably.
I believe we passed this point somewhere in the 1800s, not due to fossil fuels but due to deforestation. The current levels of fossil fuel are accelerating an anthropogenic climate change process that was previously measured in centuries and more easily adapted to to one that we are measuring in decades with no concrete indications of slowing down.
Renewable energy does very little to curb climate change given the amount of methane, nitrous and other emissions associated with agriculture alone. Think of all the cement that needs to be poured to build neighbourhoods for the 2 billion coming or the 4 billion currently urbanising. Think of the trillions of tires or the billions of batteries for the electric cars needed.
Again....I want to strongly reiterate that I support any reductions or agreements in that direction I just don't see any thing to be optimistic about in the current deal between the US and China beyond they are acknowledging the problem which is in fact pretty big for either of them. If I am missing something here let me know.
which they are doing... and which they are commiting to do even more so as a formal commitment within the agreement:
- 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
What I'm really curious about is what are the greenies gonna do when/if China doesn't comply.
Hopefully, Suzuki and his ilk will organize a mass protest and travel to China to picket the power plants, gvt buildings, etc... I hear that Tienanmen Square is a great place to get this done
Hopefully, Suzuki and his ilk will organize a mass protest and travel to China to picket the power plants, gvt buildings, etc... I hear that Tienanmen Square is a great place to get this done
of course, that's the broadest and proper definition of peak. That wasn't the context... I specifically spoke to, as the agreement does, China's 2030 peak emissions level being reached... meaning, per commitment, it can't go beyond this peak level.
changes to get there (by/in 2030)... and not go beyond the emission level of 2030
Not a thing!
Providing cover for China is what the goal is and they think this provides cover till 2030.
I agree... it IS just as funny.
China does have a want to be perceived positively in the world... nothing showed that more than the Beijing Olympics. The Tiananmen Square images of 15 years ago is not the world image "today's China" wants to project. And again, given their own pollution, China must make changes for its own people...
If it is too late with current levels......how will increasing them further before stabilising help? Sure stopping at twice today's emissions is better than hitting four or six times as much but again, you'll have to really dumb down what you see here as good news in order for me to understand it.