|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jun 2, 2017 12:49:59 GMT
Well yes, but that doesn't make the aims of the Paris Summit any less worthwhile. It would be nice to think that the leader of the biggest economy in the world (and, arguably, of the free world) gave a toss about the planet. It would be nice to think he appreciates the moral leadership he should be giving in defence of our environment. Instead, he's looking at it purely in economic terms, and his reasoning even on these terms is self-serving. He doesn't like the accord because it might damage American industry, and might also damage the political and monetary support he gets from some sectors of that industry. Climate change is, apparently, a fallacy invented by the Chinese and others who seek to undermine the USA. You really 'couldn't make it up', yet that's exactly what Trump's been doing for months now. Not disagreeing, but I was surprised it was just an aspirational bit of paper, rather than a binding agreement. The more I think about it, the more pointless it is if the leader of country doesn't want to follow it can tear it up and walk away. Ultimately, he did what he said he would. Disappointing, but no one should be as surprised as they are. I understand there are some financial penalties if the US leaves the group, but who's going to claim them? Trump won't care who he upsets. Yes, he did exactly what he said he would. I just don't see that as a positive trait under every circumstance. Some people would like 'a Trump' in charge of the UK, considering him a strong leader on the basis of this type of action. Let's see how it works out for the US.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 2, 2017 13:08:16 GMT
Not disagreeing, but I was surprised it was just an aspirational bit of paper, rather than a binding agreement. The more I think about it, the more pointless it is if the leader of country doesn't want to follow it can tear it up and walk away. Ultimately, he did what he said he would. Disappointing, but no one should be as surprised as they are. I understand there are some financial penalties if the US leaves the group, but who's going to claim them? Trump won't care who he upsets. Yes, he did exactly what he said he would. I just don't see that as a positive trait under every circumstance. Some people would like 'a Trump' in charge of the UK, considering him a strong leader on the basis of this type of action. Let's see how it works out for the US. No one. Because Trump won't care to pay. Which says a lot about the accord doesn't it? The US account for 15% of global emissions, so there are still 85% to work on. Let's face it, China and India can significantly help reduce emissions and look after the environment in a better way. I say this completely contrarily. Perhaps focussing on hydrogen on the vehicle fuel of the future is important than the accord? Just think, if we can reduce the reliance on petrol and diesel and then eradicate it, we will go a long way to getting emissions down. But we persist with the power grid reliance of electric cars as the alternative or hybrids.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jun 2, 2017 13:18:37 GMT
I understand there are some financial penalties if the US leaves the group, but who's going to claim them? Trump won't care who he upsets. Yes, he did exactly what he said he would. I just don't see that as a positive trait under every circumstance. Some people would like 'a Trump' in charge of the UK, considering him a strong leader on the basis of this type of action. Let's see how it works out for the US. No one. Because Trump won't care to pay. Which says a lot about the accord doesn't it? The US account for 15% of global emissions, so there are still 85% to work on. Let's face it, China and India can significantly help reduce emissions and look after the environment in a better way. I say this completely contrarily. Perhaps focussing on hydrogen on the vehicle fuel of the future is important than the accord? Just think, if we can reduce the reliance on petrol and diesel and then eradicate it, we will go a long way to getting emissions down. But we persist with the power grid reliance of electric cars as the alternative or hybrids. My turn to be contrary. Bearing in mind that Trump knows he can pull out at any time, and that he can ignore any agreed protocols without punishment, and that if he refuses to pay his way no-one can force him to, why doesn't he just stay a member and at least give the outward appearance of being environmentally conscious? I guess because simply being a member would p*ss off the powerful lobbies he relies on. If the US were fully behind Paris that would exert pressure on everyone else. As it is, the whole agreement is likely to collapse as state after state pull out. The most powerful have the most responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by plonker on Jun 2, 2017 16:02:30 GMT
No one. Because Trump won't care to pay. Which says a lot about the accord doesn't it? The US account for 15% of global emissions, so there are still 85% to work on. Let's face it, China and India can significantly help reduce emissions and look after the environment in a better way. I say this completely contrarily. Perhaps focussing on hydrogen on the vehicle fuel of the future is important than the accord? Just think, if we can reduce the reliance on petrol and diesel and then eradicate it, we will go a long way to getting emissions down. But we persist with the power grid reliance of electric cars as the alternative or hybrids. My turn to be contrary. Bearing in mind that Trump knows he can pull out at any time, and that he can ignore any agreed protocols without punishment, and that if he refuses to pay his way no-one can force him to, why doesn't he just stay a member and at least give the outward appearance of being environmentally conscious? I guess because simply being a member would p*ss off the powerful lobbies he relies on. If the US were fully behind Paris that would exert pressure on everyone else. As it is, the whole agreement is likely to collapse as state after state pull out. The most powerful have the most responsibility. It could be external pressure, like you say, but I think it's mainly because he's an idiot and doesn't believe in climate change / global warming. So in his warped mind, why commit to something he doesn't believe in. Here's a handy link to a bunch of tweets expressing his doubts. Some of them date back to 2011, so it's a long-held belief of his. It honestly pains me a little that the President of a powerful country uses Twitter to vent like a prepubescent man-baby. www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-climate-agreementI apologise in advance if your brain turns to mush.
|
|
|
Post by concretebob on Jun 2, 2017 17:24:08 GMT
My turn to be contrary. Bearing in mind that Trump knows he can pull out at any time, and that he can ignore any agreed protocols without punishment, and that if he refuses to pay his way no-one can force him to, why doesn't he just stay a member and at least give the outward appearance of being environmentally conscious? I guess because simply being a member would p*ss off the powerful lobbies he relies on. If the US were fully behind Paris that would exert pressure on everyone else. As it is, the whole agreement is likely to collapse as state after state pull out. The most powerful have the most responsibility. It could be external pressure, like you say, but I think it's mainly because he's an idiot and doesn't believe in climate change / global warming. So in his warped mind, why commit to something he doesn't believe in. Here's a handy link to a bunch of tweets expressing his doubts. Some of them date back to 2011, so it's a long-held belief of his. It honestly pains me a little that the President of a powerful country uses Twitter to vent like a prepubescent man-baby. www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-climate-agreementI apologise in advance if your brain turns to mush. So basically when it's a cold day wherever he is, global warming doesn't exist? Good thing this bloke isn't the leader of the free world. Oh wait
|
|
|
Post by oufcgav on Jun 2, 2017 17:55:33 GMT
Not disagreeing, but I was surprised it was just an aspirational bit of paper, rather than a binding agreement. The more I think about it, the more pointless it is if the leader of country doesn't want to follow it can tear it up and walk away. Ultimately, he did what he said he would. Disappointing, but no one should be as surprised as they are. I understand there are some financial penalties if the US leaves the group, but who's going to claim them? Trump won't care who he upsets. Yes, he did exactly what he said he would. I just don't see that as a positive trait under every circumstance. Some people would like 'a Trump' in charge of the UK, considering him a strong leader on the basis of this type of action. Let's see how it works out for the US. I would imagine the financial penalties for the US will come in the form of additional trade tariffs with countries still within the agreement framework. And of course he can't actually pull out immediately, he can't actually give official notice of pulling out for 3 years, and the notice is 1 year - so it will actually take it to the next (planned) election.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Jun 2, 2017 17:57:51 GMT
It could be external pressure, like you say, but I think it's mainly because he's an idiot and doesn't believe in climate change / global warming. So in his warped mind, why commit to something he doesn't believe in. Here's a handy link to a bunch of tweets expressing his doubts. Some of them date back to 2011, so it's a long-held belief of his. It honestly pains me a little that the President of a powerful country uses Twitter to vent like a prepubescent man-baby. www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-climate-agreementI apologise in advance if your brain turns to mush. So basically when it's a cold day wherever he is, global warming doesn't exist? Good thing this bloke isn't the leader of the free world. Oh wait He has abdicated that role with this decision.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 2, 2017 20:32:34 GMT
No one. Because Trump won't care to pay. Which says a lot about the accord doesn't it? The US account for 15% of global emissions, so there are still 85% to work on. Let's face it, China and India can significantly help reduce emissions and look after the environment in a better way. I say this completely contrarily. Perhaps focussing on hydrogen on the vehicle fuel of the future is important than the accord? Just think, if we can reduce the reliance on petrol and diesel and then eradicate it, we will go a long way to getting emissions down. But we persist with the power grid reliance of electric cars as the alternative or hybrids. My turn to be contrary. Bearing in mind that Trump knows he can pull out at any time, and that he can ignore any agreed protocols without punishment, and that if he refuses to pay his way no-one can force him to, why doesn't he just stay a member and at least give the outward appearance of being environmentally conscious? I guess because simply being a member would p*ss off the powerful lobbies he relies on. If the US were fully behind Paris that would exert pressure on everyone else. As it is, the whole agreement is likely to collapse as state after state pull out. The most powerful have the most responsibility. So thinking aloud. When Theresa May did a uturn on the dementia tax, she was criticised as being weak and wobbly. Following the logic on, then surely we should be asking for Trump to stay with his decision because we don't like politicians doing uturns right? Tongue firmly placed in cheek
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jun 2, 2017 20:57:25 GMT
My turn to be contrary. Bearing in mind that Trump knows he can pull out at any time, and that he can ignore any agreed protocols without punishment, and that if he refuses to pay his way no-one can force him to, why doesn't he just stay a member and at least give the outward appearance of being environmentally conscious? I guess because simply being a member would p*ss off the powerful lobbies he relies on. If the US were fully behind Paris that would exert pressure on everyone else. As it is, the whole agreement is likely to collapse as state after state pull out. The most powerful have the most responsibility. So thinking aloud. When Theresa May did a uturn on the dementia tax, she was criticised as being weak and wobbly. Following the logic on, then surely we should be asking for Trump to stay with his decision because we don't like politicians doing uturns right? Tongue firmly placed in cheek We don't like politicians doing u-turns right, but we don't mind them doing u-turns left. I'm just being silly now, but May at least seems like a decent human being, unlike Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 3, 2017 12:30:26 GMT
I see that the Paris Accord will potentially save only 0.17 degrees celsius in terms of temperatures, but cost over a Trillion quid to implement. On that basis, I'm not so surprised that Trump walked away as I was. Seems an awful lot of effort and money for minimal gain.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Jun 3, 2017 12:59:24 GMT
I see that the Paris Accord will potentially save only 0.17 degrees celsius in terms of temperatures, but cost over a Trillion quid to implement. On that basis, I'm not so surprised that Trump walked away as I was. Seems an awful lot of effort and money for minimal gain. But what is the cost of that so called minimal gain? We are already seeing the large cost financially for damage/problems from storms, flooding and droughts. Likewise, not all the cost is financial such as land lost to rising seas, damage to the Great Barrier Reef from rising sea temperatures or the loss of the Polar Ice. Long term I reckon, the cost will be minimal in comparison to the benefits (financially and non financial).
|
|
|
Post by maggiesdad on Jun 3, 2017 13:12:44 GMT
I see that the Paris Accord will potentially save only 0.17 degrees celsius in terms of temperatures, but cost over a Trillion quid to implement. On that basis, I'm not so surprised that Trump walked away as I was. Seems an awful lot of effort and money for minimal gain. Trump is the definition of"knows the price of everything and the value of nothing"
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 3, 2017 21:18:11 GMT
I see that the Paris Accord will potentially save only 0.17 degrees celsius in terms of temperatures, but cost over a Trillion quid to implement. On that basis, I'm not so surprised that Trump walked away as I was. Seems an awful lot of effort and money for minimal gain. But what is the cost of that so called minimal gain? We are already seeing the large cost financially for damage/problems from storms, flooding and droughts. Likewise, not all the cost is financial such as land lost to rising seas, damage to the Great Barrier Reef from rising sea temperatures or the loss of the Polar Ice. Long term I reckon, the cost will be minimal in comparison to the benefits (financially and non financial). A trillion quid is an astonishing amount of money. Truly astonishing when what could be needed is over 10 times that figure to get the end point that the agreement wants - keep to 1.5 to 2 c temp changes. It's not about doing nothing, but perhaps an unrealistic goal we'll never hope to meet with an agreement that is barely worth the paper it is written on. Rather than have an all encompassing agreement, why not instead focus on smaller achievable deals? Like stopping the production of petrol and diesel cars by 2027? Removing battery packs from all cars by 2035? Etc
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Jun 3, 2017 21:40:42 GMT
But the trillion quid is to try to at least partially ameliorate some of the ongoing damage. You can't keep putting it off for ever, in fact the longer you leave it the more expensive it gets. Do nothing and (according to the huge majority of scientists) the results are going to be cataclysmic.
Of course - all those scientists might be wrong, it might be some sort of 'conspiracy' (although to what end I'm not quite sure). In which case the world will be a poorer place because we've wasted ridiculous amounts of money. But in that case (whether we spend the money or not) climate change will be less of a threat than appears to be the case now.
However, if the scientists are right (and it IS the vast majority of them, even those who make no gain from the claim) and we do nothing then we've had it. But we've got a trillion dollars in the bank. Maybe we can buy a nice new atmosphere from somewhere!
For the sake of my children, I know which option I'll support.
I do however completely take your point that setting smaller, achievable goals along the way is sensible. Any businessman would tell you that and point at their project Gantt chart! I suspect those behind Trump might object to the limiting of car production to just another 10 years though - and they are the ones pulling his strings! Sorry, what I meant of course is that he is 'pro-business'...
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jun 3, 2017 21:41:11 GMT
I see that the Paris Accord will potentially save only 0.17 degrees celsius in terms of temperatures, but cost over a Trillion quid to implement. On that basis, I'm not so surprised that Trump walked away as I was. Seems an awful lot of effort and money for minimal gain. I'll take your word on those figures, but was this the reason Trump wanted out of the accord? More likely pressure from various US lobbies, surely? That's the thing about Trump. I don't hear him making reasonable statements about saving 0.17 degrees for a trillion quid being poor value, I hear him claiming that global warming doesn't exist, that it's a lie spread by China to undermine America. The guy is a loose cannon, poorly advised and looking for the next easy soundbite.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 3, 2017 22:07:07 GMT
Trump is making good on the promises he made in the campaign. In the same was Presidents from both sides have done in the past. The most striking part of it is that is goes so far against the accepted grain that it further reiterates that Trump operates on a non-political mindset and cares little for other peoples opinions.
The poor value for money is my opinion only. In the same way, I believe smaller achievable goals are easier to deliver and allow more flexibility in delivering the end goal. I've seen enough big projects to know they more than often do not deliver on time and budget. Whatever it maybe.
Of course, there is some discourse about the models used to predict global warming and their reliance on manual human amendments to get the "right result". I do not know anything like enough to know that they are not just the usual conspiracy theory nuts throwing stuff out there for attention.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Jun 3, 2017 22:24:10 GMT
The most striking part of it is that is goes so far against the accepted grain that it further reiterates that Trump operates on a non-political mindset and cares little for other peoples opinions. I don't think there is any doubt about that. The problem is, as the leader of a country you really SHOULD take opinions into account both from inside and outside your country (that's diplomacy, folks - and his support was a minority of those who voted, never mind of all American citizens) - and even if you aren't prepared to do that it's probably worth listening to advice now and again (from outside the little coterie of yes-men you've installed) - and failing EVEN that you should be prepared to look at scientific research rather than just sticking you fingers in your years and shouting 'don't believe it' very loudly. The bloke is a dangerous nutjob. I predict that he will not see out his full term - but whether that's via impeachment, him throwing a hissy fit and walking away or someone deciding to remove him by violence I couldn't say. All three seem equally likely.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 3, 2017 22:39:51 GMT
The fact Trump is scaling back the EPA is a massive lead on what he thinks and what his mandate is. Impeachment is going to be tough for Trump. His term is the epitome of chaos, but so far nothing is impeachable. The left are talking of raising arms (ironic given their stance on guns) but I can't see that happening. The Democrats lack of ideas may well mean he serves 2 terms... Their last candidate is blaming everyone else for their failings.
As a complete aside. The comparisons on Trump/Nixon are wrong as Slick Willy was the last impeached President and Nixon resigned before he was impeached.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Jun 4, 2017 6:39:50 GMT
I see that the Paris Accord will potentially save only 0.17 degrees celsius in terms of temperatures, but cost over a Trillion quid to implement. On that basis, I'm not so surprised that Trump walked away as I was. Seems an awful lot of effort and money for minimal gain. I'll take your word on those figures, but was this the reason Trump wanted out of the accord? More likely pressure from various US lobbies, surely? That's the thing about Trump. I don't hear him making reasonable statements about saving 0.17 degrees for a trillion quid being poor value, I hear him claiming that global warming doesn't exist, that it's a lie spread by China to undermine America. The guy is a loose cannon, poorly advised and looking for the next easy soundbite. Trump actually said almost exactly that (in a very Trumpian way): "Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that, this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount.”Thing is, the 0.2 degree figure is based on a single study out of MIT that assumes that everyone gives up on the Paris accord in 2030, and goes back to their merry polluting ways. The authors of the study themselves have come out and stated that if the Paris targets were to become the norm, the world is looking at ~0.9C reduction in temperatures. Most other studies put the figure higher than that. Is that enough to prevent catastrophe? Who knows. Fact is that climate science is challenging, and the best they can do is offer probabilities. It is general consensus that the world is warming, and it is highly probable that this warming is anthropomorphic. It will be expensive to mitigate....and potentially pointless....but if man-made global warming is indeed real, and we do nothing, then the human race is doomed. So it seems like a no brainer to me..... .....unless you've become President of the US based on the votes of angry US-centric folk that want to point fingers and blame everyone else for America's problems.
|
|
|
Post by rickyotto on Jun 4, 2017 6:48:17 GMT
Even without global warming being real, is a world of forests and clean energy really such a worthless idea?
I don't need to believe in global warming (although I do) to believe that I'd rather live in a world of clean energy
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Jun 4, 2017 8:14:47 GMT
But what is the cost of that so called minimal gain? We are already seeing the large cost financially for damage/problems from storms, flooding and droughts. Likewise, not all the cost is financial such as land lost to rising seas, damage to the Great Barrier Reef from rising sea temperatures or the loss of the Polar Ice. Long term I reckon, the cost will be minimal in comparison to the benefits (financially and non financial). A trillion quid is an astonishing amount of money. Truly astonishing when what could be needed is over 10 times that figure to get the end point that the agreement wants - keep to 1.5 to 2 c temp changes. It's not about doing nothing, but perhaps an unrealistic goal we'll never hope to meet with an agreement that is barely worth the paper it is written on. Rather than have an all encompassing agreement, why not instead focus on smaller achievable deals? Like stopping the production of petrol and diesel cars by 2027? Removing battery packs from all cars by 2035? Etc You are only looking at one side though which is the financial cost of implementation. The financial cost of not doing enough will far outweigh any cost of implementation and that won't take into account the non financial costs to the planet. Smaller targets can still be set as markers along the way to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement. Not doing enough isn't an option anymore considering what is happening to the climate/environment now. The Paris Agreement was significant and still is hopefully as after numerous attempts the world finally agreed something had to be done about the environment and a way to achieve that. How often has the world (bar 2 countries) been able to come to an agreement like this? Not very often I would say. The other thing is how the different countries see this. Trump and his backers view it is a tax/threat to business yet the likes of India and China see it as a opportunity to grow their alternative energy industries.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 4, 2017 12:35:29 GMT
A trillion quid is an astonishing amount of money. Truly astonishing when what could be needed is over 10 times that figure to get the end point that the agreement wants - keep to 1.5 to 2 c temp changes. It's not about doing nothing, but perhaps an unrealistic goal we'll never hope to meet with an agreement that is barely worth the paper it is written on. Rather than have an all encompassing agreement, why not instead focus on smaller achievable deals? Like stopping the production of petrol and diesel cars by 2027? Removing battery packs from all cars by 2035? Etc You are only looking at one side though which is the financial cost of implementation. The financial cost of not doing enough will far outweigh any cost of implementation and that won't take into account the non financial costs to the planet. Smaller targets can still be set as markers along the way to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement. Not doing enough isn't an option anymore considering what is happening to the climate/environment now. The Paris Agreement was significant and still is hopefully as after numerous attempts the world finally agreed something had to be done about the environment and a way to achieve that. How often has the world (bar 2 countries) been able to come to an agreement like this? Not very often I would say. The other thing is how the different countries see this. Trump and his backers view it is a tax/threat to business yet the likes of India and China see it as a opportunity to grow their alternative energy industries. Absolutely, because the return for it is so uncertain. I don't think just throwing endless money at it will get it done. It's needs more nuance, defined smaller deliverables and open intelligence IMHO, but I get why a lot people wouldn't agree and do feel very passionate about the agreement. India and China hold the keys to getting the temps down - I see the US is already independently reducing it's own emissions outside of the Paris Agreement, although it remains to be seen where they will go in the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Jun 4, 2017 19:36:13 GMT
What a load of shite. Trump tells it as it is,the Paris agreement is a load of b*llshit. China (and the rest of the world) signs up to it and does f*ck all about it (apart from us) So Trump is the baddie and all of a sudden China are good guys, wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/02/the-truth-about-china-2400-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-cop21-pledges/2,400 new coal plants. Yet good old Britain will stick to the rules,jobs will go because China and the rest of the world have cheap energy and we are waiting for the wind to blow before we can boil a kettle.
|
|
|
Post by dannyc on Jun 4, 2017 20:16:44 GMT
good point whats the point in Europe sticking to agreements about reducing the use of coal plants when India and china are building loads of them .
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Jun 4, 2017 20:29:13 GMT
What a load of shite. Trump tells it as it is,the Paris agreement is a load of b*llshit. China (and the rest of the world) signs up to it and does f*ck all about it (apart from us) So Trump is the baddie and all of a sudden China are good guys, wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/02/the-truth-about-china-2400-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-cop21-pledges/2,400 new coal plants. Yet good old Britain will stick to the rules,jobs will go because China and the rest of the world have cheap energy and we are waiting for the wind to blow before we can boil a kettle. China has by far the most solar power capacity in the world. They added more in 2016 than all but three other countries have installed in total. 43% of all wind power capacity added worldwide in 2016 was Chinese - they added three times as much as the next country (the US). So quit all your "Britain's the only one trying to cut emissions" whining - yes, we may have decided to give up on coal, but we're miles behind the world leaders when it comes to renewables.
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Jun 4, 2017 20:58:12 GMT
What a load of shite. Trump tells it as it is,the Paris agreement is a load of b*llshit. China (and the rest of the world) signs up to it and does f*ck all about it (apart from us) So Trump is the baddie and all of a sudden China are good guys, wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/02/the-truth-about-china-2400-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-cop21-pledges/2,400 new coal plants. Yet good old Britain will stick to the rules,jobs will go because China and the rest of the world have cheap energy and we are waiting for the wind to blow before we can boil a kettle. China has by far the most solar power capacity in the world. They added more in 2016 than all but three other countries have installed in total. 43% of all wind power capacity added worldwide in 2016 was Chinese - they added three times as much as the next country (the US). So quit all your "Britain's the only one trying to cut emissions" whining - yes, we may have decided to give up on coal, but we're miles behind the world leaders when it comes to renewables. So what are you saying ? If your renewables are better than Britain but your Co2 Emissions are twice as high (as with Germany) they are better than us ? Britain this year became the ONLY country in the industrial world to go 24 hours generating electricity without coal in the last 50 years. So please tell me how we are falling behind countries like Germany whose coal fired energy has INCREASED in the last 5 years ? Did you actually read the link i posted ? WTF does how much renewable energy you have matter, if you have been opening a new coal fired power station every WEEK for the last ten years ? More than 2,400 coal-fired power stations are under construction or being planned around the world, a study has revealed two weeks after Britain pledged to stop burning coal. The new plants will emit 6.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year and undermine the efforts at the Paris climate conference to limit global warming to 2C. China is building 368 plants and planning a further 803, according to the study by four climate change research bodies, including Ecofys and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. India is building 297 and planning 149. Rich countries are also planning new coal plants. The nuclear disaster at Fukushima has prompted Japan to turn back to coal, with 40 plants in the pipeline and five under construction en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_ChinaNever mind the Co2,NoX and SoX emissions,look how many solar panels they have ! Dont bother scrolling down on the link unless you have a couple of hours to spare.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Jun 4, 2017 23:02:54 GMT
What I am saying is that every country operates an energy mix. For the most part it's Coal - Gas - Nuclear - Renewables.
To fixate on one element of that, i.e. coal, whilst ignoring all the others is to entirely miss the point of the Paris Agreement - which basically just says reduce your greenhouse gas emissions however you choose to do it.
Yes, Germany continues to burn a lot of coal, but it also has thrown a large proportion of renewables into its energy mix - net result, its CO2 emissions have dropped ~10% in the past decade. Britain has stopped burning coal, and focused a lot more on natural gas (which is cleaner and cheaper than coal), plus we've made some efforts with renewables, but not as much as Germany. Net result, our CO2 emissions have dropped a little more than 10% in the past decade.
China is a tough comparison, because its energy consumption in general has gone through the roof in the past decade, as rapid industrialisation there continues. But to say they're ignoring the Paris Agreement is false - a yes, they're burning lots of coal but they also have a strong focus on renewables. They're at about 11% energy from renewables at the moment, and have a target of 20% by 2030.
The US has, like the UK, switched to a large extent to natural gas, and also has a rapidly developing renewables industry. Course as a country, they're still challenged by their gas guzzling car addiction, so they've cut their emissions less than Europe has been able to do.
Course France are the outliers - their reliance on nuclear means that their greenhouse gas emissions are vastly lower than any other country with comparable energy usage (as a nation they use more energy than Britain, but their emissions are about 50% less). It's probably one thing that you and I can agree on is that the UK has made a mistake in abandoning nuclear as part of the energy mix.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Jun 5, 2017 10:31:30 GMT
Trump may have screwed up again on Twitter over the travel ban he wants for certain countries. His spokespeople have been actively saying it isn't a travel ban but rather extreme vetting. The reason being the Supreme Court, according to reports I've seen, would very likely have to rule against Trump/White House of it is a travel ban. In his tweets about London, Trump has openly called it a travel ban which is a major oops.
It can't be fun being a spokesperson for Trump constantly having to firefight his screw ups from Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jun 5, 2017 10:38:46 GMT
Trump may have screwed up again on Twitter over the travel ban he wants for certain countries. His spokespeople have been actively saying it isn't a travel ban but rather extreme vetting. The reason being the Supreme Court, according to reports I've seen, would very likely have to rule against Trump/White House of it is a travel ban. In his tweets about London, Trump has openly called it a travel ban which is a major oops. It can't be fun being a spokesperson for Trump constantly having to firefight his screw ups from Twitter. The upside of Trump being in power is that this thread will give 'word association' a run for its money as longest-running topic! The only positive anyone seems able to find about Trump is that 'he does what he promises'. Well, considering the amount of crap he promised to do to get himself elected, he's going to be very busy.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jun 5, 2017 12:16:46 GMT
He's been good for newspaper circulation and TV ratings, helping advertisers reach wider markets and keep a moribund industry going. And seeing how bitter Hilary Clinton still is, that's another plus. Oh and he's offended Jean-Claude Juncker, so another positive for me. He didn't overreact to Kathy Griffin's stunt, which amazes me.
And he hasn't pressed the nuclear button like everyone thought he would. Phew.
|
|