Skepticism about Climate Change

[pegelli]

Well, it's obvious then that to get back into this race to the bottom the U.S. needs more peasants and less productive people. That way we can get the all-important per-capita level down. 

No need, you can also get more efficient in the use of energy like Europe (and China). I used to work for a US company who understood that principle very well but unfortunately not everybody there is wise (or smart) enough to do that.
But since Trump seems to have pulled out of the Paris accords you can just sit on your hands and be happy.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Until after next year's election.

Russ,

Even if the law is changed there would still have to be notice and comment rulemaking in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act.  This is one reason why, even with new legislation, a lot of things don't get changed overnight.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Here's an idea.  Trump signs on to Paris which helps China economically by being able to compete more with us if they take away North Korea's nukes.

It's all irrelevant.  China just a day or so ago announced a major effort to move towards electric cars.  Because they do a lot of central planning economically they can do the types of things that cannot be accomplished in the US.  We have seen this in solar energy where they are now the largest adopters in the world of both solar and wind energy.  China certainly does not need any US help to economically compete in world markets.

[RSL]

But since Trump seems to have pulled out of the Paris accords you can just sit on your hands and be happy.

And that's exactly what I plan to do, especially since there's absolutely no evidence to show that human-generated emissions are affecting things enough to notice. In fact there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. 

[RSL]

Russ,

Even if the law is changed there would still have to be notice and comment rulemaking in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act.  This is one reason why, even with new legislation, a lot of things don't get changed overnight.

Well, thanks Alan. Yes, I'm aware of that. Happily (in a way), Obama got fed up with that and did a bunch of stuff by fiat that's easy to undo. Unhappily, a lot of the other stuff brought on by a Democrat  or Democrat-inhibited Congress is going to take longer to fix. But the way the left is shooting itself in the foot (evidently using a bump stock) it's a pretty sure thing that things will change next year.

[RSL]

It's all irrelevant.  China just a day or so ago announced a major effort to move towards electric cars.  Because they do a lot of central planning economically they can do the types of things that cannot be accomplished in the US.  We have seen this in solar energy where they are now the largest adopters in the world of both solar and wind energy.  China certainly does not need any US help to economically compete in world markets.

Alan, this sort of leaves me speechless believe it or not. I don't quite know where to start. You seem to believe that central planning will let you do things that cannot be accomplished in the U.S., and I agree. We saw the result in the Soviet Union, and we're seeing the result right now in Venezuela. Yes, central planning and the ability to carry out plans without reference to the people affected is wonderful stuff.

I won't comment on the effectiveness of solar and wind energy because, again, I don't want to sound nasty, but you might want to check this: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/

[Alan Klein]

You're not nasty, just unable or unwilling to follow the discussion so I'll be nice and explain it one more time.

Alan keeps saying China emits more then the US and therefore needs to do more to reduce. I disagree because they have 4 times more people so per capita they're half of the US. So China emitting more is no reason for the US to get off the hook. That's the story as I see it on China.

Then he said Europe needs to do more because for one year there was a marginal increase (allthough the long term trend is down) while both China and the US had a marginal reduction.
I then responded Europe is still lower then the US (both per capita as well as total), so he has nothing to complain about Europe either. Also Europe is more then one country (surprise-surprise) so while some countries might have gone up there are still plenty (mostly North-West Europe) that keep going down.

But the fun thing about the graph he linked to is that it debunked the cry-babies here that China keeps increasing enormously while the data show they are reducing for 2-3 years already and are projected to reduce again next year. 

But China does emit more CO2 as a country.  The earth and warming doesn't care how many people they have.  Per capita argument is a political and economic thing.   Per capita has nothing to do with how much effect China as a country has on the environment.  Individuals didn't sign the Paris Accord, countries did.  Per capita was an excuse China used to not have to do anything.  And the world including Obama believed them and bought their BS.  Now you're trying to justify the error by arguing their per capita point.   They're at 30%, (and India at 7% using the same argument for a total of 37% of the world's CO2).  To leave them both out of the requirements until 2030 will not help the world reach its goals.  Especially as they'll be going up as more and more Chinese and Indians start crapping in their homes instead of in the gutter and using light bulbs instead of candles.   

But you go ahead and meet your goals.  Compared to the Chinese and Indians, the cost of producing you goods will go up making your stuff less competitive to theirs.  Your people's standard of living will go down as cost for electricity and other things go up.  The Chinese and Indians will be smiling all the way to their banks.  America?  We'll compete with them on a more even playing field. 

[Alan Klein]

It's all irrelevant.  China just a day or so ago announced a major effort to move towards electric cars.  Because they do a lot of central planning economically they can do the types of things that cannot be accomplished in the US.  We have seen this in solar energy where they are now the largest adopters in the world of both solar and wind energy.  China certainly does not need any US help to economically compete in world markets.

American car companies which already sell in China will adjust their production to meet Chinese demand for electric cars.  Meanwhile Tesla's Elon Musk will be building a gasoline automobile in 2022.  He's going to call it the Model T.  Seriously.   So much for electric.   
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-apos-elon-musk-reveals-200359325.html

[Alan Klein]

Alan, this sort of leaves me speechless believe it or not. I don't quite know where to start. You seem to believe that central planning will let you do things that cannot be accomplished in the U.S., and I agree. We saw the result in the Soviet Union, and we're seeing the result right now in Venezuela. Yes, central planning and the ability to carry out plans without reference to the people affected is wonderful stuff.

I won't comment on the effectiveness of solar and wind energy because, again, I don't want to sound nasty, but you might want to check this: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/

You right, Russ.  Central planning.  Now there's a clever idea.