Skepticism about Climate Change

[RSL]

Per capita the US Trumps them

But you just said "The US is still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it?" And China is a lot more, so per capita doesn't really have much to do with it, right? 

[Alan Klein]

None of this matters.  Trump pulled out of Paris.  Today, his EPA chief just told the coal producers he's reversing Obama's illegal restrictions on coal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.html?_r=0

[RSL]

Best news in a long time.

[Alan Goldhammer]

None of this matters.  Trump pulled out of Paris.  Today, his EPA chief just told the coal producers he's reversing Obama's illegal restrictions on coal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.html?_r=0

The EPA decision is meaningless.  New power plants are all being powered by gas which is cheaper, easier to maintain, and does not have any of the toxic pollutants that coal powered plants do (no ash to worry about disposing).  Coal mined in the US these days goes towards metallurgical production or is exported.  the export market is slowing way down these days as evidenced by railway transportation figures from the major coal haulers.

With respect to statistical analysis, per capita consumption is still the best tool available.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Best news in a long time.

Seriously?  these are the kind of throw away comments that caused the other threads to be closed down.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Seriously?  these are the kind of throw away comments that caused the other threads to be closed down.

Maybe that's exactly what Russ is trying to achieve...

Cheers,
Bart

[pegelli]

But you just said "The US is still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it?" And China is a lot more, so per capita doesn't really have much to do with it, right? 

Per capita has everything to do with it, I don't understand why you guys defending the US are so much against it. In total you are in 2nd place (on the bad side), in per capita you're 6th or 7th (again on the bad side). So if you want to play optics and look better the per capita measure is more favourable to you

[pegelli]

None of this matters.  Trump pulled out of Paris.  Today, his EPA chief just told the coal producers he's reversing Obama's illegal restrictions on coal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.html?_r=0

Did Trump pull out of Paris? Glad you mention it as people might overlook that inbetween all the other atrocious stunts he's pulling 

[LesPalenik]

Yes, he pulled out of Paris acord, but then he indicated that he might reverse his decision.

“Something could happen with respect to the Paris Accord. We’ll see what happens,” Mr. Trump told reporters in a joint news conference with the French President Emmanuel Macron.

[Alan Goldhammer]

The other important thing to remember about yesterday's decision on the 'clean coal regulation' is that the change has to go through notice and comment rulemaking which is not a short process.  There will also be some significant litigation of the proposed change if it is implemented and this will cause further delays in 'freeing up the coal industry.'  (I've participated in numerous Notice and Comment Rulemakings during my professional career and they can be multi-year processes!  A very important one that even the Food and Drug Administration wanted took seven years.)  Remember that the Supreme Court has already found that the Executive Branch cannot unilaterally abrogate responsibilities under the Clean Air Act.  Only an act of Congress can change things and that's not going to happen.

[RSL]

Only an act of Congress can change things and that's not going to happen.

Until after next year's election.

[Alan Klein]

Yes, he pulled out of Paris acord, but then he indicated that he might reverse his decision.

“Something could happen with respect to the Paris Accord. We’ll see what happens,” Mr. Trump told reporters in a joint news conference with the French President Emmanuel Macron.

The Paris terms favor China.  Trump isn't going to sign on unless those terms are modified.  Especially since China is already cheating in trade, stealing commercial patents and intellectual property, etc. Since the Paris Accord isn't open to renegotiation and appears it won't be in the future, I don't think anything's going to happen. It would be a political loser for him to change his mind without getting something back in exchange.

[RSL]

Per capita has everything to do with it, I don't understand why you guys defending the US are so much against it. In total you are in 2nd place (on the bad side), in per capita you're 6th or 7th (again on the bad side). So if you want to play optics and look better the per capita measure is more favourable to you

Well, that's an interesting position, Pieter. On one hand you say: "The US is still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it?" On the other hand you're saying per-capita has everything to do with it. I'd ask you which one you actually believe, but I wouldn't want to be nasty. 

[Alan Klein]

Per capita has everything to do with it, I don't understand why you guys defending the US are so much against it. In total you are in 2nd place (on the bad side), in per capita you're 6th or 7th (again on the bad side). So if you want to play optics and look better the per capita measure is more favourable to you

Trump's supporters disagree with your viewpoint.  See my last post.

[pegelli]

Trump's supporters disagree with your viewpoint.  See my last post.

I couldn't care less what Trump supporters agree and disagree with, I thought you would have known that by now

[Alan Klein]

The Paris terms favor China.  Trump isn't going to sign on unless those terms are modified.  Especially since China is already cheating in trade, stealing commercial patents and intellectual property, etc. Since the Paris Accord isn't open to renegotiation and appears it won't be in the future, I don't think anything's going to happen. It would be a political loser for him to change his mind without getting something back in exchange.

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.

[Alan Klein]

I couldn't care less what Trump supporters agree and disagree with, I thought you would have known that by now

Well, they vote and you don't. 

[pegelli]

Well, that's an interesting position, Pieter. On one hand you say: "The US is still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it?" On the other hand you're saying per-capita has everything to do with it. I'd ask you which one you actually believe, but I wouldn't want to be nasty. 

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. 

[pegelli]

Well, they vote and you don't. 

No problem, I'd have equal problems if Americans could vote here, but fortunately they can't.

[RSL]

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.

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.