Skepticism about Climate Change

[Peter McLennan]

Trump said many, many times that Paris accord  is bad for our economy and the environment.  I agree.  Am I lying?

Probably no.  You're not lying.  You're not saying something that you believe is wrong.

But please educate us.  How exactly will the Paris Accord be bad for the environment?

[Alan Klein]

Probably no.  You're not lying.  You're not saying something that you believe is wrong.

But please educate us.  How exactly will the Paris Accord be bad for the environment?

By environment, we're talking about climate control, Peter.  That's what this thread and the Paris Accord are about. 

To sum up, the Paris Accord does not require China and India to start reducing their CO2 production until 2030.  There's no requirement that they even have to start then.  During this time, they can continue to create even more CO2 as they grow their economy.  Since they two alone currently create 37% of the CO2, and it will grow, how can you expect to do much of anything to reduce CO2 under those circumstances? 

[pegelli]

So you say it's OK for them to keep increasing their CO2 production because they're growing.  Growing?  They have 1.4 billion people.  Four times America's population.  They're already the second largest economy and will overtake America in a few years.  Yet you want to give them a pass while they grow.  When can they start reducing CO2?  When they're at 70% of the world's CO2 production?  And who says they'll do anything in 2030 since it's all voluntary.  They bamboozled you once.  When 2030 rolls around , they'll bamboozle you again and tell you they that they're still growing and will have to delay reducing until 2050.  You know the Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale.

Alan, I asked about the US and to back up some of your data. Is this really the best you can do, not answering any of the questions and spew more nonsense and point fingers at others? Trump is bamboozling the world (and not China or India) and since the Brooklyn bridge is much closer to you it's probably better for you to "buy" it with all this money you're saving in taxes because the US pulled out of the Paris accords 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

By environment, we're talking about climate control, Peter.  That's what this thread and the Paris Accord are about. 

To sum up, the Paris Accord does not require China and India to start reducing their CO2 production until 2030.

Not true. In order to meet their own goals, they have already started reducing the number (more than 100) of Coal-power plants they intended to build, and have ramped up the production of renewable energy (for their own use, and to sell to others). Coupled with their growing population (which will use additional energy) that will result in China reaching their peak emissions at around 2030. That peak would otherwise have been much higher (!), and it would also be even harder to reduce emission levels to meet the goal. In fact, it looks like they will slow down their emissions enough to reach their maximum several years sooner, and will subsequently allow them to also start reducing emissions sooner, while starting at a lower peak level.

So, no they are not waiting until 2030, that's just Trump populist bullshit'Kool-Aid' for the gullible Trumpettes. They are slowing down the upward trend by acting, and will plateau by 2030 or sooner despite their economic and population growth.

There's no requirement that they even have to start then.

There is no 'requirement' for anybody, other than using common sense, to do anything. However, doing nothing will just make it more costly to start at a later date. It's the focus on short (mid-)term elections (which is not the case in China who work with longer planning times) in countries such as the USA, that makes it difficult to engage in long-term solutions. That would take visionary, not delusional, leadership.

Cheers,
Bart


P.S. Neil deGrasse Tyson says it might be 'too late' to recover from climate change thanks to irresponsible policymakers.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/17/us/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-climate-change-cnntv/index.html

QUOTE   " (CNN)Scientist and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said Sunday that, in the wake of devastating floods and damage caused by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, climate change had become so severe that the country "might not be able to recover."

In an interview on CNN's "GPS," Tyson got emotional when Fareed Zakaria asked what he made of Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert's refusal to say whether climate change had been a factor in Hurricanes Harvey or Irma's strength -- despite scientific evidence pointing to the fact that it had made the storms more destructive.

"Fifty inches of rain in Houston!" Tyson exclaimed, adding, "This is a shot across our bow, a hurricane the width of Florida going up the center of Florida!"

"What will it take for people to recognize that a community of scientists are learning objective truths about the natural world and that you can benefit from knowing about it?" he said.

Tyson told Zakaria that he had no patience for those who, as he put it, "cherry pick" scientific studies according to their belief system. "

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So, they are not increasing, they are just "Slowing down the upward trend" 😀

Ladies and gentlemen, we just got a new weasel-speak champion!!! Or is the proper Germanic term "bullshit"?

[pegelli]

So, they are not increasing, they are just "Slowing down the upward trend" 😀

Ladies and gentlemen, we just got a new weasel-speak champion!!! Or is the proper Germanic term "bullshit"?

So much for subtlety in English 

But you must be glad, this way they'll never catch up to how much the US citizens are emitting, another area where you can say "America First" 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So, they are not increasing, they are just "Slowing down the upward trend" 😀

Ladies and gentlemen, we just got a new weasel-speak champion!!! Or is the proper Germanic term "bullshit"?

Slobodan, you disappoint me.

I thought you were more clever than that, but I'd be glad to explain in even simpler terms to the slower ones in this thread if necessary.

Hint, a growing population, and more urbanization/electrification, leads to more energy usage. Countries like China can only reduce emissions when they take action (and they are), not by doing nothing. So Trump's message is Fake news, again.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So...

Everybody is increasing the "pollution" (because, you know, they have more people to feed and take care of - otherwise known as "economic growth"), and yet we are somehow "combating" global warming?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So...

Everybody is increasing the "pollution" (because, you know, they have more people to feed and take care of - otherwise known as "economic growth"), and yet we are somehow "combating" global warming?

Apparently, it's harder (for some) to grasp than anticipated.

Most countries are doing both, growing population and thus ramping up the need for energy, and reducing pollution by using more energy efficient solutions while converting to more renewable energy and less fossil energy. The latter will gradually first slow down the current pollution trend and then make it turn for the better. Inaction/postponing will lead to more painful results and remedies.

There are many more things that can be done, but I don't want to overload the readers of this thread with information, it's apparently already difficult for some to keep up.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Slobodan, you disappoint me.

I thought you were more clever than that, but I'd be glad to explain in even simpler terms to the slower ones in this thread if necessary.

Hint, a growing population, and more urbanization/electrification, leads to more energy usage. Countries like China can only reduce emissions when they take action (and they are), not by doing nothing. So Trump's message is Fake news, again.

Cheers,
Bart

Chinese Cool-aide.  Trump doesn't drink.

[Alan Klein]

Not true. In order to meet their own goals, they have already started reducing the number (more than 100) of Coal-power plants they intended to build, ...

So China reduced them by 100.  So now they're going to build 700 rather than 800.  Fake news, Bart. Why do you keep distorting the facts and protecting China?  They're polluting the earth and they're the biggest CO2 generation country in the world and will be increasing both.  Isn't it possible, just maybe, the rest of the world was BS'd by China?  You're spinning your wheels. 

from the linked NY Times article:
"When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change.
But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.
These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal,..."

"...Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit..."[/b]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html

[Alan Klein]

So much for stopping Climate Change.  China is a big help.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal,..."

"...Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal.

So who are building those other coal plants, or do you want to blame China for everything (always pointing fingers at others).
BTW, are they going to use American coal as fuel? I've heard that American coal exports are up, because American power plants are using more natural gas ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

So who are building those other coal plants, or do you want to blame China for everything (always pointing fingers at others).
BTW, are they going to use American coal as fuel? I've heard that American coal exports are up, because American power plants are using more natural gas ...

Cheers,
Bart

Well, I suppose if China isn't building the other half of the 1600 world's new coal-fired electric plants, other signatories to the Paris Accord must be.  No one is going to pay attention to their promises if they're voluntary.  As an aside, America is only building 4 new while shutting down 10-15 existing plants.  As you know, we've been shifting to much cleaner natural gas.

Regarding selling American coal to other countries, we are and I hope it increases.  Why should we give those coal jobs and coal wealth to Australia? 

[LesPalenik]

So China reduced them by 100.  So now they're going to build 700 rather than 800.  Fake news, Bart. Why do you keep distorting the facts and protecting China?  They're polluting the earth and they're the biggest CO2 generation country in the world and will be increasing both.  Isn't it possible, just maybe, the rest of the world was BS'd by China?  You're spinning your wheels. 

from the linked NY Times article:
"When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change.
But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.
These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal,..."

"...Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit..."[/b]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html

700 new coal plants is a total disregard for the environment. As Slobodan pointed out, slowing down the growth, but still adding 700 plants in the spirit of fighting the pollution and bloating about it is a politically correct weasel talk. In Ontario, we shut down the last coal plant in 2014 and are managing without them quite nicely.
 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Bart, you are contradiction yourself:

...  Most countries are doing both, growing population and thus ramping up the need for energy, and reducing pollution...

They are slowing down the upward trend...

Which is it? Reducing pollution or slowing down the increase in pollution?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, you are contradiction yourself:

Which is it? Reducing pollution or slowing down the increase in pollution?

First a slowing down of the increase (like any growing economy did, the USA is no exception, only worse) of pollution until it turns into a reduction of pollution. And even the USA has just started reducing its extreme emissions under the Obama administration, although it's still adding huge amounts of emissions that contribute to global warming.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And while we're exchanging pleasantries, hurricane Maria just reached a category 5 classification on the Saffir-Simpson scale (it was not supposed to become more than a category 3), thanks to the warmer waters that feed the hurricane force. Amounts of precipitation were already estimated to be significantly higher, it just got worse.

I sympathize with the people of Saba, St. Eustacius, Dominica, Guadeloupe, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, even though it's from a safe distance and we cannot do much anymore to lessen the destruction and loss of lives in the short term.

But by all means, keep pointing the finger at China and others, not forgetting some self-reflection either.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...in the short term...

Or in the long term.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Or in the long term.

Why not?

Cheers,
Bart