So, now you are KING of the USA, what do you do to go green?

[JoeKitchen]

Sure... the 95.75% of the world's population not living in the US have the liberty to care about the threat paused by climate change on the common future of this planet because they don't have to care about jobs, taxes, health care,... 

Really?

But anyway, get the President right and things will fall in place as they should.

Cheers,
Bernard

Things have fallen into place quite nicely over the past three years.  I cant think of a single way that I am worse off now then under Obama. 

With Trump cutting regulations left and right, maybe he will eventually get to the nuclear ones.   

[BernardLanguillier]

Things have fallen into place quite nicely over the past three years.  I cant think of a single way that I am worse off now then under Obama. 

With Trump cutting regulations left and right, maybe he will eventually get to the nuclear ones.   

We are talking about climate change action.

The US being one of the few rogue states in the world.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

We are talking about climate change action.

The US being one of the few rogue states in the world.

Yes, the US went rogue, reducing emissions, while the biggest polluters continue increasing it.

But, what action? Remember, that supposed "action" should be the subject of this thread, yet you post yet another deflection.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... But anyway, get the President right and things will fall in place as they should.

We will. Trump 2020!

[JoeKitchen]

We are talking about climate change action.

The US being one of the few rogue states in the world.

Cheers,
Bernard

And yet ...

U.S. Emissions Dropped in 2019: Here's Why in 6 Charts

It kind of looks like our decrease in natural gas and fracking regulations greatly diminished our need for coal to the point where we started using much cleaner natural gas to produce electricity.  Emissions in the electricity sector dropped by 10% with overall emissions dropping by 2%, on point with the EU. 

Considering we are dropping our emissions at pretty much the same rate as Europe, I think it is fair to say that the Paris Accords really were pointless. 

Meanwhile, in China, China CO2 emissions from energy sector still on rise - researchers

[JoeKitchen]

I am currently listening to a podcast put on by the Hoover Institute specifically on energy policy and the absolute absurdities that the left places on the industry. 

For instance, they are against new pipelines, but pipelines use less energy to transport fuel then trains and trucks.  So using pipelines actually decrease CO2 emissions.  On top of that, it is much safer to use a pipeline. 

They then went on to talk about electricity in CA and how public policy is directly increasing the amount of forest fires.  It is always best to replace older technology with newer ones, including when it comes to electrical lines.  However, CA is so into solar and wind, which produce significantly less energy on a cost basis then other forms and also produces the most energy when we need it the least and vis versa, that there is very little money left over to replace aging electrical lines.  This then leads to sagging lines with over grown foliage that then leads to forest fires.  The speaker also noted that these forest fires are only starting on public lands, not privately owned lands that are managed by energy companies (such as Koch Industries) because the energy companies actually recognize the need to upgrade infrastructure and maintaining the land. 

So yeah, I would get ride of all this BS too. 

[James Clark]

I am currently listening to a podcast put on by the Hoover Institute specifically on energy policy and the absolute absurdities that the left places on the industry. 

For instance, they are against new pipelines, but pipelines use less energy to transport fuel then trains and trucks.  So using pipelines actually decrease CO2 emissions.  On top of that, it is much safer to use a pipeline. 

They then went on to talk about electricity in CA and how public policy is directly increasing the amount of forest fires.  It is always best to replace older technology with newer ones, including when it comes to electrical lines.  However, CA is so into solar and wind, which produce significantly less energy on a cost basis then other forms and also produces the most energy when we need it the least and vis versa, that there is very little money left over to replace aging electrical lines.  This then leads to sagging lines with over grown foliage that then leads to forest fires.  The speaker also noted that these forest fires are only starting on public lands, not privately owned lands that are managed by energy companies (such as Koch Industries) because the energy companies actually recognize the need to upgrade infrastructure and maintaining the land. 

So yeah, I would get ride of all this BS too.

So.. the Hoover institute is generally considered conservative-ish, with a pro-business focus.  That's fine, and it doesn't mean that they are making up any of the things you mention above, but they might be looking at worst-case or short-term scenarios on alternative energy.  Worth considering at least.

Regardless, to answer the OP question in wide general terms, I'd like to see the following:

- Tapering of subsidies for fossil fuels (including corn subsidies for ethanol), and subsequent reassignment to encourage greener energy production (including nuclear).
- A "moon shot" approach to rapid progress and adoption of alternative energy via basic research and aggressive public/private partnerships
- Continued encouragement of increasing CAFE standards
- Application of a similar system (Via LEED or something similar) to industrial and residential HVAC and building materials.

etc.
 

[BernardLanguillier]

I am currently listening to a podcast put on by the Hoover Institute specifically on energy policy and the absolute absurdities that the left places on the industry. 

For instance, they are against new pipelines, but pipelines use less energy to transport fuel then trains and trucks.  So using pipelines actually decrease CO2 emissions.  On top of that, it is much safer to use a pipeline. 

You understand how misplaced that argument is, right?

Yes, a pipeline is better than trucks to carry oil just like a chemiotherapy is better than full brain removal. The underlying issues being that of reliance on oil, of drilling in protected areas, of driving Ford 150s instead of hybrid cars...

Building pipelines is like adding parking space in an urban area. It's fueling a problem instead of solving it.

They then went on to talk about electricity in CA and how public policy is directly increasing the amount of forest fires.  It is always best to replace older technology with newer ones, including when it comes to electrical lines.  However, CA is so into solar and wind, which produce significantly less energy on a cost basis then other forms and also produces the most energy when we need it the least and vis versa, that there is very little money left over to replace aging electrical lines.  This then leads to sagging lines with over grown foliage that then leads to forest fires.  The speaker also noted that these forest fires are only starting on public lands, not privately owned lands that are managed by energy companies (such as Koch Industries) because the energy companies actually recognize the need to upgrade infrastructure and maintaining the land. 

So yeah, I would get ride of all this BS too.

It's certainly possible to find cases where privately owned power operators do some things better than publicly owned ones just like it's possible to find citations by Donald Trump that carry some resemblance to the truth.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

You understand how misplaced that argument is, right?

Yes, a pipeline is better than trucks to carry oil just like a chemiotherapy is better than full brain removal. The underlying issues being that of reliance on oil, of drilling in protected areas, of driving Ford 150s instead of hybrid cars...

Building pipelines is like adding parking space in an urban area. It's fueling a problem instead of solving it.

It's certainly possible to find cases where privately owned power operators do some things better than publicly owned ones just like it's possible to find citations by Donald Trump that carry some resemblance to the truth.

Cheers,
Bernard

No Bernard, you're being misguided.  Regardless if the pipeline was built or not, oil would continue to flow and be transported by either older pipelines (the pipeline projects being protested were to replace aging ones) or by much more dangerous and uncontrolled methods like trucks and trains. 

If you want to outlaw oil all together, run on that.  But trying to eliminate oil by preventing the construction of a safer much more efficient form of transportation will do nothing but force industry to use other methods, which is what they will do.

[BernardLanguillier]

No Bernard, you're being misguided.  Regardless if the pipeline was built or not, oil would continue to flow and be transported by either older pipelines (the pipeline projects being protested were to replace aging ones) or by much more dangerous and uncontrolled methods like trucks and trains. 

If you want to outlaw oil all together, run on that.  But trying to eliminate oil by preventing the construction of a safer much more efficient form of transportation will do nothing but force industry to use other methods, which is what they will do.

There are always good reasons to do the wrong thing.

Similarly those in favor of more parkings in town will swear to you that cars will come anyway...

Cheers,
Bernard

[JoeKitchen]

There are always good reasons to do the wrong thing.

Similarly those in favor of more parkings in town will swear to you that cars will come anyway...

Cheers,
Bernard

LOL, apples to oranges comparison.   

With oil, there is a large demand with a large supply that needs to transported.  It is going to be moved one way or another.   

Adding parking lots is hoping (not really knowing) for more cars, but there is no guarantee of enough cars to for the capacity unlike with oil.  On top of that, those that are building the parking lots are not supplying the cars to fill them, so they have no direct knowledge of future use.  Oil companies building pipelines to transport their oil know exactly how much oil they have to move, so it is not a bet insofar as having enough oil to fill the pipes. 

But like I said before, if you're so against oil, campaign to outlaw it.  Being a coward and going around it with pipeline moratoriums will only produce unwanted consequences. 

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes, the US went rogue, reducing emissions, while the biggest polluters continue increasing it.

But, what action? Remember, that supposed "action" should be the subject of this thread, yet you post yet another deflection.

I have answered once for all, get the right president.

Many private actors in the US understand the need to work to reduce emissions, companies such as Apple for instance.

When I write that the US went rogue, I am of course focusing on the decision of Trump to withdraw from the agreements the US had previously signed. There was a time when US Presidents understood that the leadership of the US wasn't due to strength, it was due to respect. The respect that results from actions aimed at making the world a better place, at moving human kind towards progress.

I believe that this is what attracted a large majority of historical immigrants to the US, a lot more so than money.

It would by the way be very interesting to measure the historical contribution of the States supporting Trump vs the other ones in terms of contribution to the greatness of the US. But I digress.

Cheers,
Bernard

[kers]

I would stop the wasting of land and water for fracking.
Fracking uses masses of water and pollutes it and the soil by adding toxic chemicals.
The fracking proces is only economic because they don't have to clean the soil and water afterwards.
Once they have got all the oil and gas out an ugly polluted landscape is left. The Tax payer will pay for the cleaning.

http://www.shaletest.org/resources/fracking-101/

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...There was a time when US Presidents understood that the leadership...

We do not feel the urge to lead lunatics.

Bernard, once again, you offer bitching and moaning instead of proposing solutions.

[Rob C]

We do not feel the urge to lead lunatics.

Bernard, once again, you offer bitching and moaning instead of proposing solutions.

There's no need: on both sides of the Atlantic we, the sane and rational, have been ousted by a race of lemmings.

Too late, he cried, too late!

[Craig Lamson]

I have answered once for all, get the right president.

Many private actors in the US understand the need to work to reduce emissions, companies such as Apple for instance.

When I write that the US went rogue, I am of course focusing on the decision of Trump to withdraw from the agreements the US had previously signed. There was a time when US Presidents understood that the leadership of the US wasn't due to strength, it was due to respect. The respect that results from actions aimed at making the world a better place, at moving human kind towards progress.

I believe that this is what attracted a large majority of historical immigrants to the US, a lot more so than money.

It would by the way be very interesting to measure the historical contribution of the States supporting Trump vs the other ones in terms of contribution to the greatness of the US. But I digress.

Cheers,
Bernard

We HAVE the right President.

Signing wothless pieces of paper are a fools errand.  What Trump has done is put the US first, which in my opinion is where our priorites belong.  Help when required but we come first.  Period.

That companies like Apple and ohters are making good progress is a perfect example of the markets working NOT becuse they are being forced to do so by a treaty or demands from a goverment, but because they want to so and AND it makes business sense.

You don't get respect by bowing down and going on an apology tour like our last President.  Respect is earned and IMO its earned by NOT beiing a pushover and demanding that others earn their keep. I could care less if other countries "like" us.  We come first. 

[Craig Lamson]

So.. the Hoover institute is generally considered conservative-ish, with a pro-business focus.  That's fine, and it doesn't mean that they are making up any of the things you mention above, but they might be looking at worst-case or short-term scenarios on alternative energy.  Worth considering at least.

Regardless, to answer the OP question in wide general terms, I'd like to see the following:

- Tapering of subsidies for fossil fuels (including corn subsidies for ethanol), and subsequent reassignment to encourage greener energy production (including nuclear).
- A "moon shot" approach to rapid progress and adoption of alternative energy via basic research and aggressive public/private partnerships
- Continued encouragement of increasing CAFE standards
- Application of a similar system (Via LEED or something similar) to industrial and residential HVAC and building materials.

etc.

I have little arguement on the above other an it be a market driven move and not a governmental demand.  And for the most part I think that is what is happening.

As to subsidies, I was not all that informed as to the amouts and breakdowns so I looked.  It seems that for the most part what you suggest is in fact what is happening, based on the graphs and articles I have seen.  I owud be happy to see some additional figures if I'm not correct.  But again I'm prefer market based solutions so I could be happy to see  all subsidies eliminated and may the best tech win. 

But, in the near term, we need oil and will continue to need for for many years to come.  Lets say we want to eliminate fossil fuel vehicles.  How long will it take to totally convert the current oil powered vehicles?  20 years, 30 years?  Many people don't buy new vehicles.  I love cars but I rarely buy new, I don't like the financial hit.  I'm not alone.  Many can only afford older used cars.  How do you orce these folks to move to electric?  As it stands I would not purchase a used electric car...just my take on the potential problem areas like batteries for example.  I can envison the US being the new Cuba as it relates to cars with old wrecks being duct taped together to keep them on the road.

As I've stated before I don't have an issue with electric cars and even trucks for certain uses.  But again, in my view a wholesale conversion is problematic.  Can you imagine a household trying to charge 4 or 5 cars each night?  I wonder what the load mihgt be on the electric grid with every household having 1-2-3 or more 220V lines pumping out power to cars daily.   Not to mention the infrastructure needed to keep these cars on the road when away from home. 

Maybe the younger generation will be more adept at living with these limitations if they do indeed happen.  I'm old and grumpy and in no mood to change my lifestyle drastically. 

[Rob C]

We HAVE the right President.

Signing wothless pieces of paper are a fools errand.  What Trump has done is put the US first, which in my opinion is where our priorites belong.  Help when required but we come first.  Period.

That companies like Apple and ohters are making good progress is a perfect example of the markets working NOT becuse they are being forced to do so by a treaty or demands from a goverment, but because they want to so and AND it makes business sense.

You don't get respect by bowing down and going on an apology tour like our last President.  Respect is earned and IMO its earned by NOT beiing a pushover and demanding that others earn their keep. I could care less if other countries "like" us.  We come first.

Interesting. So trying one's best to attain a non-proliferation deal with anyone is just a peice of paper, a fool's errand. Strikes me that standing in the way of achieving that is anything but putting the US first: after all, it's your butts that would be first targets. It's the way you now go about making friends that earns you that love.

All companies that succeed do so because they have got their act together; making it more difficult for them to operate abroad is the opposite of helping them grow richer, fatter and anything else you'd wish for them. Create international difficulties for them and they suffer too.

Of course you come "first" because it's your country. But your country being first is another matter and doesn't come as of right; indeed, you have to earn it. And you don't earn it by isolationism which is eactly where your supreme leader would lead you.

Rob

[Craig Lamson]

Interesting. So trying one's best to attain a non-proliferation deal with anyone is just a peice of paper, a fool's errand. Strikes me that standing in the way of achieving that is anything but putting the US first: after all, it's your butts that would be first targets. It's the way you now go about making friends that earns you that love.

All companies that succeed do so because they have got their act together; making it more difficult for them to operate abroad is the opposite of helping them grow richer, fatter and anything else you'd wish for them. Create international difficulties for them and they suffer too.

Of course you come "first" because it's your country. But your country being first is another matter and doesn't come as of right; indeed, you have to earn it. And you don't earn it by isolationism which is eactly where your supreme leader would lead you.

Rob

Yep treaties are pretty much only worth the paper they are written on. Do you really think the enemies of the US are really being bound by that paper?  We are the first targets regardless of whatever paper gets signed.  Protection comes from strength.  Love?  Really? 

I would suggest that Trump is in fact not leading us to isolation, but rather, leading us from being the sucker.  But hey, YMMV.

[Rob C]

Yep treaties are pretty much only worth the paper they are written on. Do you really think the enemies of the US are really being bound by that paper?  We are the first targets regardless of whatever paper gets signed.  Protection comes from strength.  Love?  Really? 

I would suggest that Trump is in fact not leading us to isolation, but rather, leading us from being the sucker.  But hey, YMMV.

With treaties come controls. You are being somewhat disengenuous there. Better that monitors prevent, and at the very least, delay and make much more difficult the building of weaponry that could singe that orange head of hair, not to mention many others with completely different hair.

Yes, protection comes from strength; that's exactly North Korea's point as well as Iran's obvious conclusion. But somehow only some folks are supposedly worthy of feeling self-protected, which is an interesting proposition of itself. Who gives the US or any other entity that right to decide who is who?

Love is the antidote to hatred. It's a far nore difficult emotion to arouse in others than are the easy routes to hatred.