Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They will take the lead in Climate Change and renewable energy technology as well as in other areas that Trump is abandoning.
Make America Great Again was there ever shall a lie.
China is not offering a cap on their emissions, what they are offering is to reduce their carbon intensity which is about double that of western nations. Carbon intensity is based on emissions and the GDP. By increasing efficiency you reduce carbon intensity, if the GDP continues to rise the total emissions will continue to increase.
They will be doing this with or without an agreement, they are not offering anything and since this deal hamstrings the US it is very much in their interests to be a part of it.
The sad reality is this: we have no solution to the problem of climate change, because we have no viable alternative to fossil fuels (other than nuclear fission, which many people oppose).
Wind and solar do not reduce fossil fuel use very much, because fossil fuel plants have to be kept online for times when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Until we have some way of storing huge amounts of electricity from intermittent wind and solar, we will still be dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation.
Electric transportation won't be competitive with gasoline/diesel until we have batteries with an energy density that approaches the energy density of gasoline/diesel. Right now, our best batteries store about 100 times less energy (per mass) than gasoline/diesel.
Sustainable energy solutions can, do, and MUST come in many flavors (anyone betting on a single source to power our future is a fool). The best of which are ones yet to be invented or even envisioned. Those could be the ones we develop here - but with cheap fuel sources being available here, the natural/market incentives to go after these technologies are not strong independently.
I'm speaking mostly about R&D investment, and not subsidies for production or consumers (although, that is certainly helpful).
The focus of this country is on wind and solar, because of the capacity and storage issue it's just a blip on the timeline of history. As soon as a technology emerges that can reliably replace fossil fuels they are toast. I'd rather see money invested on risky bets that have the potential to fully replace fossil fuels.
Like in prescription drugs? The US has the highest prices by far in all the developed countries. Why? Because big pharma can do it, and you allow it.
There is a reason most of the drugs in this world come out of the US, it's because US companies are awash in funding for R&D. What we need is export tariff on them to counties that have price controls so the US consumer is not one subsidizing R&D for the rest of the world.
Global wealth redistribution, based upon fake science and easily swayed minds that forget, we are still coming out of an ICEAGE.
Who pays... The USA.
Not that facts matter to you but in reality our orbit and sun cycles should have us cooling not warming. So sudden and rapid increases in temperature over the last 100 years should be concerning to us.
Naturally people will say things like "oh it was warm in the past it isn't a big deal"
When change that happened over thousands of years happens in a hundred years it is of massive concern. Its like saying my car runs 80 on the highway so starting it up and it running 80 right after ignition is normal.
However like leaded gas, cigarettes etc the problem takes decades / centuries to really kick in so people can put their heads in the hole and pretend nothing is wrong. Until the problems become so severe there is no choice but to address them.
Much like social security, our never ending addiction to war etc. We love to justify terrible decisions and or put our heads in the hole and let someone else deal with the problems.
Says who exactly? The numbers from what I can see list China as the biggest producer, almost DOUBLE the U.S. and I didn't see any figures listed for Evil Russia.
According to the graph(s) I've seen China puts out more than all the other countries put together and they don't have to do a damn thing for at least a decade and a half if at all.
So, tell us again why we should pony up a whole bunch of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and risk our economy?
How's about China gets to at least where we are at and then we'll talk and let's not forget Evil Russia who signed the accord and then pulled out...
Oh, don't forget to plug up all the volcano's as one eruption belches out more CO2 than mankind ever has...
China recently passed us but we have been the largest CO2 generator over the last century. It's a little disingenuous to point to China after all this time, what's the argument, we are no worse than China. Besides they are staying in the agreement but because they have a newly developing economy it will take some time.
Not that facts matter to you but in reality our orbit and sun cycles should have us cooling not warming. So sudden and rapid increases in temperature over the last 100 years should be concerning to us.
Naturally people will say things like "oh it was warm in the past it isn't a big deal"
When change that happened over thousands of years happens in a hundred years it is of massive concern. Its like saying my car runs 80 on the highway so starting it up and it running 80 right after ignition is normal.
However like leaded gas, cigarettes etc the problem takes decades / centuries to really kick in so people can put their heads in the hole and pretend nothing is wrong. Until the problems become so severe there is no choice but to address them.
Much like social security, our never ending addiction to war etc.
You know that how?
What rapid increases over last 100 years? 100 years is nothing compared to each earth cycle.
Yes and it all relates back to increased concentration of man made CO2, water vapor is part of the loop and pronounces the effect but dissipates rapidly. It is an indirect cause.
The Paris Accord was entirely symbolic, but I think it was important. Asia will move towards less polluting energy sources regardless and the cars they buy will more efficient and less emission emitting than the last. It was disappointing to see Trump not tout natural gas to Europe as that could have been an opportunity to create jobs and lower emissions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
