This is why Trump rightfully got the US out of Paris Climate Accord
- Thread starter murox
- Start date
So a boat is starting to sink. The life of everyone on board is in jeopardy unless the problem is resolved. It seems like there were several parties in various staterooms and while reveling in their excess, holes were knocked into the hull of the ship. Now those holes, if attended to quickly, could be repaired before the ship sinks. It would take on quite a bit of water, but the ship could be saved if everyone works together.
Stateroom 1776, the room on the most prestigious part of the ship and reserved only for the most wealthy guests, has placed the largest hole. They have been partying longer than anyone on the ship. But down in the lower decks, one of the later starting parties, had put a sizable hole that is approaching the size of stateroom 1776, because they have over 4 times as many people at their party punching holes. What this party lacked in culpability because they haven’t been at it as long, they were quickly making up by sheer volume of excess.
All over the ship there were staterooms of parties putting holes in the ship. In fear that everyone would perish, the ship’s captain called for a meeting from a representative of each cabin. It was agreed that it would take the effort of everyone to save the ship. It was also agreed that the stateroom 1776 would set a larger pace at filling their hole because they were most financially able to do so without totally ruining the party. Stateroom 1949 would also start the transition toward repairing the hole, but because their party just started it would set a longer pace in the repair schedule.
Everyone was happy that the repairs could be made without ruining the fun for everyone. All the staterooms were on schedule with their repairs and there was hope that the ship would not be lost. Then one day a new spokesperson was elected in stateroom 1776. He didn’t believe the schedule was fair so he ordered the repairs to cease. In fact, he stepped up the party and the hole started to grow again. But man...was it a great party. He was admired by all and celebrated by those who were having such a great time at the party. Life was really good and finally we were getting over on stateroom 1949 after years of unfairness.
The ship sank. Everyone died. The end.
Stateroom 1776, the room on the most prestigious part of the ship and reserved only for the most wealthy guests, has placed the largest hole. They have been partying longer than anyone on the ship. But down in the lower decks, one of the later starting parties, had put a sizable hole that is approaching the size of stateroom 1776, because they have over 4 times as many people at their party punching holes. What this party lacked in culpability because they haven’t been at it as long, they were quickly making up by sheer volume of excess.
All over the ship there were staterooms of parties putting holes in the ship. In fear that everyone would perish, the ship’s captain called for a meeting from a representative of each cabin. It was agreed that it would take the effort of everyone to save the ship. It was also agreed that the stateroom 1776 would set a larger pace at filling their hole because they were most financially able to do so without totally ruining the party. Stateroom 1949 would also start the transition toward repairing the hole, but because their party just started it would set a longer pace in the repair schedule.
Everyone was happy that the repairs could be made without ruining the fun for everyone. All the staterooms were on schedule with their repairs and there was hope that the ship would not be lost. Then one day a new spokesperson was elected in stateroom 1776. He didn’t believe the schedule was fair so he ordered the repairs to cease. In fact, he stepped up the party and the hole started to grow again. But man...was it a great party. He was admired by all and celebrated by those who were having such a great time at the party. Life was really good and finally we were getting over on stateroom 1949 after years of unfairness.
The ship sank. Everyone died. The end.
Sorry, GK, that's crap. In the last 20 some years China has seen CO2 emissions increase from 3,000 million metric tons to over 10,000 million metric tons. During the same time period the U.S. has gone from 7,000 million metric tons to around 5,000. Our decrease in 2017 was more than was originally called for by the Paris Accord. You know who didn't make their goal? Countries like France, which is a little ironic.
The bottom line is we are producing less CO2 now than we were in the mid 80s despite huge growth in both population and economic activity. At the current pace, China will be producing 50% of all CO2 emissions by 2030 and India's will most likely triple by the same year. That means if the U.S., EU, and Japan all went to zero emissions the total output would still increase by 2030.
If CO2 emissions are really the party ender then last call has already been sounded. So your solution is to have the designated drivers go on home and leave the drunks unattended.
The bottom line is we are producing less CO2 now than we were in the mid 80s despite huge growth in both population and economic activity. At the current pace, China will be producing 50% of all CO2 emissions by 2030 and India's will most likely triple by the same year. That means if the U.S., EU, and Japan all went to zero emissions the total output would still increase by 2030.
If CO2 emissions are really the party ender then last call has already been sounded. So your solution is to have the designated drivers go on home and leave the drunks unattended.
Okay...I concede...bigger hole in SR1949. Ship still sinks. We still die. But winning right?
Well, you could personally appeal to the Chinese government. That would be just as effective as blaming the U.S. Or maybe you could scrap your car and get a horse. Cut off the electric to your home and buy some candles, better yet, get a bee hive so you can make your own. Don't buy anything packaged in plastic. Get rid of your gas lawn mower and buy a sickle. Quit buying groceries and grow your own, save the fuel it takes to deliver them around the country.
The problem with all that is even if you did all those things you would need at least a couple billion people to join you to have any kind of nominal impact on emissions. The problem is we have over 7 billion people on a planet that is probably best suited to serve around half that number. Just feeding, clothing and housing those 7 billion people puts a floor on CO2 emissions that is probably too high not to be impactful.
In 1900 there were 1.6 billion people on the planet, now there are just over 7.6 billion. Growth in CO2 emissions is fairly linear with population growth + effect of fossil fuels for electricity and transportation. So you either have to get rid of people or electricity and transportation.
Climate change will actually serve the purpose to accomplish one of those things and bring the planet back in balance. Embrace it.
The problem with all that is even if you did all those things you would need at least a couple billion people to join you to have any kind of nominal impact on emissions. The problem is we have over 7 billion people on a planet that is probably best suited to serve around half that number. Just feeding, clothing and housing those 7 billion people puts a floor on CO2 emissions that is probably too high not to be impactful.
In 1900 there were 1.6 billion people on the planet, now there are just over 7.6 billion. Growth in CO2 emissions is fairly linear with population growth + effect of fossil fuels for electricity and transportation. So you either have to get rid of people or electricity and transportation.
Climate change will actually serve the purpose to accomplish one of those things and bring the planet back in balance. Embrace it.
Also something being left out of the equation is which country has the largest emission per person. Of course the nation with 1.3 billion people are going to have a greater amount of pollution providing power and food then a country...say.... 1/4 its size.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...it-walk-away-from-the-paris-climate-deal.html
And I’m not defending China. They need to reduce their emissions. But they are still a developing country. Based on everything I’ve read they’ve made great progress in that regard.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/upshot/china-pollution-environment-longer-lives.html
The US on the other hand has been the top historical polluter and it isn’t even close. We’ve already developed our economy. We’ve been an unknowing and leading contributor for over 100 years. It’s only reasonable that our contribution be greater.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...it-walk-away-from-the-paris-climate-deal.html
And I’m not defending China. They need to reduce their emissions. But they are still a developing country. Based on everything I’ve read they’ve made great progress in that regard.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/upshot/china-pollution-environment-longer-lives.html
The US on the other hand has been the top historical polluter and it isn’t even close. We’ve already developed our economy. We’ve been an unknowing and leading contributor for over 100 years. It’s only reasonable that our contribution be greater.
*I’m not blaming the US.
*The part about diminishing the lifestyle back to pre 1900s level is hyperbole and the argument that is most used by ideological absolutist.
*Jesus..did you really ask me to embrace the the decline of the world population by literally billions so that we can continue profit from the burning of fossil fuels?
I will say again, the per capita discussion is meaningless. We are 25% of the world economy and only 14% of CO2 emissions. We are being efficient and improving in the emission arena. We could drastically reduce our emissions only by drastically dropping our economic output. That just means that the production moves somewhere else, most likely China, where they are much less efficient in their production relative to KGs of CO2 per $1,000 of GDP.
God damn, this is more proof that the majority of the people in this thread have no idea about the Accord and what it has done and what it will do.
It’s way too much to type on a phone, but I’ll be sure to enlighten the morons when I get to a computer.
Yay. I look forward to finding a tl;dr meme in response.
I can't wait to be educated by rifle.
Anyway, Obama agreed that the U.S. Would lower emissions by 26-28% by 2025. The baseline to be used was 2005 when emissions were 6,132 million metric tons. That means we would have to get down to about 4,600 million metric tons. In 2017 we were at 5,140 million metric tons, or already well ahead of pace.
So why are other countries mad about us pulling out? What else was the U.S. Expected to do under the agreement?
Anyway, Obama agreed that the U.S. Would lower emissions by 26-28% by 2025. The baseline to be used was 2005 when emissions were 6,132 million metric tons. That means we would have to get down to about 4,600 million metric tons. In 2017 we were at 5,140 million metric tons, or already well ahead of pace.
So why are other countries mad about us pulling out? What else was the U.S. Expected to do under the agreement?
I never heard of this, so I looked it up. It was pushed by Canada. Here is the explanation of it...
http://wedo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/5904-GenderClimateBrief.pdf
Doesn’t appear like much on the surface.
At the current pace? What illogical statistic are you using for that? In 2014, 2015, and 2016, China's emissions dropped. Last year it increased. And you know what? That is perfectly fine as it STILL puts them ahead of schedule for their goal in the Accord. In fact, they claimed their emissions would peak, at the latest, by 2030. In other words, they could increase their emissions every year until 2030 and still be within their goal.
Do you not realize that each country implemented their own pledges in the Accord? So when you make statements like China is on pace to have 50% of the world's emissions by 2030 based on one year of increase, it shows that you have no clue about what the Accord did and what each country promised in it.
What you refuse to acknowledge, what I said, and what GK said, is that some building economies realize they are in the industrialization/urbanization of their countries. That includes both India and China. Despite the sheer size of their economies, but have a huge third world element to them throughout much of their country; shit that makes the worst Appalachia region and ghetto of a city look like Taj Mahal in comparison. China, realizing that, promised to peak its emissions by 2030. They are on pace to do that. Further, they promised to reduce emissions by 60-65% of their 2005 number. Again, they are well ahead of schedule. They have also heavily invested in renewables. It's why Herdman's claim that they are in it for name only and are ripping us off shows total ignorance to their pledge in the Accord.
And as I said, China said they would reduce their 2005 emissions number by 60%-65%. They are well on pace of doing that even after they increase emissions again this year.
Let me dumb this down for you:
Pretend that you have three friends (I know; just pretend). Pretend that the four of you all commit to going to the gym five times per week together to improve each of your health. Each of you had different goals, some more aggressive than others.
When you didn't feel like working out, they held you accountable, pressured you into going, showed you a new workout to keep it fun for you, and gave you a guilt-trip if you didn't. When a couple of them don't feel like going one day, instead of also holding them accountable and helping them with a new workout, you simply said "Yeah, well I am done either way. I don't want to workout anymore."
Your friends would be pissed. You broke your promise. You were the first to leave which makes it easier for others to leave. You didn't hold them accountable, motivate them, or help them even though they had done it for you on the days you didn't want to workout.
It is all about feeling good. Emotion. Not what is a good deal and what is in the best interest on the USA.
For you, it is just about every post that I make.
Hell, you were claiming other countries as "the most polluting countries" while ignoring the fact that the U.S. is one of the very top in that category.
You're right. Nothing is more enlightening than you pleading for people to believe you hung out with Tom Green once.
And China is "the most polluting country," and it's not even close. But since they subscribed to leftist economic ideology for the better part of the 20th century and their population lived in mud huts, we have to give them a pass now because they're trying to catch up to the developed world.
Yeah, the gym workout analogy is just piss poor. The USA is still going to the gym everyday, they just didn't want to pay for the other countries membership dues. You are missing the part where the U.S. was on the hook for a lot of the administrative cost.
You are also missing the point that China agreed to peak emissions by 2030 which, incidentally, had already been forcasted as their peak by several world organizations. In other words, they did not pledge to change their behaviors in any way for the next 15 years before they started to try and do anything.
Basically, the climate agreement could have as easily been called "The World Economic Redistribution Agreement" because it's design was to slam the brakes on the U.S., EU and Japan until the other countries could build up and then we have to hope that China and India, by then as the world's two largest economies, would be willing to scale back and help out we smaller economies with the climate problem.
Anyone who thinks that China would forsake their own personal goals to those of the world at large is beyond
You are also missing the point that China agreed to peak emissions by 2030 which, incidentally, had already been forcasted as their peak by several world organizations. In other words, they did not pledge to change their behaviors in any way for the next 15 years before they started to try and do anything.
Basically, the climate agreement could have as easily been called "The World Economic Redistribution Agreement" because it's design was to slam the brakes on the U.S., EU and Japan until the other countries could build up and then we have to hope that China and India, by then as the world's two largest economies, would be willing to scale back and help out we smaller economies with the climate problem.
Anyone who thinks that China would forsake their own personal goals to those of the world at large is beyond
But that's not what you argued, Murox the Moron. Your argument excluded the U.S. as being one of the most polluting countries even though it is at or near the top in just about every reasonable measure.
Don't go changin' your argument now that you've been enlightened.
Administrative costs? Tell me you're joking.
Oh, so you want to dispute one of their pledges but ignore the others, including ones they've already made significant strides to achieving. How convenient.
The fact is that they are on pace or ahead of pace for all of their pledges.
Yes, the major powers were taking responsibility for the brunt of the emissions and other reductions. The major powers, until cheeto took office, had the foresight to realize that third-world countries weren't in a position to contribute to the same extent as the others. That doesn't give them a free pass, as there are other ways they have pledged to help.
That's not "redistribution." It's called common sense. This isn't an us vs. them situation. It's an everyone situation that impacts everyone.
They've already spent hundreds of millions on environmental changes. Hell, they donate every year to environment and climate change organizations. The U.S. doesn't have to balance economy (third-world populations) vs. environment. China and India both have to do that. That's why they weren't as aggressive as some other modern countries with their pledges. Regardless, they are on track to fulfilling their pledges.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...rowing-economy-has-the-world-s-most-toxic-air
Read this and talk to me more about how the U.S. isn't doing enough. We have never been as bad as China and India are right now. Yes, they are growing economies, but why can't they immediately decide to grow them properly? They are building new facilities with the environmental sensibility of the 1920s and killing their own citizens in the process.
Read this and talk to me more about how the U.S. isn't doing enough. We have never been as bad as China and India are right now. Yes, they are growing economies, but why can't they immediately decide to grow them properly? They are building new facilities with the environmental sensibility of the 1920s and killing their own citizens in the process.
Oh, hello, Mr. Straw Man.
I've never said the U.S. isn't doing enough. We are/were doing an exemplary job before cheeto changed course.
Quitting the agreement was bad for the reasons I stated.
I'm impressed that you saw my post, read the story, and commented so quickly.
You do understand that Trump was president for all but 20 days of 2017, correct? And that we have been using 2017 emissions in our discussions, correct?
Also, address why India needs to build up their economy with horrifically outdated technology? Why not a requirement that they build all new facilities to some international standard, and the same for China? It will cost them much more to upgrade them in the future than to build them properly now and it would keep millions of tons of CO2 out of the equation. What wouldn't they pledge to do that now when the cost differential is insignificant?
You do understand that Trump was president for all but 20 days of 2017, correct? And that we have been using 2017 emissions in our discussions, correct?
Also, address why India needs to build up their economy with horrifically outdated technology? Why not a requirement that they build all new facilities to some international standard, and the same for China? It will cost them much more to upgrade them in the future than to build them properly now and it would keep millions of tons of CO2 out of the equation. What wouldn't they pledge to do that now when the cost differential is insignificant?
Which is what I was mocking Murox about, other than him not knowing that the U.S. is one of the biggest polluters (even though he tried excluding them) and that he really didn't understand the logic behind his graph.
Advocating more big government? Interesting.
Bullshit. Not only can you not prove that, but it also ignores the fact that India hopes its actions of improving the economy will allow paying more in the future, if your theory holds true, instead of paying more now.
I can't prove it? That's interesting since I spent 25 years providing financing for the construction of various commercial, residential and industrial facilities across a 7 state region. During that period occurred a lot of environmental reform and regulations, green energy movement in construction, etc. I worked with the architects and contractors in reviewing complete budgets and cost factors.
You know, you're probably right though, a volunteer football coach/music entrepreneur/ex-limo driver most likely has a much better handle on it. The dumbest person is the one who thinks they already know everything.
You know, you're probably right though, a volunteer football coach/music entrepreneur/ex-limo driver most likely has a much better handle on it. The dumbest person is the one who thinks they already know everything.
Great! Since you're an expert, you should be able to provide plenty of sources showing the cost of construction in India. Then, after that, show the cost of construction in India ten years from now. After, show the cost of construction of this type of facility in India tens year from now. Then, show the cost of simply updating it to lower emissions ten years from now.
You have absolutely no idea how much it would cost to update a facility to yield lower emissions, because there are far, far too many variables that aren't known.
Do you and liarherdfan go to the same daily lunches?
Okay, explain to me why the difference to upgrade a facility in the United States would be materially different on a percentage basis to doing the same type of upgrade in India. There are very few companies in the world that make clean air products for the industrial market. The only variable in their cost would be shipping and installation cost. Labor costs are significantly lower in India, so why would it be more expensive to build them in to the original design?
As far as retrofitting, please give me any example of when it's cheaper to go back and add something to an existing structure than it is to put the same thing in during the original construction. Not only is the redesign of things like electrical and ventilation expensive, you also have lost productivity in the facility due to downtime.
As far as retrofitting, please give me any example of when it's cheaper to go back and add something to an existing structure than it is to put the same thing in during the original construction. Not only is the redesign of things like electrical and ventilation expensive, you also have lost productivity in the facility due to downtime.
Building code/regulations are different in the countries, shipping costs, potential tariffs on the materials in one country vs. the other, different materials used, and other factors. Steel is used far more in the U.S. than India. India prefers concrete. Concrete is more expensive to maintain over time. Twenty years from now, a concrete building in India could need significant maintenance compared to a steel structure in the U.S. If there is going to be a high cost already in maintaining the existing concrete, adding to it wouldn't necessarily be as expensive as building it all originally, then having to maintain all of it instead of just the original.
You're also ignoring the reality that places without a huge budget that expect a growing economy over the twenty years could be willing to pay more in the future instead of less now. It's basic economical planning. If you're a recent college grad making $40,000, you may hold off on paying a higher percentage of your student debt now knowing that $1000/month now will hurt you more than $1200/month a few years from now. It's the same principle for countries with growing economies.
But maybe you're right - perhaps every country other than the U.S., Syria, and one other country is simply trying to fvck us, lie to us, mislead us, fake numbers to us, fabricate all of the improvements they have made all while fvcking their future generations at the same time.
It's a good thing America is here to keep everyone in line since they're all the evil ones.
Explain that to Murox, he's the one that thinks coal can come back. NG plants are cheaper to build, maintain, and operate. Most coal plants are near the end of their lifetimes and need expensive retrofitting or extensive rebuilding. But hey Obummer.
My company has witnessed this first hand. They have no ethics whatsoever.
BTW, When we hosted a delegation from China three years ago in Huntington', one of the young women on the trip kept taking pictures of the blue sky and white clouds. When we asked her shy, she replied - "we don't see the blue sky very often because of pollution".
