Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 04 Jun 2017, 23:03:37

IMHO, no one should be exempted. Every country should have to make cuts. If a country already has low emissions, thats no absolutely reason to allow them to increase their CO2 now.


So you are saying that those emerging countries that are striving to improve their economies and the general well being of their population should be told to cease and desist? What gives you the right to dictate their ability to improve their standard of living? Are you some God that understands all of the climate intricacies that are still being debated?

Do you actually think that folks in rural China can afford a Tesla let alone have some place to plug it in that actually works? But you will probably respond "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" or let the eat cake in a rough translation thereof.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5186
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 04 Jun 2017, 23:15:06

Thanks, ol

As usual, people who don't want to look at the actual data will continue to blind themselves to the facts.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16177
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby drwater » Sun 04 Jun 2017, 23:46:42

So you are saying that those emerging countries that are striving to improve their economies and the general well being of their population should be told to cease and desist? What gives you the right to dictate their ability to improve their standard of living? Are you some God that understands all of the climate intricacies that are still being debated?


Actually, that is just standard legal practice for a resource that is oversubscribed, which is the case with CO2 sequestration capacity of the planet. Same thing as water rights, fishing rights, forest rights, pollution load limits, etc., etc...

For example, let's say your city spent a whole bunch of money cleaning up their wastewater discharge to where it didn't cause any fish, wildlife, health issues when discharged to the local river. Then a new developer of low income housing built houses, but wanted to have a direct discharge of raw wastewater into the same river. Would you be saying: Hey - they are just trying to improve their standard of living, why shouldn't they be allowed to dump raw wastewater into a river that my city just spent $100 million to clean up? It's no different with CO2. It's doubly important that developing nations use low carbon technologies so they don't make 2 mistakes - 1. adding to the problem 2. Investing precious capital in technology that is dependent upon increasing pollution.
drwater
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon 12 May 2014, 14:08:28

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 05 Jun 2017, 00:25:45

and note:

India, Once a Coal Goliath, Is Fast Turning Green

“Modi’s constituency is the middle class, and the middle class in Indian cities is choking on pollution,” Mr. Pant said. “Modi knows climate change is good politics. Climate change makes sense to Modi because he believes it as it is good economics and politics.”

Two major economic factors lie at the heart of India’s move away from coal. The first is that the country’s growth rate, while faster than that of most major economies, slipped to 6.1 percent for the most recent quarter, down from 7 percent in the previous quarter. And much of that growth has come in service industries rather than in power-hungry manufacturing.

Equally important is the startling drop in the price of renewable energy sources. Many energy experts say renewables are poised to become a less expensive alternative to coal within the next decade
.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/worl ... .html?_r=0
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16177
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 05 Jun 2017, 16:41:08

dohboi wrote:and note:

India, Once a Coal Goliath, Is Fast Turning Green

“Modi’s constituency is the middle class, and the middle class in Indian cities is choking on pollution,” Mr. Pant said. “Modi knows climate change is good politics. Climate change makes sense to Modi because he believes it as it is good economics and politics.”

Two major economic factors lie at the heart of India’s move away from coal. The first is that the country’s growth rate, while faster than that of most major economies, slipped to 6.1 percent for the most recent quarter, down from 7 percent in the previous quarter. And much of that growth has come in service industries rather than in power-hungry manufacturing.

Equally important is the startling drop in the price of renewable energy sources. Many energy experts say renewables are poised to become a less expensive alternative to coal within the next decade
.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/worl ... .html?_r=0


As usual the people at the NYT can't do math. They are confusing a drop in the rate of increase of coal-fired power generation with an overall decrease in coal fired power generation---and they aren't at all the same thing.

India and China aren't "turning away from coal" .....they are still relying on coal-fired power and still adding additional coal fired power plants, albeit at a lower rate then in the past. In fact the world will add 570 GW of new coal-fired power plants in 2017, much of that in China and India, those stalwart backers of the toothless sham Paris Climate Accords.

For comparison, the total Wind power capacity of California is about 6 GW, so almost 100X as much coal power generation will be added globally next year as all the wind power constructed and installed in California over the last 50 years.

Yes, the number of new power plants in planning has dropped a lot from earlier plans, but the total amount of coal being burned (and CO2 being emitted) is still going up big time.

Cheers!

Image
Huge coal-fired power plant operating on the outskirts of Beijing.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20027
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 05 Jun 2017, 18:25:31

Exactly right Plant. Decreasingbthe rate of growth is not reversing growth. Growth here being CO2.

I was thinking about this yesterday as I drove past a solar "farm." To me it is idiotic to use previously, and still fertile, land for a solar array. The solar array produces electricity, which offsets the coal generation. But they BOTH support the BAU concept. Lavish energy usage for all.

Now let that land revert to forest and the land will start sucking up CO2. It will be a sink removing the poison we have put into the air. It has a negative contribution to the CO2 levels. None of that is true for a solar array.

If you must have the darn things then erected them over parking lots.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8825
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 05 Jun 2017, 23:14:19

Yes, but if you are going to stop and reverse a car, you first have to slow it down. That's the trend we're seeing. Not increasing rates of growth in coal, which many of us expected...I certainly did. These are the countries with the largest populations in the world, populations who, people keep reminding me, are eager to attain some semblance of a middle class US lifestyle (even as that lifestyle is vanishing in the actual US :oops: ).

Nearly everyone here and elsewhere have always assumed that China and India would go all in for coal, coal, coal and nothing but, all the way down into the hell that those coal plants create.

We're still going to hell, of course, but the trajectory is not precisely what was widely anticipated.

Meanwhile, here's John Oliver's always-entertaining take on the whole Paris thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9_rf-33RSg

and here's the scribbler's view: https://robertscribbler.com/2017/06/05/ ... ent-116385
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16177
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 05 Jun 2017, 23:41:01

User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16177
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 00:38:55

dohboi wrote:Nearly everyone here and elsewhere have always assumed that China and India would go all in for coal, coal, coal and nothing but, all the way down into the hell that those coal plants create.


Its not an "assumption" that China and India would go all in for coal---its exactly what has been happening. China has already gone all in for coal---they doubled their coal use for power over the last 7 years, rocketing past the USA into first place in the destroying-planet-earth-by-emitting-too-much-CO2 contest.

India already gets 70% of all its electricity from coal...with more on the way as India is starting to get richer. Hopefully they won't follow in China's footsteps, but all signs are they are following in China's footsteps. If you watch what India is doing rather then what it is saying you will find that there currently are 370 (THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY) additional coal fired power plants being planned for India. And every one of those 370 coal-fired power plants is approved by the Paris Accords, because THE PARIS ACCORDS PUT NO LIMITS ON INDIA'S COAL PLANT CONSTRUCTION.

india-coal-destroys-Paris-climate-commitments

Cheers!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20027
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 01:53:14

Indian company gets final approval to open new giant coal mine in Australia

india-coal-australia-

Mine and burn all the coal you want, India. You signed the Paris Accords so its all OK now! :lol:

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20027
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 10:52:46

Ya just gotta love politicians that highlight their own hypocrisy in the same statement:

UK Energy Secretary Pledges Allegiance to Paris Agreement

UK’s Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Greg Clark, has pledged allegiance to the Paris Agreement, following US President Donald Trump’s decision to back out of the deal. a statement on Twitter, Clark said clean growth was a ‘key pillar’ of the UK’s modern industrial strategy. Due to its relatively clean nature, gas has been touted as a fuel that can help the eventual transition to renewable energy sources."

So: "clean growth" = producing GHG more efficiently by burning more "clean" NG. Most of the UK’s electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, mainly natural gas (30% in 2015) and coal (22%). And they have made great gains in renewables especially compared to the US: Renewables produce more than 20% of the UK’s electricity, and EU targets means that this is likely to increase to 30% by 2020.

But one should understand that most of that renewable expansion was motivated by economics and not environmental concerns. And will continue as the cost of NG continues to increase as supplies become more limited. Given the US abundant and relatively inexpensive NG supply the US lacks the same level of motivation. IOW expansion of US renewables will be a much bigger financial burden on the US then England. Which is one of the criticisms of the Paris Accord: it focuses on the amount of GHG of the major contributing countries and not that vastly different cost to move away from fossil fuels between countries to meet the goals.

Which is the basis for claiming the PA is unfair to the US. Which isn't so much the case as being "unfair" as it would simply be a more relatively expensive burden given our huge resource of relatively less expensive fossil fuel. Obviously it can't be proved but I wouild imagine England would not have expanded renewables as much as it has nor would be as inclined to go along with the PA if it had the many trillions of cuft of domestic NG resources the US has.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10138
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 11:56:14

Let me state what we all understand to be true.

First, we are NOT stopping the burning of FF's. Even if Trump were to go insane, ban FF burning, and scrap all the cars and trucks and tractors, and make everybody give up oil and gas furnaces, plus coal power plants, it would not make one bit of difference. The 2nd and 3rd world countries would burn all that stuff, it would just take a bit longer - which is not a good thing.

Secondly, FF exhaustion is a whole lot less survivable than Global Warming. Most of the people in the world will die from it.

The BEST path from here is for the 1st world countries to buy the FF's and burn them in modern emissions controlled power plants and vehicles. The 2nd and 3rd world dies sooner and in lower numbers, as the 1st world transitions to a more energy-constrained future.

YES of course I feel for the poor 3rd worlders. But their fossil fueled population growth is the cause of human overshoot. They must also bear the brunt of falling back to a population sustainable without FF's.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3868
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 12:07:26

Dohboi,

While I hear your argument that we are slowing, I'm not so sure it's correct. Perhaps what we are doing is using ffs AND renewables to grow as fast as possible.

The other thing about the Paris Accord is that it wants the developing world to become more like us. For them to raise their standard of living. But we already are using too much ft now with the current standard of living.

Look, I think you get this. But the problem is most others do not. And the Paris Accords just give folks something useful is being done when it is not.

Go back to your car analogy, sure we are breaking, or more correctly we are reducing our rate of acceleration only. We are now going 100 mph, without reducing acceleration we would hit the wall at 110, but because of the reduced acceleration we will only hit at 107.

Who the hell is talking about that?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8825
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 15:30:01

Newf said: "...perhaps..."

Bring some data and we can talk. :)

Meanwhile:

IN THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT, THE KOCH BROTHERS’ CAMPAIGN BECOMES OVERT

If there was any lingering doubt that a tiny clique of fossil-fuel barons has captured America’s energy and environmental policies, it was dispelled last week, when the Trump Administration withdrew from the Paris climate accord. Surveys showed that a majority of Americans in literally every state wanted to remain within the agreement, and news reports established that the heads of many of the country’s most successful and iconic Fortune 100 companies, from Disney to General Electric, did, too. Voters and big business were arrayed against leaving the climate agreement. Yet despite the majority’s sentiment, a tiny—and until recently, almost faceless—minority somehow prevailed."

"As the climate scientist Michael Mann put it to me in my book “Dark Money,” when attempting to explain why the Republican Party has moved in the opposite direction from virtually the rest of the world, “We are talking about a direct challenge to the most powerful industry that has ever existed on the face of the Earth. There’s no depth to which they’re unwilling to sink to challenge anything threatening their interests.” For most of the world’s population, the costs of inaction on climate change far outweigh that of action. But for the fossil-fuel industry, he said, “It’s like the switch from whale oil in the nineteenth century. They’re fighting to maintain the status quo, no matter how dumb.

But it’s worth remembering that Fred Koch, Charles and David’s father and the founder of the family company, had a favorite admonition. He warned his boys to keep a low profile and stay below the surface, because, as he put it, “It’s when the whale spouts that he gets harpooned."


Soooo, time to get our harpoons out?? :-D :-D

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... omes-overt

and...

How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science

The Koch Brothers, their allies and unlimited amounts of money ....

Unshackled by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and other related rulings, which ended corporate campaign finance restrictions, Koch Industries and Americans for Prosperity started an all-fronts campaign with television advertising, social media and cross-country events aimed at electing lawmakers who would ensure that the fossil fuel industry would not have to worry about new pollution regulations.

Their first target: unseating Democratic lawmakers such as Representatives Rick Boucher and Tom Perriello of Virginia, who had voted for the House cap-and-trade bill, and replacing them with Republicans who were seen as more in step with struggling Appalachia, and who pledged never to push climate change measures.

But Americans for Prosperity also wanted to send a message to Republicans. Until 2010, some Republicans ran ads in House and Senate races showing their support for green energy. “After that, it disappeared from Republican ads,” said Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity. “Part of that was the polling, and part of it was the visceral example of what happened to their colleagues who had done that.”

"What happened was clear. Republicans who asserted support for climate change legislation or the seriousness of the climate threat saw their money dry up or, worse, a primary challenger arise. “It told Republicans that we were serious,” Mr. Phillips said, “that we would spend some serious money against them.” By the time Election Day 2010 arrived, 165 congressional members and candidates had signed Americans for Prosperity’s “No Climate Tax” pledge.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/p ... ref=oembed
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16177
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 17:19:48

I hear two main reasons why people support the Paris Accords ----- and both of them are BS.

The first reason is that the Paris Accords represent a breakthrough where ca. 200 nations came together for the first time and all proclaimed they are against climate change.

Its true that ca. 200 nations all signed the Paris Accords----but theres nothing new in that. The Paris meeting was organized under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)---which is now 25 years old. The same 200 nations who signed the Paris Accords previously signed and ratified the UNFCCC, which also calls for reducing CO2 emissions and mitigating climate change. Even the 2°C target for warming agreed to at Paris was previously agreed to at UNFCCC-COP meeting in Cancun in 2010.

It isn't a breakthrough for countries to agree to the exact same things that were agreed to 25 years earlier.

---------------------------------

The second reason that people support the Paris Accords is that they think it is a program that will reduce CO2 emissions and stop climate change.

But if you look at the actual numbers that countries submitted and their plans for the future, the Paris Accords are actually a plan to INCREASE CO2 emissions and INCREASE global warming. When you run the numbers, the estimated amount of warming from the Paris Accords is +3.3°C---WAY ABOVE the 2°C number that Obama and others leaders are saying is the maximum amount of warming we'll get from the Paris Accords.

I don't think a climate accord that calls for INCREASES in CO2 emissions is very well thought out, particularly when the politicians are lying and claiming †he treaty will limit global warming to 2°C when it clearly will not.

IMHO these 200 countries should all withdraw from the Paris Accords and then meet and try again to craft a treaty which will actually REDUCE CO2 emissions. They all meet regularly anyway under the auspices of the UNFCCC, a global climate that the US has actually signed and ratified and which remains in full effect on all 200 nations engaged in this process. Trump cannot withdraw the US from the UNFCCC, because it is a legally ratified treaty in accordance with the US constitution.

Image
Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20027
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 06 Jun 2017, 20:46:47

Dohboi,

So please explain how the Paris accords bring CO2 sufficiently low to advert a major climatic change.

While at it please explains how hyping that India is building solar is actually reducing CO2.

Please explain how greenwashing is actually helping educate humanity.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8825
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby M_B_S » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 01:42:49

@ Newfie

BIG POINT

The so called self elected "Elite" will starf to death too that fact gives me freedom.

Image

The Time will come very soon where the bills will be payed... :twisted:
https://personal.lse.ac.uk/fleischh/Dro ... lution.pdf
Drought and the French Revolution:
The effects of adverse weather conditions on
peasant revolts in 1789
Maria Waldinger (London School of Economics)1


PEAK OIL
M_B_S
User avatar
M_B_S
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2981
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 02:00:00

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 07:01:34

Thanks, will read.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8825
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Ibon » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 07:34:07

Newfie wrote:Dohboi,

So please explain how the Paris accords bring CO2 sufficiently low to advert a major climatic change.

While at it please explains how hyping that India is building solar is actually reducing CO2.

Please explain how greenwashing is actually helping educate humanity.


I am going to put on my optimists hat this morning and defend the Paris accords in a broader context. As many have stated the agreement is mainly symbolic in that it represented the beginning of consensus globally even if the measures are voluntary and the actual CO2 production continues to grow. Symbolism is pathetic this late in the game but it still has value in that it focuses long term strategies on the problem of reducing carbon emissions.

Even though burning of fossil fuels continue to grow we do see continued robust growth of alternatives energies. A pittance in a global population of 7.5 or 9 billion but what about in a world of say 5 billion or 3 billion? The agreement after all is long term with a goal of zero emissions with a reassessment every five years.

So what if in the next 5 - 25 years we actually see some accelerated impacts of climate change. The Paris agreement is already in place and climate change impacts will be the impetus to build on the agreement's foundation. Consequences will harden the terms of the agreement and also start to reduce human population in marginalized areas.

Long term there is nothing as formidable as consequences to actually reduce carbon emissions. Getting from 8 or 9 billion humans down to say 2-3 billion is the long term solution. If we have mature alternative energy technology by the time we reduce our population we may get closer to the long term goal of the agreement.
If fertility rates continue to drop in a couple of generations our global population may fall to a number where the emissions we still emit are reduced to sequestration levels.

My rosiest scenario requires consequences of climate change to start reducing human population. The horrid impacts might should move future agreements from symbolic to concrete solutions.

Over population is the heart of the problem. We desperately need to see the death rate exceed the birth rate if we have a chance in hell in building resilience in a future population staying within carrying capacity in terms of carbon emissions. If that reduced human population takes place along side mature alternative energy technology we may get to some new equilibrium. Between here and there will be pretty messy but hey I am trying to be optimistic this morning. :)
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 5649
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 2 (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 07 Jun 2017, 08:44:30

Damning with faint praise?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8825
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

PreviousNext

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests