Prominent Tech Execs Sign Renewed Commitment To Paris Agreement (techcrunch.com) 131
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: The U.S. government may be in the process of formally withdrawing from the term of the Paris Agreement, an international accord on targets to fight climate change, but major U.S. employers say they'll stay the course in a new statement jointly signed by a group of around 80 chief executives and U.S. labor organization leaders. The statement, posted at UnitedForTheParisAgreement.com, represents a group that either directly employs more than 2 million people in the U.S., or represents a larger group of 12.5 million through labor organizations.
The group collectively says they are "still in" on the Agreement, which many of the undersigned also supported vocally back in 2017 when the Trump administration announced its intent to formally remove itself. They also "urge the United States" to reconsider its current course and also agree to remain committed to the agreement. The Agreement will not only help to potentially counter the ongoing impacts of global climate change, the group says in the letter, but also prepare the way for a "just transition" of the U.S. workforce to "new decent, family supporting jobs and economic opportunity," implying that bowing out of the Agreement will actually impede the U.S. workforce's ability to compete on a global scale. Some of the prominent tech executives that have signed the statement include Microsoft's Satya Nadella, Tesla's Elon Musk, Google's Sundar Pichai and Adobe's Shantanu Narayen. "Chief executives from other powerful U.S. companies across industries are also represented, including Coca-Cola's James Quincey, Patagonia's Rose Marcario, Unilever's Alan Jope and Walt Disney's Robert Iger," reports TechCrunch.
The group collectively says they are "still in" on the Agreement, which many of the undersigned also supported vocally back in 2017 when the Trump administration announced its intent to formally remove itself. They also "urge the United States" to reconsider its current course and also agree to remain committed to the agreement. The Agreement will not only help to potentially counter the ongoing impacts of global climate change, the group says in the letter, but also prepare the way for a "just transition" of the U.S. workforce to "new decent, family supporting jobs and economic opportunity," implying that bowing out of the Agreement will actually impede the U.S. workforce's ability to compete on a global scale. Some of the prominent tech executives that have signed the statement include Microsoft's Satya Nadella, Tesla's Elon Musk, Google's Sundar Pichai and Adobe's Shantanu Narayen. "Chief executives from other powerful U.S. companies across industries are also represented, including Coca-Cola's James Quincey, Patagonia's Rose Marcario, Unilever's Alan Jope and Walt Disney's Robert Iger," reports TechCrunch.
ALERT (Score:1, Funny)
You can stop climate change by
1. Eating more bugs
2. Living in a box
3. Stop having kids
4. Paying more taxes
The science is settled, folks. Eat more bugs!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Eating more bugs
Found a tasty bug [pixdaus.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You may now toss out #1 -4. Though if you're used to paying crap wages for your McJobs you'll have 10 million new middle class jobs to compete with for workers, so you'll have to step up and maybe skip that third or fourth private jet to get to your sixth or seventh private island. On the plus side you won't wind up like Epstein did in 20 years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Never let perfect be the enemy of good (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we can't make prefect predictions, but we do know bad shit is happening [xkcd.com]. We also know we need to do something about it. We are not because it would inconvenience a handful of billionaires.
Also, I keep asking this but what the actual f* gives with all the climate change deniers on
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure some of the prominent ones are not, because they have been here ages and have always been idiots.
You know how some people think "they laughed at Einstein" because he wnt against conventional wisdom? Well the lesson they learned is that contrarianism is what makes you smart, so they believe by going against the mainstream, they are smarter than you. It's really really sad.
Re: (Score:2)
The climate has changed since the planet was formed. No one has ever claimed that the climate does not change.
Check the XKCD link in my post (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your quote implies climate change is a hoax (and I'm guessing you know this, if not please come to your senses).
The IPCC quote he posted kind of hints at it, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
"Denier" is meaningless in science, and suggesting otherwise only damages science.
Implied in the term (as people trying to pass off a fallacy always do, embed multiple concepts into a single term so the audience hopefully doesn't notice, and automatically accepts it whole-cloth) is that a position is an absolute not subject to further scientific data (always scientifically false), and that disagreement with a position is automatically incorrect (always logically false).
That's probably why you're seeing it o
Re: (Score:2)
So much is f---ed up in your post that it is really not worthy of specific rebuttal.
Simply put, a skeptic is willing to be convinced by contrary evidence. A denier is not. The End.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, yes, except... I'm completely correct, and you're wrong.
There is no justification for using the term "denier", ever, and you aren't the arbiter of your own made-up categories of who is which.
There is -never- a case where an argument can be dismissed on the basis of nothing whatsoever, with the mere application of "denier". There is never a case where you know a person's internal attitude or willingness to accept evidence. You aren't psychic.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, yes, except... I'm completely correct, and you're wrong.
And that means you're a self-professed denier. Nice move.
There is no justification for using the term "denier", ever, and you aren't the arbiter of your own made-up categories of who is which.
They aren't "made up". It's clear you are trying to erase the distinction between denier and skeptic. The latter deserves consideration, the former does not.
There is -never- a case where an argument can be dismissed on the basis of nothing whatsoever, with the mere application of "denier". There is never a case where you know a person's internal attitude or willingness to accept evidence. You aren't psychic.
If you want to challenge a scientific principle, present your evidence. Otherwise, STFU.
Re: (Score:1)
And that means you're a self-professed denier. Nice move.
Absurd. But a thorough confession of your transparent intellectual dishonesty you've displayed in every post recently. Neither here nor anywhere else do you get to assert automatic correctness with no argument, particularly when you are, in fact, wrong.
They aren't "made up". It's clear you are trying to erase the distinction between denier and skeptic. The latter deserves consideration, the former does not.
And you decide which. Your degree of arrogance is reaching the truly lunatic variety.
If you want to challenge a scientific principle, present your evidence. Otherwise, STFU.
I already have. I've deconstructed the term, and exactly what I said applies, does. Your linguistic assertions are a -scientific principle-? You truly are a lunatic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But deniers always try to tie the three together to try and claim some credibility by association. Since they are completely lacking credibility of their own.
Re: (Score:1)
And, I'm sure, when a point of contention arises, one is -extremely careful- to apply "skeptic" versus "denier" to the opposition.
Or, "denier" will be automatically asserted, based on projecting minimized credibility on the opposition. That's what I see, based on every data point I see on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. Do tell me when a systematic blatant Ad Hominem fallacy of "denier", resulting in the target being automatically wrong without the need for any argument or evidence that is so, is valid.
Perhaps a few examples would help me.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's already a word for "Denier", too. It is "heretic". But, you probably don't like that one.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's hardly worth the effort to type them.
Re: (Score:1)
No, I never claimed it is a hoax. And I do think that some degree of climate change due to human factors is real.
This is simply an issue of constraints, and acknowledging the constraints of accuracy stated by the IPCC itself.
If I say "I'm going to cause X amount of economic damage to society in exchange for alleviating Y risk", science can't leave at "well, just 'X' and 'Y' are good enough for our purposes".
That's not science, that's fraud.
Re: Never let perfect be the enemy of good (Score:1)
Disparaging skeptics as "deniers" makes your beliefs look like a cult and you look like an intolerant fundie.
Re: (Score:2)
Disparaging skeptics as "deniers" makes your beliefs look like a cult and you look like an intolerant fundie.
You are confused.
A skeptic is part of what one might call the "loyal opposition" -- one who embraces the tenets of science, but seeks to find flaws in a fellow scientist's arguments, and yet is prepared to be swayed by evidence that supports her/his opponent.
A denier is not prepared to accept compelling contrary evidence, but instead clings to a narrative no matter what the evidence shows.
Re: Never let perfect be the enemy of good (Score:1)
So you agree, those who consider alarmism ill-advised and driven by emotion, are skeptics.
Whereas "deniers" are really quite scarce, if any may be found at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Never let perfect be the enemy of good (Score:1)
"But they are two separate things."
Right. Skeptics are sensible people who don't allow themselves to be carried away by emotionally charged groupthink.
Whereas deniers are fictional bogeymen.
Re: (Score:2)
Deniers deny science, well just because.
It's easy to tell them apart.
Re: Never let perfect be the enemy of good (Score:1)
"Deniers deny science, well just because."
That analysis doesn't sound very scientific...
Re: (Score:2)
They invent their own reasons. You'd have to ask them (/yourself)?
Re:I'll just leave this here... (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, the illusion of power from quoting out of context. Let's put some context back in, hm'kay?
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.
-- 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report
Driving too fast while drunk (Score:3)
It is not predictable when the accident will occur. Or even if, for certain, there will be an accident.
But by probability distributions, driving too fast is probably not a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Any quote is "out of context". It only matters if the quote is contradicted or altered by the wider context.
Here, it is not. The original statement stands as-is.
As an aside, however, "the focus must be upon", says essentially nothing, and posits nothing specific.
Re: (Score:2)
You're gaslighting. You have been found out. The narrow-context quote you supplied is indisputably contradicted by the wider context.
"The focus must be upon" phrase does not say nothing, nor is it unspecific. It is crucial to the methodology that the IPCC report presents. Models can predict a number of possible outcomes, based on inputs that are not known with absolute certainty. By varying the inputs according to uncertainities that can be estimated a priori, one can determine a distribution of possible ou
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I've been "found out". Oh my.
No, the statement stands as-is. Is it correct, or incorrect? The subsequent statement asserts that "the focus must be upon" other statistical methods, for which accurate prediction is -not- asserted. Merely that the "focus must be upon". Well, clearly. The main question is why the "focus must be upon" that. One position would be that it is manly because to not burn millions of dollars of compute time for a set of inaccurate models, with corresponding financial incentive
Re: (Score:1)
I do have to remember to use this one, though.
"It isn't that I'm wrong, it's that I've given a distribution of possible outcomes."
Totally unfalsifiable results, and wrapped in the aura of "science", which, as science does, declares the U.N. is the political arbiter of science, that an unlimited budget with no tradeoffs is specified by science for "science" activity; if "scientists" are doing something, that is tautologically automatically the scientifically optimal th
Re: (Score:2)
https://cheezburger.com/808806... [cheezburger.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen someone use the word 'science' so many times without even understanding what it is or how it works.
Re: (Score:1)
Lie on.
Show me any of the statements that are falsifiable, or determined via scientific method.
Re: (Score:1)
Naturally, because the accusation was meaningless, just posting words as a spouted lie.
No, feel free to review any one of my statements I indicated were not scientifically justified. You can start with the word "unfalsifiable". Show how my evaluation isn't exactly correct per what science actually is.
The U.N. isn't the "decider" of science, and "science" isn't the idiot's definition of "whatever a supposed scientist is doing". There's two. Pick any.
Re: (Score:1)
You say that like cancer is analogous, and that there will ever a state of the climate that will be acknowledged as "corrected".
You aren't analogizing to a doctor, you're analogizing to an insurance scam.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: I'll just leave this here... (Score:2)
The quote is still an equivalent of the NULL value
Re: (Score:2)
Adding huge quantities of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere makes (note the present tense) the global temperature rise. That's the simple part, which you are trying to make out to be complicated with a quote out of context. You must feel so clever.
As for the non-linear bit: global temperature has risen, and will continue to rise. It's just not going to manifest in exactly the same way everywhere. Many places are going to get a lot more heat waves. That's already started. What's harder to predict, because o
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't mean we don't know you will die.
Re: (Score:1)
But you're sure of the outcome, when the IPCC isn't.
Part of your death cult thinking, I suppose.
In actual practice (Score:4, Insightful)
In actual practice we know what the problem is, and we know what we have to do, unless we really want to pay hundreds of trillions of dollars for massive impacts in the US.
What we have to do is simple.
1. Stop flying or driving, unless your energy for those comes from biofuels with a low cradle to grave impact (human or forest waste, tree spinnies, or algae from areas with good water resources). Embrace what Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Germany are doing and build and use high speed or moderate speed trains (200 mph is moderate speed).
2. Downshift your carbon impact in food. Use waste food to make fertilizer and biogas. Replace cattle beef consumption with scrub-fed bison, fish, shellfish, chicken, and nuts. Sure, you could go vegan but even changing half the meat you eat has a massive impact, and replacing it with shellfish like mussels clams and oysters grown in seagrass and seaweed beds literally pulls carbon out of the air and the sea. This depends on where you live, of course.
3. Stop living in suburban areas in giant houses. Waste of resources, increases transportation emissions, and all that water runoff from roads and insecticide sprayed lawns is literally much worse than anyone living in a city or a sustainable farm.
4. Build and use renewables. The exact mix depends on where you are. They are much much cheaper than any fossil fuels. Especially if we end all fossil fuel infrastructure depreciation, incentives, exemptions, and deductions at all levels.
The kid thing sounds great, but you're way too late for that to matter.
Building renewables would be enough (Score:1)
First, they own trillions in assets tied to fossil fuels, which become essentially worthless in the new economy.
Second, the change over to renewables is going to be huge, and that means lots and lots and _lots_ of jobs from infrastructure spending, much of which will be so large that only gov't can do it. That itself has two problems (for the billionaires that is), higher taxes on said billio
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And even more than taxes the 1% will not tolerate a thriving middle class.
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
The wealthy know that they cannot make money unless the middle class is also making money. There was an old economic theory, that still seems to pop up again and again despite being proven wrong, in which there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world and the only way to become wealthy was to take wealth from others. This is proven wrong by a very simple thought experiment. If there is a tribe of excellent basket weavers on one side of a valley, and another tribe of
Did the kings need to make money? (Score:2)
You don't need to "make money" when you already own everything. America has an aristocracy, a ruling class, we just don't like to acknowledge it. Warren Buffet made the point that there's a class war going on, and his class is winning.
The only difference between our ruling class and the kings of old is ours learned. They're out of sight, out of mind. They don't flaunt their wealth and power the same way the kings do. No "let them eat cake". They're f
Re: (Score:2)
A more modern example is the everyday trade of dollars for gasoline. Who wins on this trade? Both the buyer of the gasoline and the seller. With more fuel the buyer gets to drive to work, school, church, a shopping center, or wherever. With the money given in exchange the filling station can now pay for wages, rent, electricity, more fuel to sell, and so on.
Nice theory but let's look at reality for a moment. This is in the UK.
Petrol stations usually sell petrol on an incredibly thin margin, or at a loss. Supermarkets in particular often sell at a loss and make their money in the shop. The only way petrol stations survive is by either having an attached shop that is the actual source of profit, or by being located where drivers have little choice but to pay their prices.
It's hardly a shining example of a free market full of actors empowered by knowledge and cho
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I'll bite. Why do they sell petrol then? Or is it a "loss leader"? Which is a perfectly legitimate way of pricing things to make money - "sell A at a loss to get people into the store so they can buy B at a comfortable profit"?
Or do you just think petrol station owners are idiots who are going to end up in the po
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's a loss leader for the supermarkets. For the dedicated petrol stations it's slightly profitable, but a lot of them went out of business a decade or two ago. I expect more will as people shift to EVs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And even more than taxes the 1% will not tolerate a thriving middle class.
In totalitarian, socialist States - yes, you are correct. In free market, capitalist, Democratic-based countries? Not so much...
Re: (Score:1)
Key to climate change, is a big tax increase. Welcome your new all knowing overlords like AOC who knows everything there is to know about the climate and more tax,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China produces a small fraction of carbon per capita than the USA does.
And China is doing far more to reduce that further. Mainly because pollution really hurts them, so they are more aware of the atmosphere.
This is one thing that you cannot criticize China on. They will run a clean jail.
Re: (Score:2)
China is building new coal-fired power plants and planning new coal mines as you write the words "And China is doing far more to reduce..."
SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China is building more coal-fired power plants and approving dozens of new mines, despite assurances from the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter that it was serious about fighting climate change.
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
You wrote: This is one thing that you cannot criticize China on. Yes I can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In actual practice we know what the problem is, and we know what we have to do, unless we really want to pay hundreds of trillions of dollars for massive impacts in the US.
Let's consider something that, as far as I've seen, does not come up often. How many "hundreds of trillions of dollars" would have to be spent to adapt to climate change? How many dollars would it cost to stop this climate change? Now, which is the larger amount?
I keep hearing about the damage that would come from rising sea levels. Well, people aren't stupid enough to keep living in their house on the beach until they drown in it from the rising tide. City governments won't just stand still while shop
Re: (Score:2)
unless we really want to pay hundreds of trillions of dollars for massive impacts in the US.
Lots of people are just hoping that someone else has to pay the hundreds of trillions of dollars. As long as it's not them it's fine.
The Big Three ... (Score:4, Informative)
People keep focusing on meat (beef in particular), but the facts are that the following three sectors account for ~ 79% of total green house gas emissions (per the EPA [epa.gov]):
- Transportation 29% (that means trucks and ships that haul goods around, cars, airplanes, ...etc.)
- Power generation 28% (coal powered stations being the biggest offender)
- Industry 22%
On the other hand, agriculture is a mere 9%, and commercial/residential is 12%
So the focus should be on the high impact sectors.
If you want to stop meaningful climate policy (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Scaring people often backfires, and I think that has happened with climate change.
Some of the deniers focus on: "It just can't be that bad, hence it is not true", even as a w
Yes, but who cares? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that is an opinion piece by someone who is just 16 years old, and still has a lot to learn ...
One opinion, or a few, do not change well established scientific facts: the planet is getting warmer, human activity is causing it, and unless things are done fast, it will get worse real quick ...
Re: (Score:1)
Greta is the face of modern Climate Emergency adherents. Her words are weighted well beyond her age...
As far as warming, it turns out that nearly all the warming [wordpress.com] is a result of adjustments, we've experienced about what we'd see historically. The data says the models are wrong [drroyspencer.com]. And even if we implemented all those Paris Accord goals, we'd see somewhere between a 0.05 and 0.17 deg C [lomborg.com] change in 2100 - well within the range of error for temperature measurements.
This is not about the "climate emergency" at al
Re: (Score:2)
People keep focusing on meat (beef in particular), but the facts are that the following three sectors account for ~ 79% of total green house gas emissions
That's because people want to feel "empowered", like they are contributing to the solution. They aren't. All they are doing is raising their food costs, lowering their nutrition, or both.
Here's how we can fix the problems more effectively...
- Transportation 29% (that means trucks and ships that haul goods around, cars, airplanes, ...etc.)
Synthesized hydrocarbon fuels can replace petroleum fuels. These can be produced in a way that is carbon neutral by using carbon from the air, and low carbon energy sources. What would those be? That's the next item.
- Power generation 28% (coal powered stations being the biggest offender)
For electricity that is low in CO2, low in cost, h
Mod Parent up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What you have shown is a little misleading. You need to consider what the electricity and transport are for and who uses them.
If you attribute the electricity to the sector that ultimately uses it [epa.gov]
Transport/industry/Residential&comercial are all about the same. Around 30% [epa.gov] (10% agriculture)
Then consider that transportation is mostly light duty vehicles 59% [epa.gov] Peoples cars/trucks/SUV's etc.
Commercial and residential is actually a bigger emitter of CO2 than industry, because they use more electricity and t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
They open data centers in cold areas or where it can be water cooled. They are moving in the right direction. But to say none will means you have homework to-do.
Re: Virtue signaling nonsense from tech industry (Score:3)
carbon tax (Score:1)
Easy.
Re: (Score:1)
No they don't. They are opening it them up in Virginia. Also cutting down trees to do it. You can see it yourself by driving out to northern Virginia. Virtue signaling.
Re: (Score:1)
"Rent" the hydro power from that clean state "virtually" and stay in CA?
Feel good, no impact (Score:2, Insightful)
perfect is the enemy of good. (Score:2)
You forgot the other scenario where we try, and don't meet the goals. And the temps rise a lot.
And the other, other scenario. Where everyone pollutes as much as America, doesn't even bother trying to decrease CO2 usage. And the temps go up even higher than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The second biggest polluter isn't meeting it's agreed targets(America). The biggest and second biggest emitters (China and America) agreed targets aren't even enough to limit rises to 2 degrees anyway.
The Paris goals (limiting the rise to well below 2 degrees) and the targets the countries agreed to are already 2 entirely different things that you are pretending are the same thing. If every country achieved their target it wouldn't lim
Re: (Score:2)
And by the way, reading Lombo
Government can't solve this. (Score:2)
In this debate I see two groups, both claiming to have solved the problem of global warming.
In the first group are people with a background in STEM. These are the scientist, technicians, engineers, and mathematicians that looked at the problem of CO2 emissions and largely came to the same conclusion. This means looking for energy sources that are low in CO2 emissions, low in raw material needs, low in demands for land area, high in return on energy invested, low in cost, high in reliability, affordable, a
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason why SJW's and Global Warming activists march arm-in-arm, and it's not because they really have any interest whatsoever in the practical, realistic carbon mitigation schemes you are discussing.
When I see Global Warming activists start committing to nuclear energy in earnest, that's when I'll actually begin to take Global Warming seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
I know this is a tough concept to take on board, but carbon emissions aren't the only reason why moving to EVs is a good idea. There's all the other dangerous emissions too, everything from PM2.5s to NOx. And synthetic hydrocarbons don't solve for those other issues at all. There's also noise and vibration disbenefits with ICE vehicles.
Imagine that! A world so complicated that there can be more than one reason to do something, and more than one variable to optimise for.
Kinda the best of both worlds tbh (Score:2)
US companies aspire to their own goals oriented towards mitigating anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in North America, while the US continues to not contribute to the Green Climate Fund. They're two good things, really.
Here's how the Green Climate Fund from the Paris Agreement would have worked:
1. China keeps injecting massive subsidies into manufacturing industries
2. The second biggest economy in the world is considered a developing country that needs financial help to meet emissions goals
3. US puts $
Re: (Score:2)
. US puts $3 billion into the fund and the fund sends monies to help China because even though it has enough money to massively subsidize the industries that generate emissions, it needs financial help to implement reductions to those emissions
Since we don't have a spare $3BN lying around, we'll likely have to borrow that $3BN - any idea where we'll borrow it from?
China. The Paris accords would have us borrow money from China so we could give it to China to subsidize their conversion to green power sources - but we still have to pay back the $BN (with interest), so China doubles it's money by signing the Paris Accord.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Drop in the bucket (Score:1)
I Am Truly Virtuous (Score:1)
They're welcome to spend their stockholder's money (Score:2)
What? this is just a ploy to guilt politicians and the public into doing something politically questionable and one sided they don't want?
They're welcome to spend their stockholder's money - at least until their stockholders (or the FTC) tells them otherwise.
They're NOT welcome to egg the government into sending guys with guns to take and spend MY money.