Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Earth Google Government Microsoft Technology

Prominent Tech Execs Sign Renewed Commitment To Paris Agreement (techcrunch.com) 131

Posted by BeauHD from the existential-threats dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Prominent Tech Execs Sign Renewed Commitment To Paris Agreement More

Prominent Tech Execs Sign Renewed Commitment To Paris Agreement

Comments Filter:

  • ALERT (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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!

    • Roaches taste like gooey salty walnuts!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      1. Eating more bugs

      Found a tasty bug [pixdaus.com]

    • 0. Green New Deal.

      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.

  • In actual practice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Monday December 02, 2019 @08:27PM (#59478592) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • if the problem is fossil fuel. And, well, it is. But the mega corporations don't want that, for two reasons:

      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)

        by blindseer ( 891256 )

        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

        • This is the question you should be asking yourself.

          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)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          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

          • 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.

            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)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              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.

        • I am in agreement with a lot of this, but I think it would be wise to examine the assumption that wealthy people create enough jobs to justify the loss of revenue to the government. The government creates a LOT of jobs. A handful of very wealthy people can only employ so many butlers. I think there is probably an optimum middle ground in there, and I think we have moved away from that. I also do not believe the market is as tax sensitive as many people assume. Business owners obviously want to make money,

      • 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...

      • this is so funny. Summary - I have brought all that I have been sold by the media and now I am trying to sell it to others. Awesome.
        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,
    • Don't forget the part about going to war with China to keep them from building enough additional coal plants to offset any reduction in CO2 accomplished by the U.S. and Europe.

      • 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)

          by kenh ( 9056 )

          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

        • As kenh said, yes, I can, and will criticize China on this. China is not only increasing the number of coal fired plants they are operating, they are financing coal fired plants throughout Africa and other parts of the world.

    • 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)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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)

    by kbahey ( 102895 ) on Monday December 02, 2019 @08:50PM (#59478636) Homepage

    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.

    • you scare people by threatening their standard of living. So they go after meat, cars and jobs. A Green New Deal wouldn't touch meat, would switch us over to electric cars and would mean 10 million middle class jobs. That last one is especially nasty for the uber rich, who don't want to compete for workers with all those new Green jobs.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kbahey ( 102895 )

        you scare people by threatening their standard of living. So they go after meat, cars and jobs. A Green New Deal wouldn't touch meat, would switch us over to electric cars and would mean 10 million middle class jobs. That last one is especially nasty for the uber rich, who don't want to compete for workers with all those new Green jobs.

        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

        • What about those who believe that it is going to happen, and that future generations just won't care. Lake Michigan once had a thriving commercial fishing industry, but not anymore, and world at large couldn't care less. If we can't get people to care about the environment in the their own back yard, why would they care about someone else's thousands of miles away?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 )
      Climate change is not about the climate, but about a complete change of society [project-syndicate.org] to eliminate the "colonial, racist, patriarchal control" of society. It's simply a means to an end - Socialism. You don't get to eat cows, because there ARE no cows - at least for the 99%. But our 1% rulers, they get all the beef they want, because All Animals Are Equal, but Some Are More Equal Than Others.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kbahey ( 102895 )

        Climate change is not about the climate, but about a complete change of society [project-syndicate.org] to eliminate the "colonial, racist, patriarchal control" of society.

        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 ...

        It's simply a means to an end - Socialism. You don't get to eat cow

    • 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

      • the desire to feel like you're doing something (e.g. empowered) is a big part of a lot of pointless policy that distracts from the actual solutions the parent nailed.

    • 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

    • Yes Advocate for more use of Railways, cleaner than trucks. Advocate for Nuclear power, cleaner than coal, safer than Hydro. Plant more trees, windmills on top of skyscrapers and those tech buildings.

  • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • 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: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Find the US state with 100% hydro? Move everything to that state to show full green politics?
      "Rent" the hydro power from that clean state "virtually" and stay in CA?
  • If Paris goals are met by 2030 [lomborg.com], we'll reduce the temperature in 2100 by somewhere between 0.05 and 0.17 deg C - well below the error limit for measurements. Basically - it does nothing, but is definitely a feel-good move and helps transfer trillions of dollars from the OECD countries to China, India, and a host of small nations...

    • 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.

      • No, I think you didn't follow - if we do EVERYTHING, instead of NOTHING, we cut the temperature by between 0.05 deg C and 0.17 deg C in 2100. Trillions of dollars spent to make a change hidden in the noise.
        • No I don't think you realise what he is measuring. Or even what I said.
          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
    • Is that a study by the doctor of philosophy in political science Bjorn Lomborg [wikipedia.org]? The one that was "formally accused of scientific dishonesty by a group of environmental scientists, who brought a total of three complaints against him to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD)" and whose book was found "to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question"?

      And by the way, reading Lombo

  • 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

    • 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)

      by shilly ( 142940 )

      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.

  • 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)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      . 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:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      A US tax that moves US productivity to green Communist China for "free".
  • Get China and India to drop the "emerging economy" BS. They are the BIGGEST polluters by far. Get rid of the really bad stuff before you come after my hamburgers and CO2.
  • I'm certain of it. I woke up this morning to another day of being virtuous. I can't help being virtuous. I have an entire PR Dept. working on 'disseminating' the reasons WHY I'm virtuous and HOW it's impossible for me to do anything that is NOT virtuous. It's IMPOSSIBLE for ME NOT to be VIRTUOUS. I am truly blessed by Mother Gia, Allah, Jehovah, God and the Editorial Board of the WaPo.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Close