Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth United States

Countries Roll Out 2030 Paris Accord Goals Amid US Absence 128

Posted by BeauHD from the losing-credibility dept.
China, the United Kingdom and the European Union all laid out goals to achieve greater emission reductions as part of the Paris climate accord over the weekend at what was likely the last United Nations climate summit without a U.S. presence. The Hill reports: The three powers all vowed to make greater emissions reductions by 2030 during the summit, which marked the fifth anniversary of the global climate accord. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson pledged to make the nation the "Saudi Arabia of wind power" as part of its goal to cut its emissions by 68 percent by 2030. The European Union laid out its vision for reducing emissions by 50 percent by the same year.

China, which has been frequently criticized by Republicans in particular for not doing more on climate change, promised to reduce its carbon emissions by 65 percent relative to its gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030. The 2030 goals announced at the summit are part of many countries' broader efforts to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Xi's comments at the summit followed a commitment earlier this year to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2060. The Chinese plan unveiled Saturday does not require its emission to peak by 2025, as some had hoped. And by tracking emissions with its GDP, the country would allow its emissions to grow along with its economy. But it does put the country on track to triple its wind and solar capacity and to expand its forests. President-elect Joe Biden, who recently had his election victory certified by the Electoral College, has promised to bring the U.S. back to the agreement on Day 1 of his presidency. "His climate plan would put the U.S on track to reach net-zero emissions by 2050," reports The Hill.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Countries Roll Out 2030 Paris Accord Goals Amid US Absence More

Countries Roll Out 2030 Paris Accord Goals Amid US Absence

Comments Filter:
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Yeah, but what are you going to do with 40billion tons of charcoal?

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • But if you use the charcoal (i.e. burn it), don't you release the CO2 again? So you can either say "make charcoal to remove CO2 from the atmosphere" or "make charcoal to have a source of energy that's easy to store". You can't have both.

      • Bury it in abandoned coal mines to start with, I suppose.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      Do you have any links on an analysis of this approach? It sounds pretty much the same as the "grow a forest then bury it" to sequester carbon method. The issues I see are:

      1) Is producing charcoal from plants actually a net carbon gain? You have to burn the plant material in a low-oxygen environment to produce the charcoal. I suppose you could burn it using solar power.
      2) If it really did turn out to be carbon neutral or carbon positive, we would be better off to burn that coal to reduce what we mine fro

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • The presumption is you use gasification as part of the charcoal production process, with the majority of that being gas particularly rich in hydrogen, be it hydrogen or methane, so you get energy from it with low carbon dixoxide associated with it. It's not efficient, but then efficient energy production isn't the goal. The downside, though, is that in addition to burying carbon you also bury a lot of trace nutrients, and so putting it down a mine shaft isn't ideal as you might want to dig it back out again

  • We were never in it. It's a treaty that needs to be ratified by the senate, and Obama never bothered trying. I doubt Joe will, either.

    • You seem to really want that to be true. What's up with that?

      • You seem to really want that to be true. What's up with that?

        I don't care either way as I don't think it'll have any real effect. But how I feel isn't relevant - the *fact* is that we can't "re-enter" something we never entered.

        • We can't withdraw from something we never entered either, so why did Trump withdraw from the Paris Accord? Are you calling Trump a liar?

          • Are you calling Trump a liar?

            He is, right? At very least he has a flexible relationship with the truth.

          • We can't withdraw from something we never entered either, so why did Trump withdraw from the Paris Accord? Are you calling Trump a liar?

            Good point, but he undid what Obama did. Maybe that's the right way to put it.

        • I don't care either way as I don't think it'll have any real effect.

          This is ignorant, foolish, and wrong.

          • not really. Paris is worthless, like Kyoto.
            Our best chance is for every nation to tax their consumed goods/services based on where the worst part/service comes from. Make it slowly increasing and it will push all nations to lower their emissions, while rewarding those nations that are already at low levels.
          • ...and so is your comment. See how easy it is to gainsay someone? Citations please.

      • Without treaty power, the president is extremely limited in what he can do.

        Normally people hate the unitary, royal executive unilaterally acting like they pass laws. But this is an important principle only when "the other guy", for various definitions of other, is in office.

        • *sigh* The Paris Accord is a simple executive agreement. It's essentially as binding as a New Year's resolution. I don't know why that's so hard to accept. And by the way, both Obama and Trump have accepted the legal status, so I don't even want to guess what that makes a dipshit like you. Take it up with your spiritual advisor if you ever crawl out of your mom's basement.
    • That's not accurate. The accords were specifically designed to not be a treaty to avoid that issue.

      • then they have no standing at all within our country. glad we cleared that up for everyone. they're useless and toothless anyway, each country setting its own standards and way of measuring makes it less valuable than used toilet paper.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dog77 ( 1005249 )
      And even if we signed a treaty it would still be meaningless without any laws behind it.

    • We were never in it. It's a treaty that needs to be ratified by the senate, and Obama never bothered trying. I doubt Joe will, either.

      a) It's not a treaty.
      b) Being the only outcome of this is action you don't need to ratify it to "be in it". You just need to achieve it's outcome which is something that Obama actively worked towards before the Orange Man decided the way he was going to win an election was to promise non-existent jobs to a dying coal industry.

  • US can't promise net-zero by 2050 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Monday December 14, 2020 @10:26PM (#60831868)
    The only thing they can promise is that they will probably rejoin and withdraw several times by 2050, as various Trumps move in and out of power.
    • Actually, it is easy for America to hit it before 2040. Add geothermal, along with nuclear, to the wind/solar growth. In addition, cut the dead trees and REPLANT OUR FOREST. In the west, we have lost a great deal of our forest due to climate change that allows pine beetle and now, spruce beetle. That has also allowed the massive fires because both Dems and GOP have refused to CUT THESE TREES.

      Cut them and then lets replant quickly. For the east, add lots of hardwood trees. ANd increase these trees up in A
      • Ok, and then those dead trees release their carbon when they burn or decay. I don't see how this gains anything.

      • There are more trees in the US today than 100 years ago. Reforestation has been happening in the US and the US significantly reduced emissions due to nuclear and natural gas power in the last few decades, only to be undercut by the anti-nuclear movement.

        California on the other hand has seen an increase in emissions the last 2 years after shutting down nuclear.

        • This is actually a map from 5 years ago. [washingtonpost.com]
          However, I am guessing that you are NOT from western USA, where the bulk of American trees WERE. We have suffered HUGE from pine beetle kill and many of our forest are dead/dying. That is why we have such major fires. We need to cut the trees down and replant.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If the US fixed its system (gerrymandering, voter suppression, political appointments to key offices, politically appointed judges etc.) there would never be another Trump. In fact there probably wouldn't be another Republican POTUS, at least not until the party reformed itself to the point it was no longer recognizable.

  • Yeah, like always, more BS. (Score:3)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @12:26AM (#60832112) Journal

    China, which has been frequently criticized by Republicans in particular for not doing more on climate change, promised to reduce its carbon emissions by 65 percent relative to its gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030. The 2030 goals announced at the summit are part of many countries' broader efforts to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Xi's comments at the summit followed a commitment earlier this year to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2060. The Chinese plan unveiled Saturday does not require its emission to peak by 2025, as some had hoped.

    China had originally promised that they would NOT grow any more emissions by 2020. Then it was 2025. Then it was 2030. Now they are tying it to GDP, not per capita. However, it should be obvious they want to increase their coal plants as being pushed for their new 5 year plan. They are already close to 1.25 TW of coal, and will likely continue with the push to go to 1.75 TW of coal.

    I do note that they are wanting to go with emissions tied to GDP, though I suspect they will want it tied to GDP(PPP), which is total BS. They are right to push for emission / GDP though. That is the RIGHT way for all nations to do this. We need to drop it fast.

  • Climate Change, Republicans, and China (Score:3)

    by IdanceNmyCar ( 7335658 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2020 @04:55AM (#60832490)

    China, which has been frequently criticized by Republicans in particular for not doing more on climate change

    So the people who enjoy the idea that climate change is either God's will or a Chinese myth, like to complain to China about what they are doing to change God's will or fix the fake issue?

    Cognitive dissonance is the new world mantra.

  • they never ratified nor honor those treaties anyway.
  • Hey I am a nympho and I get turned on guys who I know little ...Oh .. I'm waiting >> v.ht/Je2x

    • Hey I am a nympho and I get turned on guys who I know little

      There's plenty of guys who know little here, welcome to Slashdot :)

  • China's current carbon intensity is 0.5 kg/PPP-US$-GDP.
    The USA's is 0.3 kg/PPP-US$-GDP.

    China has a long way to go before it reaches the US level of carbon intensity, namely a reduction of 40% TODAY.

    This data from the World Bank: https://data.worldbank.org/ind... [worldbank.org]

  • Go ahead Europe... Don't forget China and Russia and the other countries. You can do it! The more you do it without us being involved the better! Indeed, we'll sell you stuff to make it happen. Our stores are always open!

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close