Countries Roll Out 2030 Paris Accord Goals Amid US Absence 128
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth. Why? Because I love people and the average health and wealth of same skyrocketting with such a large society in an economically free land.
Some think this is a troll, but it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Some think this is a troll, but it is not.
Perhaps not, but it is foolish if you think we could do it sustainably any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but what are you going to do with 40billion tons of charcoal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Why does everything need a use? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In an economically free land, prices decline over time [juliansimon.com] as free entrepreneurs work to satisfy wants and needs.
Price is the economic indicator of scarcity.
In short, over time (10 year+ minimum geanularity, not talking spikes up and down) these "harder to reach" apples become easier to reach than the easier apples were, as a cost burden to society. This is the paradox few understand.
But last century confirmed it continuously, but only in countries with economic freedom, where the people can respond to shortag
Re: (Score:2)
Peak Oil could, and was, predicted to be a failure concept because of this, it being a reskinned 1970s shortage scare destined to fall in the same manner.
Giant oil platforms were being replaced by giant, computer-controlled ships that sank two milrs of pipe through the ocean, drilled down a mile, made a right turn, then drilled another few miles.
And those, in turn, just as they were revving up, were replaced by fracking and natural gas, a "substitute" in economic terms.
Re: Charcoal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bury it in abandoned coal mines to start with, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Charcoal (Score:2)
Joe can't bring us "back" into it (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you calling Trump a liar?
He is, right? At very least he has a flexible relationship with the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care either way as I don't think it'll have any real effect.
This is ignorant, foolish, and wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
We tax more on corporations by far. He apparently wants more taxes on the average joe, like all these European countries do (instead of corporate taxes.)
Nevermind. With high taxes on both corporations and citizens, it's the best of both continents.
Re: (Score:2)
And that idiot that you were talking to is Caffeinated Bacon, who is a Ch
Re: (Score:2)
I regret missing this conversation. You're on to something. The problem with all of these treaties is that we (large first-world countries) simply outsource the pollution to China and India. If they start cleaning up, we'll simply move elsewhere.
People think that it's about "cheap labor", but that's only part of it. Did you know that we have a rare earth mineral mine in the US? The ore is sent to China for processing.
Almost everything dirty is made over there and we let the Pacific Ocean absorb the nas
Re: (Score:2)
We really do not outsource the pollution. These other nations, esp. China, have illegally dumped, manipulated their $, etc in order to force the companies there. The problem is that once they go there, the local and/or federal gov simply allow pollution to occur. IOW, the blame belongs on the governments and businesses.
Just as I blame other governments, I also blame OUR government. For example, we just got done with the new NAFTA treaty (whatever the fuck its called now). That would have been th
Re: Joe can't bring us "back" into it (Score:2)
Re: Joe can't bring us "back" into it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, when I speak of taxing the goods/service, it is based on the nation, but with America, being so big, I would tax based on states here as well.
I woudl consider the same for Canada, China, Russia, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
We are in the middle.
Across the globe as a whole the USA does well in terms of kg/$ of GDP. It's less good if you look at the G20. Per capita it's less good, but note that there are amounts of imported CO2 (from places like China) embodied in products and their transport not really accounted for in the typical headline figure. There are groups out there publishing figures including that. but none are official.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Joe can't bring us "back" into it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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:1)
But that's my gripe, it DOESN'T set targets nor standards.
China with strong central control is the biggest emitter, what the USA does is irrelevant. Soon India will join China... they'll be the ones making the bulk of carbon.
Re: Joe can't bring us "back" into it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Cut them and then lets replant quickly. For the east, add lots of hardwood trees. ANd increase these trees up in A
Re: (Score:2)
Re: US can't promise net-zero by 2050 (Score:2)
Charcoal is one solution to this. Simply burying them is also slightly effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: US can't promise net-zero by 2050 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon sequestration. It's a well thought-out plan. Bury logs of fast-growth trees in non-biodegrading landfills..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: US can't promise net-zero by 2050 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, several things can happen:
1) make furniture, housing, etc from the wood.
2) burn it for energy. While I oppose counting bio-fuels as being part of the renewable cycle, at least, it can prevent pulling up nat gas/oil.
3) Turn it into Charcoal and then bury it.
But, the real gain is by re-starting forest, where they used to be and are no longer growing.
Re: US can't promise net-zero by 2050 (Score:2)
Re: US can't promise net-zero by 2050 (Score:2)
Re: US can't promise net-zero by 2050 (Score:1, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And by the way, if you would like to see China fail in their GDP loophole, pressure companies like Apple to only do business with 50%+ renewable-powered Asian partners. This is ultimately your carbon footprin
Re: (Score:2)
Look, my family has dropped our emissions WAY DOWN and we are continuing to drop it. A number of my neighbors have also done so, while o
Re: Yeah, like always, more BS. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In passing, I will note energy shortages, as hot air talking point for politicians desirous of command and control economies, have, having seen that come to naught as free societies keep ahead of the shortage curve in the long run, moved on to polution in one form or another, as reason for command and control.
Now you can get in the way of business even when someone invents tanks of bacteria that spit out gasoline directly!
Re: (Score:2)
If this seems needlessly trollish or confrontational, follow the money and read about memes -- ideas thst spread, but whose real power is getting new hosts to behave in ways that induce them to spread. Often to the advantage of politicians, who, worldwide go into government so they can block, then get paid to unblock.
Not your country, of course. Your politicians are as clean as Alaskan snow.
Re: Yeah, like always, more BS. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Except that China's coal consumption has remained largely unchanged since 2011. TW is a unit of energy output. Maybe look as to why the TW output from coal power in China has increased when their coal consumption hasn't.
But I guess that doesn't fit your "Hey everyone look over there it's China" narrative while you idle your 5L V8 at the traffic lights blowing soot out the exhaust. The world will actually start worrying about China when we finish dealing with the worst polluters per capita which happens to b
Re: (Score:2)
Except that China's coal consumption has remained largely unchanged since 2011. TW is a unit of energy output. Maybe look as to why the TW output from coal power in China has increased when their coal consumption hasn't.
After several years of declines, China’s coal consumption grew by 1% each year in 2018 and 2019, based on physical volume (more than 4.3 billion short tons in 2019), according to estimates of China’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (Figure 6).58 Electricity and industrial demand growth, especially from steel production, were strong.59 In addition, some provincial governments eased air quality measures starting in the winter of 2018–19 as a result of natural gas supply shortages and hi [eia.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Coal consumption, like the number of coal plants, continues to rise on a yearly basis even though you continue to claim otherwise.
Nothing of the sort, you said coal consumption declined for many years. I said 2011, you moved the goalposts to focus on 2018, and all the while is coal consumption in 2020 was identical to 2011.
Thanks for proving my point that you're baselessly trying to push a narrative by massaging numbers.
Also note how I never said they aren't building new coal plants. I asked you to think about why TW is increasing while consumption is staying the same. Feel free to engage your brain whenever you want, you may realise
Re: Yeah, like always, more BS. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China had originally promised that they would NOT grow any more emissions by 2020.
That is untrue. If you believe otherwise then please provide a citation.
China's target is to be CO2 neutral by 2060, which is pretty aggressive to say the least. For comparison many European countries are targeting 2050-2060 as well, despite being well ahead of China on the curve.
Coal use in China has been declining for half a decade, they peaked a while back. Mothballed a load of brand new coal power stations as the price of renewable energy fell.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal production, which declined for three consecutive years through 2016, has risen each year since then and reached an estimated 4.1 billion short tons in 2019 (Figure 6).62 China’s government adopted a supply-side approach to control the volatility of domestic coal prices through a targeted price range, which allowed domestic producers to be profitable and compete with coal imports. [eia.gov]
Just like their continued addition of new coal plants, their coal consumption increases. It only dropped f
Re: Yeah, like always, more BS. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate Change, Republicans, and China (Score:3)
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.
America - Bah (Score:1)
Hey I am (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 :)
Chinese BS (Score:1)
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]
Good on ya (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Once the signatories realized what they actually agreed to with the disastrous Kyoto treaty, they all pretty much wished they could back out. It makes sense that they are going to "cheat" since following the agreement to the letter would result in gutting their economy permanently.
Re: And how many of them will meet their obligatio (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is brutally clear you will survive and thrive.
What is not clear is if the burdens on the economy of command and control slowdowns will result in a lower quality of life in 50 or 100 years because technological progress was slowed by a weakened economy.
Imagine if 1900 horse and buggy days slammed on the breaks over fears of pollution, leaving us with 1980 level tech instead of 2020. Your net effect would have been to have killed hundreds of millions, lacking inventions and cures not made.
And the diff
Re: And how many of them will meet their obligati (Score:2)