Biden Says US Will Meet Its Climate Goals, Urges Help for Developing Nations (reuters.com) 142
President Joe Biden on Monday sought to assure world leaders the United States would keep its promise to slash greenhouse gas emissions by more than half by the end of the decade, even as the key policies to ensure those reductions remain uncertain. From a report: Biden joined leaders from over 100 countries in Glasgow for the start of the COP26 climate conference, which kicked off on the heels of the G20 summit in Rome that concluded with a statement that urged "meaningful and effective" action on climate change but left huge work for negotiators to ensure an ambitious outcome. Biden, who succeeded former president Donald Trump in January, acknowledged that the United States had not always led by example on climate change. "That's why my administration is working overtime to show that our climate commitment is action, not words," Biden said. Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate accord; Biden returned it when he took office.
Uh huh.. (Score:2, Interesting)
The former vice president can barely hold his bowels or stay awake during meetings; which is a good thing, considering proclamations like this. How would he go about this in such a short time line? Energy and transportation costs are already rapidly increasing; and I'm not sure the economy can really take much more abuse.
If i were a betting man i'd wager '22 will be a blood bath for the democrats, and '24 will see kamala booted from the white house regardless of who the republican nominee is (please don't
Re: (Score:2)
If i were a betting man i'd wager '22 will be a blood bath for the democrats, and '24 will see kamala booted from the white house regardless of who the republican nominee is (please don't be trump, please don't be trump)...
The only way it won't be trump is if he drops dead before then, because he's got a deathgrip on the RNC's tiny testicles.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure he won't get stonewalled (Score:2)
By a few shitty Democrat senators or the entire republican party. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Well, unless the Dems do well in the midterms it might be the last US election ever, so they might as well go with the argument that has a chance of being useful.
Dems win seats, we meet our climate targets, Dems lose seats and don't get anything done, R's win the next Presidential race and do a coup right away now that they've broken that desire out into the public. And then the energy companies remind them that they stopped investing in fracking because it loses money. And then insurance rates skyrocket be
Re:I like how I see story after story (Score:4, Informative)
Really?
The GOP voted in a bipartisan bill in the Senate for actual, real life infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc) despite the bill also having some crap in it....it is the radical progressive end of the democrat party that is holding that hostage.
They could (and should) have had that passed readily months ago.
The only thing bad about that is, they could have put a bit more money on the bipartisan bill and scrapped the socialist spending bill the progressives are trying to continue to bankrupt the country with that really no one in the US is clamoring for.
There were three senators who broke GOP ranks (Score:2)
The Democratic party is divided among itself. The Republican party is United against the American people. If you happen to be an American now would be a good time to oppose the Republican Party because they sure as heck oppose you. The billionaires they serve aren't Americans. I don't mean that as an insult I mean they don't think of themselves
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the Republicans are against the American people. That sound like hostile rhetoric.
There are highly onerous parts to that bill. The idea behind the IRS and the bank accounts is that Biden wants to go after small businesses. PERIOD. It has little to no impact on the worker other than it allows the IRS access to be used as a potential tool to influence individual taxpayers.
When they lowered the amount to $1.8 trillion they didn't strip onerous parts, rather they are just funding it for less ti
Re: (Score:2)
The idea behind the IRS and the bank accounts is that Biden wants to go after small businesses.
And why would anyone do that? You have a conspiracy theory problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that really no one in the US is clamoring for.
Nothing says privileged white male more than pretending a social bill has no support in the USA and would somehow magically bankrupt a country which has no problem spending $1tn on a warmachine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the divisions in the Democrat party are considered more newsworthy than the same selfish people being selfish again. Manchin isn't on-board because his pro-Republican coal-mining buddies aren't. Sinema wants to settle the infrastructure bill first and beyond that it's difficult to know if she's openly blackmailing her boss or believes that what's good for her is good for everybody.
People don't see it that way (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Her boss? Who is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Who is that?
I think I meant the boss (sponsor) of this bill, the president. I know, he's not the boss of the government, theoretically or practically: The shareholders (voters) elected Sinema to the board (Senate) and she approves/disapproves of the steering committee (Congress) who takes directions from the CEO (President).
Re: (Score:2)
About Joe Manchin and Sinema, but never a peep from CNN or MSNBC about how the entire Republican Party is blocking any attempt to help regular Americans or even build enough infrastructure that we can be a functional country again.
I think at this point we all just assume that is the case. It's become the republican default setting. It would be newsworthy if there weren't blocking everything they are trying to pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is if the media were to cover it then the Republicans unwillingness to govern would become the narrative and it would hurt them politically as it should. Right now McConnell gets to hide behind Joe Manchin and Sinema.
It's cute you think the people voting for them would think their obstructionism is a bad thing. Naive but cute none the less.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's because of CNN and MSNBC's well known and EXTENSIVE conservative bias. Why are you expecting them to do anything than run interference for their team? =/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
About Joe Manchin and Sinema, but never a peep from CNN or MSNBC about how the entire Republican Party is blocking any attempt
Because that's not "news". The news here is that two democrats are holding their own party hostage, not that party politics exist. If republicans suddenly supported spending on infrastructure and social policies then that would be all over mainstream media, hell they'll probably interrupt daytime TV to bring it in as a breaking news event.
In other news, thegarbz got up this morning like he always did for a quick read of Slashdot while sipping morning coffee. Tune in same time tomorrow to find out if he did
Re: (Score:2)
About Joe Manchin and Sinema, but never a peep from CNN or MSNBC about how the entire Republican Party is blocking any attempt to help regular Americans or even build enough infrastructure that we can be a functional country again.
The Republicans trying to destroy America isn't news. Everyone expects it already.
Re: (Score:2)
History is not on your side. You don't even have it right. Gingrich became Speaker by getting his party to run on a very specific platform of popular policies which were brought up one at a time as individual bills (as opposed to the massive sack of crap approach the Democrats seem to prefer), which included ethics reforms proved necessary by rampant corruption in a body th
Help yourself first (Score:3)
Hey everyone on Slashdot, I just want to give you a heads up that 2022 is going to be a hell of a nasty year. The shipping issues will magnify, food production will drop, energy prices will soar around the world (which is a large part of why the other problems will arise), inflation will be up big time next year.
Do what you can to keep yoruselves and your families safe. You can hedge against inflation by buying some things you might need as early as possible. If you value electronics (as of course all of us do) but at least some uninterrupted power supply boxes to charge devices and your internet router/wifi station. Consider a Tesla Powerwall if you are able, as California's trend of not being able to keep power on for several days out of the year will start expanding to other states.
Keep a bit more food on hand, especially long term items like rice and beans.
You don't need to go full prepper, just think what it means if prices go up 20-50% next year with many things not being available you are used to, and plan around around that.
Good luck everyone. The better off we are all set to be in good shape over the next few years, the better able we'll be in a position to help others that might have planned as well, just like on a plane you put on your mask first before helping the child next to you.
Re: Help yourself first (Score:2)
Re: Help yourself first (Score:4, Funny)
How far into 2022 will we get before you repost this saying that same thing about 2023? 2024? You can't be wrong forever.
2022 will be the year of desktop Linux!
Re: (Score:2)
It's literally already happening. Food prices have gone up substantially, with a lot of products already up by 50% or more.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I invested in bulk carrier stocks today.
Re: (Score:2)
I went with EGLE, their earnings report comes out Thursday.
You never know if it is better to buy before or after the earnings report, but I chose before.
Re: (Score:2)
otherwise you'd be golfing with Warren Buffett instead of trolling Slashdot.
Warren Buffett trolls slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
You might enjoy Kizik shoes then, also Nike has some "Fly Ease" that look promising.
By the end of this decade? Sounds familiar. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can recall reading something about a recently elected Democrat POTUS setting a goal for the USA to reach by the end of the decade. The difference then was that people took him seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
JFK was a young man, at least for someone elected POTUS, and he announced that by the end of the decade the USA was going to put a man on the moon and bring him back safely. For someone not even 50 years old and just elected POTUS any goal in the next 8 years should be taken seriously. Joe Biden will be 80 years old before the end of his first term, if he's able to finish his term then it's not likely for him to be re-elected or even run. He should not be setting goals for the end of the decade, he should be setting goals for the end of the year.
To take a politician seriously on their goals takes two things, specificity and an end date within their term in office. I remember seeing a lot of Democrat primary candidates for POTUS with ten year goals on CO2 emissions, and I took none of them seriously because they were ten year goals.
Here's an idea, set goals that are specific enough that we can give a definitive pass/fail score, and set the date in which you are going to reach that goal inside a time frame when you can still be expected to be in office.
When it comes to CO2 emissions there must be nuclear fission power in your plan or it will fail.
Re: By the end of this decade? Sounds familiar. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so no policy, planning or goals beyond 4 or 8 years because we can never be sure what the other side will do. That should work just fine.
The problem with US politics is precisely because there *always* is the "other side".
Why can't Americans agree that climate change is a real problem and need to be tackled no matter which party is in power? Was it education? Fake news?
Try to name one other country that have the same problem. Don't forget that many European countries also have multi-party elections, they didn't have the problem of the next elected leader undoing everything the previous one did purely out of spite.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to Australia.
We had a climate policy once under Julia Gillard.
In Australia, both sides agree (Score:2)
That there is not much to do. Let technology solve the problem by 2050.
Ever heard Albo say anything different?
Re: (Score:2)
ALP are spooked by Sydney talkback radio and what Hanson and Palmer voters might think to take any policy position.
It feels like a different country in suburban Melbourne. But hey, I'm in a 'safe' Liberal electorate where they say the best hope is of an independent getting elected on the back of Green preferences.
Re: (Score:2)
Kennedy died long before the decade was over and his goal was still realised. In fact he beat Nixon in 1960 so due to term limits could not hand been president in 69.
In any case, Harris is the likely successor and as VP is very much part of this administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to CO2 emissions there must be nuclear fission power in your plan or it will fail.
When it comes to nuclear shilling, you never manage to come up with a valid argument as to why it must be so, and your citations never say what you claim they say.
Why don't you try your bullshit on a less-educated audience? I'm sure you'll get more traction somewhere else.
This is a lie because Biden thinks he must. (Score:2)
Biden thinks he can lie because he believes he needs to lie. The fact is that we've already met our goals -- some time ago. Because his administration is experiencing so much incompetency he must believe he needs to lie in order to look good and accomplished at something.
This really has been his modus operandi the whole administration. Another "for instance" that he thinks he can lie to us is when he stated he'd pay $450,000 to those families that were separated after illegally entering the US. He made
Re: (Score:2)
Hypocrisy on Parade (Score:2)
Remember you're living beyond your means, you need to cut back on carbon and you are the problem!
https://twitter.com/Lukewearec... [twitter.com]
Why do developing countries need our help? (Score:2)
Re:Biden and his entourage of how many vehicles? (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet they have contributed despite their flights to more reductions in emissions than you could ever hope to achieve with your whataboutism bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, because the economy nose-dived for about a year because of the pandemic, not because Donald sniffed up all the pollution. I thought this was obvious knowledge, so I'm curious how your mind fouled it all up as to credit Don?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure emissions dropped after bankers and investors started jumping out of tenth story windows on Black Wednesday, but I'm not sure we could credit Herbert Hoover with that particular achievement.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. emissions reduced under Trump, and under Covid.
Under Biden, U.S. emissions have increased... [theguardian.com]
I will ignore your abject stupidity of comparing a year where entire world's emissions plummeted due to an external event as some political success and won't call you a moron this time. I will also ignore you somehow magically turning this into a Trump vs Biden post like some triggered little snowflake.
Instead I'll address your inability to follow a conversation: This isn't about Biden or Trump, this is about a comment that somehow climate delegations where countries agree to wide ranging goals addressing t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's a safe alternative? A motorcycle obviously isn't safe for a world leader. An experienced techie knows you develop a solid alternative to present before complaining. This is Slashdot, we expect a degree of mental professionalism, not hit-and-run memes like the mentally lazy use. In short, grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moderations aren't worth anything, you can get +1 or -1 and it doesn't mean anything at all.
Why would you let that affect what you do or don't say? You're pandering to who? For what? They're not going to give you a cookie.
Re: (Score:2)
Does he know that slashdot abandoned numerical karma scores 2 decades ago?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Oh, I dunno...how about a virtual meeting like all of us working remotely have done for almost the past 2x years?
Hell, doing this would allow them to meet even more often.
There's no real need to meet in person...and besides, Joe wouldn't have to sweat a mid meeting pampers change if meeting online.
Re: (Score:2)
Virtual meetings are not as useful in forming social relationships. Most businesses are rotating virtual and actual meetings as a compromise between the benefits of each.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Slashdot, we expect a degree of mental professionalism, not hit-and-run memes like the mentally lazy use.
Yes, please!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying is it'd be more ethical for them to not actually attend, not actually join the push for an overall reduction in emissions?
I mean, that's the only thing I think you can mean, because god only knows how else you think these things are supposed to happen. Those people are there for a reason, they're there to help figure out the actual technical aspects of the agreement whilst the leaders push for stronger targets.
No one has ever said solving climate change means shutting down all travel,
Re:Biden and his entourage of how many vehicles? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're saying is it'd be more ethical for them to not actually attend, not actually join the push for an overall reduction in emissions?
What is there to talk about? Is anyone not aware of the problem? If they didn't think it was a problem then they would not show up. Bu then what do they need to talk about? They've already been told what the solution is to lowering CO2. Subject matter experts all agree that we need nuclear fission power and synthesized hydrocarbon fuels. Nobody needs to meet about that, just do it.
This is a worthless meeting because it's a bunch of people that will announce worthless 20 year goals and get their photo taken with other people that will also announce worthless 20 year goals.
Don't tell me what you want the next generation to do in 20 years, tell me what you are going to do in 2 years.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a worthless meeting because it's a bunch of people that will announce worthless 20 year goals and get their photo taken with other people that will also announce worthless 20 year goals.
Precisely.
Biden couldn't even get his budget passed before joining the meeting. There was nothing he could show except more empty promises, promises that everybody could see the next Trump will simply reverse, if not in 2024 then possibly in 2028.
Don't tell me what you want the next generation to do in 20 years, tell me what you are going to do in 2 years.
What's more was Biden cannot even say what US will do in the coming 2 years, or even 1 year, because his budget was still not passed.
Until the two parties in the US actually agreed on what to do about climate change, anything the US promised has no credibility at
Re: (Score:2)
Biden couldn't even get his budget passed
What's this? The parent said Biden is doing nothing, and you in your attempt to jump on the hate train pointed out in your first sentence how he's actually trying something?
Careful now, your oil industry handlers don't like it when you make mistakes like that.
Re: (Score:2)
What is there to talk about? Is anyone not aware of the problem?
Why are you talking about awareness of a problem? The parent was talking about discussing a solution. Your post is 15 years behind schedule.
This is a worthless meeting because it's a bunch of people that will announce worthless 20 year goals and get their photo taken with other people that will also announce worthless 20 year goals.
Don't tell me what you want the next generation to do in 20 years, tell me what you are going to do in 2 years.
Congratulations on commenting about a meeting for which you don't even know what was discussed. Heck you could read Slashdot and find out that many discussions also included very short term goals.
But don't let that get in the way of your whataboutism bullshit. I get it, I'm with you. I saw Biden's motorcade and decided that we no longer need to care so I am running the
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone saying "fuck Joe Biden" is a bitter trumptard? The attitudes expressed are due to real reasons. I think first and foremost most people don't want America to be a socialist country. Just saying that we should be a socialist nation is basically saying "fuck everyone" that doesn't agree with you.
If you are going to debate, speak to the typical causes of that type of attitude, which from my understanding is what most people think is his incompetence.
Due to the possibility that the House is likely to
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone saying "fuck Joe Biden" is a bitter trumptard?
And a couple aggro Bernie Bros
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hypocritical, it's an investment. Spend a little carbon now in order to save even more carbon in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that climate change doesn't care what administration is in office. It'll ruin our future as easily as it's currently ruining the present. This idea of perpetual same-old, same-old philosophy ruins everything it touches from our businesses, to our environment.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
[Climate Change will] ruin our future as easily as it's currently ruining the present.
Climate change is not ruining our present, that's hyperbole and not supported by science.
Re: (Score:2)
You were saying? [go.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That sucks, but the evidence presented in the article contradicts the idea that it was caused by climate change. A similar drought happened 40 years ago. So I don't know what you're saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Had 598 people die from the heat (and 2 dying from Clinton burning down makes 600) over one weekend here, compared to 3000 people dying from Covid over a year and a half plus. Now maybe it'll be a thousand years before a repeat but these hot summers sure seem to be getting more common. Suddenly people have to buy air conditioners and go to funerals apparently due to climate change. The fisheries are dying partially due to the low warm rivers. The forests are burning, partially due to how fast the snowpack n
Re: (Score:2)
Suddenly people have to buy air conditioners and go to funerals apparently due to climate change
That is a very clear data point, a hundred years ago, hardly anyone was buying air conditioners. On the other, most of them are dead, so I'd say it's half and half.
Re: (Score:2)
20 years ago, almost no one had air conditioners, 5 years ago, air conditioners were still owned by a small minority. Now, it seems to be a necessity.
600 hundred odd excessive deaths directly related to the heat according to the coroner is different then people born over a century ago now being dead.
Re: (Score:2)
So does that means the states will get a settlement like tobacco?
Re: (Score:3)
The reality is that it took decades for Big Tobacco to be taken down. While it had been known for years that tobacco was harmful, it was until 1964 in the US that the Surgeon General released an official report on the risks. It took years longer for stronger restrictions on advertising and warning labels to be implemented. It wasn't until 2010 that Congress finally explicitly gave the FDA regulatory authority over Tobacco, and the litigation against tobacco companies has taken a looong time to wind itself t
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that it took decades for Big Tobacco to be taken down.
You should change that, it took decades for Big Tobacco to be co-opted by political parties. Nicotine still isn't regulated by the FDA the way it ought to be. The Big Tobacco companies are still here.
Companies that are making a lot of money don't really get destroyed by politicians.
AUSTRALIA will definitly keep its carbon pledges (Score:2)
We are pledging to do nothing at all. And that is exactly what we will deliver.
Honest policy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until after a heat wave kills a million people, or Miami gets washed into the ocean, then it will be:
5. Ok, I promise I have a plan now, and it is a really good one, the best plan ever!
Except at that point they might not have as much support from the business community.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got some santorum on your chin, either wipe it off or get back in the pile.
Re:Political Reality Check 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
No he won't. A Republican will get into power eventually and erase most climate edicts.
What climate edicts? The government has access to the best and brightest engineers and scientists in the world, and they are telling them that we will not lower CO2 emissions without nuclear fission power. I'll believe Democrats are serious about "climate edicts" when they can say the word "nuclear" in reference to anything but weapons.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> the best and brightest engineers and scientists in the world, and they are telling them that we will not lower CO2 emissions without nuclear fission power.
It's not all-or-nothing. If we slow the growth of CO2, it may buy us enough time to evolve better solutions.
And we can't put all our eggs in the fission basket because it may take several centuries to make feasible. It has that flying-car-like "just around the corner" pattern.
Re: (Score:3)
How will you prevent a future nuke from becoming yet another financial debacle like Vogtle and Hinkley?
For what Georgia is spending on Vogtle, they could have installed wind turbines with four times the power production.
Wind turbines can be up and running in months. Nukes take decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Hinkley is only the start of it. They are trying to build a new one at Sizewell too. Initial estimate £20 billion, plus some truly epic subsidies.
Meanwhile they are trying to get the Chinese money out of Hinkley, which is going to be expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
The economics of nuclear do not work out. [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt you'd get nearly that much output in that region, but even assuming you could it would be four times the peak power production of the nuke that also drops to 20% of the nukes consistent output, pseudo-randomly. That's assuming there's locations in Georgia half as favorable from a transmission perspective as where they're siting that nuke, with enough space to accommodate hundreds of wind turbines and good wind speed. And frankly, there isn't... https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl... [eia.gov]
The American South E
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The french have been 100% nuclear for a generation now. Wake up.
1. France has never been 100% nuclear.
2. Electricity in France is over $0.20 USD/kwh even after heavy taxpayer-funded subsidies. That is exorbitantly expensive and many times the cost of power from wind.
Re: (Score:2)
How will you prevent a future nuke from becoming yet another financial debacle like Vogtle and Hinkley?
Experience. We need to build experience in building nuclear power plants and the only way to do that is build nuclear power plants.
For what Georgia is spending on Vogtle, they could have installed wind turbines with four times the power production.
Yep. I would imaging they could have built a lot of windmills with that money too. That doesn't change what the experts told us, that we will need nuclear power plants or we will not lower CO2 emissions.
Wind turbines can be up and running in months. Nukes take decades.
Then it will take decade to solve the problem. I'm quite certain it will take decades to solve the problem regardless of what we do today. I'm quite certain that we will see
Re: (Score:2)
I'll believe Democrats are serious about "climate edicts" when they can say the word "nuclear" in reference to anything but weapons.
You can start believing then [voanews.com].
Re: (Score:2)
and they are telling them that we will not lower CO2 emissions without nuclear fission power. I'll believe Democrats are serious about "climate edicts" when they can say the word "nuclear" in reference to anything but weapons.
No they aren't. Nuclear is a future energy mix component. It is not a solution to Global warming. If you get a government glowing green right now staffed entirely by nuclear engineers into power right now, you still wouldn't have nuclear power plants up and running in any kind of remotely meaningful timeframe.
Meanwhile the USA tops the western world (well tops most of the world) in emissions per capita. Kicking the can down the road 15-20years to get a nuclear power plant built is not a solution to global w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, let's deep dive into that shall we? The French are absolute experts, responsible for rollout of nuclear power around much of the world including India, Russia, China. Undeniably they have some of the greatest competence in this field. One of their major companies is* AREVA, an absolute powerhouse that rivaled Westinghouse and on a technical basis arguably far exceeded them, and experience building all generations of reactors all over the world.
So yeah, they can do it quickly... Or not.
Flamanville 3
Re: Political Reality Check 101 (Score:2)
Re: And then he shit his pants. (Score:2)
Re: And then he shit his pants. (Score:2)