Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Paris Climate Accord & Climate Change Fallout
#21
John,

The 15% is allegedly the % of CO2 the USA emits of all emitted by various nation's activities.

BTW, any reasonable spokesperson should be capable of explaining why this was a bad deal for the USA as opposed to China and India. They don't have to deny there is an AGW problem because that's a science debate, just explain how this agreement allowed China to build > 1000 new coal fired plants and we had to choke our coal fired plants to death at our expense.

If the problem really scares China and India, let them not build coal fired plants and kill their current ones as well, it's the existence of humanity on the line, right? That's how I'd approach it pr wise.
Reply
#22
Palladin,

The deal was, very simply, a con.  Whether or not nations actually believe or are concerned about climate change, the effect of the Paris Accords was to put constraints on the U.S..

Of course our global competitors are howling.  Not just China and India ... [http://www.independent.co.uk/environment....html]even Russia, whose economy is almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels.[/url]  How they can do it with a straight face, I can't imagine.

Mother Jones inadvertently highlights a big point about what really reduces U.S. carbon emissions.  They ignore the effect of the switch to natural gas ... but they get the rest of it right.  Reduced U.S. CO2 emissions entail economic hardship.  I wish Trump would better communicate this fact.



[Image: blog_co2_emissions_1990_2016.gif]

.... edit ....
Bottom line ...
An un-ratified treaty isn't really much of a treaty at all. Lots of international carping about the U.S. losing standing and not being trusted to keep it's 'word'. A better lesson is that unless that 'word' is ratified by Congress, all bets are off.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#23
Fun facts ...

The U.S. has contributed 2-3x more than any other nation in the Paris Accords Agreement to the "U.N. Green Fund" which was created by that agreement.

It's generally difficult as hell for developing nations to pry this money out of the U.N. Bureaucracy.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/12...r-purpose/

... most likely, like other U.N. programs, the money is likely being sucked up the the organization itself rather then the people it's supposed to serve.

One other funny thing about it.
Quote:The UN fund to help developing countries fight climate change can be spent on coal-fired power plants – the most polluting form of electricity generation – under rules agreed at a board meeting.
......
“It’s like a torture convention that doesn’t forbid torture,”
[/url]

Other not so funny thing ... in a familiar pattern for the Obama Administration.
Days before Trump's inauguration, State Dept. sends $500 million to United Nations climate fund.

... a half-Billion$ here ... a half-Billion$ there ... and pretty soon you're talking real money.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#24
The weird thing is we're probably going to meet any goals of the agreement due to the explosion in natural gas consumption. Which makes me wonder if we wouldn't have been better off keeping it and ignoring it. Bette pr, same effect on economy cause the next POTUS can put us right back in if he wants.
Reply
#25
Palladin Wrote:I don't know the details of the Paris thing, but, I always have felt the entire AGW "fix" has always been to export money from regular people to the wealthiest folks on earth.
My feeling exactely. S4
At the COP21 they signed up a commitment for 100 billion per year (one-hundred-billion-dollar... per year).
And where this money will come from? From us of course!
Those involved in this deal are going to be richer than Saudi princes...

The agreement doesn't clearly explain what actions should be taken against climate change, it focuses only on the quantity of money they can take from us.
And the reason why India and China have to do nearly nothing is that there isn't much money to take there, and not so many poeple ready to pay for it unlike in the West.
So, again 90% of the effort has to be provided by the West, while 4/5th of human being can live as they please without changing anything in their way of life: Burning firewoods, coal stoves, burning the rain forest, drying up lakes...

Palladin Wrote:If it's a real problem, just outlaw burning coal and oil by say 2030.
That's what they did with the fluoro-somthings which destroyed the ozone layer. And it was effective.
If CO2 was realy a problem they would do something concretely instead of talking money.

But banning it doesn't bring as much money as taxing it, you understand?

Mr Y Wrote:Even if tried banning coal and oil how would you possibly get China on board?
No way.

Mr Y Wrote:The Chinese mine and consume more coal than the rest of the world combine. How is that not part of the discussion?
Palladin Wrote:just explain how this agreement allowed China to build > 1000 new coal fired plants and we had to choke our coal fired plants to death at our expense.

If the problem really scares China and India, let them not build coal fired plants and kill their current ones as well, it's the existence of humanity on the line, right? That's how I'd approach it pr wise.
Mr Y Wrote:Palladin,

The deal was, very simply, a con.
S12

Mr Y Wrote:Climate change is real. The climate has been changing since the planet was formed. Fossil fuels may have some effect but IPCCs own studies show that eliminating emissions would only affect things by a few tenths of a degree over a century ... most likely well within the boundaries of error for any existing model.
We have to be honest here: We don't know.
CO2 is far from the only parameter. It can be minimal in effect as it can be devastating. I also believe that it won't be as catastraphic as the ecologists are saying, but to be on the safe side, I think we should reduce CO2 anywhere it's reasonably possible. By reasonably, I mean not costing me an arm and a leg. I won't give a dime of credit to those who are saying without shame, "we want to spend $100B".
Yet, saving money by driving less thursty cars, that's ok for me.

I say we have to be honest because nobody knows how hot it will be in 10 years, less so in 100 years. And this includes also those who open threads about the imminent Ice Age.

JL Wrote:This is a 2009 graph, which gives an accurate percentage for that year.[Image: human-global-warming.jpg]

That's right, only 3.4% caused by ALL human activity, around the world.
This graph is not scientificaly true.
CO2 has increased from 250 ppb 100 years ago to above 400 ppb today and there is no other explanation for this but human activity.
Last time CO2 was at 400 ppb it was 3 million years ago and sea levels were 4 meters higher.

I'm NOT predicting that sea levels will be 12 feet higher within the next two decades, that would be silly.
I'm just saying that your graph is a fake.

JL Wrote:Ben Shapiro explains why Trump made an excellent choice here in withdrawing from the Accord.
The best reason is that the most populated countries in the world are making no commitment at all or very little.

You can't have a global treaty where only north America and Europe are required to pay cash upfront.

Simply put: The developed countries are supposed to modify alone the global climate, while 6 billion humans are doing strictly nothing in this direction.
This is why it will fail!

Reason #1 for greenhouse gas, environement degradation, wildlife destruction and other massive pollutions is the unstoppable demographic growth.
As long as the global population grows it will be ludicrious to make projects about carbon trapping and promoting bicycling...
Reply
#26
Meanwhile, all this warming of world temps is showing its true colors in Russia.

June snow in Moscow – just as Trump pulls US out of Paris climate deal (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)

[Image: 593180b9c3618821678b45d7.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#27
Andrew McCarthy just made a great point about the Paris deal. In the US, our constitution makes our senate concur OR NOT with all treaties. Obama refused to submit it for a vote for a couple of reasons.

1) He knew it wouldn't pass

2) He did not want the democrats to have to go on a recorded vote agreeing with the fucking of American citizens that this "deal" effects.

Even IF AGW is entirely valid, this deal wasn't.
Reply
#28
(06-03-2017, 08:28 PM)Palladin Wrote: Andrew McCarthy just made a great point about the Paris deal. In the US, our constitution makes our senate concur OR NOT with all treaties. Obama refused to submit it for a vote for a couple of reasons.

1) He knew it wouldn't pass

2) He did not want the democrats to have to go on a recorded vote agreeing with the fucking of American citizens that this "deal" effects.

Even IF AGW is entirely valid, this deal wasn't.

Somehow I highly doubt that.  MacDaddy has been purposefully trying to "Fundamentally Transform America" by tearing things down.  Why would he care about that one way or the other?

When the next opening for UN Secretary General comes up, watch for him to put himself in the runnings.  Why do you think he is doing his globe-trotting?  He can even tout his Nobel Peace Prize which he certainly didn't deserve.  If he manages to get elected to the office, he will have that to further denigrate the Evil US and make it into the world's Super-Villain.  

Even that would most likely backfire, and we can finally demolish that total eyesore, and get the UN out of the US for good.  Gah
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#29
Go back three administrations to Clinton and his seizure of lands that has clean-burning coal.

The Grand Staircase - Escalante National Monument (Kaiparowits "monument") consisting of 1.7 million acres in Utah.
Clinton's New Air Pollution Control Regulations a Boon to Lippo?

Note: both sites have been taken down, so here is the gist:
Quote:No this was not just about penalizing a State that voted against him. This was a flat-out political windfall to the Riaddy family. One proof which is in the pudding is the unarguable fact that if a person was to create a National Monument, even if done just to irritate the former landowners, that person would at least protect areas of land that was requested by environmental and conservation groups and include historical preserves. To avoid these areas and specifically take the land which prevents exploitation of the clean-burning coal is a defining action.

A key archeological site and other important environmental sites the local residents wanted protected were left outside, while ordinary desert land with no significance or unique natural features was included solely to block entrance to the environmentally friendly coal deposits.

The September 1996 announcement of the Escalante "Memorial" came in the middle of the presidential campaign, on the heels of large contributions originating from the Lippo group, which is owned by the Riadys of Indonesia. The Lippo Corporation in Indonesia is the only other source of the very low sulfur, non-polluting coal, outside the Utah Kaiparowits basin, that is currently available.

Coal fueled power plants under construction or planned, in China, Japan and Mexico which were potential customers for the Andalux Corporation, which holds leases on the now unavailable Kaiparowits coal, will have to purchase their non-polluting coal from the multi-billion dollar Lippo group, or use polluting coal sources. The Mexico plant, especially, will either use coal imported from Indonesia, or coal that will add to pollution problems not only in Mexico, but in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest, which is producing electric power to take the place of the nuclear power plants which have been closed down for 'environmental' purposes.

The media speaks of natural gas replacing coal being a good trend, because it is cleaner - but the Dems made money out of banning the clean coal deposits we had. Our technology is improving faster than the opponents of our energy system can claim it is too expensive to consider. Trump may put the Escalanté Staircase coal deposits back in play. Good for him.
Reply
#30
[Image: mrz060317-color_2_orig.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#31
(06-03-2017, 04:26 PM)Palladin Wrote: The weird thing is we're probably going to meet any goals of the agreement due to the explosion in natural gas consumption. Which makes me wonder if we wouldn't have been better off keeping it and ignoring it. Bette pr, same effect on economy cause the next POTUS can put us right back in if he wants.

The problem was that we weren't ignoring it.  Though virtually everyone else was.  Putting $3 Billion into a U.N. slush fund is not exactly "ignoring it".   Ultimately, it was another lever that the U.N. and "International Community" could use to coerce the U.S..  Particularly when there are Administrations in office that tend toward coercion.  As you indicate, the next POTUS could have chosen to swallow it hook, line and sinker.  If it was as vital as all the media, celebrities and CEOs of electric car, social media and solar panel companies are making it out to be, you would have thought Obama would have at least made a token effort to put it up to the U.S. Senate for a vote.  In that case, it would actually be an actual treaty ... instead of a bunch of voluntary guideline hogwash.  

Fred Wrote:... .saving money by driving less thursty cars, that's ok for me.

Sure.  I don't like unnecessary spending either ... in fact I've been accused of squeezing a quarter so hard the eagle screams.  But creating a system in which electricity cost are sky high is the polar opposite of thrift.  I like the idea of not having to pay for gas in an electric vehicle as well ... but when you look at the prices involved ... even with tacit subsidies maybe $40K for the equivallent of a fancy street legal golf cart with a 100 mile full charge range (??)  The only thing worse would be being forced to pay for someone else's golf car and lining the pockets of Billionaires in the process  ... oh wait ...
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#32
I just saw this on WUWT.  One graphic $ays it all: Who actually paid in to the Paris Green Climate fund?

[Image: green-climate-fund.jpg?w=720&h=404]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#33
Yak,

I meant if TRUMP ignored it. I know Obama was sold out to the cause.
Reply
#34
Mr Y Wrote:Sure. I don't like unnecessary spending either ... in fact I've been accused of squeezing a quarter so hard the eagle screams. But creating a system in which electricity cost are sky high is the polar opposite of thrift. I like the idea of not having to pay for gas in an electric vehicle as well ... but when you look at the prices involved ... even with tacit subsidies maybe $40K for the equivallent of a fancy street legal golf cart with a 100 mile full charge range (??) The only thing worse would be being forced to pay for someone else's golf car and lining the pockets of Billionaires in the process ... oh wait ...
These electric/hybrid cars are terribly expensives. About twice the price of a normal car for the cheapest models, starting at $30,000... for much fewer miles range and the hassel of hours to fill in the batteries.

It's still not an incentive to normal poeple. It's still a luxury gadget for the wealthiest.

There is also the question of untold pollution resulting from the production and the disposal at the end of life of these batteries, all of them using massive amounts of toxic metals. Even if they recycle most of them, it won't be zero pollution.


JL Wrote:I just saw this on WUWT. One graphic $ays it all: Who actually paid in to the Paris Green Climate fund?
Exactely! Spot on!

I don't believe that the six billion poeple living in emerging market countries which are paying nothing to contribute pollute less than the one billion living in developed countries.
Even if we pollute twice as much as them per capita, they are still emiting, collectively, 3x more than the West.
Environmentalists will tell you then, that we are polluting 5x more than them. I don't believe that. I don't buy in their crap about the all bad West and the poor little third world.
Because the poor little third world (symbolized by black toddler sitting in the dirt) is 6 billion strong and enjoy a luxurious demographic growth nobody else could afford. All these poeple are polluting by normal human activity on top of inexisting norm and very losy control if any.

Let them pay for their irresponsible demographic growth which is the #1 cause of all pollution and climate changes on Earth.

There seven billion humans on Earth. The most numerous big mamals. This alone has an impact even without burning a single fossile fuel. All these poeple are growing cows which are the second big mamals by the numbers. But all these poeple are going to burn fossile energy too, will eventualy purchase a car, a smartphone and eat at fast foods. And very soon all the billions of poeple are going to pollute as much as we do and then we will face serious environement troubles.
Reply
#35
(06-04-2017, 04:53 PM)Palladin Wrote: Yak,

I meant if TRUMP ignored it. I know Obama was sold out to the cause.

It would have been grounds for criticism either way.  If it had been passively ignored, we would have been criticized as bad global citizens for reneging on an existing agreement.  Better to withdraw outright than be denounced as a welcher.

Trump is doing a rather poor job of explaining what a sham this was.  As a voluntary agreement, it carries zero weight.  As an un-ratified treaty it really is no treaty at all.  As indicated, ironically, we are coming very close to meeting the targets even without much of the pain that was supposed to be inflicted on U.S. like it was on Spain.  And we end up dumping in the largest share to the U.N. corruption kitty.  In short, we've contributed more than any other nation to this scheme ... and yet we're still the world's foremost pariah for not committing to more chumpery.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#36
I honestly did not realize how big a sham it was until the last few days reading. Pretty much, the US was going to XFER untold billions annually to various poor states AND shaft our people by making our power generation more expensive.

I just wonder if the billion Obama handed out was legislated or did he steal from the treasury? If that wasn't legislated cash, I'd sue him if I was the AG, but, he has bigger fish to fry, like chasing down pot smokers in Colorado.
Reply
#37
(06-04-2017, 06:00 PM)Palladin Wrote: I honestly did not realize how big a sham it was until the last few days reading. Pretty much, the US was going to XFER untold billions annually to various poor states AND shaft our people by making our power generation more expensive.

I just wonder if the billion Obama handed out was legislated or did he steal from the treasury? If that wasn't legislated cash, I'd sue him if I was the AG, but, he has bigger fish to fry, like chasing down pot smokers in Colorado.

I have not seen Jeff Sessions around here lately ... and our dope heads pretty much seem completely undeterred.

Check out the following regarding the $500 Million ... AFIK, no one has been sued or arrested ... the short answer is that the Obama got it from roughly the same place as the $400 Million cash that was we dumped off on the tarmac in Tehran (out of one pocket and into another ... Presto!!).  Plus ... ya know ... their lawyers said it was OK ... so no worries right?

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#38
The ole "green climate fund"
Reply
#39
Spain\s Green Disaster Wrote:Everything that requires government money means there's no market for it
Yes, but on top of that, there is so much coruption that nothing is done properly. Contractors take money and don't care about quality or the client's satisfaction because it's not a commercial order.
If something's wrong, the tenant will fill a complain to the politician who got a 20% bribe from the contractor (if the politician doesn't own the company himself).

Some technologies can realy be excellent. I have a friend who put batteries of water heating tubes on his roof (and a realy huge tank in his cellar). He almost never use electricity to heat water, even in winter. And he lives in Glaglathuania. But it has been done properly with quality materials and professional knowledge.
If it's a politician's friend or family member who knows nothing and subcontract all the job for cheap and buy crap, then it's a disaster just as with anything else.

Some technologies are not good but politicians who knows nothing about technologies push them because it's cool. Flushing a toilet with the recycled water of the same toilet is the worse idea I have ever heard... Hiney
Reply
#40
[Image: hyv6a94nfo1z.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  18 annual climate gabfests: 16 years without warming sunsettommy 5 1,908 12-06-2012, 03:58 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer John L 25 6,047 01-25-2011, 06:00 PM
Last Post: ghoullio
  WikiLeaks,US gov.& Climate Change Palladin 2 867 12-05-2010, 05:32 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  New incentive to fortify the border-Climate change? John L 16 3,128 08-11-2010, 08:18 AM
Last Post: Brooklyn
  CEI Suing NASA Over Climate Stonewall John L 21 4,623 05-30-2010, 01:05 AM
Last Post: John L
  The Real Climate Agenda John L 3 685 08-07-2009, 08:49 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  "global warming" and "climate change": f jt 2 1,265 05-03-2009, 11:09 PM
Last Post: scpg02
  Gore: Polluters Manipulate Climate Info scpg02 13 2,579 09-03-2007, 04:55 PM
Last Post: John L
  Kerry, Gingrich announce climate showdown John L 15 3,295 04-14-2007, 10:32 PM
Last Post: Monsieur Le Tonk

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)