Obama's Historic Carbon Reduction "Clean Power Plan" (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

It's only the "single most important step that America has ever made in the fight against global climate change" but by all means keep discussing your chances against Ronda Rousey.

For every pound of CO2 production we reduce, China will increase 20. Not sure where the gain is going to come from. So far none of Obama's plan for clean energy production has beared the promise fruit. Lots of puffery, no facts to back it up.

First off, your numbers bear no relation whatsoever to reality. Second, China will be reducing their output as well, thanks in part to President Obama's brilliant diplomacy.

Actually, my estimated numbers are pretty close to reality. China current produces about 9,400 Megatons of CO2 and will produce about 17,600 Megatons when they reach peak levels in 2030. That represents over an increase of about 8,200 Megatons. The US produces about 5,900 Megatons of CO2 and will decrease to about 5,400 by 2030, a decrease of about 500 Megatons. So China's increase is more than 16 times what our expected decrease is. In fact the US could zero out our CO2 production and it won't make a beans worth of difference. If China is not a serious player with restrictive limits to their CO2 production, nothing the rest of the world does matters. What China is doing dwarfs the rest of the world's efforts at reductions.

ETA: This is a waste of time, because Tim never debates the facts when it concerns global warming. Only the spin and rhetoric from the fear-mongering side of the debate is worthy of attention.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

It's only the "single most important step that America has ever made in the fight against global climate change" but by all means keep discussing your chances against Ronda Rousey.

For every pound of CO2 production we reduce, China will increase 20. Not sure where the gain is going to come from. So far none of Obama's plan for clean energy production has beared the promise fruit. Lots of puffery, no facts to back it up.

First off, your numbers bear no relation whatsoever to reality. Second, China will be reducing their output as well, thanks in part to President Obama's brilliant diplomacy.

Actually, my estimated numbers are pretty close to reality. China current produces about 9,400 Megatons of CO2 and will produce about 17,600 Megatons when they reach peak levels in 2030. That represents over an increase of about 8,200 Megatons. The US produces about 5,900 Megatons of CO2 and will decrease to about 5,400 by 2030, a decrease of about 500 Megatons. So China's increase is more than 16 times what our expected decrease is. In fact the US could zero out our CO2 production and it won't make a beans worth of difference. If China is not a serious player with restrictive limits to their CO2 production, nothing the rest of the world does matters. What China is doing dwarfs the rest of the world's efforts at reductions.

ETA: This is a waste of time, because Tim never debates the facts when it concerns global warming. Only the spin and rhetoric from the fear-mongering side of the debate is worthy of attention.

Pretty much a textbook Tragedy of the Commons situation.

 

[joffer]

Not really understanding the historical argument. Isn't it irrelevant?

What's the tipping point threshold and can we reach it with the emissions growth of China and India? We can't control what they do or change the past. What's the goal? How much do we need to reduce and how fast do we need to do it?

The historic argument matters because it dictates who should do what, when. Over the past couple of decades, China has lifted more people out of poverty than anyone else at any time and wants to continue doing so. India wants to do the same thing. Telling them to stop developing because we've already screwed up too much of the environment and they are the "tipping point" seems kind of unfair.

Imagine if the USA found a buffet. For 150 years, it gorged itself on this buffet. Now, a couple of other countries have found this buffet and they're starving. But when they come to eat, the USA says, "Hey guys, the buffet is running out of food, we should all stop eating from it." It's not an incorrect statement to make, but it's a pretty crappy position from which to negotiate.

Fair or unfair is irrelevant. Either we fix the problem or we don't.

How much needs to be cut and how fast does it need to be done? Can we reach that goal on our own?

Saw a report that this would only have .01 degrees of impact

The cost benefit is not there

We need a robust economy so that we can invest the r & d dollars into effective solutions

This is heading the wrong way with no tangible benefit....

a report where?

 

[bagger]

Nobody is against clean, renewable energy.

It has been the left that has been set on opposing clean energies like nuclear and natural gas

Natural gas is not clean (at best it is cleaner than oil and coal - but burning carbohydrates generates CO2).

nat gas is probably dirtier than coal once you consider all of the other issue it causes underground.Nuclear we should be pushing more of.

 

[msommer]

Nobody is against clean, renewable energy.

It has been the left that has been set on opposing clean energies like nuclear and natural gas

Natural gas is not clean (at best it is cleaner than oil and coal - but burning carbohydrates generates CO2).

You mean it produces a colorless, odorless gas necessary for life on this planet? That sounds so dirty!

So does coal and oil..

And hence the suggestion there should be an alternative.

Really, jon, you should read up on this stuff

 

[jonessed]

Not really understanding the historical argument. Isn't it irrelevant?

What's the tipping point threshold and can we reach it with the emissions growth of China and India? We can't control what they do or change the past. What's the goal? How much do we need to reduce and how fast do we need to do it?

The historic argument matters because it dictates who should do what, when. Over the past couple of decades, China has lifted more people out of poverty than anyone else at any time and wants to continue doing so. India wants to do the same thing. Telling them to stop developing because we've already screwed up too much of the environment and they are the "tipping point" seems kind of unfair.

Imagine if the USA found a buffet. For 150 years, it gorged itself on this buffet. Now, a couple of other countries have found this buffet and they're starving. But when they come to eat, the USA says, "Hey guys, the buffet is running out of food, we should all stop eating from it." It's not an incorrect statement to make, but it's a pretty crappy position from which to negotiate.

Fair or unfair is irrelevant. Either we fix the problem or we don't.How much needs to be cut and how fast does it need to be done? Can we reach that goal on our own?

If you're asking whether any single entity can unilaterally fix the world, the answer is no. Furthermore, no single entity can just fiat enough countries to change the world. The only option on the table is piece by piece negotiation for reductions from one country after another. In this sense, fair and unfair is absolutely relevant, because countries will only decide to reduce their emissions if the terms are fair to them. A large part of this fairness calculus is how much countries have emitted thus far.

You keep dodging the questions. How much needs to be cut, in what time frame, to deliver what result?

 

[jon_mx]

Nobody is against clean, renewable energy.

It has been the left that has been set on opposing clean energies like nuclear and natural gas

Natural gas is not clean (at best it is cleaner than oil and coal - but burning carbohydrates generates CO2).

You mean it produces a colorless, odorless gas necessary for life on this planet? That sounds so dirty!

So does coal and oil..

And hence the suggestion there should be an alternative.

Really, jon, you should read up on this stuff

Coal and Oil are dirty because they produce large quantities of pollutants which fall into the traditional definition like nitrogen oxides, ozone and ash. Stuff that is an immediate and real health concern, not some potential unknown effect 100 years from now.

 

[jon_mx]

Saw a report that this would only have .01 degrees of impactThe cost benefit is not there

We need a robust economy so that we can invest the r & d dollars into effective solutions

This is heading the wrong way with no tangible benefit....

a report where?

An Obama Administration Report.

CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH: “On the Clean Power Plan, former Obama Administration Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell said at best it will reduce global temperature by only one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius. At the same time it’s going to increase the cost of electricity. That’s going to hurt the lowest income Americans the most. How do you justify such an expensive, burdensome, onerous rule that’s really not going to do much good and isn’t this all pain and no gain.

ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY: “No sir, I don’t agree with you. If you look at the RIA we did, the Regulatory Impact Analysis you would see it’s enormously beneficial.

CHAIRMAN SMITH: “Do you consider one one-hundredth of a degree to be enormously beneficial?”

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “The value of this rule is not measured in that way. It is measured in showing strong domestic action which can actually trigger global action to address what’s a necessary action to protect…”

CHAIRMAN SMITH: “Do you disagree with my one one-hundredth of a degree figure? Do you disagree with the one one-hundredth of a degree?”

 

[Shirtless]

Not really understanding the historical argument. Isn't it irrelevant?

What's the tipping point threshold and can we reach it with the emissions growth of China and India? We can't control what they do or change the past. What's the goal? How much do we need to reduce and how fast do we need to do it?

The historic argument matters because it dictates who should do what, when. Over the past couple of decades, China has lifted more people out of poverty than anyone else at any time and wants to continue doing so. India wants to do the same thing. Telling them to stop developing because we've already screwed up too much of the environment and they are the "tipping point" seems kind of unfair.

Imagine if the USA found a buffet. For 150 years, it gorged itself on this buffet. Now, a couple of other countries have found this buffet and they're starving. But when they come to eat, the USA says, "Hey guys, the buffet is running out of food, we should all stop eating from it." It's not an incorrect statement to make, but it's a pretty crappy position from which to negotiate.

Fair or unfair is irrelevant. Either we fix the problem or we don't.How much needs to be cut and how fast does it need to be done? Can we reach that goal on our own?

If you're asking whether any single entity can unilaterally fix the world, the answer is no. Furthermore, no single entity can just fiat enough countries to change the world. The only option on the table is piece by piece negotiation for reductions from one country after another. In this sense, fair and unfair is absolutely relevant, because countries will only decide to reduce their emissions if the terms are fair to them. A large part of this fairness calculus is how much countries have emitted thus far.

You keep dodging the questions. How much needs to be cut, in what time frame, to deliver what result?

If I were a climate change scientist with access to those answers I would be making more money and not posting to this forum. Regardless, your question basically has no answer because countries change their emissions all the time. For example, if every single country except one stops emitting all green houses gases tomorrow, is that enough? I mean, if that one country that didn't agree continues to increase its emissions, then eventually it will single handedly tip the entire world over the edge.

If your argument is that because "enough" is technically never achievable alone, then no one should try, I would argue that's a really bad idea.

 

[cstu]

Coal and Oil are dirty because they produce large quantities of pollutants which fall into the traditional definition like nitrogen oxides, ozone and ash. Stuff that is an immediate and real health concern, not some potential unknown effect 100 years from now.

Agree.Despite my stance towards reducing CO2 emissions, I still believe CO2 shouldn't be treated as a pollutant.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Saw a report that this would only have .01 degrees of impactThe cost benefit is not there

We need a robust economy so that we can invest the r & d dollars into effective solutions

This is heading the wrong way with no tangible benefit....

a report where?

An Obama Administration Report.

CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH: “On the Clean Power Plan, former Obama Administration Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell said at best it will reduce global temperature by only one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius. At the same time it’s going to increase the cost of electricity. That’s going to hurt the lowest income Americans the most. How do you justify such an expensive, burdensome, onerous rule that’s really not going to do much good and isn’t this all pain and no gain.

ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY: “No sir, I don’t agree with you. If you look at the RIA we did, the Regulatory Impact Analysis you would see it’s enormously beneficial.

CHAIRMAN SMITH: “Do you consider one one-hundredth of a degree to be enormously beneficial?”

ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “The value of this rule is not measured in that way. It is measured in showing strong domestic action which can actually trigger global action to address what’s a necessary action to protect…”

CHAIRMAN SMITH: “Do you disagree with my one one-hundredth of a degree figure? Do you disagree with the one one-hundredth of a degree?”

It's a "feel good" policy that is entirely ideologically driven and serves very little practical purpose. From a cost-benefit standpoint it is a joke.

Does anybody really dispute any of that?

 

[cstu]

It has been the left that has been set on opposing clean energies like nuclear and natural gas

People on the left tend to be myopic as well. NG is better for the environment than oil and coal. Nuclear is mostly safe but we're close enough to completely safe nuclear plants that I'm not pushing for the construction of traditional nuclear plants right now even those they are relatively safe.

 

[jonessed]

Not really understanding the historical argument. Isn't it irrelevant?

What's the tipping point threshold and can we reach it with the emissions growth of China and India? We can't control what they do or change the past. What's the goal? How much do we need to reduce and how fast do we need to do it?

The historic argument matters because it dictates who should do what, when. Over the past couple of decades, China has lifted more people out of poverty than anyone else at any time and wants to continue doing so. India wants to do the same thing. Telling them to stop developing because we've already screwed up too much of the environment and they are the "tipping point" seems kind of unfair.

Imagine if the USA found a buffet. For 150 years, it gorged itself on this buffet. Now, a couple of other countries have found this buffet and they're starving. But when they come to eat, the USA says, "Hey guys, the buffet is running out of food, we should all stop eating from it." It's not an incorrect statement to make, but it's a pretty crappy position from which to negotiate.

Fair or unfair is irrelevant. Either we fix the problem or we don't.How much needs to be cut and how fast does it need to be done? Can we reach that goal on our own?

If you're asking whether any single entity can unilaterally fix the world, the answer is no. Furthermore, no single entity can just fiat enough countries to change the world. The only option on the table is piece by piece negotiation for reductions from one country after another. In this sense, fair and unfair is absolutely relevant, because countries will only decide to reduce their emissions if the terms are fair to them. A large part of this fairness calculus is how much countries have emitted thus far.

You keep dodging the questions. How much needs to be cut, in what time frame, to deliver what result?

If I were a climate change scientist with access to those answers I would be making more money and not posting to this forum. Regardless, your question basically has no answer because countries change their emissions all the time. For example, if every single country except one stops emitting all green houses gases tomorrow, is that enough? I mean, if that one country that didn't agree continues to increase its emissions, then eventually it will single handedly tip the entire world over the edge.

If your argument is that because "enough" is technically never achievable alone, then no one should try, I would argue that's a really bad idea.

What do we need to do, by when, to meet what objective?

Those are pretty basic questions for something we want to pump hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars into don't you think?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not really understanding the historical argument. Isn't it irrelevant?

What's the tipping point threshold and can we reach it with the emissions growth of China and India? We can't control what they do or change the past. What's the goal? How much do we need to reduce and how fast do we need to do it?

The historic argument matters because it dictates who should do what, when. Over the past couple of decades, China has lifted more people out of poverty than anyone else at any time and wants to continue doing so. India wants to do the same thing. Telling them to stop developing because we've already screwed up too much of the environment and they are the "tipping point" seems kind of unfair.

Imagine if the USA found a buffet. For 150 years, it gorged itself on this buffet. Now, a couple of other countries have found this buffet and they're starving. But when they come to eat, the USA says, "Hey guys, the buffet is running out of food, we should all stop eating from it." It's not an incorrect statement to make, but it's a pretty crappy position from which to negotiate.

Fair or unfair is irrelevant. Either we fix the problem or we don't.How much needs to be cut and how fast does it need to be done? Can we reach that goal on our own?

If you're asking whether any single entity can unilaterally fix the world, the answer is no. Furthermore, no single entity can just fiat enough countries to change the world. The only option on the table is piece by piece negotiation for reductions from one country after another. In this sense, fair and unfair is absolutely relevant, because countries will only decide to reduce their emissions if the terms are fair to them. A large part of this fairness calculus is how much countries have emitted thus far.

You keep dodging the questions. How much needs to be cut, in what time frame, to deliver what result?

If I were a climate change scientist with access to those answers I would be making more money and not posting to this forum. Regardless, your question basically has no answer because countries change their emissions all the time. For example, if every single country except one stops emitting all green houses gases tomorrow, is that enough? I mean, if that one country that didn't agree continues to increase its emissions, then eventually it will single handedly tip the entire world over the edge.

If your argument is that because "enough" is technically never achievable alone, then no one should try, I would argue that's a really bad idea.

What do we need to do, by when, to meet what objective?

Those are pretty basic questions for something we want to pump hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars into don't you think?

I'd say the answers are

1. As much as is practical

2. As soon as is practical, and

3. Avoiding as many of the negative consequences of global warming as possible.

You're discussing the problem as if it's binary, as if we can "solve" it if we reach X level of global emissions within the next Y years. That's not how this or really any environmental problem works. We are already too late to address some consequences- sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting, etc. The idea is to do what we can to stem the tide of negative consequences as quickly as is practical.

Also, where are you getting the figure of "hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars" that we're going to "pump" into this?

 

[jonessed]

Not really understanding the historical argument. Isn't it irrelevant?

What's the tipping point threshold and can we reach it with the emissions growth of China and India? We can't control what they do or change the past. What's the goal? How much do we need to reduce and how fast do we need to do it?

The historic argument matters because it dictates who should do what, when. Over the past couple of decades, China has lifted more people out of poverty than anyone else at any time and wants to continue doing so. India wants to do the same thing. Telling them to stop developing because we've already screwed up too much of the environment and they are the "tipping point" seems kind of unfair.

Imagine if the USA found a buffet. For 150 years, it gorged itself on this buffet. Now, a couple of other countries have found this buffet and they're starving. But when they come to eat, the USA says, "Hey guys, the buffet is running out of food, we should all stop eating from it." It's not an incorrect statement to make, but it's a pretty crappy position from which to negotiate.

Fair or unfair is irrelevant. Either we fix the problem or we don't.How much needs to be cut and how fast does it need to be done? Can we reach that goal on our own?

If you're asking whether any single entity can unilaterally fix the world, the answer is no. Furthermore, no single entity can just fiat enough countries to change the world. The only option on the table is piece by piece negotiation for reductions from one country after another. In this sense, fair and unfair is absolutely relevant, because countries will only decide to reduce their emissions if the terms are fair to them. A large part of this fairness calculus is how much countries have emitted thus far.

You keep dodging the questions. How much needs to be cut, in what time frame, to deliver what result?

If I were a climate change scientist with access to those answers I would be making more money and not posting to this forum. Regardless, your question basically has no answer because countries change their emissions all the time. For example, if every single country except one stops emitting all green houses gases tomorrow, is that enough? I mean, if that one country that didn't agree continues to increase its emissions, then eventually it will single handedly tip the entire world over the edge.

If your argument is that because "enough" is technically never achievable alone, then no one should try, I would argue that's a really bad idea.

What do we need to do, by when, to meet what objective?Those are pretty basic questions for something we want to pump hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars into don't you think?

I'd say the answers are

1. As much as is practical

2. As soon as is practical, and

3. Avoiding as many of the negative consequences of global warming as possible.

You're discussing the problem as if it's binary, as if we can "solve" it if we reach X level of global emissions within the next Y years. That's not how this or really any environmental problem works. We are already too late to address some consequences- sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting, etc. The idea is to do what we can to stem the tide of negative consequences as quickly as is practical.

Also, where are you getting the figure of "hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars" that we're going to "pump" into this?

I didn't say solve. I left the goal open. There certainly can be goals that are something less than complete elimination of Global Warming. Still, we talk about reduction goals in binary terms. We should have an idea of what that gets us. Is this completely unknown?The Government Accountability Office tracks direct expenditures. There was over $25B in the stimulus package alone.

 

[msommer]

Coal and Oil are dirty because they produce large quantities of pollutants which fall into the traditional definition like nitrogen oxides, ozone and ash. Stuff that is an immediate and real health concern, not some potential unknown effect 100 years from now.

Agree.Despite my stance towards reducing CO2 emissions, I still believe CO2 shouldn't be treated as a pollutant.

What about methane? GWP of 42 times CO2?

ETA: Venus loves you