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

[TobiasFunke]

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.

It's more like for each particle we emit, China emits 1.03. We've also been emitting at globally leading levels for ~200 years. China has been emitting at globally leading levels for ~20 years. Roughly 25% of all emissions currently in the atmosphere (i.e., cumulatively since the beginning of measurement) is from us. Something like 11% is from China. So yes, we do have a leadership role to play.

.300 years? where did you get 300 years from?

And nice try spinning the numbers. I am talking about net increases and decreases. China's carbon emissions have sharply been increasing (discounting the minor recent decrease due to their current recession) and is locked in by Obama's treaty to increase at whatever level they wish for the next 20 plus years. Nothing we cut will come close to matching the increases that China is set to produce. We are wasting our time if China and India do not start reducing or even freezing emissions.

This is terrible logic. Our country should do what it can to address the problem. Sure it would be great if the agreement with China provided for more immediate reductions, but it doesn't. It does what could be negotiated. You shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Pick your cheesy cliche. It's all the same.

This is a real problem- better to address is best you can than to simply throw up your hands and say "they're not doing anything right now so we shouldn't do anything either!" That's childish and short-sighted. Especially since, as Shirtless points out, this is a problem that is largely our doing, historically speaking.

I don't believe that taking action that will not drive results at the expense of the economy is the correct action. I also believe doing so might actually hinder resolution. A stronger economy gives more flexibility to marshal resources towards solutions.

I agree. So I guess it's a good thing that the current plan will drive results and that Obama's leadership has put our economy on relatively strong footing especially considering the economic crisis of 2008.

Also, the coal industry has had decades of warning on this. It has stubbornly refused to adopt. I feel for the states that will be hit hard by this, but they can blame industry leadership. If they'd gotten blindsided I'd be sympathetic, but this is pretty much the opposite of getting blindsided.

 

[Rove!]

The other thing that I have always wondered about is the logic behind trying to restrict carbon emissions before we can adequately replace them. Wouldn't it make far more sense for our economy to heavily invest in whatever new energy source we settle on, let it take over a percentage of the marketplace, and THEN restrict carbon emissions?

I agree that replacement should be part of the plan and that other sources coin online should inform dates for reductions of other sources...

 

[TobiasFunke]

First off, I don't think we need pay too much attention to this specific proposal. Obama can't make it happen by executive order, and there's no way the current political makeup of the House and Senate are ever going to agree. That's probably true with Hillary Clinton as well. I realize that the scientists are telling us we need to do something now, but the fact is that most of the Republican party doesn't buy into the urgency and they're not going to agree to restrictions that punish the economy. This is a political dilemma and I don't know how we're going to solve it.

Beyond that, my main issue with the Democrats is that they consistently reject nuclear energy as a solution. It seems to me that Republicans are generally favorable towards nuclear energy and they might be willing to accept carbon restrictions IF an investment went towards nuclear and restrictions were lessened. But they're not going to do it for solar because they don't believe in solar. And I have my doubts as well- thus far, it doesn't pay for itself.

You probably also should stop talking. Most of the domestic measures in the plan will be based on the EPA's existing authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. No House or Senate action is necessary.

(sorry Tim- like your work, just felt like I should make the "stop talking" shtick non-partisan).

I was unaware of this . If that's true, it changes things. But are you sure that you're right about this?

link

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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.

Didn't this administration make a big push for solar early on? I don't remember the details, but I don't think it went very well. Perhaps - and again, I'm too lazy to look this up - but perhaps people have a bitter taste in their mouths over Solyndra et al?

And Ronda Rousey would beat us all up at the same time.

I, for one, welcome our new solar powered Rhonda Rousey dominatrix/overlord.

 

[jon_mx]

First off, I don't think we need pay too much attention to this specific proposal. Obama can't make it happen by executive order, and there's no way the current political makeup of the House and Senate are ever going to agree. That's probably true with Hillary Clinton as well. I realize that the scientists are telling us we need to do something now, but the fact is that most of the Republican party doesn't buy into the urgency and they're not going to agree to restrictions that punish the economy. This is a political dilemma and I don't know how we're going to solve it.

Beyond that, my main issue with the Democrats is that they consistently reject nuclear energy as a solution. It seems to me that Republicans are generally favorable towards nuclear energy and they might be willing to accept carbon restrictions IF an investment went towards nuclear and restrictions were lessened. But they're not going to do it for solar because they don't believe in solar. And I have my doubts as well- thus far, it doesn't pay for itself.

You probably also should stop talking. Most of the domestic measures in the plan will be based on the EPA's existing authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. No House or Senate action is necessary.

(sorry Tim- like your work, just felt like I should make the "stop talking" shtick non-partisan).

I was unaware of this . If that's true, it changes things. But are you sure that you're right about this?

link

This is debatable and most definitely will be challenged, albeit to a somewhat friendly court. And this power grab relies on legislation which could be changed and this action nullified.

 

[NCCommish]

First off, I don't think we need pay too much attention to this specific proposal. Obama can't make it happen by executive order, and there's no way the current political makeup of the House and Senate are ever going to agree. That's probably true with Hillary Clinton as well. I realize that the scientists are telling us we need to do something now, but the fact is that most of the Republican party doesn't buy into the urgency and they're not going to agree to restrictions that punish the economy. This is a political dilemma and I don't know how we're going to solve it.

Beyond that, my main issue with the Democrats is that they consistently reject nuclear energy as a solution. It seems to me that Republicans are generally favorable towards nuclear energy and they might be willing to accept carbon restrictions IF an investment went towards nuclear and restrictions were lessened. But they're not going to do it for solar because they don't believe in solar. And I have my doubts as well- thus far, it doesn't pay for itself.

When we last uaed cap and trade we created a 2 billion dollar industry with hundreds of high paying jobs and the economy did fine. We also pretty much ended acid rain Got anything else that runs counter to reality to go with?

 

[TobiasFunke]

First off, I don't think we need pay too much attention to this specific proposal. Obama can't make it happen by executive order, and there's no way the current political makeup of the House and Senate are ever going to agree. That's probably true with Hillary Clinton as well. I realize that the scientists are telling us we need to do something now, but the fact is that most of the Republican party doesn't buy into the urgency and they're not going to agree to restrictions that punish the economy. This is a political dilemma and I don't know how we're going to solve it.

Beyond that, my main issue with the Democrats is that they consistently reject nuclear energy as a solution. It seems to me that Republicans are generally favorable towards nuclear energy and they might be willing to accept carbon restrictions IF an investment went towards nuclear and restrictions were lessened. But they're not going to do it for solar because they don't believe in solar. And I have my doubts as well- thus far, it doesn't pay for itself.

You probably also should stop talking. Most of the domestic measures in the plan will be based on the EPA's existing authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. No House or Senate action is necessary.

(sorry Tim- like your work, just felt like I should make the "stop talking" shtick non-partisan).

I was unaware of this . If that's true, it changes things. But are you sure that you're right about this?

link

This is debatable and most definitely will be challenged, albeit to a somewhat friendly court. And this power grab relies on legislation which could be changed and this action nullified.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in Massachusetts v EPA that greenhouse gases can be regulated as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. It will no doubt be challenged under other statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act, but the chances of success are much less there and even if a challenge is successful it would likely be based on an administrative error that could be rectified. And it's hardly a power grab- it's an exercise by the executive branch of authority granted by the legislative branch, as interpreted by the judicial branch. You might not like it but you'd be hard-pressed to find a better example of our system of government in action.

Legislation requires passage in both houses and a presidential signature. I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[Rich Conway]

I'd like to see more renewables just because I like clean air and less pollution, climate change or no. Some of the stories I read about the environmental costs of producing solar panels and other renewable power does concern me, though.

Regardless, let's start with this plant: https://projects.propublica.org/killing-the-colorado/story/navajo-generating-station-colorado-river-drought

 

[Rove!]

I'd like to see more renewables just because I like clean air and less pollution, climate change or no. Some of the stories I read about the environmental costs of producing solar panels and other renewable power does concern me, though.

Regardless, let's start with this plant: https://projects.propublica.org/killing-the-colorado/story/navajo-generating-station-colorado-river-drought

what concerns me is the real estate they take up and the effect on the local ecosystems that these large solar farms have....

I also believe that solar may be the ultimate future, but that we are decades away

 

[Jack White]

Another global warming climate change thread . . . neat.

 

[cstu]

I'd like to see more renewables just because I like clean air and less pollution, climate change or no. Some of the stories I read about the environmental costs of producing solar panels and other renewable power does concern me, though.

Regardless, let's start with this plant: https://projects.propublica.org/killing-the-colorado/story/navajo-generating-station-colorado-river-drought

what concerns me is the real estate they take up and the effect on the local ecosystems that these large solar farms have....

I also believe that solar may be the ultimate future, but that we are decades away

I take it you haven't been following the cost of solar.

Solar PV currently has a Levelized Cost Of Energy (LCOE) of $125.30 per MWh. Conventional coal is $95.10 per MWh. Solar is nearly on par with Advanced (Clean) Coal. Link

 

[timschochet]

First off, I don't think we need pay too much attention to this specific proposal. Obama can't make it happen by executive order, and there's no way the current political makeup of the House and Senate are ever going to agree. That's probably true with Hillary Clinton as well. I realize that the scientists are telling us we need to do something now, but the fact is that most of the Republican party doesn't buy into the urgency and they're not going to agree to restrictions that punish the economy. This is a political dilemma and I don't know how we're going to solve it.

Beyond that, my main issue with the Democrats is that they consistently reject nuclear energy as a solution. It seems to me that Republicans are generally favorable towards nuclear energy and they might be willing to accept carbon restrictions IF an investment went towards nuclear and restrictions were lessened. But they're not going to do it for solar because they don't believe in solar. And I have my doubts as well- thus far, it doesn't pay for itself.

When we last uaed cap and trade we created a 2 billion dollar industry with hundreds of high paying jobs and the economy did fine. We also pretty much ended acid rain Got anything else that runs counter to reality to go with?

Id love it if you're right. And Tobias thanks for the link.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The other thing that I have always wondered about is the logic behind trying to restrict carbon emissions before we can adequately replace them. Wouldn't it make far more sense for our economy to heavily invest in whatever new energy source we settle on, let it take over a percentage of the marketplace, and THEN restrict carbon emissions?

No. This is why we need some form of carbon taxation. Make people pay the full social cost of their fossil fuel consumption, and then the market will sort things out.

Right now, there's little reason for people to invest heavily in solar, nuclear, etc. because fossil fuels are "too cheap" since their pollution side-effects aren't priced in. That part needs to be fixed first.

Edit: NCC mentioned cap-and-trade above. Just to be clear, that's theoretically the same thing as a carbon tax, with a different policy mechanism. Cap-and-trade and direct taxation are both better than what Obama is proposing (he's hemmed in by the political balance of power of course) and way better than doing what you're proposing.

 

[Soonerman]

Lots of wishful thinking going on.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/10/ipcc_srren_pre_release/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/04/only_nuclear_power_can_save_humanity_say_global_warming_high_priests/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/26/gates_renewable_energy_cant_do_the_job_gov_should_switch_green_subsidies_into_rd/

 

[cstu]

Gates is correct that we can't get all of our power from solar and wind. However, within 20 year we could have clean, safe thorium based nuclear plants to make up for the difference.

 

[Rove!]

Gates is correct that we can't get all of our power from solar and wind. However, within 20 year we could have clean, safe thorium based nuclear plants to make up for the difference.

We should have converting to nuclear for the past 40 years....how do we get this to move forward?

 

[tommyboy]

When the Saudis are switching to solar there has to be something to it. The cost isn't there yet but it will be. This is the 21st century, stop living in the 19th.

The Saudi have a specific plan to invest more than $40 billion in solar over coming years so it can sell more oil on the international market. The Gulf states have a similar goal to diversify. It simply makes economic sense, given their huge power needs, to deal with lavish lifestyles, soaring heat, and desalination, and the International Renewable Energy Agency said this weekend that investment in renewables could save the United Arab Emirates, where the Dubai plant will be located, up to $2 billion a year.

Energy analysts say there could not be a clearer sign of the energy transition that is taking place around the world one marked by renewable energy displacing fossil fuels, and the plunge in the oil price forcing the cancellation of tens of billions of high priced oil projects.

You seem pretty smart, but do you really believe everything you posted from the white house?

 

[Sand]

Gates is correct that we can't get all of our power from solar and wind. However, within 20 year we could have clean, safe thorium based nuclear plants to make up for the difference.

We should have converting to nuclear for the past 40 years....how do we get this to move forward?

Get someone in the WH with some sense on energy. I haven't seen anyone of that description for 20 years.

 

[jon_mx]

First off, I don't think we need pay too much attention to this specific proposal. Obama can't make it happen by executive order, and there's no way the current political makeup of the House and Senate are ever going to agree. That's probably true with Hillary Clinton as well. I realize that the scientists are telling us we need to do something now, but the fact is that most of the Republican party doesn't buy into the urgency and they're not going to agree to restrictions that punish the economy. This is a political dilemma and I don't know how we're going to solve it.

Beyond that, my main issue with the Democrats is that they consistently reject nuclear energy as a solution. It seems to me that Republicans are generally favorable towards nuclear energy and they might be willing to accept carbon restrictions IF an investment went towards nuclear and restrictions were lessened. But they're not going to do it for solar because they don't believe in solar. And I have my doubts as well- thus far, it doesn't pay for itself.

You probably also should stop talking. Most of the domestic measures in the plan will be based on the EPA's existing authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. No House or Senate action is necessary.

(sorry Tim- like your work, just felt like I should make the "stop talking" shtick non-partisan).

I was unaware of this . If that's true, it changes things. But are you sure that you're right about this?

link

This is debatable and most definitely will be challenged, albeit to a somewhat friendly court. And this power grab relies on legislation which could be changed and this action nullified.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in Massachusetts v EPA that greenhouse gases can be regulated as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. It will no doubt be challenged under other statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act, but the chances of success are much less there and even if a challenge is successful it would likely be based on an administrative error that could be rectified. And it's hardly a power grab- it's an exercise by the executive branch of authority granted by the legislative branch, as interpreted by the judicial branch. You might not like it but you'd be hard-pressed to find a better example of our system of government in action.

Legislation requires passage in both houses and a presidential signature. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Unless it was the clear intent of the legislation, it is a power grab with the judicial branch acting as an accomplice.

 

[Shirtless]

Historical emissions data is a thing. A very well tracked and highly cited thing.

http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers_chapter6.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyHistorespons.html

CO2 emissions from 1850-2007:

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%

China leading the way is a recent development. All greenhouse gas emissions since 2005:

1. China: 7,216 MT or 16.4%

2. US: 6,931 MT or 15.7%

Per capita emissions makes us look even worse, since China has 4x as many people as we do.

United States: 17.3 tonnes

China: 5.4 tonnes

And factoring in export/consumption is interesting, since China is a global manufacturer and emits in order to create things that are consumed elsewhere. Considering consumption, per capita carbon footprint is:

United States of America 20.2

China 4.3

Over time, we blow China out of the water. Per person, we blow China out of the water (Gulf nations still lead in this indicator). It's unbelievable that, once climate change became a topic of interest, we started pointing the finger at China. And did someone really mention India? Their score on that last indicator, consumption per capita, is 1.3.

The reason we don't demand that China reduce emissions as quickly as we do is because we have a 150 year head start on emitting. It probably makes sense for us to reduce emissions before they do, especially considering one American's carbon footprint is 5x greater than one Chinese.

 

[Quez]

It would definitely be a good fight but I think Ronda Rousey can take Captain Planet.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Rove!]

Historical emissions data is a thing. A very well tracked and highly cited thing.

http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers_chapter6.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyHistorespons.html

CO2 emissions from 1850-2007:

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%

China leading the way is a recent development. All greenhouse gas emissions since 2005:

1. China: 7,216 MT or 16.4%

2. US: 6,931 MT or 15.7%

Per capita emissions makes us look even worse, since China has 4x as many people as we do.

United States: 17.3 tonnes

China: 5.4 tonnes

And factoring in export/consumption is interesting, since China is a global manufacturer and emits in order to create things that are consumed elsewhere. Considering consumption, per capita carbon footprint is:

United States of America 20.2

China 4.3

Over time, we blow China out of the water. Per person, we blow China out of the water (Gulf nations still lead in this indicator). It's unbelievable that, once climate change became a topic of interest, we started pointing the finger at China. And did someone really mention India? Their score on that last indicator, consumption per capita, is 1.3.

The reason we don't demand that China reduce emissions as quickly as we do is because we have a 150 year head start on emitting. It probably makes sense for us to reduce emissions before they do, especially considering one American's carbon footprint is 5x greater than one Chinese.

Even Tobias link to Skeptical Science which leans to the alarmist side says that 40 % of today's carbon gets absorbed and doesn't get into the atmosphere. I'm sure that whatver we We're pumping out in the 19th century was probably getting almost completely absorbed, so you math on the 150 years is still way too simplistic.

The other pice you ignore is that economic growth doesn't exist in a vacuum. That economic growth we were "gorging on" saw an unprecedented advancement for the better of all humans in science, technology, innovation, disease prevention, human right, the defeat of naziism etc. while we have prospered, humanity as a whole has also benefitted....

 

[joffer]

Historical emissions data is a thing. A very well tracked and highly cited thing.

http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers_chapter6.pdfhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-changehttp://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyHistorespons.html

CO2 emissions from 1850-2007:

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%

China leading the way is a recent development. All greenhouse gas emissions since 2005:

1. China: 7,216 MT or 16.4%2. US: 6,931 MT or 15.7%

Per capita emissions makes us look even worse, since China has 4x as many people as we do.

United States: 17.3 tonnesChina: 5.4 tonnes

And factoring in export/consumption is interesting, since China is a global manufacturer and emits in order to create things that are consumed elsewhere. Considering consumption, per capita carbon footprint is:

United States of America 20.2China 4.3

Over time, we blow China out of the water. Per person, we blow China out of the water (Gulf nations still lead in this indicator). It's unbelievable that, once climate change became a topic of interest, we started pointing the finger at China. And did someone really mention India? Their score on that last indicator, consumption per capita, is 1.3.

The reason we don't demand that China reduce emissions as quickly as we do is because we have a 150 year head start on emitting. It probably makes sense for us to reduce emissions before they do, especially considering one American's carbon footprint is 5x greater than one Chinese.

Even Tobias link to Skeptical Science which leans to the alarmist side says that 40 % of today's carbon gets absorbed and doesn't get into the atmosphere. I'm sure that whatver we We're pumping out in the 19th century was probably getting almost completely absorbed, so you math on the 150 years is still way too simplistic.

The other pice you ignore is that economic growth doesn't exist in a vacuum. That economic growth we were "gorging on" saw an unprecedented advancement for the better of all humans in science, technology, innovation, disease prevention, human right, the defeat of naziism etc. while we have prospered, humanity as a whole has also benefitted....

gets absorbed where? Do I need to post the video again?

 

[Shirtless]

Historical emissions data is a thing. A very well tracked and highly cited thing.

http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers_chapter6.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyHistorespons.html

CO2 emissions from 1850-2007:

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%

China leading the way is a recent development. All greenhouse gas emissions since 2005:

1. China: 7,216 MT or 16.4%

2. US: 6,931 MT or 15.7%

Per capita emissions makes us look even worse, since China has 4x as many people as we do.

United States: 17.3 tonnes

China: 5.4 tonnes

And factoring in export/consumption is interesting, since China is a global manufacturer and emits in order to create things that are consumed elsewhere. Considering consumption, per capita carbon footprint is:

United States of America 20.2

China 4.3

Over time, we blow China out of the water. Per person, we blow China out of the water (Gulf nations still lead in this indicator). It's unbelievable that, once climate change became a topic of interest, we started pointing the finger at China. And did someone really mention India? Their score on that last indicator, consumption per capita, is 1.3.

The reason we don't demand that China reduce emissions as quickly as we do is because we have a 150 year head start on emitting. It probably makes sense for us to reduce emissions before they do, especially considering one American's carbon footprint is 5x greater than one Chinese.

Even Tobias link to Skeptical Science which leans to the alarmist side says that 40 % of today's carbon gets absorbed and doesn't get into the atmosphere. I'm sure that whatver we We're pumping out in the 19th century was probably getting almost completely absorbed, so you math on the 150 years is still way too simplistic.

The other pice you ignore is that economic growth doesn't exist in a vacuum. That economic growth we were "gorging on" saw an unprecedented advancement for the better of all humans in science, technology, innovation, disease prevention, human right, the defeat of naziism etc. while we have prospered, humanity as a whole has also benefitted....

Then China's and India's prosperity should also be encouraged for the benefit of humanity as a whole.

 

[Rove!]

Historical emissions data is a thing. A very well tracked and highly cited thing.

http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers_chapter6.pdfhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-changehttp://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyHistorespons.html

CO2 emissions from 1850-2007:

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%

China leading the way is a recent development. All greenhouse gas emissions since 2005:

1. China: 7,216 MT or 16.4%2. US: 6,931 MT or 15.7%

Per capita emissions makes us look even worse, since China has 4x as many people as we do.

United States: 17.3 tonnesChina: 5.4 tonnes

And factoring in export/consumption is interesting, since China is a global manufacturer and emits in order to create things that are consumed elsewhere. Considering consumption, per capita carbon footprint is:

United States of America 20.2China 4.3

Over time, we blow China out of the water. Per person, we blow China out of the water (Gulf nations still lead in this indicator). It's unbelievable that, once climate change became a topic of interest, we started pointing the finger at China. And did someone really mention India? Their score on that last indicator, consumption per capita, is 1.3.

The reason we don't demand that China reduce emissions as quickly as we do is because we have a 150 year head start on emitting. It probably makes sense for us to reduce emissions before they do, especially considering one American's carbon footprint is 5x greater than one Chinese.

Even Tobias link to Skeptical Science which leans to the alarmist side says that 40 % of today's carbon gets absorbed and doesn't get into the atmosphere. I'm sure that whatver we We're pumping out in the 19th century was probably getting almost completely absorbed, so you math on the 150 years is still way too simplistic.

The other pice you ignore is that economic growth doesn't exist in a vacuum. That economic growth we were "gorging on" saw an unprecedented advancement for the better of all humans in science, technology, innovation, disease prevention, human right, the defeat of naziism etc. while we have prospered, humanity as a whole has also benefitted....

gets absorbed where? Do I need to post the video again?

Land and ocean per Tobias skeptical science alarmist site link

 

[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.

It is bad, dumb policy. It is way too reliant on renewables and mandates their adoption at a rate that is far higher than it ought to be. It also claims that the policy change will cause benefits that are already naturally occuring as coal is supplanted by natural gas.

I say that as somebody who is neither a climate change denier, nor an alarmist.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Historical emissions data is a thing. A very well tracked and highly cited thing.

http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers_chapter6.pdfhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-changehttp://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyHistorespons.html

CO2 emissions from 1850-2007:

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%

China leading the way is a recent development. All greenhouse gas emissions since 2005:

1. China: 7,216 MT or 16.4%2. US: 6,931 MT or 15.7%

Per capita emissions makes us look even worse, since China has 4x as many people as we do.

United States: 17.3 tonnesChina: 5.4 tonnes

And factoring in export/consumption is interesting, since China is a global manufacturer and emits in order to create things that are consumed elsewhere. Considering consumption, per capita carbon footprint is:

United States of America 20.2China 4.3

Over time, we blow China out of the water. Per person, we blow China out of the water (Gulf nations still lead in this indicator). It's unbelievable that, once climate change became a topic of interest, we started pointing the finger at China. And did someone really mention India? Their score on that last indicator, consumption per capita, is 1.3.

The reason we don't demand that China reduce emissions as quickly as we do is because we have a 150 year head start on emitting. It probably makes sense for us to reduce emissions before they do, especially considering one American's carbon footprint is 5x greater than one Chinese.

Even Tobias link to Skeptical Science which leans to the alarmist side says that 40 % of today's carbon gets absorbed and doesn't get into the atmosphere. I'm sure that whatver we We're pumping out in the 19th century was probably getting almost completely absorbed, so you math on the 150 years is still way too simplistic.

The other pice you ignore is that economic growth doesn't exist in a vacuum. That economic growth we were "gorging on" saw an unprecedented advancement for the better of all humans in science, technology, innovation, disease prevention, human right, the defeat of naziism etc. while we have prospered, humanity as a whole has also benefitted....

gets absorbed where? Do I need to post the video again?

Land and ocean per Tobias skeptical science alarmist site link

To borrow that excellent buffet analogy, what you're arguing is akin to a fat person arguing that nothing he ate before the last few days is part of his obesity problem because even when he overeats most of his calories are converted to energy so the ones he consumed back in the day have definitely been converted to energy by now.

 

[njherdfan]

First off, I don't think we need pay too much attention to this specific proposal. Obama can't make it happen by executive order, and there's no way the current political makeup of the House and Senate are ever going to agree. That's probably true with Hillary Clinton as well. I realize that the scientists are telling us we need to do something now, but the fact is that most of the Republican party doesn't buy into the urgency and they're not going to agree to restrictions that punish the economy. This is a political dilemma and I don't know how we're going to solve it.

Beyond that, my main issue with the Democrats is that they consistently reject nuclear energy as a solution. It seems to me that Republicans are generally favorable towards nuclear energy and they might be willing to accept carbon restrictions IF an investment went towards nuclear and restrictions were lessened. But they're not going to do it for solar because they don't believe in solar. And I have my doubts as well- thus far, it doesn't pay for itself.

You probably also should stop talking. Most of the domestic measures in the plan will be based on the EPA's existing authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. No House or Senate action is necessary.

(sorry Tim- like your work, just felt like I should make the "stop talking" shtick non-partisan).

I was unaware of this . If that's true, it changes things. But are you sure that you're right about this?

link

This is debatable and most definitely will be challenged, albeit to a somewhat friendly court. And this power grab relies on legislation which could be changed and this action nullified.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in Massachusetts v EPA that greenhouse gases can be regulated as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. It will no doubt be challenged under other statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act, but the chances of success are much less there and even if a challenge is successful it would likely be based on an administrative error that could be rectified. And it's hardly a power grab- it's an exercise by the executive branch of authority granted by the legislative branch, as interpreted by the judicial branch. You might not like it but you'd be hard-pressed to find a better example of our system of government in action.

Legislation requires passage in both houses and a presidential signature. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Unless it was the clear intent of the legislation, it is a power grab with the judicial branch acting as an accomplice.

This doesn't make any sense. The purpose of the Clean Air Act is to regulate the emissions of hazardous chemicals. It's not possible for Congress to regulate with the type of hyper-specificity you seem to think they normally use. In the same way the Tax Code allows for the deduction of "ordinary and necessary" business expenses, and has the IRS determine what those words mean, the CAA authorizes the EPA to determine what emissions are harmful, and to what extent. This is one of the most fundamental tenets of American government, and every executive agency will come up with policy interpretations consistent with the current president; that's just how this works.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

SOCIALISM!!!

 

[cstu]

Gates is correct that we can't get all of our power from solar and wind. However, within 20 year we could have clean, safe thorium based nuclear plants to make up for the difference.

We should have converting to nuclear for the past 40 years....how do we get this to move forward?

Get someone in the WH with some sense on energy. I haven't seen anyone of that description for 20 years.

I'm a supporter of nuclear but it's wise to hold off on it until thorium reactors are ready. China is treating thorium technology as their Manhattan Project.

 

[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?

 

[timschochet]

Can someone explain how thorium technology is supposed to work and how far we are away from it? And should government make a huge investment into this?

 

[joffer]

Can someone explain how thorium technology is supposed to work and how far we are away from it? And should government make a huge investment into this?

youtube has some great videos. short ones and long ones. Search on LFTR

 

[cstu]

Can someone explain how thorium technology is supposed to work and how far we are away from it? And should government make a huge investment into this?

There's a 5 minute video in this article.

We are 'working with' the Chinese on this although they are the ones in charge of the whole thing. I'm not sure if we need to make a huge investment yet, might as well see how their research goes first. They were first given 25 years for the project but that's been pushed down to 10 so clearly they believe it's viable. India is all over it as well. Thorium was originally the technology we were going to use for reactors but uranium reactors had the nice byproduct of material that could be used to make bombs.

 

[Rove!]

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....

 

[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?

 

[TheAristocrat]

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....

Well, for those that aren't analytical, it makes them feel like they made .01 degrees of a difference. So there is that immeasurable malarkey.

 

[bagger]

I never quite understood the "China isn't reducing so we shouldn't either" argument. If you see someone litter do you stop using a trash can? Do we just govern ourselves to the global lowest common denominator? Or maybe we just do what is right not only environmentally but also innovate and try to come up with a technology that solves this issue for not only America but the entire world and reap the financial benefits both in terms of GDP and job growth.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I never quite understood the "China isn't reducing so we shouldn't either" argument. If you see someone litter do you stop using a trash can? Do we just govern ourselves to the global lowest common denominator? Or maybe we just do what is right not only environmentally but also innovate and try to come up with a technology that solves this issue for not only America but the entire world and reap the financial benefits both in terms of GDP and job growth.

Suggesting that we do nothing is silly.

But at the other end of the spectrum, doing things with no regard to cost-benefit or whether there will actually be a tangible difference made is also silly.

 

[cstu]

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....

Well, for those that aren't analytical, it makes them feel like they made .01 degrees of a difference. So there is that immeasurable malarkey.

Forget about this from a climate change perspective - is there not a tangible benefit to switching to new technology and being on the forefront of it rather than sitting back burning our old-fashioned coal while the rest of the world gets ahead of us?

I'm in favor of R&D but actual spending is what gets the ball rolling.

 

[TheAristocrat]

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....

Well, for those that aren't analytical, it makes them feel like they made .01 degrees of a difference. So there is that immeasurable malarkey.

Forget about this from a climate change perspective - is there not a tangible benefit to switching to new technology and being on the forefront of it rather than sitting back burning our old-fashioned coal while the rest of the world gets ahead of us?

I'm in favor of R&D but actual spending is what gets the ball rolling.

Depends on the cost vs benefit. As usual, I am not for cramming money down the crapper just to say I was doing something. I need tangible results, unfortunately.

 

[cstu]

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....

Well, for those that aren't analytical, it makes them feel like they made .01 degrees of a difference. So there is that immeasurable malarkey.

Forget about this from a climate change perspective - is there not a tangible benefit to switching to new technology and being on the forefront of it rather than sitting back burning our old-fashioned coal while the rest of the world gets ahead of us?

I'm in favor of R&D but actual spending is what gets the ball rolling.

Depends on the cost vs benefit. As usual, I am not for cramming money down the crapper just to say I was doing something. I need tangible results, unfortunately.

IMO this plan is similar to Kennedy's moon shot under the guise of climate change. Breakthroughs in solar technology are happening almost daily - for example the Army just produced a solar cell that is 1000x thinner than what is currently available:

The newly-designed, multilayer stack has dramatically reduced the size of a PV cell, about 1,000 times thinner than that of the previous 100 to 200 microns, which was about the size of a grain of sand.

I believe Obama saw this plan as a way to push his renewable agenda without getting it stalled in Congress by short-sighted Republicans.

 

[Rove!]

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....

Well, for those that aren't analytical, it makes them feel like they made .01 degrees of a difference. So there is that immeasurable malarkey.

Forget about this from a climate change perspective - is there not a tangible benefit to switching to new technology and being on the forefront of it rather than sitting back burning our old-fashioned coal while the rest of the world gets ahead of us?I'm in favor of R&D but actual spending is what gets the ball rolling.

Depends on the cost vs benefit. As usual, I am not for cramming money down the crapper just to say I was doing something. I need tangible results, unfortunately.

IMO this plan is similar to Kennedy's moon shot under the guise of climate change. Breakthroughs in solar technology are happening almost daily - for example the Army just produced a solar cell that is 1000x thinner than what is currently available:

The newly-designed, multilayer stack has dramatically reduced the size of a PV cell, about 1,000 times thinner than that of the previous 100 to 200 microns, which was about the size of a grain of sand.

I believe Obama saw this plan as a way to push his renewable agenda without getting it stalled in Congress by short-sighted Republicans.

Nobody is against clean, renewable energy.It has been the left that has been set on opposing clean energies like nuclear and natural gas

 

[jonessed]

I never quite understood the "China isn't reducing so we shouldn't either" argument. If you see someone litter do you stop using a trash can? Do we just govern ourselves to the global lowest common denominator? Or maybe we just do what is right not only environmentally but also innovate and try to come up with a technology that solves this issue for not only America but the entire world and reap the financial benefits both in terms of GDP and job growth.

GDP and job growth are highly dependent on cheap energy. Innovation that gets us there in different ways is great, but cost should always be a factor. Blindly throwing money at Climate Change for no other reason that to feel good is bad policy.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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).

 

[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!