What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

US and China reach historic Climate Change agreement (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/world/us-china-climate-change-agreement/index.html

Beijing (CNN) -- In a historic climate change deal, U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced both countries will curb their greenhouse gas emissions over the next two decades.

Under the agreement, the United States would cut its 2005 level of carbon emissions by 26-28% before the year 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions by 2030 and will also aim to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources by the same year.

"As the world's two largest economies, energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases, we have a special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change," Obama said Wednesday in a joint news conference with Xi.

The announcement marks the first time China has agreed to peak its carbon emissions, according to the White House. Xi is calling for "an energy revolution" that would include broad economic reforms addressing air pollution.

Obama, who was in Beijing for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, said he hopes the deal will spur other nations to tackle climate change.

"We hope to encourage all major economies to be ambitious -- all countries, developing and developed -- to work across some of the old divides, so we can conclude a strong global climate agreement next year," Obama said.

Xi said both sides were committed to working toward the goals before the United Nations Climate Conference in Paris next year.

The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions said the joint announcement is "an extremely hopeful sign" and will help get other countries on board.

"For too long it's been too easy for both the U.S. and China to hide behind one another," said the center's president, Bob Perciasepe.

"People on both sides pointed to weak action abroad to delay action at home. This announcement hopefully puts those excuses behind us. We'll only avert the worst risks of climate change by acting together."

The announcement could put climate change back on the G20 agenda, said researcher David Holmes of Monash University in Australia.

"The announcement may mean climate will have to be higher on the G20 agenda, despite host nation Australia trying to keep it off altogether," Holmes said.

"As an economic meeting, it cannot afford to ignore the restructuring of energy markets and productive capacity that will be needed to accommodate these very ambitious cuts."

The goals laid out by Obama and Xi were not as ambitious as some hoped, said Lo Sze Ping, CEO of the World Wildlife Fund Beijing.

But "what's important is that both these two large emitters are taking the responsibility to act and work together to resolve the problem, not the numbers or targets themselves," he said.

The White House said the ultimate target is to "achieve deep economy-wide reductions on the order of 80% by 2050."

A senior Obama administration official said the goals are "ambitious and achievable" -- but U.S. domestic politics could be a challenge.

The official said "leading climate deniers" in the Republican party might try to stop the initiative. The official hinted that Obama could act alone if necessary.

"Congress may try to stop us, but we believe that with control of Congress changing hands we can proceed with the authority we already have," the official said.

"This is really the crusade of a narrow group of people who are politically motivated and have made this a cause celebre, but we believe we will be successful."

The Obama administration hopes to sell the plan back home by touting the anticipated savings on energy costs. The plan offers initiatives and incentives to develop more solar and wind power in both countries, the official said.

"Consumers and businesses will save literally billions of dollars," a senior administration official said.

But the Senate's top Republican said the climate change deal will hurt the U.S. economy.

"Our economy can't take the President's ideological war on coal that will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners," Sen. Mitch McConnell said in a statement.

"This unrealistic plan, that the President would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs."

China has agreed to provide another 800-1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero emission generation capacity by 2030.

That amount of zero-emission output exceeds all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and is close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States.

A senior Obama administration official said that historically, the United States and China have often been seen as antagonists, so the climate change deal "should send a powerful message," and "will usher in a new day, where the U.S. and China can work as partners."

 
Eh - nothing here is on paper. Which makes sense, because it would have to be ratified by Congress - and who can be bothered, really?

So this is blathering and hot air. Or, at least, Chinese hot air. We're not allowed hot air anymore. Global warming and all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scientists are worried that this agreement, while a good start, is not enough. Conservatives are concerned with the effect this agreement will have on the economy of the coal states, and they slammed the agreement.

But- for those who are always going off on how the two parties are basically the same, this should be clear evidence that they are not. A Republican President would never have signed this agreement (indeed, today's Republicans seem to doubt whether man-made Climate Change exists at all.) If you are a person concerned with this issue one way or another, it's a good reason to vote for whichever of the two parties you favor.

 
Eh - nothing here is on paper. Which makes sense, because it would have to be ratified by Congress - and who can be bothered, really?

So this is blathering and hot air. Or, at least, Chinese hot air. We're not allowed hot air anymore. Global warming and all.
I'd be very surprised if there wasn't something in writing to come out of this at some point.

 
It's not a treaty so it's not binding.

And the Chinese don't allow their own people any external means of ensuring that their own government enforce their own regulations. If the Chinese people can't do anything about their own disgusting environment how is the USA going to do anything about it?

And the people in Chinese government own all the most polluting enterprises so they won't see why they should take fewer profits and in the meantime they will be regulating themselves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scientists are worried that this agreement, while a good start, is not enough. Conservatives are concerned with the effect this agreement will have on the economy of the coal states, and they slammed the agreement.

But- for those who are always going off on how the two parties are basically the same, this should be clear evidence that they are not. A Republican President would never have signed this agreement (indeed, today's Republicans seem to doubt whether man-made Climate Change exists at all.) If you are a person concerned with this issue one way or another, it's a good reason to vote for whichever of the two parties you favor.
Yes. Democrats love to sign completely non-binding agreement which they have no authority to commit which attempts to put the Burdon on someone else while trying to make themselves look like it is their sacrifice. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, the US agreed to hit the brakes while China agreed to stand on the gas for another 16 years. Historic, indeed! :mellow:

 
Why are we using a baseline from 9 years ago? Especially since we've been below that baseline since.

 
What China is really hoping for is that this completely meaningless agreement will be enough for other countries to put chains on their economy so China can eat up all the economic growth of the world.

China has by far the worst real pollution problem in the world. If China cares about pollution they would be cleaning that mess up. China is laughing their asses off at the stupid Americans. Thanks Neville....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What China is really hoping for is that this completely meaningless agreement will be enough for other countries to put chains on their economy so China can eat up all the economic growth of the world.

China has by far the worst real pollution problem in the world. If China cares about pollution they would be cleaning that mess up. China is laughing their asses off at the stupid Americans. Thanks Neville....
Their part of the agreement - "we'll try to reduce emissions by 2030" is absolutely nothing. This is the timeline in which they expect to age out old factories and power plants and such and that newer ones will come online and naturally start to peak out their footprint. They just agreed to actively do nothing.

Pure posturing by their government couples with some of the most expensive, productivity killing regulations (see: new ozone regulation) about to come out of the EPA on our side. Typical.

 
For China to be willing to publicly admit that their emissions are a problem and need to be reduced seems to me to be very significant in itself. I note that most of you who are skeptical that they will live up to the agreement are the same people who are skeptical of the science of this issue in the first place - China doesn't appear to share your doubt.

 
For China to be willing to publicly admit that their emissions are a problem and need to be reduced seems to me to be very significant in itself. I note that most of you who are skeptical that they will live up to the agreement are the same people who are skeptical of the science of this issue in the first place - China doesn't appear to share your doubt.
China is already engaging in cap and trade schemes. It is silly for people to suggest they are the ones who are reluctant to act.

 
For China to be willing to publicly admit that their emissions are a problem and need to be reduced seems to me to be very significant in itself. ...
This is how China deals with things:

China Outsourcing Smog to West Region Stirs ProtestChina’s leaders want to lift the gray blanket of deadly smog that often chokes Beijing’s residents by shifting power plants to the less populated western part of the country inhabited by minorities. That’s turning into a nightmare for Ani Yetahon who lives in Oriliq, a village about 1,800 miles from the capital where some residents still walk to the well for their water.

Ever since a $2.1 billion plant that converts coal into natural gas began operating in August on a hill above his village, the 37-year-old ex-policeman and his family have suffered a burning sensation in their throats that keeps them awake at night. So have his fellow villagers, who also complain of dizziness and repeated colds.

After five months of watching clouds of smoke belching into the air from a red-and-white striped smokestack, they’d had enough. On a mid-January morning, more than 200 people dragged makeshift wooden barricades across the snow and blocked the road leading to the plant. They stayed for two days, in temperatures that dipped as low as minus 20 degrees Celsius (minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit). Their demand: shut down the installation that was making them and their children ill.

Nothing changed.

“They don’t care if our children get sick or how much the pollution is affecting our village,” said Yetahon, a stocky man dressed in a gray sweater and brown leather jacket, whose village is near the Kazakhstan border. When senior police officers asked him for the names of those who organized the protest, Yetahon said he turned in his uniform and quit.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-06/china-outsourcing-smog-to-west-region-stirs-protest.html

I will say this - China has a potential domestic problem on their hands. Environmental activism could lead to protests which could lead to demands for democracy.

Now either China is proactive and gets ahead of this, which is maybe what they are partly doing here, or they wait until the next Tianenmen and react like they did in 1989. Frankly this quasi-fascist-communist hybrid they have going on here probably isn't flexible enough to handle this problem.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for the Republican response, here is Senator James Inhofe , soon to be the Senate chairperson for the environment committee:

"My point is, God's still up there. And it's incredibly arrogant of mankind to think we can do anything about changing climate- that's His job."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for the Republican response, here is Senator James Inhofe , soon to be the Senate chairperson for the environment committee:

"My point is, God's still up there. And it's incredibly arrogant of mankind to think we can do anything about changing climate- that's His job."
I'm trying to gauge which is more naive, that statement or this one:

"I commend President Xi, his team and the Chinese government for the commitment they are making to slow, peak and then reverse the course of China's carbon emissions" Obama said at the event.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/politics/24-hours-with-president-obama-in-china/index.html

"Reverse"?

The US is going to make China do this via a non-treaty? Or at all? Ok.

 
During this same presser, Obama and Xi took only two questions, one from reporter Mark Landler of The New York Times and one from Chinese state run media. Landler asked about international press access in China, which didn't bode well with Xi, who immediately tried to avoid the question. Obama on the other hand made a not so subtle facial grin in reaction to Xi avoiding the question: [gif]

While clearly annoyed, Xi eventually circled back to finish his remarks by saying the New York Times causes their own press access issues in China.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/politics/24-hours-with-president-obama-in-china/index.html

In the US environmental change happened because of the press and reporting. Love Canal was the most famous catalyst but there were many others and it continues. The open adversarial legal system may also deserve some credit.

Nothing will happen in China without the same pressure being applied internally.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for the Republican response, here is Senator James Inhofe , soon to be the Senate chairperson for the environment committee:

"My point is, God's still up there. And it's incredibly arrogant of mankind to think we can do anything about changing climate- that's His job."
I'm trying to gauge which is more naive, that statement or this one:

"I commend President Xi, his team and the Chinese government for the commitment they are making to slow, peak and then reverse the course of China's carbon emissions" Obama said at the event.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/politics/24-hours-with-president-obama-in-china/index.html

"Reverse"?

The US is going to make China do this via a non-treaty? Or at all? Ok.
neither statement is naive IMO. Obama is saying what needs to be said publicly. Any other comment would be insulting to his host. Inhofe is stating his deep convictions.
 
As for the Republican response, here is Senator James Inhofe , soon to be the Senate chairperson for the environment committee:

"My point is, God's still up there. And it's incredibly arrogant of mankind to think we can do anything about changing climate- that's His job."
I'm trying to gauge which is more naive, that statement or this one:

"I commend President Xi, his team and the Chinese government for the commitment they are making to slow, peak and then reverse the course of China's carbon emissions" Obama said at the event.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/politics/24-hours-with-president-obama-in-china/index.html

"Reverse"?

The US is going to make China do this via a non-treaty? Or at all? Ok.
Probably the former, since China is actually taking actions to address emissions. Also, God doesn't exist.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saints, your comments about impediments to change in China are not without merit. Yet one thing that China appears to be lacking is a very large political party whose leaders express skepticism in the science of climate change. IMO, that's a bigger impediment to progress on this issue than anything that China has or lacks.

 
Eh - nothing here is on paper. Which makes sense, because it would have to be ratified by Congress - and who can be bothered, really?

.
Congress would be big help
"My point is, God's still up there. And it's incredibly arrogant of mankind to think we can do anything about changing climate- that's His job."
 
"ANYTHING WE DO WOULD BE POINTLESS WITHOUT CHINA!!!!!"

sign agreement with China

"........WAR ON COAL!!!!!!"

 
"ANYTHING WE DO WOULD BE POINTLESS WITHOUT CHINA!!!!!"

sign agreement with China

"........WAR ON COAL!!!!!!"
Well you can't expect McConnell to act any differently. He's from Kentucky and coal is his bread and butter. Same with Joe Manchin from West Virginia , who is a Democrat. These guys are never going to accept restrictions on coal in the name of climate change.
 
"ANYTHING WE DO WOULD BE POINTLESS WITHOUT CHINA!!!!!"

sign agreement with China

"........WAR ON COAL!!!!!!"
Well you can't expect McConnell to act any differently. He's from Kentucky and coal is his bread and butter. Same with Joe Manchin from West Virginia , who is a Democrat. These guys are never going to accept restrictions on coal in the name of climate change.
Because thousands of their own constituents will be thrown out of work as a result, that's right.

 
Saints, your comments about impediments to change in China are not without merit. Yet one thing that China appears to be lacking is a very large political party whose leaders express skepticism in the science of climate change. IMO, that's a bigger impediment to progress on this issue than anything that China has or lacks.
So a party that rubberstamps a statement on climate change while suppressing all protests that demand real efforts to clean up the environment where people are living is better?

No, it's not.

 
"ANYTHING WE DO WOULD BE POINTLESS WITHOUT CHINA!!!!!"

sign agreement with China

"........WAR ON COAL!!!!!!"
Well you can't expect McConnell to act any differently. He's from Kentucky and coal is his bread and butter. Same with Joe Manchin from West Virginia , who is a Democrat. These guys are never going to accept restrictions on coal in the name of climate change.
Because thousands of their own constituents will be thrown out of work as a result, that's right.
Thats what they're going to argue for sure. In truth we really don't know what the result will be. But at some point we need to get off coal anyhow, so at some point all of these jobs are going to be lost .

 
For China to be willing to publicly admit that their emissions are a problem and need to be reduced seems to me to be very significant in itself. I note that most of you who are skeptical that they will live up to the agreement are the same people who are skeptical of the science of this issue in the first place - China doesn't appear to share your doubt.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Do you understand what this agreement even means?????????????????

Of course China will meet this agreement. They are free to increase their carbon emissions for the next 15 years with zero restrictions, while we are signing up to significantly curtail ours. Here is the agreement in a graph from this NY Times article. It is a moronic agreement that China would have been stupid not to sign.

 
By the time 2030 hits, the cuts we will be making while crippling our economy will be in the noise to what China is allowed to produce. The world will be struggling while China will be producing 90% of the world's carbon emission......how can anyone be this stupid enough to think this is a 'historic' agreement?

 
For China to be willing to publicly admit that their emissions are a problem and need to be reduced seems to me to be very significant in itself. I note that most of you who are skeptical that they will live up to the agreement are the same people who are skeptical of the science of this issue in the first place - China doesn't appear to share your doubt.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Do you understand what this agreement even means?????????????????

Of course China will meet this agreement. They are free to increase their carbon emissions for the next 15 years with zero restrictions, while we are signing up to significantly curtail ours. Here is the agreement in a graph from this NY Times article. It is a moronic agreement that China would have been stupid not to sign.
Maybe we are trying to encourage them to stay on the coal suck pipe, and off the other energy sources. China starts using more oil and you better break in your walking shoes, because none of us will be able to afford to drive.

 
By the time 2030 hits, the cuts we will be making while crippling our economy will be in the noise to what China is allowed to produce. The world will be struggling while China will be producing 90% of the world's carbon emission......how can anyone be this stupid enough to think this is a 'historic' agreement?
maybe because it replaces the old agreement, which was nothing

 
"ANYTHING WE DO WOULD BE POINTLESS WITHOUT CHINA!!!!!"

sign agreement with China

"........WAR ON COAL!!!!!!"
Well you can't expect McConnell to act any differently. He's from Kentucky and coal is his bread and butter. Same with Joe Manchin from West Virginia , who is a Democrat. These guys are never going to accept restrictions on coal in the name of climate change.
Because thousands of their own constituents will be thrown out of work as a result, that's right.
at what point does the loss of jobs by doing something get outweighed by the economic cost of doing nothing?

 
"ANYTHING WE DO WOULD BE POINTLESS WITHOUT CHINA!!!!!"

sign agreement with China

"........WAR ON COAL!!!!!!"
Well you can't expect McConnell to act any differently. He's from Kentucky and coal is his bread and butter. Same with Joe Manchin from West Virginia , who is a Democrat. These guys are never going to accept restrictions on coal in the name of climate change.
Because thousands of their own constituents will be thrown out of work as a result, that's right.
at what point does the loss of jobs by doing something get outweighed by the economic cost of doing nothing?
So we sacrifice jobs and our economy while China chugs along on a path which by climate models will destroy the world anyways?

 
"ANYTHING WE DO WOULD BE POINTLESS WITHOUT CHINA!!!!!"

sign agreement with China

"........WAR ON COAL!!!!!!"
Well you can't expect McConnell to act any differently. He's from Kentucky and coal is his bread and butter. Same with Joe Manchin from West Virginia , who is a Democrat. These guys are never going to accept restrictions on coal in the name of climate change.
Because thousands of their own constituents will be thrown out of work as a result, that's right.
at what point does the loss of jobs by doing something get outweighed by the economic cost of doing nothing?
It might be when this country decides that societal rights and costs are supreme over the individual's right to work and pursue happiness as they see fit.

 
"ANYTHING WE DO WOULD BE POINTLESS WITHOUT CHINA!!!!!"

sign agreement with China

"........WAR ON COAL!!!!!!"
Well you can't expect McConnell to act any differently. He's from Kentucky and coal is his bread and butter. Same with Joe Manchin from West Virginia , who is a Democrat. These guys are never going to accept restrictions on coal in the name of climate change.
Because thousands of their own constituents will be thrown out of work as a result, that's right.
at what point does the loss of jobs by doing something get outweighed by the economic cost of doing nothing?
It might be when this country decides that societal rights and costs are supreme over the individual's right to work and pursue happiness as they see fit.
I'd argue we do that in more extreme cases of societal threats already. I won't bother with the bad analogies. When does it apply to climate change? When food prices rise?
 
"ANYTHING WE DO WOULD BE POINTLESS WITHOUT CHINA!!!!!"

sign agreement with China

"........WAR ON COAL!!!!!!"
Well you can't expect McConnell to act any differently. He's from Kentucky and coal is his bread and butter. Same with Joe Manchin from West Virginia , who is a Democrat. These guys are never going to accept restrictions on coal in the name of climate change.
Because thousands of their own constituents will be thrown out of work as a result, that's right.
at what point does the loss of jobs by doing something get outweighed by the economic cost of doing nothing?
It might be when this country decides that societal rights and costs are supreme over the individual's right to work and pursue happiness as they see fit.
I'd argue we do that in more extreme cases of societal threats already. I won't bother with the bad analogies. When does it apply to climate change? When food prices rise?
Yeah that's a tough one. Basically someone has to face coal workers everywhere and say "sorry guys you're SOL."

Who does that? Not the elected officials from their states, that's not a good way to stay elected.

 
So the only argument for this agreement is at least it is something............well all that something is nothing. It is not even a start. China does nothing except keep expanding it's role as the world's leader in Climate emissions for the next 15 years.

 
Here is the agreement in a graph from this NY Times article. It is a moronic agreement that China would have been stupid not to sign.
That graph is spooky.
In all honesty, how do they have enough carbon to burn to grow like that? What is their source? I have no idea so don't hit me. And in before someone says, zombies.
Coal...China has enough coal to last another 100 plus years at its current rate of consumption. We have more than 200 years worth.

 
So the only argument for this agreement is at least it is something............well all that something is nothing. It is not even a start. China does nothing except keep expanding it's role as the world's leader in Climate emissions for the next 15 years.
they're ahead of us on renewable on energy. they know the status quo isn't sustainable. Beijing will be unlivable in 15 years at their current rate. everything I've read said they're likely to peak before 2030. it's not a great agreement. it's a start.

 
So the only argument for this agreement is at least it is something............well all that something is nothing. It is not even a start. China does nothing except keep expanding it's role as the world's leader in Climate emissions for the next 15 years.
they're ahead of us on renewable on energy. they know the status quo isn't sustainable. Beijing will be unlivable in 15 years at their current rate. everything I've read said they're likely to peak before 2030. it's not a great agreement. it's a start.
Beijing is already unlivable. But it is still cheaper and better for them to go to clean-burning coal and continue their move to outsource power plants to more remote areas. But China is not even going with clean-burning coal, they are just polluting the remote areas. It is a mess and has been for a long time and China is not doing squat. China hardly cares about if their air is breathable, and we are to believe they somehow care about global warming?

 
Jon your level of expertise and knowledge on what China is doing and plans on doing, and what they're THINKING, is truly amazing.

 
"ANYTHING WE DO WOULD BE POINTLESS WITHOUT CHINA!!!!!"

sign agreement with China

"........WAR ON COAL!!!!!!"
Well you can't expect McConnell to act any differently. He's from Kentucky and coal is his bread and butter. Same with Joe Manchin from West Virginia , who is a Democrat. These guys are never going to accept restrictions on coal in the name of climate change.
Because thousands of their own constituents will be thrown out of work as a result, that's right.
at what point does the loss of jobs by doing something get outweighed by the economic cost of doing nothing?
It might be when this country decides that societal rights and costs are supreme over the individual's right to work and pursue happiness as they see fit.
I'd argue we do that in more extreme cases of societal threats already. I won't bother with the bad analogies. When does it apply to climate change? When food prices rise?
Yeah that's a tough one. Basically someone has to face coal workers everywhere and say "sorry guys you're SOL."

Who does that? Not the elected officials from their states, that's not a good way to stay elected.
someone with the balls to do the right thing and not care if he gets re-elected.....yeah I know.

jobs are going to be lost either way. if 100 years from now people are much healthier, I don't have a problem if that puts health care workers out of work.

maybe the person to say that is the President?

 
Jon your level of expertise and knowledge on what China is doing and plans on doing, and what they're THINKING, is truly amazing.
:lmao: It is black and white what they are doing and what they agreed to. All we are doing is codifying and in a way endorsing the absurd path they are on.

 
This agreement is like the Bears agreeing not to score anymore when down 42-0 at halftime, while the Packers agree that maybe by the end of the 4th they will stop scoring.

 
So the only argument for this agreement is at least it is something............well all that something is nothing. It is not even a start. China does nothing except keep expanding it's role as the world's leader in Climate emissions for the next 15 years.
they're ahead of us on renewable on energy. they know the status quo isn't sustainable. Beijing will be unlivable in 15 years at their current rate. everything I've read said they're likely to peak before 2030. it's not a great agreement. it's a start.
That is your problem. You aren't supposed to read about what is actually going on, you're supposed to assume that those crafty Chinese are trying to get one over on Murica.

 
So the only argument for this agreement is at least it is something............well all that something is nothing. It is not even a start. China does nothing except keep expanding it's role as the world's leader in Climate emissions for the next 15 years.
they're ahead of us on renewable on energy. they know the status quo isn't sustainable. Beijing will be unlivable in 15 years at their current rate. everything I've read said they're likely to peak before 2030. it's not a great agreement. it's a start.
That is your problem. You aren't supposed to read about what is actually going on, you're supposed to assume that those crafty Chinese are trying to get one over on Murica.
China is the leader because they know they can sell it to the rest of the world, not that they are going to invest in that crap. I can't believe anyone is defending what is going on. It is absolutely nuts that people think this is a good agreement.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top