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

[cstu]

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.

While this is ultimately meaningless, it is the first time that the Chinese have agreed in theory to reduce CO2 emissions. That's a huge step and one I didn't expect to see happen.

It buys the Chinese some time to not deal with it but it lays the groundwork for future (hopefully binding) agreements.

 

[cstu]

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.

Something is better than nothing. I'm not a doomsayer about global warming so I'm mainly interested in getting everyone - mainly China - on board with long-term reductions.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

I guess it makes perfect sense that China sources 10% of their energy from renewable sources as a rouse to sell it to others.

 

[cstu]

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.

Our pledge isn't binding either.

 

[GroveDiesel]

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.

While this is ultimately meaningless, it is the first time that the Chinese have agreed in theory to reduce CO2 emissions. That's a huge step and one I didn't expect to see happen.

It buys the Chinese some time to not deal with it but it lays the groundwork for future (hopefully binding) agreements.

The Chinese did not agree to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

I guess it makes perfect sense that China sources 10% of their energy from renewable sources as a rouse to sell it to others.

Yeah, because China is always on the up and up.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

While this is ultimately meaningless, it is the first time that the Chinese have agreed in theory to reduce CO2 emissions. That's a huge step and one I didn't expect to see happen.

It buys the Chinese some time to not deal with it but it lays the groundwork for future (hopefully binding) agreements.

Except that China has been putting things in place to deal with this for some time. Their targets on renewable energy and cap and trade programs are far ahead of the US, whom is not really doing anything.

 

[CBusAlex]

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.

You realize that China is four times the size of the US, right? That graph actually looks like it has per capita emissions by the US and China roughly equaling out at around 2030.

Per capita CO2 emissions

Looks a lot less scary now, eh?

 

[jon_mx]

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.

While this is ultimately meaningless, it is the first time that the Chinese have agreed in theory to reduce CO2 emissions. That's a huge step and one I didn't expect to see happen.

It buys the Chinese some time to not deal with it but it lays the groundwork for future (hopefully binding) agreements.

Except that China has been putting things in place to deal with this for some time. Their targets on renewable energy and cap and trade programs are far ahead of the US, whom is not really doing anything.

And a large portion of that is nuclear, which the greenies here have tied our hands.

 

[TheAristocrat]

Wow great work. China needs to do nothing until 2030 and then maybe something but probably not. In the meantime, we have to do something now but probably not.

Bang up job here. Glad you brought this nothing to our attention.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

You realize that China is four times the size of the US, right? That graph actually looks like it has per capita emissions by the US and China roughly equaling out at around 2030.

Per capita CO2 emissions

Looks a lot less scary now, eh?

So dividing by the population makes it all good?

 

[Slapdash]

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.

You realize that China is four times the size of the US, right? That graph actually looks like it has per capita emissions by the US and China roughly equaling out at around 2030.

Per capita CO2 emissions

Looks a lot less scary now, eh?

Please quit bringing reason and logic into this. We are trying to have another red scare over here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

You realize that China is four times the size of the US, right? That graph actually looks like it has per capita emissions by the US and China roughly equaling out at around 2030.

Per capita CO2 emissions

Looks a lot less scary now, eh?

Would you actually look at that graph?

China's emissions continue skyrocketing for the next 11 years, while ours precipitously plummet over that same period of time.

Then in 2025 China suddenly - like a Lambourghini going 150 which suddenly applies its breaks does a 180 - reverses course and then starts precipitously declining in the same path that we will have supposedly been doing for the last 11 years.

China's trajectory looks like an inverted "V", you think that's going to happen?

 

[jon_mx]

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.

You realize that China is four times the size of the US, right? That graph actually looks like it has per capita emissions by the US and China roughly equaling out at around 2030.

Per capita CO2 emissions

Looks a lot less scary now, eh?

Please quit bringing reason and logic into this. We are trying to have another red scare over here.

You are better than this. I think.

 

[GroveDiesel]

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.

While this is ultimately meaningless, it is the first time that the Chinese have agreed in theory to reduce CO2 emissions. That's a huge step and one I didn't expect to see happen.

It buys the Chinese some time to not deal with it but it lays the groundwork for future (hopefully binding) agreements.

Except that China has been putting things in place to deal with this for some time. Their targets on renewable energy and cap and trade programs are far ahead of the US, whom is not really doing anything.

Not really doing anything? People have screamed every time the US refused to sign a climate treaty over the last 15 years. Those treaties were supposed to save the world! And yet, here we are beating the targets for all those treaties. But are the screamers happy? No, no they're not.

Now Europe, Europe is missing all their targets. Despite all the regulations and billions in costs, they can't meet their obligations.

So what do we do now? We sign a non-binding agreement that means China doesn't have to do a single thing, while the US would have to institute hugely expensive regulations to cut our emissions even more than we've done. Which is at least somewhat of a cynical realism since we know China doesn't honor agreements anyway. Just ask the folks in Hong Kong who are seeing China slowly erode their guaranteed democratic rights.)

 

[shader]

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.

Tim,

I guess it is significant that China is actually admitting mistakes. But nothing that China signs NOW is going to bind the China of 2030 to make significant changes.

 

[jonessed]

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.

You realize that China is four times the size of the US, right? That graph actually looks like it has per capita emissions by the US and China roughly equaling out at around 2030.

Per capita CO2 emissionsLooks a lot less scary now, eh?

Please quit bringing reason and logic into this. We are trying to have another red scare over here.

You are better than this. I think.

Depends on the subject.The agreement isn't binding for anyone so analyzing it to death seems rather pointless. It's good PR. That's it.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

You realize that China is four times the size of the US, right? That graph actually looks like it has per capita emissions by the US and China roughly equaling out at around 2030.

Per capita CO2 emissions

Looks a lot less scary now, eh?

Please quit bringing reason and logic into this. We are trying to have another red scare over here.

You are better than this. I think.

I'm not above ridiculing people or media outlets for using statistics in a misleading manner. Per capita emissions is the appropriate comparison to a company over 3xs our size. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

While this is ultimately meaningless, it is the first time that the Chinese have agreed in theory to reduce CO2 emissions. That's a huge step and one I didn't expect to see happen.

It buys the Chinese some time to not deal with it but it lays the groundwork for future (hopefully binding) agreements.

Except that China has been putting things in place to deal with this for some time. Their targets on renewable energy and cap and trade programs are far ahead of the US, whom is not really doing anything.

Not really doing anything? People have screamed every time the US refused to sign a climate treaty over the last 15 years. Those treaties were supposed to save the world! And yet, here we are beating the targets for all those treaties. But are the screamers happy? No, no they're not.

Now Europe, Europe is missing all their targets. Despite all the regulations and billions in costs, they can't meet their obligations.

So what do we do now? We sign a non-binding agreement that means China doesn't have to do a single thing, while the US would have to institute hugely expensive regulations to cut our emissions even more than we've done. Which is at least somewhat of a cynical realism since we know China doesn't honor agreements anyway. Just ask the folks in Hong Kong who are seeing China slowly erode their guaranteed democratic rights.)

People keep saying treaties are meaningless, so why is that the measuring stick? The US has no cap and trade program. It has no national target to grow renewable energy. It shuns nuclear power. China is doing all of these things right now and it is ridiculous to act like they are not.

 

[jonessed]

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.

Tim,

I guess it is significant that China is actually admitting mistakes. But nothing that China signs NOW is going to bind the China of 2030 to make significant changes.

They have acknowledged their pollution problems for some time and have been actively working on it.

China is in a completely different place though. They are still rapidly industrializing. Their pollution problems are actually pollution problems, not CO2 emissions.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

You realize that China is four times the size of the US, right? That graph actually looks like it has per capita emissions by the US and China roughly equaling out at around 2030.

Per capita CO2 emissions

Looks a lot less scary now, eh?

Please quit bringing reason and logic into this. We are trying to have another red scare over here.

You are better than this. I think.

I'm not above ridiculing people or media outlets for using statistics in a misleading manner. Per capita emissions is the appropriate comparison to a company over 3xs our size. Sorry to disappoint.

It is 4x as large. They are also the 800 lb. gorilla in the room who has the largest and fastest growing economy, and the one we are putting zero restrictions on....and BTW, if you believe the latest computer models by the global warmers, allowing China to do this pretty much dooms the earth into catastrophic warming. But I am sure they will readjust their models to allow China to grow their carbon emissions.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

Tim,

I guess it is significant that China is actually admitting mistakes. But nothing that China signs NOW is going to bind the China of 2030 to make significant changes.

They have acknowledged their pollution problems for some time and have been actively working on it.

China is in a completely different place though. They are still rapidly industrializing. Their pollution problems are actually pollution problems, not CO2 emissions.

The problem for China is that for 50 years they tightly controlled everything and got nothing but poverty and brutal dictatorship.

The only way they advanced was by deregulating and allowing in some capitalism.

But this agreement requires regulation of capitalism which they do not have to do, especially as so many in the government doing the regulating are themselves industrial capitalists engaged in self-dealing, so essentially it's a monopoly regulating itself.

Ain't gonna happen.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

While this is ultimately meaningless, it is the first time that the Chinese have agreed in theory to reduce CO2 emissions. That's a huge step and one I didn't expect to see happen.

It buys the Chinese some time to not deal with it but it lays the groundwork for future (hopefully binding) agreements.

Except that China has been putting things in place to deal with this for some time. Their targets on renewable energy and cap and trade programs are far ahead of the US, whom is not really doing anything.

Not really doing anything? People have screamed every time the US refused to sign a climate treaty over the last 15 years. Those treaties were supposed to save the world! And yet, here we are beating the targets for all those treaties. But are the screamers happy? No, no they're not.

Now Europe, Europe is missing all their targets. Despite all the regulations and billions in costs, they can't meet their obligations.

So what do we do now? We sign a non-binding agreement that means China doesn't have to do a single thing, while the US would have to institute hugely expensive regulations to cut our emissions even more than we've done. Which is at least somewhat of a cynical realism since we know China doesn't honor agreements anyway. Just ask the folks in Hong Kong who are seeing China slowly erode their guaranteed democratic rights.)

People keep saying treaties are meaningless, so why is that the measuring stick? The US has no cap and trade program. It has no national target to grow renewable energy. It shuns nuclear power. China is doing all of these things right now and it is ridiculous to act like they are not.

The US is curbing emissions while China is not, and that is the only real measure of where the rubber meets the road. All China is doing is distracting from what is really going on. Don't pay attention to our out of control expansion of CO2, look we put up a windmill.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

You realize that China is four times the size of the US, right? That graph actually looks like it has per capita emissions by the US and China roughly equaling out at around 2030.

Per capita CO2 emissions

Looks a lot less scary now, eh?

Please quit bringing reason and logic into this. We are trying to have another red scare over here.

You are better than this. I think.

I'm not above ridiculing people or media outlets for using statistics in a misleading manner. Per capita emissions is the appropriate comparison to a company over 3xs our size. Sorry to disappoint.

It is 4x as large. They are also the 800 lb. gorilla in the room who has the largest and fastest growing economy, and the one we are putting zero restrictions on....and BTW, if you believe the latest computer models by the global warmers, allowing China to do this pretty much dooms the earth into catastrophic warming. But I am sure they will readjust their models to allow China to grow their carbon emissions.

You're not going to be able to tell China that they have to control emissions at a level far beneath developed nations on a per capita basis without a military conflict. Completely unrealistic.

 

[RCon]

Whether China is doing anything to increase usage of renewable energy is irrelevant to whether this agreement is enforceable or binding in any way.

It's not binding, so why is it historic? Seems about as useful as a campaign promise.

 

[Insein]

Didn't bother reading. Do they have a plan to curb emmissions or are they just going to make polluters pay more money as their solution (which is not a solution at all)?

 

[jon_mx]

You're not going to be able to tell China that they have to control emissions at a level far beneath developed nations on a per capita basis without a military conflict. Completely unrealistic.

Then all the efforts of the rest of the world to curb carbon emissions are absolutely meaningless.

 

[Sand]

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.

The suffocating smog in their biggest cities isn't something that can be hidden.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

While this is ultimately meaningless, it is the first time that the Chinese have agreed in theory to reduce CO2 emissions. That's a huge step and one I didn't expect to see happen.

It buys the Chinese some time to not deal with it but it lays the groundwork for future (hopefully binding) agreements.

Except that China has been putting things in place to deal with this for some time. Their targets on renewable energy and cap and trade programs are far ahead of the US, whom is not really doing anything.

Not really doing anything? People have screamed every time the US refused to sign a climate treaty over the last 15 years. Those treaties were supposed to save the world! And yet, here we are beating the targets for all those treaties. But are the screamers happy? No, no they're not.

Now Europe, Europe is missing all their targets. Despite all the regulations and billions in costs, they can't meet their obligations.

So what do we do now? We sign a non-binding agreement that means China doesn't have to do a single thing, while the US would have to institute hugely expensive regulations to cut our emissions even more than we've done. Which is at least somewhat of a cynical realism since we know China doesn't honor agreements anyway. Just ask the folks in Hong Kong who are seeing China slowly erode their guaranteed democratic rights.)

People keep saying treaties are meaningless, so why is that the measuring stick? The US has no cap and trade program. It has no national target to grow renewable energy. It shuns nuclear power. China is doing all of these things right now and it is ridiculous to act like they are not.

The US is curbing emissions while China is not, and that is the only real measure of where the rubber meets the road. All China is doing is distracting from what is really going on. Don't pay attention to our out of control expansion of CO2, look we put up a windmill.

I don't think they are distracting from anything. Increasing renewable energy as well as putting cap and trade into effect is their strategy whether or not the US goes along. The raw amount of emissions from China will continue to grow for some time. China is still an industrializing, poor country on a per person basis.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

The suffocating smog in their biggest cities isn't something that can be hidden.

And that's why this is partly for domestic consumption, the smog and pollution is becoming a source for discontent, protests, political activism and clamoring for democracy.

 

[jon_mx]

Didn't bother reading. Do they have a plan to curb emmissions or are they just going to make polluters pay more money as their solution (which is not a solution at all)?

Actually, neither. China gets to grow their carbon emissions for 15 years without any limit and have agreed to stop increasing at that time, whatever level that may be which is expect to be more than half of the world's carbon emissions. No plans to curb at all. And on top of that, they will be eligible to receive carbon credits investments from all the countries that do have limits.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Didn't bother reading. Do they have a plan to curb emmissions or are they just going to make polluters pay more money as their solution (which is not a solution at all)?

Neither.

 

[CBusAlex]

Per capita CO2 emissions

Looks a lot less scary now, eh?

So dividing by the population makes it all good?

 

[jon_mx]

I don't think they are distracting from anything. Increasing renewable energy as well as putting cap and trade into effect is their strategy whether or not the US goes along. The raw amount of emissions from China will continue to grow for some time. China is still an industrializing, poor country on a per person basis.

It is distracting from the fact that China is also the fasting growing and largest economy in the world, so that increase in green investment is masking the fact that they are also by far the world's leader in producing new dirty coal power plants and other dirty industries with little or no regard for carbon emissions or other pollutants. China's growth and size puts them in position to be the leader in green energy, but they need to be doing a whole lot better in other growth areas during this time or those investments in green energy are being more than countered with horribly dirty industries. China's air quality is the worst on the planet, and it is not even close.

 

[jon_mx]

Per capita CO2 emissions

Looks a lot less scary now, eh?

So dividing by the population makes it all good?

What matters is China will be pumping more carbon into the atmosphere than all other nations combined. If you think dividing by the population helps, I really don't know what to tell you.

 

[GroveDiesel]

And let's not forget that China's method of green energy is largely hydroelectric. Which sounds great other than the massive amount of environment and humanitarian destruction that is going into making their dams. Good for the air, but devastating to tens of thousands of people and huge numbers of fish and animal populations.

 

[CBusAlex]

Per capita CO2 emissions

Looks a lot less scary now, eh?

So dividing by the population makes it all good?

What matters is China will be pumping more carbon into the atmosphere than all other nations combined. If you think dividing by the population helps, I really don't know what to tell you.

 

[jon_mx]

Per capita CO2 emissions

Looks a lot less scary now, eh?

So dividing by the population makes it all good?

What matters is China will be pumping more carbon into the atmosphere than all other nations combined. If you think dividing by the population helps, I really don't know what to tell you.

 

[CBusAlex]

I mean, can you actually tell me if your complaint here is that this agreement goes too far and will destroy our economy or this agreement doesn't go far enough and allows too much CO2? Do you even know?

 

[RCon]

Isn't the complaint of everyone that this agreement isn't binding, and is therefore pointless?

 

[jon_mx]

I mean, can you actually tell me if your complaint here is that this agreement goes too far and will destroy our economy or this agreement doesn't go far enough and allows too much CO2? Do you even know?

It cements that every effort the rest of the planet makes to curb emissions will be absolutely meaningless. We have all these countries trying to make it a priority and wanting strict limits on carbon, but the biggest producer is free to expand at will. We are working diligently to plug up all these small leaks, while the biggest leak is allowed to expand endlessly. It will both greatly hamper our economy, while at the same time not going far enough. It is the worst of both worlds no matter what side of the fence you are on.

 

[timschochet]

Is it really relevant whether or not it's a treaty? Even if it was a treaty, it would still be unenforceable anyhow. What would we do if they broke it, would we take them to court? Threaten to cut off trade? Go to war?

We can't force China to do anything against their will, now and forever. All we can do is try to come to mutual agreement. As Slapdash points out, China may be ahead of us in solving this problem. To complain that it's in enforceable is meaningless. The point is that the two sides came to an agreement. That's significant.

Now we need to follow it up on our side and make a serious investment into nuclear energy. So far as I can see, it's the only viable alternative to CP2, especially if Lockheed really is onto something with this fusion stuff. If Obama is too tied in with the greens to jumpstart this, hopefully the next President won't be.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And let's not forget that China's method of green energy is largely hydroelectric. Which sounds great other than the massive amount of environment and humanitarian destruction that is going into making their dams. Good for the air, but devastating to tens of thousands of people and huge numbers of fish and animal populations.

My lord, look at the absolute environmental, ecological and zoological disaster that is the Three Gorges Dam. One of the greatest environmental crimes of the last 2 centuries, and not a peep from the US about it.

 

[jon_mx]

Isn't the complaint of everyone that this agreement isn't binding, and is therefore pointless?

It is not only not binding, it places no limits on China. China is given a free pass to grow it's carbon emissions to whatever level it pleases in the next 15 years. So we beat ourselves up for the next 15 years and meet all the levels, China does nothing. And perhaps in 15 years, China will just say, "yeah we really did not mean that." What kind of an agreement is that?

 

[dhockster]

I think the only thing we can hope for in China trying to curb overall emissions before 2030 (if then) is that the pollution they are creating now makes enough people sick enough that it starts to effect their ability to run all their factories.

The hope of prosperity through economic growth is great but not if it comes at the expense of breathing and living.

 

[TheAristocrat]

Great. This doesn't matter and will continue to not matter.

Let's all go to the Yoga pants thread find things we agree with each other on. See you there.

 

[RCon]

Is it really relevant whether or not it's a treaty? Even if it was a treaty, it would still be unenforceable anyhow. What would we do if they broke it, would we take them to court? Threaten to cut off trade? Go to war?

We can't force China to do anything against their will, now and forever. All we can do is try to come to mutual agreement. As Slapdash points out, China may be ahead of us in solving this problem. To complain that it's in enforceable is meaningless. The point is that the two sides came to an agreement. That's significant.

Now we need to follow it up on our side and make a serious investment into nuclear energy. So far as I can see, it's the only viable alternative to CP2, especially if Lockheed really is onto something with this fusion stuff. If Obama is too tied in with the greens to jumpstart this, hopefully the next President won't be.

I don't understand why this is any more significant or historic than a campaign promise. It is, essentially, empty rhetoric, right?

 

[jon_mx]

Great. This doesn't matter and will continue to not matter.

Let's all go to the Yoga pants thread find things we agree with each other on. See you there.

It matters that we will try to live up to our word for 15 years and have no guarantee that China in 15 years may or may not feel like doing something. It is kind of like agreeing to a non-binding work agreement where you do all the work and in 15 years they may or may not compensate you for it. Would anyone in the right mind agree to those kind of terms?

 

[humpback]

Well, if you started a thread about it, it must be significant (if not historic).

 

[RCon]

Isn't the complaint of everyone that this agreement isn't binding, and is therefore pointless?

It is not only not binding, it places no limits on China. China is given a free pass to grow it's carbon emissions to whatever level it pleases in the next 15 years. So we beat ourselves up for the next 15 years and meet all the levels, China does nothing. And perhaps in 15 years, China will just say, "yeah we really did not mean that." What kind of an agreement is that?

To argue the other side, though, who cares what the agreement requires of China? What it requires is also irrelevant, because it isn't binding in any way.