US Pulls out of Paris Climate Accords

[Nikorr]

All of you mad liberals are so shocked or just have a shortage of memory? Trump is doing what he promised, that is, whats best for the country.

Have to laugh to all of leftie hysteria. Its just too good, love it.

Pathetic snowflake generation is misguided and lost and manipulated as fuck by left, grow some brain kids. No more whining!!!

[Spectral]

Looking at the graph the other way around suggests a different story.

China has made about as much progress on non-fossil sources in the last 5 years as the USA has in the last 20 years.

At the current pace, they'll be passing the USA within 10 years.

The goal isn't to increase alternative energy use (at least not in a vacuum), it's to reduce emissions and energy consumption. One way to accomplish that is by replacing fossil fuel energy with other sources, but the sorts of efficiency gains that have been realized in the United States are an equally valid approach.

Of course, the countries are hard to meaningfully directly compare because trying to create a stable country during development is inherently resource intensive while the United States is operating from a very high baseline; my point isn't China->worst, America->best, it's that claims that China's a world leader in emissions reduction are either naive or dishonest.

[P for Pancetta]

It's closer to 100 meters. You can hit 70 meters just with the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica.

Which admittedly should take centuries to melt completely. I'm not arguing it'll happen tomorrow. A bigger short-term risk is the (admittedly low, but increasing) chance that a major ice shelf in Antarctica will calve off and slide into the ocean; some of those are big enough that, if they did so (and it's certainly possible), you'd see sea level rise in the 3-5 meter range basically overnight, around the world. Not a wave, a change in the baseline.

The other big issue is that (relative) rapidity of the changes. Interglacial periods tend to come on quickly, and then slowly cool into the next glacial period. But "quickly" is in geological time frames; the actual warming trend there is about 20x slower than the trend we've seen over the last century. And we're already in an interglacial.

We've been in an "ice age" for 2.5 million years; the Quaternary. It's been spiked by glacial periods (what most people incorrectly call an "ice age"), and interglacials (we're currently in the middle of one). This warming trend has a strong chance of ending that, permanently (at least, for millions more years).

The rise of seawater is a very complicated issue, the weight of ice pushing down on land pushes down the land and lowers the sea around it, if this ice were to melt the land would rise and the sea level would lower locally, but on the other side of the world the sea levels would rise, and vice versa.

[Osmeric]

Based on a graph of percent of energy from fossil fuels, which line in this link would you say represents a country that's doing a better job mitigating fossil fuel usage?

The US has also been replacing coal with natural gas for electrical power generation, so the CO2 curve would be even better (natural gas causes about 1/2 the CO2 emission that coal does, per unit of energy produced.)

[Coconuter]

Good, the Paris Climate Accords were more of a way leaders could stroke their own dicks to how good it sounded to people while accomplishing next to nothing, not enforcing anything, and costing us money.

Low hanging fruit in our country is our infrastructure and public transportation. It's tiring how little people know about which emissions are harmful and where the primary sources are. It's like when people complained cows were giving off too many emissions even though current day they are equivalent to ~10,000 SUVs.

You want improvements and a greener planet? Stop feeding bullshit PR like this and start applying the appropriate technology to each application and addressing the easiest improvements first. We just stick solar panels everywhere and call ourselves greener for doing so. Never mind the efficiency loses while converting it up to a useable voltage, the materials and manufacturing processes, maintenance, and the low levels of sunlight in some areas these are used. Tesla making them into a roofing system that is cost effective and maintaining a longer lifespan for residential is a great use (especially for newer homes using 24V LED lighting). Using them in mass to power grids, commercial or industrial plants is purely for PR and government subsidies and not for the environment.

If you care about the environment, be open to the pros and cons of technologies and think about what their impacts are. Just because somebody calls something green doesn't mean it is in all applications. A solar turbine skyscraper in Arizona makes sense, not so much in a northern state.

[Osmeric]

The rise of seawater is a very complicated issue, the weight of ice pushing down on land pushes down the land and lowers the sea around it, if this ice were to melt the land would rise and the sea level would lower locally, but on the other side of the world the sea levels would rise, and vice versa.

And to further complicate things, the rebound of land after ice is removed causes land a bit further away to subside. That's because when ice pushed down land, it caused the surrounding land to bulge up.

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-g...tish_Isles.PNG

[Spectral]

The US has also been replacing coal with natural gas for electrical power generation, so the CO2 curve would be even better (natural gas causes about 1/2 the CO2 emission that coal does, per unit of energy produced.)

Sure; here's the same graph for CO2 emissions, also from World Bank.

Their data tools are pretty fun on the whole. It's pretty striking when we start looking at what countries that are actually good at mitigation strategies look like compared to everyone's new hero in China. Here's the graph with France relative to China.

But sure, China's going to be the new world leader in climate change mitigation

[Osmeric]

But sure, China's going to be the new world leader in climate change mitigation

The pollution situation there is pretty frightful (and scary to the political elite, who fear unrest it causes), so (by reducing coal burning) they are likely to reduce CO2 emissions anyway, even if the CO2 emission reduction is just a side effect of changes they'll be making anyway to solve the local problem.

When I talk to visitors from China (who I see at work regularly) they marvel at how clean the air is here in the US. I tell them about the Clean Air Act, what a difference it and follow-ons made, and how incredibly cost effective it has been.

[corebit]

Sure; here's the same graph for CO2 emissions, also from World Bank.

Their data tools are pretty fun on the whole. It's pretty striking when we start looking at what countries that are actually good at mitigation strategies look like compared to everyone's new hero in China. Here's the graph with France relative to China.

But sure, China's going to be the new world leader in climate change mitigation

This is why the climate deal is so useless. By its own un-enforceable nature, it does not dare punish China and India the two biggest polluters. The whole thing about China taking "action" is a sham, they're only words on a paper meant to bamboozle stupid foreigners. I travel to China quite a few times per year so I have first hand experience with the pollution.

If the treaty member countries actually had the balls to punish the most polluting countries, it would be taken more seriously. As it is currently, the climate deal is practically a joke.

[baskev]

Were there some strong condition attached to it, the United States would not have been able to act as a signatory in the first place. The only reason signing this as an executive action is legal is because it's a non-binding resolution. If this was an actual treaty, it would be covered by Article II Section 2 of the United States Constitution:

That aside, the idea of the UN or another international body having any real juice to punish the United States is laughable on its face.

Did not talk about facts???? Nope..... i talked about a response to trump pulling out of the treaty.

I said i agree with the fact that trump should not be able to do everything he does ( things like this). It makes a country ( in this case 1 of my home country's) look like a person who can not be taking on his words. Someone who flip flops when he wants to. A person that can not be counted on, and only thinks about him self. etc etc....

When i was small going to family i america i was proud to be a american. We stood for something...now we are only aggression, extremist and breakers of agreements..

So yeah you can throw your bla bla around. The question of this forum post was: Should it cost trump ( america) something to keep pulling out of these treaty's??? My answer ...Yes...Because this is not the first one he has pulled out of or wants to pull out of. He needs to learn his actions have reactions from other country's.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure; here's the same graph for CO2 emissions, also from World Bank.

Their data tools are pretty fun on the whole. It's pretty striking when we start looking at what countries that are actually good at mitigation strategies look like compared to everyone's new hero in China. Here's the graph with France relative to China.

But sure, China's going to be the new world leader in climate change mitigation

China and russia and for a bit EU are...
Leading means you lead something america sadly does not do anymore ( in anything).

[Osmeric]

Leading means you lead something america sadly does not do anymore ( in anything).

There are plenty of tech areas the US leads in.

[baskev]

There are plenty of tech areas the US leads in.

Okay tech area's they lead in.

But safety, education, health care etc etc etc etc etc ( list is extremely long believe me). It my point was more towards area's they used to lead in for very long...and now have pretty much dropped of the list.

[Wildtree]

Sure; here's the same graph for CO2 emissions, also from World Bank.

Their data tools are pretty fun on the whole. It's pretty striking when we start looking at what countries that are actually good at mitigation strategies look like compared to everyone's new hero in China. Here's the graph with France relative to China.

But sure, China's going to be the new world leader in climate change mitigation

Did you look at the CO2 emissions per capita too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ons_per_capita

I like that China bashing always, when the fact that they're 4 times more people than the US is outright ignored.
per capita US 16.4 metric tons, China 7.6 metric tons.

Next thing we need to do is to look at what every country individually does to better itself.
I don't care if your pollution contribution is low or high. I wanna know what you actually do to bring it down, and as close to 0 (which can't be reached) as it possibly gets. Anything else is just deflecting from ones own failure and translates into outright ignorance.

[petej0]

Good, the Paris Climate Accords were more of a way leaders could stroke their own dicks to how good it sounded to people while accomplishing next to nothing, not enforcing anything, and costing us money.

Low hanging fruit in our country is our infrastructure and public transportation. It's tiring how little people know about which emissions are harmful and where the primary sources are. It's like when people complained cows were giving off too many emissions even though current day they are equivalent to ~10,000 SUVs.

In the US the methane emissions from all livestock are about 5.5 million tons per year, That is more like 1 million SUV's not 10,000. Globally it accounts for 2.2 billion tons a year.. Methane is worse then Carbon Dioxide because it can trap 100 times more heat in a 5 year period then CO2. Methane isnt only produced by livestock, but from fertilizers (which is 14% of US Methane emissions).

You want improvements and a greener planet? Stop feeding bullshit PR like this and start applying the appropriate technology to each application and addressing the easiest improvements first. We just stick solar panels everywhere and call ourselves greener for doing so. Never mind the efficiency loses while converting it up to a useable voltage, the materials and manufacturing processes, maintenance, and the low levels of sunlight in some areas these are used. Tesla making them into a roofing system that is cost effective and maintaining a longer lifespan for residential is a great use (especially for newer homes using 24V LED lighting). Using them in mass to power grids, commercial or industrial plants is purely for PR and government subsidies and not for the environment.

If you care about the environment, be open to the pros and cons of technologies and think about what their impacts are. Just because somebody calls something green doesn't mean it is in all applications. A solar turbine skyscraper in Arizona makes sense, not so much in a northern state.

What is the cost of converting to alternate "green" energy source? Windmills require lots of copper. Solar Panels require lots of rare earth metals. Yet environmentalists hate the destruction caused when we mine and process these materials. We are stuck in a situation where society requires so much energy, yet we cant produce it with our current technology without doing harm to the environment.

[Heltoray]

How about them ISIS bombings, don't worry we "Muricans" will be fine and live on. Enjoy yourself, go to a show or music concert, just sit back and enjoy your brainwashing dogma.

Is that so? I'm pretty sure that even with 10 times as many terrorist attacks as there have been in central Europe until now, this place would still be a lot safer than like anywhere in the US. Care to look up some actual numbers on deaths by terrorist attacks in Germany? While you're at it, check murder statistics as well. I know them, but go ahead. I literally have zero fear from anything happening to me. If anyone should be afraid of anything, it is you guys with that retard of a president you elected. Hell I wouldn't even put it past him to start a war with north korea over his ego- but sure, talk down to others like that some more. It just adds to the general opinion a lot of people have.

[Draco-Onis]

Based on a graph of percent of energy from fossil fuels, which line in this link would you say represents a country that's doing a better job mitigating fossil fuel usage?

Do you think you snap your magic fingers and shift an economy the size of China overnight? they are tackling the problem due to health and quality of life issues of their citizens, it will take years if not decades for them to get to where they want to be. The rest of the world is looking to the future while the US wants to go back to the 1800s.

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny to see people championing a country that has cities covered in toxic smog and massive pollution as some kind of beacon.

There's an idea we can always move all the climate deniers to China and have them drink coal waste waters to motivate them.

[Osmeric]

Methane is worse then Carbon Dioxide because it can trap 100 times more heat in a 5 year period then CO2. Methane isnt only produced by livestock, but from fertilizers (which is 14% of US Methane emissions).

Methane is worse in the short term, but is removed from the atmosphere on a decadal timescale. CO2 emissions, on the other hand, will cause CO2 to remain elevated for thousands of years.

The bigger concern from fertilizers is nitrous oxide.

What is the cost of converting to alternate "green" energy source? Windmills require lots of copper. Solar Panels require lots of rare earth metals. Yet environmentalists hate the destruction caused when we mine and process these materials. We are stuck in a situation where society requires so much energy, yet we cant produce it with our current technology without doing harm to the environment.

Solar panels require rare earth metals? Whatever for? The rarest element used in silicon PV panels is silver for contact wires, but that can be substituted for by using copper wires with a buffer layer to prevent the copper from diffusing into the silicon.

Wind turbines use roughly 500 kg of Cu per MW of capacity. A terawatt of wind capacity would require 500,000 tons of copper. Annual world production of Cu is around 20 million tons, so even if wind were to totally dominate the world energy markets it would not greatly increase demand for the metal.

[Flarelaine]

I wonder, if President Obama thought global warming was real, why would he specifically fly in special Chicago Hot Dogs on an airplane? Airplanes have been shown through science to be the major contributor of climate change.

- - - Updated - - -

Which color bin does America belong in?

What colour is HazMat?

[Independent voter]

Did you look at the CO2 emissions per capita too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ons_per_capita

I like that China bashing always, when the fact that they're 4 times more people than the US is outright ignored.
per capita US 16.4 metric tons, China 7.6 metric tons.

Next thing we need to do is to look at what every country individually does to better itself.
I don't care if your pollution contribution is low or high. I wanna know what you actually do to bring it down, and as close to 0 (which can't be reached) as it possibly gets. Anything else is just deflecting from ones own failure and translates into outright ignorance.

Why do it by capita? If a country puts out 10 tons of greenhouse gasses it puts out ten tons.

[LMuhlen]

Why do it by capita? If a country puts out 10 tons of greenhouse gasses it puts out ten tons.

Per capita gives a notion of the efficiency of the system. If you can power 10 people with the same amount of energy than another country can power 3 people, you are probably doing better.

Yes, it has flaws. You can game it. It is very simplified. But all measuring systems will be. Maybe an emission per area would be better?