-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Trump withdrawal from the Paris agreement.
- Thread starter Aus22
- Start date
Werbung:
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Personally, I only get frustrated with the crowd that wants to remain in status-quo, and refuses to look toward the future trough serious research toward new, renewable sources of energy.
I do not believe we will EVER come to the "perfect" solution, but what we have NOW is certainly the worse of all world. Any little step toward the future is good. And, yes, it costs money! So did the development of the electrical bulb, and the research for new technology that allow our fridge to function perfectly well with about ⅓ of the energy needed 30 years ago.
I am open to ANY new development. I am NOT open to continue to dump subsidies into "sundown" type of energy producing means. . .like Oil and Coal.
India is weather, not climate.
They're still plowing snow in california.
That's weather too.
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Unfortunately for you, climate, and weather, are interconnected. You can't have one without the other. And that is science.
Try educating yourself:
http://www.climateandweather.net/global-warming/effects-of-climate-change.html
"All across the world, there is a big demand for water and in many regions, such as the central and eastern Africa there is not enough water for the people. Changes in the climate will change the weather patterns and will bring more rain in some countries, but others will have less rain, generally dry areas will become drier and wet areas could become wetter.
As climate change takes place, our daily weather and normal temperatures will change, the homes of plants and animals will be affected all over the world. Polar bears and seals are a good example of animals that will be affected by climate change, they will have to find new land for hunting and living, if the ice in the Arctic melts, but the fact is more real that these species could become extinct.
Climate changes will affect everyone, but some populations will be at greater risk. Countries whose coastal regions have a large population, such as Egypt and China, may have to move whole populations inland to avoid flooding. The effect on people will depend on how well we can adapt to the changes and how much we can do to reduce climate change in the world."
I missed this thread - but I wrote this shortly after Trump's announcement on this...never have heard a good answer:
The Paris Agreement is a non-binding agreement, with no enforcement mechanism, that includes a $100,000,000,000 per year (as a baseline) transfer of money from the developed world to a UN Climate Fund which then (in theory) goes out to the developing world...if you wonder why the developing world is so eager to stay in the deal, there are $100 billion reasons a year.
According to EPA data, from 2005-2015, the United States actually has reduced greenhouse emissions by roughly 12%. In fact we are only about 3.5% above where we were in 1990. The trend line over the last decade has been down - without this agreement.
Further, there is a peer reviewed article in the Global Policy Journal that states if all the countries met their Paris Agreement obligations by 2030, and continued them through 2100, it would have the cumulative net impact of temperatures going up 0.086 degrees fahrenheit less than they otherwise would have.
So it truly begs the question...what is the point...and if every aspect of the deal held for the next 80 years, is that $8 trillion (as a minimum) wealth transfer money well spent?
The Paris Agreement is a non-binding agreement, with no enforcement mechanism, that includes a $100,000,000,000 per year (as a baseline) transfer of money from the developed world to a UN Climate Fund which then (in theory) goes out to the developing world...if you wonder why the developing world is so eager to stay in the deal, there are $100 billion reasons a year.
According to EPA data, from 2005-2015, the United States actually has reduced greenhouse emissions by roughly 12%. In fact we are only about 3.5% above where we were in 1990. The trend line over the last decade has been down - without this agreement.
Further, there is a peer reviewed article in the Global Policy Journal that states if all the countries met their Paris Agreement obligations by 2030, and continued them through 2100, it would have the cumulative net impact of temperatures going up 0.086 degrees fahrenheit less than they otherwise would have.
So it truly begs the question...what is the point...and if every aspect of the deal held for the next 80 years, is that $8 trillion (as a minimum) wealth transfer money well spent?
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Just as a question, do you have a clue as to what 1 degree difference in the global temperature would mean to the climate overall? And while here in the States we have done a somewhat decent job of curtailing pollution, gains which Trump would eliminate, pollution in countries like India, and China, are still rising.
The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
BINGO!!!! we have a winner....its markets not politics
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Say what?
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2016/air-pollution-rising/en/
"12 MAY 2016 | GENEVA - More than 80% of people living in urban areas that monitor air pollution are exposed to air quality levels that exceed WHO limits. While all regions of the world are affected, populations in low-income cities are the most impacted.
According to the latest urban air quality database, 98% of cities in low- and middle income countries with more than 100 000 inhabitants do not meet WHO air quality guidelines. However, in high-income countries, that percentage decreases to 56%.
In the past two years, the database – now covering 3000 cities in 103 countries – has nearly doubled, with more cities measuring air pollution levels and recognizing the associated health impacts."
According to Climate Action Tracker - which bills itself as an "independent scientific analysis produced by three research organisations tracking climate action since 2009" - China and India were going to meet their "commitments" under the Paris Agreement before the Agreement itself even existed.
For example, they state regarding China in a 2015 assessment: "The CAT assesses that under a scenario with currently implemented policies, Chinese CO2 emissions are likely to peak around 2025, or shortly after, partly due to important restrictions on coal consumption in the period from now until 2020, as well as other polices."
They assess in 2017 that: "China’s CO2 emissions appear to have peaked more than a decade ahead of its Paris Agreement NDC commitment to peak its CO2 emissions before 2030. The latest analysis from the Climate Action Tracker indicates that CO2 emissions may, in fact, already have stopped increasing and reached peak levels."
Bear in mind that under the Paris Agreement (which was not even in effect until 2016) China's commitment was to peak CO2 emissions before 2030. In 2015 they were assessed to be able to do that by doing absolutely nothing - and now there is debate if in fact it is already done. What exactly did China agree to here other than being able to maintain business as usual?
Regarding India, Climate Action Tracker assessed in 2015: "According to our analysis, with the policies it already has in place, India will achieve an emissions intensity reduction of around 41.5% below 2005 levels by 2030."
Just what exactly did anyone agree to here - and more importantly is anyone actually doing anything? Because based on this data is seems that these two big polluters agreed to maintain the status quo under this agreement and now we are all supposed to start handing out hundreds of billions of dollars for their efforts? Not to mention that this 2017 report says effectively the entirety of Europe is basically already failing to meet their own commitments. This the gold standard to prevent climate change? I think not.
Old_Trapper70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,383
Not sure what your point is. Because other countries are meeting the goals the US should pull out of the agreement? Then too, Trump wants over 400 Billion for the military, and then there is the wall. Then you pull the usual right wing ********* by acting as if that 100 billion was from the US alone, and it isn't. Why do you find fault with other countries reducing their carbon emissions, and yet you support Trump wanting to eliminate that goal for the US?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...on-the-world-climate-agreement-by-the-numbers
Openmind
Well-Known Member
You are obviously correct. One more thing: Yes, the US would have carry a relatively larger amount of that $100 billion annual support. . .but then again, among the "developed countries," the USA is the BIGGEST OFFENDER, and with the new Trump deregulations, they will continue to increase, instead of decreasing as every other country is doing, the production of poisonous emissions that lead to global climate change!
I'm assuming you have data to back these claims.
...I have to assume you didn't actually read my post to be asking this question...
The simple fact is that China and India were going to meet their "commitments" based on current policy before this deal even existed - that data is not disputed. Big surprise that they are meeting the "goals" they would be meeting in the absence of this agreement - and you want to pay them for it?
As for the United States, EPA data from 2005-2015 shows that the United States actually has reduced greenhouse emissions by roughly 12%. In fact we are only about 3.5% above where we were in 1990. The trend line over the last decade has been down - without this agreement. You pretend that withdrawing from the agreement will result in some huge spike in US carbon emissions. There is no data to support such a claim.
India, for example, "committed" as part of the agreement to maintain the status quo and meet a goal less than what current policy before the agreement would have gotten them. Hilariously they however said they needed $2.5 TRILLION to do this - despite that they were doing it anyway.
The simple point is that the Paris Agreement doesn't actually accomplish anything. There is no enforcement mechanism and it relies on self-reporting (keep in mind that China admitted it was under-reporting coal use by the amount that Germany uses every year).
Why in the world should the United States (or anyone) pay even $1 to a country that has "pledged" to stay on their current track and do absolutely nothing. What is the point of that? To make us all feel good about the Earth?
Werbung:
According to the EPA (not sure who your source is) greenhouse emissions in the United States were 4.7% lower in 2015 (last year the full data is available) than they were in 2014.
Similar threads
