I have to confess to being really frustrated with all the money and effort being squandered on solar and windmills and politicians squabbling over "the green alternatives", I just wonder of all the trillions so far spent on politics and climate science and the politics of climate science, if just 10% of that money and effort had been spent to projects like JET and the Culham Facility in the UK for example just how much further along they would be in their research?
http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/Why_fusion.aspx
It seems that UK is due to commission the worlds first commercial fussion reactor by 2025-30 so finger crossed.
India is weather, not climate.
India is weather, not climate.
They're still plowing snow in california.
That's weather too.
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?
BINGO!!!! we have a winner....its markets not politicsThe trend line over the last decade has been down - without this agreement.
BINGO!!!! we have a winner....its markets not politics
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.
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.
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
I'm assuming you have data to back these claims.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!
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
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!