The Paris Agreement

#101
#101
SpaceCoastVol said:
You should have to forfeit your Dutch citizenship.
Click to expand...
I honestly have no idea why I was allowed to keep it. I'm the only one in my family with dual (US) citizenship. They change the rules so frequently that lawyers and the government folks themselves have no idea what’s going on. At first they said I would probably be the only one to lose my citizenship and in the end I was the only one who got to retain it.

:dunno:
 
#102
#102
mrorange211 said:
If you charge the car from an outlet, you are not really offsetting pollution.
Click to expand...
Unless your electricity comes from coal-fired power plants burning lignite, electric cars are easily more CO2 efficient than normal combustion engines. Electricity from natural gas plants is much more efficient. Seattle gets more than 90% of its energy from hydropower so you’re much, much better off plugging your car in out here :good!:
FLVOL_79 said:
Maybe if we can get a Mr.Fusion in every car then sure lets get green!
Click to expand...
Soon…
 
#103
#103
n_huffhines said:
Is that a loan or no? It sounds like business as usual. Confessions of an Economic Hitman was written by a lunatic, but the government playbook he describes is not really in question. You obligate these poor countries to up their infrastructure, you give them a loan, then a big western contractor gets the work. The poor country typically has trouble repaying the loan, which gives western powers all sorts of leverage in the relationship.

$100B isn't that much to raise between the wealthy countries, honestly, so maybe it is just a gift, but it's probably not enough to cover it all (which is where loans would come in).
Click to expand...
Who the **** really knows, lol. This is a point of some contention. The 100 billion is supposed to come from a combination of public and private finance. The private finance is largely in the form of loans, whereas the public finance largely goes toward adaptation measures which, ya know, wouldn’t really generate profits for private investors. There is still lots of arguing about what does and doesn’t count as climate finance. One big criticism from developing countries is that some of the public finance is just existing aid that’s being redirected, so there’s the accusation of double counting. Some people don’t even want to count private loans as climate finance since, as you said, that just sounds like business-as-usual.

So there’s a lot of disagreement about what constitutes climate finance, but it’s really the donor countries’ prerogative. Thankfully the climate finance part of the agreement is not legally binding. And, like you said, it’s really not that much split between all the wealthy countries (and split between the public and private sector). It’s largely a show of good-will that will only cover a fraction of the cost of decarbonization for the world’s developing countries. Obviously, though, they will try to milk as much as they can out of us.
n_huffhines said:
I don't think we should be isolationist. We should trade freely with everyone, for one thing. Don't need agreements for that. There is more than 1 alternative to refusing entangling alliances. There are infinite options for diplomatic relations that don't include these types of agreements.
Click to expand...
Huff, I know you’re not on board with climate change, but I think you’re easily one of the better posters on this board. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that climate change does warrant some sort of government intervention. What’s your opinion of Bob Inglis’s proposition? Would you prefer it to the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Agreement?
 
#104
#104
BartW said:
Huff, I know you’re not on board with climate change, but I think you’re easily one of the better posters on this board. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that climate change does warrant some sort of government intervention. What’s your opinion of Bob Inglis’s proposition? Would you prefer it to the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Agreement?
Click to expand...

Well, let me start by saying I am not a global warming denier. It's obviously a phenomenon we should be worried about. I am somewhat skeptical about just how much impact human beings have on climate change. I am extremely skeptical about government's ability to fix this problem. I am terrified they are going to do us great harm while doing nothing to fix it. There have been several global climate initiatives*, and none of them seem to have gone well.

I think a carbon tax is better than many of the alternatives I have heard. I don't like the idea of our government giving up sovereignty and pledging to the UN, or whatever, that we will hit a mark. I prefer we handle everything domestically and we lead the way in that regard. We could even offer to lower tariffs on goods from nations who pollute less.

How would they determine the tax? Are they trying to predict how high it needs to be to restrict emissions to a certain level, or is it a tax based on the estimated economic cost of the pollution?

Say the government can somehow fairly set and assess the tax, it works amazingly, and it does lower emissions while only slightly depressing industry...how do you know you didn't push activity towards more harmful alternatives? There are always unintended consequences to worry about. There are too many factors at play. It just seems like a pipe dream that this sort of plan will work. There may be a great government solution to improving this issue, but it's probably not one of the same old solutions (tax, ban, subsidize, etc.).

*https://reason.com/archives/2015/12/14/a-happy-agreement-in-paris-wont-fix-glob
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#105
#105
BartW said:
...and that's the reason they finally decided to partake in the Paris Agreement and clean up their economy. The Chinese people are fed up with the pollution. It's unsustainable.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should stick to your claim of being a climatologist. The politics of power generation are clearly not your forte. The Chinese are simply moving their emissions across the border. For years the Chinese have led the world in exports. Now they are simply exporting their pollution.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/1...om-in-coal-projects-abroad.html?referer=&_r=0
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#106
#106
n_huffhines said:
Well, let me start by saying I am not a global warming denier. It's obviously a phenomenon we should be worried about. I am somewhat skeptical about just how much impact human beings have on climate change. I am extremely skeptical about government's ability to fix this problem. I am terrified they are going to do us great harm while doing nothing to fix it. There have been several global climate initiatives*, and none of them seem to have gone well.

I think a carbon tax is better than many of the alternatives I have heard. I don't like the idea of our government giving up sovereignty and pledging to the UN, or whatever, that we will hit a mark. I prefer we handle everything domestically and we lead the way in that regard. We could even offer to lower tariffs on goods from nations who pollute less.

How would they determine the tax? Are they trying to predict how high it needs to be to restrict emissions to a certain level, or is it a tax based on the estimated economic cost of the pollution?

Say the government can somehow fairly set and assess the tax, it works amazingly, and it does lower emissions while only slightly depressing industry...how do you know you didn't push activity towards more harmful alternatives? There are always unintended consequences to worry about. There are too many factors at play. It just seems like a pipe dream that this sort of plan will work. There may be a great government solution to improving this issue, but it's probably not one of the same old solutions (tax, ban, subsidize, etc.).

*https://reason.com/archives/2015/12/14/a-happy-agreement-in-paris-wont-fix-glob
Click to expand...
Thanks, that’s a very level-headed response. The article is not bad, either, though I don’t agree with 100% of that assessment. I’ll give you my point-by-point analysis on that if you like but for now I’ll try to stick to the content of your post.

How would they determine the tax? Well that is the number one criticism of Pigovian taxes. Yes, it would be based on the economic cost of pollution and what is necessary to restrict emissions. Neither of those are easy to measure. Most propositions suggest starting out at a low rate and increasing it over time in order to test the waters and find out what is needed to sufficiently affect emissions. With cap-and-trade, on the other hand, you’d know what you’re getting in terms of emissions reductions but it takes more work to administer and you don’t have as good an idea of the cost. Emissions trading has a mixed history, as the article points out, but it has been fairly successful in the U.S. under Republican presidents Reagan and Bush in tackling lead pollution, acid rain, and ozone depletion. Global warming is a different beast though and for that I personally love Bob Inglis’s ideas.

There are always unintended consequences to worry about, but I don’t think that means we should do nothing. And if you’re worried about unintended consequences then forget about your article’s suggestion of geoengineering. A carbon tax swap may be a pipe dream, but I don’t think it’s fair to label it “one of the same old solutions”. Nobody would say that about the fair tax and it’s essentially the same idea. I think it could be the great new government solution to improve the issue. I only say it’s a pipe dream because of the current political climate. We’re way too divided as a nation to get anything done in Congress and none of our presidential candidates inspire much hope...

:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#107
#107
TheColdVolTruth said:
Perhaps you should stick to your claim of being a climatologist. The politics of power generation are clearly not your forte. The Chinese are simply moving their emissions across the border. For years the Chinese have led the world in exports. Now they are simply exporting their pollution.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/1...om-in-coal-projects-abroad.html?referer=&_r=0
Click to expand...

I’m no climatologist; my fortes are hydrogeology and geophysics. I’ve got a good background though and I’ve been following the discussion long enough to know what’s wrong with the common denier talking points (not that you've invoked any here).

One could make a similar accusation of Western countries. A lot of China’s energy use is commissioned by other nations since we’ve exported much of our manufacturing over there. And as your article points out, the U.S. has invested in overseas coal plants too (though we recently stopped doing that).

Still, China’s per capita emissions are much lower than ours and they’re investing way more in alternative energy than we are. Blaming everything on China is just not reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#109
#109
BartW said:
I’m no climatologist; my fortes are hydrogeology and geophysics. I’ve got a good background though and I’ve been following the discussion long enough to know what’s wrong with the common denier talking points (not that you've invoked any here).

One could make a similar accusation of Western countries. A lot of China’s energy use is commissioned by other nations since we’ve exported much of our manufacturing over there. And as your article points out, the U.S. has invested in overseas coal plants too (though we recently stopped doing that).

Still, China’s per capita emissions are much lower than ours and they’re investing way more in alternative energy than we are. Blaming everything on China is just not reasonable.
Click to expand...

Exclude the 600 million people who live in mud huts.
 
#112
#112
BartW said:
I’m no climatologist; my fortes are hydrogeology and geophysics. I’ve got a good background though and I’ve been following the discussion long enough to know what’s wrong with the common denier talking points (not that you've invoked any here).

One could make a similar accusation of Western countries. A lot of China’s energy use is commissioned by other nations since we’ve exported much of our manufacturing over there. And as your article points out, the U.S. has invested in overseas coal plants too (though we recently stopped doing that).

Still, China’s per capita emissions are much lower than ours and they’re investing way more in alternative energy than we are. Blaming everything on China is just not reasonable.
Click to expand...

While their per capita emissions are lower, this statistic is incredibly skewed. Using a per capita statistic would drastically change the tenor of the article you linked earlier applauding Chinese spending on renewables. It seems a little disingenuous to applaud them for spending $90B more than any other country for renewable energy (this is roughly $66 per person) and use a per capita stat rather than a sum total in regards to their emissions. I also don't agree with your initial premise of the Chinese coming to the table in Paris with any type of transparency and good faith in mind while they continue to build coal facilities in border countries where the emissions don't count against them. I have seen first hand the decommissioning of coal plants in the US from which the major generating components are often salvaged and purchased by Chinese corporations to be transported overseas and recommissioned. Many times they do not even bother with purchasing even the most basic and dated emissions controls like selective catalyst reduction systems and precipitators let alone flue gas desulfurization systems which are many times left behind to be scrapped. They are simply interested in cheap power generation with no concern for any type of environmental stewardship. Having seen this perspective from inside the industry, I think the Chinese were in Paris for nothing more than grandstanding and posturing, but that is just my opinion.
 
#113
#113
BartW said:
I honestly have no idea why I was allowed to keep it. I'm the only one in my family with dual (US) citizenship. They change the rules so frequently that lawyers and the government folks themselves have no idea what’s going on. At first they said I would probably be the only one to lose my citizenship and in the end I was the only one who got to retain it.

:dunno:
Click to expand...
I think it is bull**** that foreign people can come to the US, and keep their other country's citizenship, but if I go to the Netherlands, I would have to forfeit my US rights... ain't right. And it is the US government that would force me to do that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#114
#114
n_huffhines said:
Well, let me start by saying I am not a global warming denier. It's obviously a phenomenon we should be worried about. I am somewhat skeptical about just how much impact human beings have on climate change. I am extremely skeptical about government's ability to fix this problem. I am terrified they are going to do us great harm while doing nothing to fix it. There have been several global climate initiatives*, and none of them seem to have gone well.

I think a carbon tax is better than many of the alternatives I have heard. I don't like the idea of our government giving up sovereignty and pledging to the UN, or whatever, that we will hit a mark. I prefer we handle everything domestically and we lead the way in that regard. We could even offer to lower tariffs on goods from nations who pollute less.

How would they determine the tax? Are they trying to predict how high it needs to be to restrict emissions to a certain level, or is it a tax based on the estimated economic cost of the pollution?

Say the government can somehow fairly set and assess the tax, it works amazingly, and it does lower emissions while only slightly depressing industry...how do you know you didn't push activity towards more harmful alternatives? There are always unintended consequences to worry about. There are too many factors at play. It just seems like a pipe dream that this sort of plan will work. There may be a great government solution to improving this issue, but it's probably not one of the same old solutions (tax, ban, subsidize, etc.).

*https://reason.com/archives/2015/12/14/a-happy-agreement-in-paris-wont-fix-glob
Click to expand...

We are on the same page. Great post. Saved me lots of tapping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#115
#115
Gramps said:
All I can find overturned by the courts where EO's signed by Democratic Presidents.


In 1935, the Supreme Court overturned five of President Franklin Roosevelt's executive orders (6199, 6204, 6256, 6284, 6855).


President Truman's Executive Order 10340 in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) placed all steel mills in the country under federal control. This was found invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution.

Executive Order 12954, issued by President Clinton in 1995, attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll; a federal appeals court subsequently ruled that the order conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act, and invalidated the order.

Clinton's Executive Order 13155 was also overturned. This order required federal benefits and services to be provided in foreign languages. This order was overturned by the Supreme Court, Alexander v. Sandoval (99-1908) 532 U.S. 275, on April 24, 2001
Click to expand...

Thanks. Don't why I couldn't find even one of these.
 
#116
#116
PKT_VOL said:
We are on the same page. Great post. Saved me lots of tapping.
Click to expand...

We already lead the way for a problem that isn't and all a carbon tax does is allows pointy headed elitists pick winners and losers for a problem that doesn't exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#117
#117
TheColdVolTruth said:
While their per capita emissions are lower, this statistic is incredibly skewed. Using a per capita statistic would drastically change the tenor of the article you linked earlier applauding Chinese spending on renewables. It seems a little disingenuous to applaud them for spending $90B more than any other country for renewable energy (this is roughly $66 per person) and use a per capita stat rather than a sum total in regards to their emissions. I also don't agree with your initial premise of the Chinese coming to the table in Paris with any type of transparency and good faith in mind while they continue to build coal facilities in border countries where the emissions don't count against them. I have seen first hand the decommissioning of coal plants in the US from which the major generating components are often salvaged and purchased by Chinese corporations to be transported overseas and recommissioned. Many times they do not even bother with purchasing even the most basic and dated emissions controls like selective catalyst reduction systems and precipitators let alone flue gas desulfurization systems which are many times left behind to be scrapped. They are simply interested in cheap power generation with no concern for any type of environmental stewardship. Having seen this perspective from inside the industry, I think the Chinese were in Paris for nothing more than grandstanding and posturing, but that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Well you’re entitled to your opinion. Transparency in reporting is one of the legally binding aspects of the deal. We’ll have to agree to disagree there.

I’ll concede that you make a good point about comparing per capita emissions and investment. I don’t know where that original article got its figures but according to UNEP, China spent $83.3 billion in 2014 and the U.S. (the next biggest spender) spent $38.3 billion. China’s population is around 1.4 billion and America’s is 320 million. That comes out to about $60 per person in China and $120 per person in the US. Meanwhile China’s per capita emissions was at 7.2 tons per person and America’s was 16.5.

Another interesting figure there is that China’s spending was up 39% on the year before while the U.S.’s was up 7% (though down from a high in 2011)
Sandvol said:
Exclude the 600 million people who live in mud huts.
Click to expand...
While we’re at it…

According to the IEA only 1 million people in China don’t have electricity. 80 million or so are still below the poverty line.

In contrast, about a quarter billion Indians lack electricity and a similar number live below the poverty line. Their per capita emissions are 1.6 tons pp, or about a tenth of ours. Just some numbers to think about.

There’s a pretty big spectrum between ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries, so it’s a good thing that the Paris Agreement finally broke through that binary classification… “common but differentiated responsibilities”
 
#119
#119
Paris Agreement yields big fat goose egg. Just damn. It's got to be depressing to be an alarmist these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top