Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by The_RH_Factor, Feb 8, 2019.
It's global warming, which means global emissions. Global emissions are on the rise. Much of our cutbacks are due to coal going off line and natural gas online (thanks to frakking). China, under the Paris accord, continues to build coal plants and continues to increase it's emissions going forward, as does India. Russia is stable now due to increased Natural Gas production. We would be better served to focus on global emissions rather than US emissions. The Paris Accord was not going to accomplish this because it was more like unilateral disarmament. The only way we reduce GLOBAL emissions to get everyone on board, which they are not now.
My point is that although our CO2 reductions are good intentions by themselves, they don't accomplish what is needed which is reducing global emissions, unless everyone participates.
The point of my analogy is to illustrate that just because our actions won’t turn the ship around them self they are still “right” and do have an impact.
And simply saying China produces more CO2 and it’s increasing is misleading by omission. China’s emissions have nominally been flat since 2013 and they’ve added around 40 million people in that time. They have also promulgated a number of energy and environmental laws/targets that we have yet to see the full effect. A couple examples, they’ve reduced the cap on coal generation as percentage of their power generation, enacted an aggressive cap and trade for Electric vehicles, inspected/fined/shut down thousands of factories, etc. China also hasn’t been a short-sighted moron like our President and pulled out of the Paris Agreement.
Nice narrative but not true.. China is massively increasing the number of coal power plants being built
Worries over China coal power boom
"Avoiding dangerous climate change requires essentially phasing out coal plants globally by 2045," said Christine Shearer, lead author of the report. "China needs to begin planning for the aggressive retirement of its existing coal fleet, not building hundreds of new coal plants."
Yes, the provinces have gone against Beijing and continued to build but you couldn’t be more wrong than to claim China isn’t aggressively tackling co2. You’d have a better argument for India.
I can cite you actual pollution numbers showing the Chinese flatlining of co2 emissions, not starts of new coal plants that may not even come online most of the time since the electricity is supposedly not even needed.
Oh, and keep in mind a greater percentage of China’s electricity generation ones from renewables than the United States. The proof is where they spend their money too. They invest more in renewables than the US, Japan, and Europe combined.
That is a broad statement.
Planes are far more efficient than trains in many aspects. Now moving cargo that is not next day could be more efficient by train.
Next time you want to travel across county with the family and have a week or less/need to get a package next day/have real urgency...let me know what us more efficient.
Maybe @VAg8r1 ?
I assume this green initiative supports clean coal.
BBC must be part of the right wing deniers. China is flattening CO2 emissions. The hundreds of new coal fire plants they are building that they are spending billions of dollars on - they really aren't going to use them. So the narrative from the climate change people about China is denial in the face of hard evidence. Got it.
Please reread the information contained in my posts. You’re singling out a single fact with no context. For instance, instead of quoting the number of plants under construction alone maybe you can tell us how many plants are being decommissioned? Or the how many tons of CO2 per MW at the new plants versus old?
I guess you’re also not also aware of China’s propensity to build large capital pronects to keep their populace working and that they never use (see their ghost cities).
But all this misses the point in that you’re claiming that we shouldn’t do anything because their not. I’ve illustrated that it shouldn’t matter whether they are or are not and further shown that China is tanking a larger commitment to CO2 than we are.
Really, there seems to be a comprehension problem here. I never said we shouldn't do anything because they are not. I said no matter what we do, if global emissions are rising, its very bad for climate change. It's all part of the partisan way this board works.. You have to be on one side or the other. I said the major problem is not in the US, it's in China, India & Russia. So no matter what we do in the US, CO2 emissions will continue to rise. Our focus should be on getting those countries to reduce their emissions. Us uni-laterally reducing ours obviously isn't working, as globally co2 emissions are on the rise. What we need to do is put pressure on the mentioned countries to reduce their emissions. A solid climate accord treaty would be a great step. That's just my opinion. It's kind of like the missile treaty. If you remain in it as other countries obviously flaunt their behavior, nothing will change.
Weird what we focus on. Selfishly my company ships tons and tons of containers on ships that burn terrible fuel. We have many locations to visit so we have a corporate jets flying out 2 days every week - minimum. Our headquarters is green certified though. Waterless pissers. So there is that.
I recommend more severe trade sanctions against China as they are by far the biggest contributor towards global pollution on all levels.
Why is there no mention of nuclear power? Solar and wind are not producing 24/7 and need battery storage to be able to provide 100% of power needs. Nuclear power has no co2 emmissions. It would be the quickest way to get replace fossil fuel power plants.
Because there is no re-allocation of the energy power structure to be had with nuclear power.....if you read the leftists actual plan with green energy its basically a backdoor plan for reparations.
I think most people are reluctant to deal with the byproduct and potential disaster posed by security threats.
She will keep spouting this off, there are plenty of ill informed young, environmental voters to support her. regardless of the fact there is no way to even start paying for this crap.
As pointed out, there are issues with nuclear. However, the primary issue is that nuclear requires huge government subsidies due to the massive fixed costs. At this stage, it would be foolish to lock a system in on nuclear for decades by paying those huge fixed costs.