Slashdot Mirror
U.S. and China Make Landmark Climate Deal
An anonymous reader writes: After extended talks on the issue of climate change, the U.S. and China have reached a landmark accord to curb emissions in the near future. The two countries are the top carbon polluters, so their actions are likely to have a major effect on world pollution levels and also set the standard for other countries. The agreement includes China's first-ever commitment to stop the growth of its emissions by 2030. They plan on shifting a big chunk of their energy production to renewables in that time. The U.S. agreed to emit 26-28% less carbon in 2025 than it did in 2005. Their efforts could spur greater enthusiasm for a new global climate agreement in 2015.
Reader jones_supa adds details of another interesting part of the U.S.-China talks:
Technology products look likely to gain more access to international markets as a result of upgrade between the U.S. and China on a 1996 tariff-eliminating trade agreement that President Obama announced Tuesday in Beijing. The agreement is expected to lower prices on a raft of new technology products by eliminating border tariffs — a price impact that's expected to be larger outside the United States, since U.S. tariffs on high-tech goods are generally lower than those overseas. "This is a win-win-win agreement for information and communication technology industries in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China, for businesses and consumers who purchase IT products and for the global economy."
You heard it here folks: cutting emissions and reducing pollution is a BAD THING.
Why? Because Obama supports it! So it must be bad!
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
And yet, America has met the terms of the Kyoto agreement. Just because we did not ratify it, does not mean that we did not actually honor it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Obama's big push was green jobs. Who can forget the green jobs czar, the Marxist Van Jones.. Thank goodness he was not very successful, because each of them cost around $1.63 million in taxpayer cost. http://cnsnews.com/news/articl... Obama's energy department has given over $11 billion of our money to the likes of Solyndra, Beacon Power, Sun Power, Brightsource, First Solar, ECOtality, and a bunch of others. They have lost money and laid off workers hand over fist. Not only that, but 71% of the money went to democrat bundlers and major fundraisers. The $11+ billion they got cost them a measly $457,843 in campaign contributions. Pretty good investment I would say.
Wrong. In fact, we've been doing it for years, and its onyl resulted in a boost the economy. New industries, new innovations, new technology, new jobs, reduced healthcare costs, etc. The entire "green energy industry" is one of the fastest growing segments of the economy.
Lets not ignore what NOT cutting pollution does to the economy, in terms of higher healthcosts, the eventual results of Global Warming negatively impacting the human race (and the economy), etc, etc. And lets also not ignore the creation of a new industry and its impacts on the economy.
Your stance, the idea that fighting pollution will hurt the economy, requires ignoring both of things as if they dont exist.
MYTH: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers.
FACT: A well designed trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.
Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation.
A mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth. Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now.