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."
Everyone who believes China will uphold their end of the deal, raise your hand.
Thought so.
I wonder where Obama is going to plant those magic beans he just bought.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
So China promises to stop increasing by 2030, and the US promises to cut ~26% by 2025.
That's powerful negotiation right there. I wish I were discussing my next raise with this administration.
-Styopa
Many/most posts on this subject are on how terrible a deal this is for America and China getting off Scott free.
Or on the other hand, China's emissions per citizen is much lower than America's. So basically America can only agree to cut emissions if our historic advantage is preserved when negotiating with other countries. We got to polluted at much higher levels for decades, but now that emerging economies are polluting as much or more, well all that s**t has to come to a stop.
If America wants the world to have a better environment then it needs to lead by example – not demand we get the best deal. China is developing renewables at a much faster clip than America, but it still has a lot of ground to catch up on a per-citizen basis in economics. It is a foregone conclusion that China will pollute more than America in the short run while it catches up economically. To expect them to stay behind because we don't like it, even though we basically did the same or worse when adjusted for population just won't fly. As China becomes more affluent you can expect pollution levels to decrease as an enriched middle-class demands a better environment. Yes there will be damage in the short run, but this is probably unavoidable given political realities. Better to do something than nothing.
I'm fine with being mad at China for human right's abuses or lack of free speech, but this whining is really about we-got-our-nut, screw everyone else if they try to catch up.
If you really want to save the world, push for Nuclear-Fusion research. We know this is a solvable problem if we just have the political will to tackle it. Others like Lockheed might get there before ITER, but in general this needs a Manhattan project level off commitment to be certain it is solved, not just wait and hope the free market takes care of it, because you know in the meantime we are still burning oil and coal.
Letter To Iran
The republican solution to fixing everything is to make it cheaper for business, particularly big business, by levelling the playing field with places like China, completely ignoring that we would then be marinating in our own pollution and likely lowering our standard of living even further to do so. Still, it has been seen time and time again that you can get people to vote against their best interest if you spend enough money on it.
My own solution to try to equalize things a bit is to start to gradually tariff/tax things that are made with less rigid standards in the United States. For instance, if an Iphone is made with working conditions we would not tolerate and a lot of pollution is created in the process then we tariff that enough so that it is possible for the US to compete. Similarly things like coal plants that likely cause a lot of secondary health problems, particularly if they don't have up to date technology, should have to pay for the external health costs. That way cleaner tech can fairly compete. Society as a whole pays the total bill. It makes no sense to save money one place only to be forced to spend a total amount that is greater.
So, you say we should ditch those jobs that can pay up to about $95K/yr....and put those workers all on the dole (I'm hoping you're not thinking of cutting their pay too)....and have them sit on their asses, producing nothing?
And where does the magic pile of money to pay for THIS come from?
Hell, how do "I" get on this gravy train of magic money for doing nothing come from?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The correct solution is to ensure that all costs of energy production, including things like air pollution and strip mining runoff, are re-internalized to the companies producing them. Then we let the free market sort things out by true cost. Under that scenario coal is not the cheapest option and the problem resolves itself.