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."

18 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Ya...Right by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Ya...Right by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > And when Obama is for everything that is shit
      This is a wingnut belief, not reality.

      >then it's good to be against everything he is for.
      This is how the wingnut Republicans actually operate. They have the minds of spoiled children.

    2. Re:Ya...Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All the while, China will continue to open a coal plane every week until 2030. Yup, the great negotiator. Thanks for the help Obama.

    3. Re:Ya...Right by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The same could be argued of the US. It just ignores agreements and treaties when it suits itself. Pretending that China is any worse is just borderline racism.

      China has demonstrated a willingness to clean up in the past. For example, the EU introduced RoHS and China adopted it because the EU is a major customer. That's the sort of agreement that will work - a requirement to meet certain standards in order to sell stuff into a huge market.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Ya...Right by dywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      China's envirnmental record is improving at a rapid pace. They're taking pollution quite seriously.
      Millions of people being sick in cities where the permanent fog is actually pollution puts a large damper on your economic ambitions.

      In fact, they take the environment far more seriously than we do.

      Like how theyve found that water quality regulations are important, after a pig farmer dumped a few thousand dead and sick pigs into a river, that sicked thousands of people downstream. We're trying to hamstring our EPA and have people, mostly GOP, in congress talking like Clean Water and Clean Air acts are bad things. Meanwhile their equivalent put that guy in jail for something like 20 years.

      So I trust them far more to hold up their end of hte deal.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    5. Re:Ya...Right by dywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
    6. Re:Ya...Right by dywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So this'll be just like the ebola scare.

      Last month is was:
      GOP: Why, we dont even have a surgeon general! This POTUS is irresponsible.
      Reality: Why don't have a Surgeon General? Oh ya. The Senate GOP keeps filibustering the nominees.

      So in a few years it'll be:
      GOP: He made a deal with China to cut pollution, but then he didn't follow through!
      Reality: Because we (GOP) voted it down in the Senate!

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    7. Re:Ya...Right by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And it ignores that relatively basic notion that treaties of this sort tend to have binding requirements that actually allow for trade-based disincentives for breaking them.

      China doesn't want increased trade tariffs as a penalty to violating the treaty. Oh, sure they'll fudge their official numbers to look like they're in compliance when they're not sometimes, but that's just how laws influence behavior anyways.

    8. Re:Ya...Right by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    9. Re:Ya...Right by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh horse shit!! While China may be improving their environmental problems now, they're no where near the level of zeal the US has with the EPA focusing in on cleaning up that last 1%.

      Laws of diminishing returns. Look it up.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:Ya...Right by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  2. Quite the poker player by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Quite the poker player by jratcliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      China's producing 7.2 tons per person. The US is producing 16.5 tons per person.
      http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...

      The US is committing to cutting its emissions to 14.1 tons per person (down 27% from 19.3 in 2005). That's still 2x China's current level. Why on earth would China agree to forever have half the emissions per capita of the US?

    2. Re:Quite the poker player by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Note that if AGW is NOT an existential threat, it's probably not important to bother with landmark agreements that won't accomplish anything meaningful anyway.

      So, we should never have any international treaties about anything that's not an existential threat? Got it. Let's dump that pesky Geneva Convention, the human race will survive whether or not prisoners are tortured. Let's also drop those treaties around the use of space - if we end up with satellites in the same orbital slot, interfering with each other's signals, it won't result in the end of the human race.

      Ever consider that something that's not absolutely perfect in every possible way could still be an improvement over the status quo? A car doesn't get you from point A to point B instantly, does that mean we should just walk everywhere? Of course not.

    3. Re:Quite the poker player by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, this is a brilliant line of reasoning from the crowd that brought us the "have scientists considered the sun, yet?" argument.

      No. It's never been an existential crisis. There are 2 kinds of people claiming that, 1. A few non-scientist ultra-enviornmentalists attempting to make over-the-top rhetorical arguments and 2. Idiots on the right wing who find that strawman easy to take apart.

      The actual analyses of climate changes effects show an unpleasant, but not extinction level, result that's far more economically expensive than changeover to renewables would ever be.

      So, why bother if we're not jumping immediately and completely? Because 3 more degrees C by 2100 is a lot better in terms of consequences than 5 more degrees C by 2100.

    4. Re:Quite the poker player by Misagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Those are silly numbers because they are only measurements of domestic emissions.
      Around half of China's carbon emissions are because of productions of goods that are exported to mainly USA and the EU. You could say that while USA and EU are importing from China, they are exporting their emissions to China.
      If you take that into account, USA and EU are much worse per capita.

      I am in Sweden, which has one of the strongest economies in the EU, having got mostly unscathed out of the recent Euro crisis (Sweden still has its own currency).
      Sweden has one of the lowest carbon emissions per capita in the EU, but because the economy is so strong, Swedish citizens are spending more money on imported goods than other EU citizens and are therefore among the worst polluters in the EU if you take trade into account.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  3. Re:A Contrary View by mdsolar · · Score: 3, Funny

    We were not polluting for decades. It is only recently that climate change became dangerous. Until then, carbon dioxide emissions were not dangerous and not pollution.

  4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.