Slashdot Mirror
French President-Elect Macron Urges Action On Climate Change (newsweek.com)
After Sunday's election in France, Macron's victory "is likely to be a boon for the French digital economy and its startup scene," writes a foreign policy think tank blog, "but the country's frosty relationship with U.S. tech companies is likely to remain over the next five years." Yet even before he was elected as France's new president, Emmanuel Macron was already warning the U.S. that withdrawing from the international Paris Climate change agreement could cost America its brightest innovators. Thelasko writes:
French President elect Emmanuel Macron has a message to U.S. scientists and engineers working on climate change. "Please, come to France. You are welcome. It's your nation. We like innovation. We want innovative people. We want people working on climate change, energy renewables and new technologies. France is your nation."
Newsweek reports this week that without America's involvement, the Paris Climate agreement "will have no way of meeting its goals of reducing global net carbon emissions" -- but that Macron could persuade the U.S. to honor its agreement. ("It reportedly took just one phone call conversation between Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the president for Trump to reconsider withdrawing entirely for NAFTA, another international agreement signed into law prior to his tenure in the Oval Office.") And in the meantime, Macron has also promised not to cut France's energy-research budget, and will even reinforce it "to accelerate our initiative."
Newsweek reports this week that without America's involvement, the Paris Climate agreement "will have no way of meeting its goals of reducing global net carbon emissions" -- but that Macron could persuade the U.S. to honor its agreement. ("It reportedly took just one phone call conversation between Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the president for Trump to reconsider withdrawing entirely for NAFTA, another international agreement signed into law prior to his tenure in the Oval Office.") And in the meantime, Macron has also promised not to cut France's energy-research budget, and will even reinforce it "to accelerate our initiative."
As the US continues falling into a post-intellectual, foreigner-fearing state, the brain drain will only continue.
Vast parts of the scientific progress the US "gave" the post WWII-world was built on immigrants, but now the tide is turning - the empire falling apart at the seams.
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
The French Academy of Sciences has determined significant CO2 reduction is not feasible if France if they reduce nuclear. Here is a copy of a summary with some translated excerpts;
France cannot achieve a significant reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases from electricity production while also reducing the share of nuclear in its energy mix, the country's Academy of Sciences says.
"Simple common sense leads one to conclude that production of electricity that can meet the country's needs requires the availability of 'on demand' energies, which do not suffer from intermittency and which can be called upon at all times," it said. This means, in the absence of energy storage solutions, significant use will need to be made of thermal and nuclear power plants if France is to increase its use of renewable energy.
Nuclear power last year accounted for 13% of electricity production in Germany, which decided in 2011 to phase out its use of this form of energy. In 2010, nuclear power had accounted for 22%. The academy noted that, even though renewable energy accounted for 30% of power production last year, the share of fossil fuels was unchanged at 55% because Germany has had to open new fossil fuel plants to provide the back-up required for intermittent renewable energy. Germany thus remains one of Europe's largest CO2 emitters.
France, through its high dependence on nuclear energy, is one of the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita: about half as much as Germany. France produces around 540 TWh of electricity with emissions of 46 million tonnes CO2 per year, compared with Germany, which produces about 631 TWh from 334 million tonnes.
"Nuclear energy is objectively the most effective way to reduce the share of fossil fuels in the production of electrical energy," it said. "Within this general framework, there is a real contradiction in wanting to reduce emissions whilst reducing the share of nuclear power. In fact, many studies show that the total share of renewable energy cannot exceed 30-40% without leading to an exorbitant cost of electricity and the emission of greenhouse gases."
The academy said "realistic and coherent" scenarios show that it is impossible to have an energy system based wholly on renewable energy sources, which also "indicate a reasonable trajectory towards an energy solution where nuclear power will have its place in the coming decades".
In February, the French Nuclear Society issued a white paper stating the country needs to maintain its nuclear power generation capacity in order to raise the share of electricity from renewables without increasing the cost of electricity production.
http://www.academie-sciences.f...
Yes you pay more in taxes and you get more from society like affordable healthcare and education.
Yes, but what if you deduct the cost of football?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The new French President, in 2017, is a royalist? You'd better explain what you mean.
and it will continue to grow.
Yet, idiots are worried about a nation that emits less than 14%, and is dropping fast.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Lots of people "on the left" simply do not believe the promises of the companies and trade groups that their products are known to be safe (GMO) or known to be managed safely (nuclear).
Something that I do not see enough is documentary evidence that the decisionmakers in technical agriculture or in management of nuclear facilities could give two shits about the long term effects of their work (GMO) or costs of waste management (nuclear).
I for one fully trust decisionmakers to increase their profits to the exclusion of all other goals unless they are held strictly and personally accountable for their choices.
GMO gives strong, almost monopolistic market power to their companies. Nuclear is so capital intensive and the fuel reprocessing/waste issue is so expensive that they have a hard time competing without cutting corners.
Solve the incentive problems and allow for well-managed creative solutions to the downside risks, and the discussion will change dramatically. Until we see that these liars are held to account for lying then the greenies will use whatever (admittedly weak) logic they can muster to prevent or limit the fucking-over of those who lack influence over the decisions.