Slashdot Mirror
Many Nations Pin Climate Hopes On China, India As Hopes For Trump Fade (reuters.com)
Twelve readers share a Reuters report: Many countries are pinning their hopes on China and India to lead efforts to slow climate change amid a growing sense of resignation that U.S. President Donald Trump will either withdraw from a global pact or stay and play a minimal role. Delegates at the May 8-18 negotiations in Bonn on a detailed "rule book" for the 2015 Paris Agreement, the first U.N. talks since Trump took office, say there is less foreboding than when Washington last broke with global climate efforts in 2001. Trump doubts global warming has a human cause and says he will decide on a campaign threat to "cancel" the Paris Agreement, the first to bind all nations to set goals to curb emissions, after a group of Seven summit in Italy on May 26-27. "The time when one big player could affect the whole game is past," said Ronald Jumeau, climate ambassador for the Seychelles. "There would be a void without the U.S., but China and India seem to be increasing their effort." Big emitters led by China, the European Union and India have reaffirmed their commitment to Paris, which seeks to phase out greenhouse gas emissions this century by shifting to clean energies. By contrast, Trump wants to favor U.S. coal.
Leading from behind.
The Millennials are going to pay the price in so many ways...
Health Care
Social Security
Climate Change...
Thanks to the unrivaled greed and short sightedness of the Baby Boomers.
Trump and Resignation in the same sentence? Don't tease us like that!
probably from all the rubbish sent there from the US and EU for disposal
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You know you have screwed things up when you have to look at China and India, two countries that have long been considered backwards when it comes to using renewable sources of energy, for a brighter tomorrow. Kudos to China and India to realize the problem and starting to get their act together. I mean, c'mon, look at India and the problems it has and it is still doing something about it. So much about us being the superior.
America Last.
I'm glad to see it. Trump is a regressive relic of an era of disinformation and anti-science, anti-problem-solving "I can do no wrong" ethos. That has to die.
We live in a connected world. Protectionism is no protection in the long or short term. We have to address these issues as a global community, and that means making the economics of any solution apply universally as much as possible. Or it won't work.
The US can pay carbon taxes all day long but unless China and India get a serious investment in non-burning energy sources, it's a wasted effort.
So, India, China, other nations.... LEAD ON. Innovate, invest, and show the world that greedy old-coal financial interests aren't more important than the planet itself.
The amount of pollution is negligible compared to China. Have you been to China? They are in no way trying to fix this. The air is thick and metallic tasting. The only time they fix it is when they shut the factories down for the celebration of one of their communist holidays.
Zoid.com
As the world economy shifts energy focus from Fossil/Carbon fuel to renewables, the US will be left in the dust while the rest of the world community moves into the global middle class. Although the environmental concerns are the most worrisome, the administration should look at the economic impact of holding onto carbon like babies hold onto their binkies. The rest of the world will solve this crisis as best they can, and the US will be.. what?
The line that "we don't have problems, we have opportunities" has always seemed like garbage to me, but it applies here. There are huge opportunities. And this time, we would, in fact, be ending hunger and curing cancer at the same time.
"China and India to lead efforts to slow climate change "
We've sure seen the results of China's forward looking environmental policies. Especially in scenic untouched places like Baotou, and in the pristine air of Beijing.
So, good luck with that.
That awkward moment, when you wanted to contradict, but ended up agreeing with the person you replied to...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Climate change caused by man is accepted by 90% of scientists. The fact that a few claim otherwise is unimportant. Look at the morons who perjured themselves before congress claiming "cigarette smoking does not cause cancer". You can watch them on YouTube, and it happened in the '90's.
There's till flat Earthers too, but thinking creatures dismiss them; just like we dismiss you. Sorry.
Trump won't last through the end of the year. Giving classified information to the Russians (aka treason), refusing to divest of conflict of interest business ventures, interfering with a Federal Investigation (also a felony)... and we're only 4 months in... The GOP loyalists are jumping faster than teabaggers. The drums of impeachment are thundering louder by the day. People are finally seeing the "Conservative GOP agenda", no health care for anyone but the rich, zero environmental protections, coal companies being able to dump untreated waste into rivers and streams, turn back the clock 75 years on civil rights - no, this will likely cost the GOP the House and Senate at midterms, so there's quite a good chance the tide will turn.
So what happens when we chop down all the trees?
C02 ppm is going up, that's a fact. C02 has an atmospheric effect that helps trap in heat, also a fact.
You can argue how much of an total impact increased C02 emissions have on global climate, you can't argue that more C02 in the air is something we should continue doing.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
You forgot all the rubbish that was manufactured there in the first place, then wasted fuel to be sent to us, used for less than a year and then wasted fuel to send it back over there for "disposal" (i.e. trash heap, no recycling).
#DeleteFacebook
Oh boy, scientists totally forgot about the sun! You've cracked the case!
"Old man yells at systemd"
Didn't we obtain, after only ten years, the largest hybrid electric car fleet in the world (okay, second to japan according to wikipedia) without any government interference? Isn't solar panel technology taking off in this country, especially as people have them installed on their roofs. Aren't the local state governments still offering subsidies so as to encourage the adoption of solar panel roofs? Aren't there hundreds more americans trying to 'do their part' by recycling more, eating local foods (which can reduce CO2 emissions since the produce doesn't have to be transported thousands of miles) and don't I see more wind farms popping up every single year?
Who ever said we can only fix environmental problems by electing the 'right' president? We don't need the federal government to make a difference, we can (and I would argue are) collectively working to solve this problem through the free market mechanisms available to us!
Now excuse me while i get in my honda with ridiculously good gas mileage, and drive to the local farmers market to buy organic local produce, while i drink my Soylent meal that took 90% less CO2 to produce than any conventional meal, and then go home to my apartment that is cooled by a sun roof and electricity supplied by wind power
http://thatsugarfilm.com/
#DeleteFacebook
Making America irrelevant again!
You're the first ever comment I've ever read with factual information that shows an alternative point of view against all this climate change debate.
And when you think about it, if a single solar flare has the potential to be big enough to end all life on the planet, it sure as hell can modify the climate.
So the question is, can we increase the strength of the planet's natural shield?
#DeleteFacebook
THE MODELS DON'T FUCKING WORK.
The models over-estimate warming over an 11,000 year span because they weren't designed to be run over an 11,000 year span. As the paper you linked to says:
Basically, that paper says that the studied models are not accurately reflecting the actual effects of the Milankovitch Cycle, which is a valuable insight, and something that should be improved upon. Of course, you are also overstating the size of the problem, since the model-proxy reconstruction divergence rate discovered in the paper is about 0.01 degrees per century.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It's about time we focused on emissions from "developing countries."
The correct answer is "focus on both". You can't solve global problems by saying "let the other guy solve all the problems, we won't do anything." And you also can't solve global problems by saying "we'll work on our problems, but we'll ignore everybody else's contributions."
That's the thing about "global": it's everybody's problem.
The stuff the US emits is harmless plant food compared to the toxic shit these derelicts dump into the air and water on a day to day basis.
Well, per capita, the US emits far far more than the rest of the world. But the U.S. is a small fraction of the world.
...to commit economic suicide.
Actually, not. The interesting thing about both China and India is that in large parts of the country, they don't have an electrical power grid. So they can install solar-based power solutions without jettisoning the sunk-costs of the existing infrastructure. Building a nation-spanning electrical grid is actually expensive. If you don't have one to start with, going with decentralized generation makes a lot of sense. Contrawise, when you already do have one, much of the advantage of decentralized generation is lost.
so, it seems slightly paradoxical, but actually, it makes sense for the un-developed countries to lead in this respect.
What hopes? Who was stupid enough to hope that Trump would be good for climate change?
He either got this from a pseudo-skeptic blog or just googled it. The deniers don't actually read the papers, they just look for certain key phrases and then declare "All the scientists are wrong!!!!"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's already out of hand when one country's government believes the only way to solve its problems is to depend on another country's government; it's totally bonkers to think China and India will be environmental leaders, have you ever been to either China? There wasn't a single place that we went where the locals drank tap water and the air is terrible, except in rain forest areas (the people and food were great, I'd go back to visit). The Paris accord has no teeth anyway so why should a country hamstring themselves- maybe, just maybe, each country can follow environmental policies that balance their own climate concerns and economic well being instead of blindly following activist theology.
Trump's administration is on a fast track down the drain. We'll likely see a new POTUS before year's end at this rate. For those who fear that Pence could end up as the POTUS to finish off the term, it is hard to see Trump passing on the chance to be so vindictive on his way out as to take him down as well.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Look, I get it; Trump is horrible. He's a horrible person and an even worse president.
However.
Why SHOULD the US shoulder the responsibility, when we aren't even the worst polluter? In our rush to criticize Trump, we're giving the two worst polluters on the planet a free pass. If Trump pulling back on the accord prompts China and India to step up their game...isn't that a net benefit to the climate?
Unhinged criticism is precisely how Trump got elected, and is likely to be why he gets re-elected.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Looking at the graphs, the models seem to reproduce the overall features pretty well. Heres the comparison graph from the paper you cite: http://www.pnas.org/content/11...
There are still some variances in the details, but overall, it's the way science works-- you start with getting the overall shape right, and then progressively refine details.
I should point out that it's hard to match the details of the Holocene thermal max because the details aren't really known. It's not even really clear if it was a global effect, or local-- looks like the arctic and northern Europe had a thermal max, but southern Europe cooling, and it looks like the warming was in summer, but not winter. Check out, for example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou... http://www.medeltid.su.se/Nedl...
Yep, that is a peer-reviewed paper published by actual climatologists. So much for that "consensus", eh?
It's very tempting to say "here's one paper by one group that shows a discrepancy, and thus that overturns everything we thought we knew!" -- but that's only the way science works in the movies. In the real world, science really is a cooperative endeavor. Don't focus on any one paper-- that part about scientific consensus is actually important. You have many eyes looking at every paper, and many papers looking at different aspects of the problem.
But, in this case, the paper you're looking at merely says "here are some places where we need more details" (in the measurements, not just the models-- keep in mind that we know a lot more about contemporary climate than we do about the climate 10,000 years ago-- we directly measure the solar irradiance, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the global cloud cover, and the downwelling infrared, for example; all things that have to be inferred from proxies for the climate 10,000 years ago.
While change in China, the largest emitter, and India, soon to become the largest emitter, are both critical, the fact is that both the US and Canada are also changing. People look at the US as if population and GDP and emissions were evenly distributed.
They're not.
The vast overwhelming majority of industry, commerce, and people are in areas that are reducing emissions and becoming more efficient.
One of the reasons why the flyover states are dying is their lack of efficiency and investment in more efficient processes. We're literally outcompeting them, using fewer resources to do a better job, and creating fewer emissions, while increasing the percentage of green energy that feeds that.
You can't save coal. You can't even save fossil fuels. They're doomed. The markets care nothing for your failed religion of fossil fuels. And the US and Canada will be leaders no matter what insanity happens in the White House and Congress, because we are investing in cleaner more efficient technology today. Here. And we're outcompeting you.
Adapt.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Why sadness?
The U.S. long ago already met the coyote protocols. There are very little gains to be had at this point from the U.S. trashing the economy any further; ay real CO2 reduction gains can ONLY be had by looking at China and India.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Though frankly "coyote" is a better term for a system designed to scavenge from developed countries.
Or if you like a kinder interpretation would be, that it is a protocol designed for countries to run leaner on...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'd love to read about this if I'm wrong.
That is not how science works
I'm not fully sold on the "climate change" things, too many conflicting arguments and honestly most people who argue on either side don't really have a clue. Too many politics injected into the climate change debate, it's moved too far from science. Past that though I'm fine with Trump taking a step back, it's kinda old for everybody to expect the US to spear head every damn thing, even when it hurts us economically. It's time to let the rest of the world step up and take some weight out of the US's backpack. Maybe once the rest of the world starts making sacrifices then the US can jump back into the fray but damnit no more of the US doing most of the leg work on everything. As it's been mentioned above, why should the US hurt it's self economically with regulations and such when A) Climate change isn't a proven thing, still just an argued theory. B) nothing the US can do will reduce pollution levels if other countries (such a schina) don't also make some effort. I'm not saying trash our environment I'm just saying if this is such an important issue to the world maybe it's time the world showed it, because apparently if the US isn't spearheading something it's a lost cause or some shit?
Seriously? The Seychelles have less than 100,000 people. They should absolutely not have an "ambassador" on the international stage. That would be like some idiot from one of the bum-fuck suburbs around any city in the States randomly showing up and pretending that they mattered. This really irritates me. Not that I disagree with him, of course, but he and his islands are just not important enough to be quotable. Of course everyone deserves a voice, but it must be proportional.
I think it's called "The Tragedy of the Commons" but either way it's the same reason traffic jams happen. If everybody did the right thing then we'd all be better off, but for individuals doing the wrong things is beneficial. At least, until everyone follows suit. When you tailgate and drive aggressively it gets you to work sooner right up until everyone does it. Then it causes a jam and you're an hour late.
The US needs to lead here because we're why China is polluting. They're doing it to meet our demand for cheap consumer goods that can be sold at a high profit margin. Not that Europe isn't to blame too, but any time we want we could put our foot down, pay a few hundred dollars more for our electronics & consumer goods and stop the pollution. We don't because we don't want to.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And Pittsburgh used to be a grimy stinkpot. I was there last month, though, and I was amazed-- really beautiful city, now that they've stopped the smog and peeled the accumulated grime away.
the government heavily interfered in the form of massive tax breaks for hybrids and for developing hybrids. Like most things that truly matter and are really difficult (like space travel, communication, and Basic Research) nothing happens until the government steps in because it's not profitable enough otherwise.
And you can't fix the environment with a president who is openly hostile to the EPA. Poor people still can't drink the water in Flint, MI you know? And your Honda's good millage & clean emissions is dwarfed by the number of Trucks calling themselves SUVs on the road.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yes, there's a lot of popular news stories saying that the "little ice age" was due to the Maunder minimum. The only prolem is that the little ice age was already well established well before the Maunder minimum. (The Norse settlement of Greenland was abandoned around 1410, for example).
Current thinking on the little ice age is that it was precipitated by (well documented) volcanic eruptions. http://news.agu.org/press-rele...
You're the first ever comment I've ever read with factual information that shows an alternative point of view against all this climate change debate.
Alternate point of view, yes. Factual information, no.
People have been trying to document a connection between sunspots and climate for a hundred and fifty years. It's simply not there.
And when you think about it, if a single solar flare has the potential to be big enough to end all life on the planet,
Uh, I'd really like to see a citation for that.
A big solar flare could take out the electric grid, yes. "End life on the planet"?? I don't think so.
Sorry, but while solar flares are indeed physically big, they won't "end life on the planet".
They affect electric grids by compressing the Earth's magnetic field, creating an induced voltage. That can play havoc with long conductors, like electric transmission lines, but doesn't really affect the biosphere.
Coronal mass ejections (the stuff ejected toward Earth by "solar flares") hit the Earth routinely-- when they do, they create pretty auroral displays. A CME has a density typically about 10 ions per cubic centimeter. A really big one might spike up to 40 ions per cubic centimeter. For comparison, there are about 10^20 nitrogen molecules in a cubic centimeter of sea-level air.
it was Malice. The EPA used to prevent that kind of malice from manifesting. Now it doesn't.
2.2 billion isn't even a drop in the bucket. That's one Saturn V (adjusted for inflation).
You're talking about Cash For Clunkers. The tax breaks were the same no matter what you bought. If you bought a hybrid you did much better.
Yes, our system of government sucks. It was designed from the get go to take care of wealthy land owners.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What do you mean about a model that can be back-tested? Is this a requirement?
Only 90% is a hoax. At this point the evidence for man-made climate change is unshakable. Science operates on the frontier of knowledge, and the frontier today is in predictions of severity, how far away are points of no return, future impacts of ocean acidification, ocean currents, and such. We've moved well beyond the initial questions: Is climate change happening? Yes. Is it caused by us? Yes. Will natural systems adapt to the change and self-regulate? No, at least not on the timescales we require. These were unsettled questions in the 1980's but were worrying enough that Regan and Bush initiated climate change negotiations with China. But science has since moved on.
There is still a manufactured debate going on about these basic facts of global warming, but it's entirely political. There are even a few (former) scientists making false statements, but they are all paid to do so by agencies with vested interests in manipulating public opinion. This has nothing to do with science.
It is accepted by 100% of scientists.
Only idiots don't accept it. Scientists usually are not idiots.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A solar flare could change the climate by causing decay if CH4 in the upoer atmosphere, cloud building etc. ...
But it would not have a long time effect. And: it would need to be a monster of a solar flare.
Your parent is just an idiot
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The plans are not back on, they are only finishing sites that had progressed before the accident.
Do you really believe that? Weird...
You can find a list of nuclear power reactors which started construction in China after Fukushima here, about halfway down the page.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
The [Construction Start] listings in bold are real construction projects, concrete and metal and not just press releases and Powerpoint presentations. They have completion dates ranging from this year through 2021. I count a total of 15 reactors currently under construction which started after March 2011, the date of the Great Tohoku earthquake and the resulting explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. In addition there are six reactors which started construction before March 2011 which have still to be completed but they have not been abandoned. They did suffer from construction delays during the moratorium though.
There's a bunch more reactors in the late planning stage where approval has been given, sites selected, contracts signed and financing arranged but they're not quite at the pouring concrete and bending metal stage so they're not counted. I expect most of those projects will actually go ahead in the future. Past that point there are even more reactor projects still in the early planning stages but it's very likely those plans will change significantly.
Oh you sad sad person.
You actually think you can avoid paying a foreign carbon tax by posturing.
You have no idea how the world works, do you?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
For one time, economy could save us, since solar is getting cheaper than coal.
Interestingly enough, the cabinet cleared a proposal for 10 new nuclear plants just yesterday.
Uhm, you are seriously telling me _anyone_ put any hopes into that buffoon, and especially climate experts? That is way ridiculous.
It's about time we focused on emissions from "developing countries."
I consider the USA a "developing country". They have far higher emissions per capita than those they accuse of polluting while at the same time have far less developed policies to combat and reduce future emissions.
Time to start developing USA.
China - Who burns more coal in open stoves than we can imagine, and has cities choked with horrible smog... And India, who can't provide even the most basic necessities for the majority of it's population - helping with Climate Change?
Please, please, please buy a plane ticket and go spend some time in these places and you'll realize how utterly bat-shit-crazy insane this thought is.
Murphy was an optimist
thats our fault for buying it.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The penalty for the 90% being wrong is polluters get taxed... money changes hands and life goes on. .... pick sides very carefully here.
The penalty for deniers being wrong is the planet stops being able to support life as we know it.
History may judge you quite harshly.