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.

60 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. Trump version of... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Leading from behind.

    1. Re:Trump version of... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When everyone else is jumping off a cliff, last is the best spot to be in.

      I suspect Trump will be jumping off the cliff once he runs out of staff members to throw off the cliff.

    2. Re:Trump version of... by mspohr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree. The world is indeed going off a cliff with climate change. Most people realize that we need to stop burning fossil fuels and that the economy will be stronger based on renewable solar and wind energy. It's a shame that the US is led by an ignorant, racist moron whose only interest is his personal wealth and ego. This means we are first off the cliff. Congratulations to India and China (and many other countries) who are trying to keep from jumping off the cliff.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    3. Re:Trump version of... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yeah...I'll believe it when I SEE as far as China and India going full in to get rid of fossil fuels and start being the "clean" countries in the world.

      I suppose if we see them actually do anything meaningful, then we in the US can look in on it again.

      In the US, we've already made great strides in cleaner air...time to sit back and let the rest of the world and the worst polluters make some serious changes, and only then we start risking our economy on overregulation of energy industries that power our economy in so many ways.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re: Trump version of... by guruevi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that although solar and wind are decent peak generators, people have been eschewing clean base load generation for decades. Natural gas, nuclear and hydro power, even wind power has been under attack from all forms of "nature freaks" the only thing that doesn't piss anyone off today is solar and coal because we already have coal and they don't understand the environmental impact of silicon production.

      People that support Greenpeace and similar alt-environment organizations need to understand that people aren't willing or capable to go back to nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyles.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re: Trump version of... by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect that the "nature freaks" see all this not as a goal to be achieved, but a tool to push their agenda.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:Trump version of... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The impacts of climate change are going to be very severe on these two countries. Considering how far behind they're coming from, the fact that they aren't just sticking their heads in the sand and declaring "AGW is a lie!" says something, even if they have long ways to go.

      The fact of the matter is that oil isn't going to die the death everyone thought it would even ten years ago, when it was assumed peak oil would hit at some point and oil would leap to several hundreds or even thousands of dollars of barrel. It's dying a death of oversupply, and with the likelihood that electric and other energy sources will overtake it over the next few decades (certainly not 10 years, that's way overoptimistic), it's just going to fade away.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re: Trump version of... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's be followers, not leaders. USA, we are number 32! We are number 32!

      When it comes to risking our economy with overregulation, then yes, I say we follow and let someone else "lead" for awhile.

      I think it IS time to let the other countries of the world show for real that they are willing to take the economic risks to do this and not us.

      The US has already cleaned up its act FAR more than the leading polluters in the world have done, so why not hang back and bit and let's see if China really means what it says on this commitment.

      If China actually *does* cut their pollution down and take the drastic steps required to do this in any reasonable period of time, then the US should take another look at joining in.

      But no reason for us to be almost the only one that self imposes these regulations on ourselves and putting our economy at risk vs the other countries in the world that only pay lip service to these agreements.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re: Trump version of... by mspohr · · Score: 2

      Several solid studies have shown that the world's energy need can be met by renewables

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    9. Re:Trump version of... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except a treaty that puts you in a disadvantage while it lets China and India pollute away is a STUPID treaty.

      Unless your goal is to pretend to do something for the environment while your real goal is income redistribution from the evil industrialized countries to the virtuous developing countries.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    10. Re:Trump version of... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Saying hopes for Trump on climate issues "fade" is implying they were ever there to begin with. Was anyone ever that uninformed to think that Trump was going to be some environmental crusader?

      If you want Trump to do anything about climate change, get behind nuclear to replace coal for base load power generation, which I'd imagine he'd support. A large number of environmentalists have, for many decades now, been hurting their own cause by blocking nuclear at every opportunity, allowing perfect to be the enemy of good.

      Of course, it won't happen, as some environmentalist would apparently rather see the apocalypse occur than build more nuke plants. Many of those people have even been going after *hydro* in recent years, which is about as clean as large-scale power generation is going to get. It weakens environmental arguments when practical solutions seem to be rejected out of hand.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    11. Re: Trump version of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems money is your primary motivating factor. That doesn't speak well of your intelligence. Your desires to deregulate would negatively impact large numbers of people, would increase sickness and death, and would increase pollution.

      Go fuck yourself.

    12. Re: Trump version of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed, a DOE analysis found that the midwest US has enough wind to produce 10x the electricity the whole country uses.

      For a tech site, Slashdot seems to have a lot of people who think that the way things are today is the way they will always be, when that has never been the case.

    13. Re: Trump version of... by guruevi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Batteries are far from clean as well, the cheapest ones we have are full of lead and the best ones we have are full of lithium and all have a lifespan of 3-5 years.

      Natural gas is great as auxiliary power and burns pretty close to optimal.

      Nuclear can be clean if we wouldn't worry so much about the rogue employee running of with a nearly useless yet personally lethal portion of weapons grade uranium. We're throwing away significant amounts of fuel because of some Cold War fears and wasting more on litigation than it would cost in the first place.

      Any amount of energy we generate is going to have some impact. Everybody knows coal and oil is not the way to go but the point is that everyone equally opposes any alternative.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    14. Re:Trump version of... by budgenator · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except destroying the habitat we live in and need for survival is jumping off a cliff, and everyone else is smart enough to see it and take appropriate measures.

      I don't get who this We everybody keeps talking about is. It certainly can't be the United States, our GHG emissions are trending down, our transportation fleet has had significant emissions controls for the last 50 years and our country has more trees than it did in the 1850's. Our world is getting greener, not just the US and it's due primarily to CO2 fertilization.

      We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models show that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend Zhu, Z., et al., 2016. Greening of the Earth and its drivers

      Most of the habitat destruction is done by poor brown people trying to law their way out of energy poverty; environmentalism is a middle-class luxury.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    15. Re: Trump version of... by jimbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is sad to hear this sort of conversation. Climate change is not about "us vs. them" or whose turn it is, it's about climate change, a global issue and how the impacts are already devastating today in many parts of the world and will be more so for our children.

      What if China didn't do anything (they are waking up to it, fortunately)? Should we just let everything go to hell then?

      Everybody needs work hard on this issue, right now. We don't have time for petty bickering. Stragglers will have to be influenced to catch up.

      And no, US is not "almost the only one" self-imposing regulations. Furthermore, in the long run climate change would be far far more costly than preventative measures.

    16. Re: Trump version of... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is sad to hear this sort of conversation. Climate change is not about "us vs. them" or whose turn it is, it's about climate change, a global issue

      Well, it isn't JUST climate change, there are economic factors.

      I'm not willing for my life and lifestyle to go to hell tomorrow in order to "maybe" make a change in decades to a century from now. There has to be reasonable compromise, we just can turn the lights off all and once. And the US can't do it while the rest of the world (and our competitors) do not.

      I mean, to use an extreme example, the US could turn off all electricity generation, transportation, etc..that is fossil fuel based tomorrow.

      We'd suffer a LOT...and yet, if the rest of the world, especially China and the like kept at normal levels, the change to the global climate would not be major, nothing that much would slow down or change...certainly not in our lifetime.

      Till now those countries haven't done jack shit on this climate thing. The US, we have...we've burdened our businesses with regulations that hamper their ability to compete with China and other places for manufacturing.

      Until those countries not only pledge, but VERIFIABLY do the same things, then yes, we as the US should hold up and wait for them to catch up.

      You said it yourself, it takes everyone doing this...and till now, the US has taken its share but most of the world has not. Time to quit putting ourselves at a self induced disadvantage till the others come on board and PROVE they are doing it.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    17. Re: Trump version of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do us all a favour and go bathe downstream of one of your Utopian unregulated chemical plants.

    18. Re: Trump version of... by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Cancelling 100/2100 new plants is not a reduction. It's just less growth.

    19. Re: Trump version of... by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      It seems money is your primary motivating factor

      Of course it is. Money is the primary way in which people in civilizations exchange value.

    20. Re: Trump version of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The US has already cleaned up its act FAR more than the leading polluters in the world have done, so why not hang back and bit and let's see if China really means what it says on this commitment.

      The US is 2nd overall in CO2 output (7th per capita). If you've done a lot to clean up your act, it's because your act was pretty fucking bad to begin with. Wielding that as an excuse is akin to banks paying a few million in fines after bilking billions out the populace.

    21. Re: Trump version of... by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      Come on comrade, where the hell are you getting your info from? Greenpeace hates coal

      Greenpeace hates coal, but they also hate nuclear. They also detest the creation of man-made lakes to power hydro. They don't like anything that's reliable, and they love the idea of returning to a more simple, in-tune-with-nature time, IE, not using energy in the first place.

    22. Re: Trump version of... by nojayuk · · Score: 2

      Nuclear was going to be big in China, but after Fukushima they cancelled anything not already started as the risk and cost became clearer.

      Actually what happened was China had a moratorium on new nuclear plant projects for a couple of years after Fukushima to study what had happened, and then they restarted commissioning new reactor projects after that. Since it takes about five or six years for them to complete a 1GW reactor from scratch they're only bringing five reactors online this year, six years after the 2011 earthquake off the coast of Japan caused a dip in the number of starts. They're beginning construction on eight new reactors this year though and they expect to keep that tempo up for the next decade and more.

      Their planned nuclear buildout of about 300GW capacity by 2050 is still a drop in the bucket though and going forward they expect to be still deriving about 50% of their increased electricity demand from coal, albeit by burning it in less polluting and more efficient new plants.

    23. Re: Trump version of... by unimacs · · Score: 2

      In what meaningful ways has the clean air act of 1970 or 1990 (for example) reduced our standard of living? Consider that estimates have them saving hundreds of thousands of lives: http://thenationshealth.aphapu...

      What would not having those regulations mean for health care costs? I'm sorry, a polluted environment does have a negative effect on ones standard of living.

      Back in the 60's there were rivers so polluted that they'd literally catch on fire. People in Beijing walk around wearing air masks. That's what it would be like in many of our cities without the regulations. That does not sound like a great standard of living to me.

    24. Re: Trump version of... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Watermelons...green on the outside, red to the core.

      You hear them jump right into 'destroy capitalism', whatever they might be bitching about today. Best ignored and marginalized until they grow up.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    25. Re: Trump version of... by dywolf · · Score: 2

      again with the bullshit thesis that we risk the economy.
      news flash: we've had environmental regs since 1899.
      the economy has done fine in relation to them.

      go peddle your bullshit somewhere else shill.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  2. One word: sadness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:One word: sadness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The bit about India actually starts a little earlier: https://youtu.be/bW_eGAwnfeI?t...

    2. Re:One word: sadness by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Given that the combined population of China and India is over 35% of the world's population it makes perfect sense to look to them for long term solutions. Making changes in those countries will have the greatest impact overall.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:One word: sadness by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China is doing pretty well compared to how the west did during its industrial revolution. Hindsight helps.

      Renewables are big business and the future of energy, and as the US turns away from them China sees an opportunity. Fortunately some parts of Europe are pushing ahead too, and of course Japan.

      --
      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:One word: sadness by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Don't look at it as population numbers alone, but as energy used and pollution produced per person. The U.S.A. is a problem.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:One word: sadness by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't look at it as population numbers alone, but as energy used and pollution produced per person. The U.S.A. is a problem.

      But given the fact that China and India are still developing, when taken into account with the population they have China and India are the best places to start. It's much easier to focus on clean energy and pollution reduction while industries and economies are growing. Once the economy is established then there is considerable incentive for key players within the economy to maintain the status quo. For the ROI, both in terms of political capital/effort and straight up monetary terms, you will get more results from reforms in China and India than you will in the US. Especially given the current corporatist influence in American politics.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:One word: sadness by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't look at it as population numbers alone, but as energy used and pollution produced per person. The U.S.A. is a problem.

      I agree that the US is an energy pig, but there are two counter points:

      1. The US is only 5% of the worlds population, so people in China and India only have to use 1/7 per capita energy of the US and already you are equally the total energy usage of the US.

      2. At some point the populations of China and India will start demanding a lifestyle equivalent to that enjoyed by people in the US. When that happens you start to get in deep shit.

      I have been saying for literally decades that the US has 5% of the worlds population but consumes 20% of the worlds energy and that when the other 95% of the world start demanding their 20% of energy, the the shit will really hit the fan.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:One word: sadness by rhazz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Making changes in those countries will have the greatest impact overall.

      CO2 emissions per capita (2015):
      US: 16.1t
      China: 7.7t
      India: 1.9t

      The US has 4% of the population but produces 14% of the CO2. Seems to me that the US could make a pretty big impact if they stopped trying to find excuses not to.

    8. Re:One word: sadness by Magius_AR · · Score: 2

      Don't look at it as population numbers alone, but as energy used and pollution produced per person. The U.S.A. is a problem.

      I agree that the US is an energy pig, but there are two counter points:

      There's a hell of alot more counter points than that. Only 7% of our energy usage is residential: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

      So per capita isn't even a great measure. We have a huge GDP with alot of industry, which equates to a great deal of energy usage. If you take GDP into account, the US ranks somewhere around Canada in terms of efficiency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions). Both India and China have tremendously poor efficiency ratings at the bottom of the list.

      So the US isn't a beacon of efficiency being mid-pack, but not nearly as bad as the usual "5% of the population causing 15% of emissions". It's more like 25% of the world's total industry is causing 15% of emissions: https://www.google.com/search?...

      Considering the fact the vast majority of the world's industry is in the US, EU, and China, it is no surprise they're the top 3 carbon emitters: https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6...

  3. It makes a lot of sense for China/India to lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  4. What a shit post... by zoid.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Foxes. Henhouses. You know the rest. by Hartree · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:Foxes. Henhouses. You know the rest. by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      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.

      On the other hand, because they've screwed up so badly, and because poor air quality affects everyone, including the highest members of the government, they're actually doing something about it. China is the biggest investor in renewable power and has a dozen nuclear power plants under construction. They're not in a good place right now, but at least they're moving in the right direction. The same cannot be said of the US.

    2. Re:Foxes. Henhouses. You know the rest. by Hartree · · Score: 2

      We already did clean up our act on many things. I remember the air in Gary Indiana in the early 70s. It was orange. And there was the lovely LA smog in 1974 or so when I visited there. I also remember the larger amount of litter on our highways in the 60s/early 70s.

      The problems were highly visible and you could smell them. We dealt with those to a large extent. Now, it's CO2, methane, etc. Invisible, don't smell, don't undergo photochemical reactions to make a haze. It's a much less visible problem. Are you terribly surprised it's harder to get people moving on it?

    3. Re:Foxes. Henhouses. You know the rest. by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      You know, I remember the 60s and early 70s in the US, before the Clean Air Act was amended to empower the federal government to regulate emissions.

      If you are under 50, you would not believe how bad things got. Look at pictures of Los Angeles, New York, or Chicago. Hell, even Salt Lake City was barely recognizable. It wasn't just big cities, either; small cities like Birmingham looked like this.

      When you look at an old movie or TV show from the late 60s early 70s and everything in the distance looks hazy, that's not the film. That's what cities actually looked like on a good day.

      I bring this up because the decision to to do something about air pollution was a sign of how healthy our democracy used to be. There was a problem that was costly and complex to tackle, but we did it. And as today there were people who profited by the status quo, that allowed them to externalize their waste management costs. The difference is that their hold on politicians was a lot less, and there was more independent media. Had we not done something about air pollution in 1970, we'd be where Beijing is now, and we'd be just as powerless to do anything about it today.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Re:The models fail: Holocene Temperature Conundrum by sdinfoserv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:It's about time by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  8. Re:man made climate change is a hoax by SirSlud · · Score: 2

    Oh boy, scientists totally forgot about the sun! You've cracked the case!

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  9. This bothers me by jediborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:This bothers me by xession · · Score: 2

      It's not necessarily about electing the "right" president. It's about Trump paying favors to lobbyists who have a strong interest in creating larger barriers to people obtaining renewable energy and other "green" technologies.

      These assholes absolutely know fossil fuels have a guaranteed end of life where prices are going to inflate massively at some point when they start to become much more scarce. This results in massive profits to these people and their shareholders as they hold the fossil fuel dependent countries hostage.

      Make no mistake, the "free market" hasn't existed for much more than a century and never will again. Its all about the big companies stamping out innovation that threatens their bottom line. Unless their business is specifically to "help the world", their bottom line will never be parallel to what is best for society.

    2. Re:This bothers me by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

      I live in the US and have a car with ridiculously good gas mileage, where I drive 60 miles every day. When I lived in another country, NOBODY did that (and personally, I walked about 10 minutes to work). In the US, that sort of commute is very common. Having a car that is 25% more efficient in a country with long-ass commutes and an addiction to freeways is a false economy.

      Solar power is cool for the future. So far, it isn't a significant factor. Not running your AC is more environmentally friendly than having energy efficient electricity, and yes maybe the US shouldn't be building so many homes in the desert in the first place.

      Organic local produce is bad for the environment. Transportation is so cheap and efficient, the amount of fuel to ship food on a ship or train is trivial. Environmentally, it makes more sense to grow in places which can grow efficiently and then ship the food, than to grow tomatoes in Minnesota.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  10. Re:Wait 6 months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, keep holding your breath, skippy. We've seen this kind of banter about every administration for my lifetime and it never really goes anywhere. The difference is that your soapbox is a little bigger but that doesn't make what you say any truer.

  11. Both [Re:It's about time] by XXongo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Both [Re:It's about time] by budgenator · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      The US also feeds more of the world per capita, Protects more of the World's people from aggression per capita and provides more of the World's people with heavily subsidized medicine per capita, than any other country in the world.
      If some other country wants to take a turn being the lightning rod for the World's anger, then have at it.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:Both [Re:It's about time] by XXongo · · Score: 2

      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.

      The US also feeds more of the world per capita, Protects more of the World's people from aggression per capita and provides more of the World's people with heavily subsidized medicine per capita, than any other country in the world. If some other country wants to take a turn being the lightning rod for the World's anger, then have at it.

      I'm not sure why you think that's relevant to the current discussion.

      I'm also not sure how it is we decided that we and we alone were supposed to be in charge of running the world. I, for one, would be fine if another nation would take a turn at being the lightning rod for the world's anger.

    3. Re:Both [Re:It's about time] by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Uh?
      Idiot tatooed on your forehead?

      The little island in front of Florida, called Cuba, provides more medical aid to the world than all G8 nations together.

      That is per capita probably a factor of 5000 more than the USA does. To lazy to look up the numbers, could easily be a factor of 10,000.

      I guess the world will be peacefull and happy again when Gods own country of idiots is falling back into insignificance.

      Regarding 'developing aid' _per capita_ I doubt the USA makes it into the top 20, and if so it is only because they call 'military aid' developing aid.

      Per capita UK, German and Japan are leading ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  12. Re:The models fail: Holocene Temperature Conundrum by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  13. Pin Hopes on Yourselves by rey2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. Trump Bashing by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

    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!
    1. Re:Trump Bashing by nojayuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why SHOULD the US shoulder the responsibility, when we aren't even the worst polluter?

      America burns about 3 tonnes of coal per capita each year (900 million tonnes last year for 320 million people). China burns a little over two tonnes of coal per capita each year (2.9 billion tonnes last year for 1.4 billion people). India burns about the same amount of coal as America does to supply 1.3 billion people, about half a tonne per capita.

      America IS the worst polluter of the three, and that doesn't even begin to take the oil and gas the US also burns into consideration. Americans use over twice as much energy per capita as the rest of the world and much of that energy is derived from fossil fuel.

  15. Re: Wait 6 months by guruevi · · Score: 2

    Are you still waiting on Obamas birth certificate or his mother to be fired from the White House payrolls or were you not alive for the last presidential inauguration?

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  16. What you're advocating is a race to the bottom by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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/
  17. No, we didn't by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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/
  18. China and non-fossil nuclear power by nojayuk · · Score: 2

    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.