Slashdot Mirror
Trump Is Pulling US Out of Paris Climate Deal: Sources (axios.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They're deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal -- which could take 3 years -- or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme. Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could do to unravel Obama's climate legacy. It sends a combative signal to the rest of the world that America doesn't prioritize climate change and threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal. News agency Reuters has corroborated the report with its own source. Further reading on Politico (which has also corroborated the news) and BBC. Update: Trump Announces US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord.
I always recommend pulling out of Paris.
Trump might get that trade war after all as Europe and other like-minded trading blocs impose import tariffs.
But wherever the Republicans go, Australia's Liberals follow so it's no comfort living here.
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Now, finally and at last - we can begin to set our standards as high as Syria and Nicaragua!
I can't wait for the good 'ol USA to start living the good life like those guys. Makes you proud.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Have you seen some of the research on this? The long-term impacts may be catastrophic, and it's already fairly clear to anyone who cares to pay attention that climate change is already started! I find it really hard to believe anyone thought a treaty to cause climate change was a good idea in the first place.
Imagine all countries imposing pollution tariffs on everything made in the USA.
#DeleteFacebook
Trump has really highlighted how much power/influence we choose to give to a single person. It amazes me that a president can unilaterally enter into or exit from agreements of this magnitude. If he has any positive legacy, I hope it's a legacy where we decided to further limit the power of the presidency.
If we were to write a book for children of good vs. evil, it would be hard to cast Trump as the "good guy". Even if he were cast as the "bad guy", he makes decisions that seem so clearly wrong that it would be rejected as too cliche.
Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than coal. 60 deaths per TWh for coal power worldwide avg, vs 0.04 deaths per TWh for nuclear, so a factor of 1500 better.
I'm sure the Chinese are thrilled to be leading the rest of the world as the US withdraws into isolation.
The left have been calling for his impeachment or assassination since before his inauguration. Their reasoning appears to be, "I don't agree with him so he should be impeached or assassinated". Modern leftists genuinely can't handle the fact that different people have different views, and when somebody voices an alternative view they fly into fits of rage and call for violence.
Few people still think he'll finish four years
Yes, few people in your echo chamber. If you dare to venture outside your safe space you'll find that other people think he's doing a great job.
Just to show how serious this is, they should kick him/us out of the G7.
I believe the science behind AGW, but I do not think these global attempts to restrict carbon emissions are realistic.
With that said, giving up participation in these treaties is a poor choice. I don't mind the US giving up some of our leadership role in the world, but this was low-hanging fruit. It also had the secondary effect of lowering our dependence on foreign oil, which has broader strategic benefits.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
your ignorance is frightening
China has double the US Emissions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
India's emissions are gaining.
The Paris deal lets countries set their own goals ('Nationally Determined Contributions') and isn't legally binding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So really the Paris Agreement is a plan made up by idealogues who want to 'save the planet'. Those ideologues want to set strict goals in the US (and the EU), affecting Western economies, while countries like India, China, and Russia set goals that do little to curb their emissions (and, of course, don't hurt their own economy)
In short, it's political theater that hurts the west.
I don't think it's fair to call Trump a liberal. Sure, he's not a conservative, and he's a big fan of Soviet-style planned economics, but that doesn't mean he's a liberal. Sometimes a drama queen is labeled simply because they're nuts. Are you sure that's not what's going on here?
Pulling out of the climate agreement unfortunately makes me think of this cartoon: https://climatesanity.files.wo...
A president resigning or being impeached and removed from office would not be a constitutional crisis. A constitutional crisis would be when something happens that a solution isn't provided for.
They have Nuclear reactors that can be designed where it is impossible for them to meltdown.
Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than coal....
Tell me that during the next meltdown.
Similar to "traveling by aircraft is safer than traveling by car". Airplane crash immediately affects more people and is more newsworthy and thus gains the spotlight. Sure, coal and cars have been around much longer to cause more deaths, but they've also been around longer to generate more safe energy/miles so that should balance out.
Disclaimer: I don't recall my source when I read of the statistics several years ago, so if there's new data that disproves this, let me know!
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed
In the report, there is this gem:
The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Looks like wealth redistribution to me.
I have lived next to a nuke plant for 30 years (indian point) and yeah. ill take this over coal any day
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Because Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi never happened, right? Marcoule in France, or the recent blast in Flamaville station?
And that's just a few of the accidents out of a long list of accidents on nuclear facilities, don't get me started on leaks incidents in waste storage facilities...
Because coal/oil/gas plants never explode and any associated spillage is fine right? How many millions of barrels of oil are dumped in the sea through carelessness or accident again? How much extra co2 is in the air trapping extra heat in the atmosphere? Nope, totally no polluting at all and let's all run away from big bad nuclear, ohhh its so scary I'll run and hide in my filth where it's safer.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Why would I go to right wing echo champers like Brietbart and gab and reddit, where they routinely ignore evidence?
Lets look at your post for example, it shows you know nothing of how the country works.
1) Obama was never Senate majority leader, not was he ever DNC chair, so your statement "but the then-leader of the Democratic party (senator Obama) chose not to prosecute because "it would divide the nation"." makes absolutely ZERO sense
2) In order for the senate to actual prosecute the house must FIRST vote on articles of impeachment.
Facts, not your friend
But lets look at your numbers. Republicans are always the "party over country" party, this is known, they would rather double down then admit mistakes, for example, it peaks at 87%, far short of the 96% that would vote for him again, that shows that even among the group who voted for him many are not happy with him.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
The question is; What are you going to do about it? Sitting online and complaining is going to do exactly squat.
The way I see it, there are two different groups in this nation. The first group sees that there is a major problem, although most don't realize the full extent of the problem. They want to see significant changes, but lack the tools to properly address the situation. Many members of this group lack the willingness to use the needed tools, even if they were provided. The second group has the needed tools and has demonstrated the willingness to use them. However, they don't think that there is a problem, or that change is needed right now.
I don't know what's going to happen over the next year or so, but somehow I think we'll look back on this as "before everything went completely to hell."
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
This is hardly a surprise. Everyone in the business sector was banking on this. Trump basically is doing anything pro-buisness and pro-Russia at the expense of literally everything/everyone else. Any claims he has that security is a primary concern of his is complete whitewash. Germany called him out on lack of environmental concerns and he basically Twittered "the Germans should mind their own business..or else". Thing of it is, it's EVERYBODY'S business. The German Chancellor has said EU has said they cannot rely on the USA to play a leadership role and the EU will have to step up. Trump is alienating all our allies, and getting cozy with historically hostile foreign powers. This should be concerning to all of us.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Everything you mention is driven by Anonymous Sources. Like ACs on Slashdot, you can't trust them, you don't know if they are real or not, and they are usually wrong.
The White House is leaking like a sieve, yet no evidence of any criminal activities or even generic "wrong doing" has emerged. I would think that if people wanted him out so desperately and they had the goods they would have provided the evidence by now.
Hell, they can't even articulate what crimes may have been committed. All they can do is throw out vague, over the top accusations.
Evidence...where is it?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Chernobyl and Fukushima were old reactor designs. Chernobyl lacked the protective housing US designs required and Fukushima didn't follow US generator policy changes that were made in the 1970s for that type of reactor that said they needed to be protected from flooding if in a flood plain. Because the power grid was down and they had flooded generators, they weren't able to shut down the power plant. That was a known design problem with this very old reactor.
Marcoule and Flamaville were accidents that happened at nuclear reactors but neither were nuclear accidents. One was a furnace used to melt metals that contained an extremely low amount of hazardous radiation that exploded and the other was a turbine explosion. Ever seen a wind or gas turbine explode? It isn't all that uncommon.
Waste for the most part is unnecessary. Most if not all Gen IV reactors can breed what we call waste into fuel and passive safety is a requirement. What remains after these new reactors burn the fuel and waste will have radiation levels lower than background radiation in about 200-300 years, not thousands. Just and FYI if you haven't kept up.
The ONLY 'Constitutional Crisis' has been over the travel restrictions. That is only a crisis because of activist judges. Judges who in even recent times would have been hound (rightly so) from the bench for even suggesting that the President's personal prejudices should have any bearing whatsoever on the plain meaning of the law.
Literally its the left and their sympathizers that are seeking to undermine the very concept of codified law simply because they disagree with the agenda. Once every law is flat and subject to the whim of the mob, there will be nothing and nobody left to protect any of the few freedoms us CITIZENS let alone anyone else still enjoy.
At not time in modern history has there been such a vicious effort to undermine and remove a lawfully elected sitting president. The people behind it are human garbage who hate America and hate real freedom, even if you don't like Trump and don't support his policy. The mob that is going along with it are useful idiots.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
What's to tear up?
Obama had no authority to commit the US to anything. All he did by signing that was to indicate that HE would use his executive power to guide policies and regulations i support of the agreement. Once Obama Left, the agreement was dead. Trump can simply reverse the policies and procedures put into place and ignore the rest of the agreement.
Nothing in that "agreement" has the force of law. Only treaties that have been ratified by the Senate can have any legal effect.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The really unfortunate thing is that even if he was out tomorrow, the damage has already been done. The next in line is an asshat too. Chances are the EPA won't be restored to even what it was before he took over, let alone given the additional powers it needs.
I can't see any good way the US can get through the next four years, it's going to be bad no matter what happens.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The big problem about supplying electricity is the payback schedules for construction usually are of the order of 25-30 years. Anything that changes your assumptions can kill your ROI. Slowing down construction of other sources and lengthening out changes via litigation actually makes sense from that point of view. And infrastructure maintenance being payed for via KWH as an easy abstraction instead but does not cover costs if things like solar are used individually. Changing this to a connection cost would cause costs to vary wildly as well.
That said, maintenance is very seldom actually done, and renewables change the demand on the infrastructure drastically, and improving that is very costly.
Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
What ever else you want to say about the Paris Agreement, it's temperature goals are laughable. Look at NOAA's temperature trends since 1880. Temperatures have increased by 1.0 C since 1880, already. The Paris agreement suggests setting goals to keep temperatures below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. From the climate modelling the IPCC has collected, even a complete and absolute global ban on all CO2 emissions tomorrow would NOT reach the 1.5C goal. The existing emissions already out there will ride us over 1.5C before 2100.
They may well believe it, but it's not one of the top 3 issues for them: those remain the economy, healthcare and terrorism. Climate change comes somewhere after that, even if they believe it. And support for the Paris agreement is just not there outside the Democrat Party, which explains why the entire Senate refused to endorse the Paris agreement - both Republicans and Democrats!
Because Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi never happened, right? Marcoule in France, or the recent blast in Flamaville station?
And that's just a few of the accidents out of a long list of accidents on nuclear facilities, don't get me started on leaks incidents in waste storage facilities...
Of course they did. That's why the number is 0.04 instead of zero. That number also includes deaths due to mining uranium by the way.
Well he fired the guy investigating him...that's usually a bad sign, but most damningly he pulled out of the Paris climate deal to help some corporations profit at the expense of destroying the world
Because plutonium is safer than carbon?
If Trump wanted to replace coal with nuclear, he could've stuck with the agreement. The nuclear industry was massively in favor of it.
Obstruction of justice is a crime that has been committed.
Trump publically admitted to that one when he said he fired Comey over the russian investigation. Regardless of if there was any collusion or not Trump knew his administration was under investigation by Comey and fired him. That is obstruction of justice. He even double down on it when he revealed to the russians that he had made his life easier by firing Comey to end the investigation.
Trump has also definitely violated the Emoluments clause and could be impeached for that.
I don't know if his campaign colluded with Russia during the election and that is still being investigated.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
This proposed tax (like all other taxes) is an economic leakage.
Only if the government takes it tax revenue and buries it in the ground. In real governments, tax revenues are rapidly returned to the economy through the purchase of goods and services, such as roads and park cleaning.
In the case of carbon tax revenues, one can imagine spending them on housing subsidies for people who live in factory/plant exhaust plumes, essentially causing the polluter to compensate the people being most directly affected. Or to subsidize particular kinds of medical care. Even the costs of administering such a program turn out to be jobs and salaries.
Only because of NIMBY and Enviro-wacko's trying everything possible to stop or slow every step of the process. They could get built a lot faster and cheaper without all the resistance.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Two concepts: externalized costs, and liquidity of assets. If your assets are sufficiently liquid, you can externalize your costs and then move your assets out of the way of the consequences. This represents a wealth distribution to people who not only avoid paying for the things they use (e.g. using the atmosphere as a dump), but can actually move their investments into things people have to buy because of pollution. In other words, if you're one of the billionaire investors bankrolling the climate denialist PR campaign, you're going to make money coming and going.
The other people who go along with it are just suckers. I've had some of them tell me scientists are getting rich off some kind of climate conspiracy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The ONLY 'Constitutional Crisis' has been over the travel restrictions. That is only a crisis because of activist judges. Judges who in even recent times would have been hound (rightly so) from the bench for even suggesting that the President's personal prejudices should have any bearing whatsoever on the plain meaning of the law.
You misspelled "executive order". Executive orders are not laws, and they (quite rightly) get a very different level of scrutiny from the courts. Because they're the dictates of a single individual, that individual's motivations in issuing them definitely are relevant to questions of their constitutionality. There are countless examples of this in the judicial record, especially with respect to orders issued by law enforcement officials and state governors. The intent of the order has a great deal of bearing on its constitutionality.
This principle hasn't (AFAIK) been applied to presidential executive orders until now, but that's only because past presidents (with the possible exception of Andrew Jackson) haven't been batshit crazy. Note that I'm not saying executive orders haven't been struck down, several have, just that the analysis of intent hasn't been explicitly considered. SCOTUS came close by lightly analyzing intent when they struck down Obama's recess appointments, and it can be argued that intent was a factor in their decision (though I don't think it was really necessary to consider intent in that case; it was a pretty clear subversion of the constitutional process).
BTW, before you go calling me a "liberal", I should point out that I voted for the Republican candidate for president in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. In 2016 I voted for a conservative independent in order to avoid voting for Trump.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Some of the worst arguments I see on here are that China causes more carbon emissions. Sure imagine you're stranded on a boat with 10 other people and wearing a red shirt while everyone has a blue shirt. You're eating 5 times the amount of rations but arguing that you shouldn't cut back because "blue" is already eating more. This is why emissions per capita matters. Carbon emissions are directly related to food production and general economic wealth of a nation. As a resident of a well off nation, it stands to hurt us the least to cut back a little. The only way China can cut back is to effectively downgrade their economics so badly that it will probably start killing people.
So yeah, wealth redistribution it is, but folks forget that we're already doing that. There are far far more poorer folks out there worldwide and when nature inevitably bites back due to climate change it will hit the poor much harder but we share the same planet. Expect more environmental refugees and don't be surprised if folks start fighting more. After all if you're staving to death because you don't have water or food or a way of living, blowing up your neighbour who seems to have everything, deserved or not seems like a good option.
It's why we should pro-actively try to fix this even if it seems hopeless, letting it go to the latter doesn't sound like fun at all.
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars (as a tax on fossil fuel use) out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Let me read between the lines for you, using this neat trick some of us have called inference.
Taxing fossil fuel use increases price and reduces demand for fossil fuel. Because people still require the services (transport, heating, powering industry etc) that fossil fuel currently is employed for, demand is increased for alternative GHG-emissions-free means of performing those services in the economy. So the economy is on a path to de-carbonization: de-coupling of GHG emissions from the functioning of the economy. This allows CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere to stabilize and be gradually reduced. This stabilization and reduction, through physics involving the absorption spectra of various atmospheric molecules times the concentration of these molecules at different heights in the atmosphere with atmospheric temperature gradient factors thrown in, causes the net heat energy gain of the planet to slow, preventing or delaying global warming of the atmosphere and oceans, and preventing extreme changes in clmate.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
[...] yet no evidence of any criminal activities or even generic "wrong doing" has emerged. [...] they would have provided the evidence by now. [...] Evidence...where is it?
Trump himself provided the evidence. He affirmed he fired Comey so the "russier" investigation would end quickly. That's obstruction of justice.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
We've had designs for colonies on the Moon and Mars for decades. How's that working out? There's better technology available certainly, however, what we actually have are 50 year old BWRs and little motivation to throw down the billions of dollars on one of the most expensive forms of power available.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
You could also describe a tax as a fix for an externality. There are costs associated with dumping a bunch of CO2 that aren't reflected in the cost of the goods and services being produced. The tax can help add those costs back in.
When you buy a good that incurs pollution, you pass on the cost of that pollution to everyone else. If I choose to buy nuclear power and you choose coal power, I get the CO2 pollution regardless of my choice.
This is called an externality and classically "economists often urge governments to adopt policies that 'internalize' an externality, so that costs and benefits will affect mainly parties who choose to incur them. For example, manufacturing activities that cause air pollution impose health and clean-up costs on the whole society".
The whole point of the tax is to make it more expensive to buy something that costs society money. Is it somehow unjust to have a cigarette tax that pays for lung cancer treatments in public hospitals?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Of course. But the requirements for complying with (what is now considered) basic safety features are very expensive. But you probably think those should be skipped too even though radioactive contamination from nuclear accidents are a global problem?
Nuclear energy in itself is expensive.
You miss the point: nuclear energy doesn't have to be this expensive. In case you're unaware, here's what happens when a utility proposed to build, expand, change, modernize, or pretty much do anything with nuclear power: they get sued. Immediately. Repeatedly. Usually for trivial, irrelevant, illogical reasons. Some judge somewhere says the utility can't do anything until the suit is addressed. Months or years are spent fighting the suit at the cost of millions of dollars. Once the utility prevails -- and they almost always do due to the frequently-frivolous nature of the suits -- someone else sues them for something else. More delay. More wasted funds.
It doesn't stop once construction begins either. The tree-hugger groups do everything they can to obstruct, delay, and cause costs to increase. Once they've done that, they proudly scream about how expensive nuclear is compared to other sources of power!
These same fools also continually block the improvement of existing reactors using similar tactics. And, when they succeed in keeping nuclear technology stalled at late-1970's levels, they scream about how unsafe nuclear power is compared to modern alternatives!
A modern nuclear plant is extremely safe, efficient, has lower maintenance costs, and effectively-inexhaustible fuel. Waste disposal is similarly hobbled by the same tree-huggers listed above and yet there are safe, efficient options to use that waste to generate more power, all while vastly decreasing the amount and danger of waste that finally finds its way into disposal.
Nuclear power would be an incredible boon to all of humanity if allowed to progress and spread. Alas, those who know the least about the technology also happen to be its most vociferous opponents.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Have you averaged that out over 100,000 years?
Why should we when technology exists to make the waste vastly safer, smaller in volume, and extract power from it all at the same time?
How many deaths do you think will occur during that time from contaminated ground, air and water?
Suspiciously few given that said waste can be made far less dangerous than it currently is all while generating power and a profit. The hurdle is emotional, not technical or economical.
The problem with nuclear power advocates is the problem with most people. They can't picture even 100 years into the future, let alone 10,000 or 100,000 years. Peoples minds are just not designed to think that far ahead. This is the most important thing that nuclear advocates always miss. And they explain it away like "oh well we will figure out what to do with the waste eventually!".
Its the same kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
You seem to be one of the less-informed types of opposition so allow me to again state we have the means to use that waste to generate power over and over again until the amount of waste is vastly smaller and much less radioactive. Think for a moment about radioactivity. Why is the waste dangerous? Because it's radioactive, right? But radioactivity is, in essence, energy. Harness that energy and you both reduce the total radioactivity of the waste -- conservation of energy basics -- and convert that radioactivity into useful power. When you've extracted all the power (aka "radioactivity") from the waste you can feasibly extract, you're left with a much smaller volume of waste which also happens to be much less dangerous to dispose of.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Taxation, on the other hand, is the government coming and taking money from you, and you not getting anything in return.
Sure, if the money just stopped in the government's hands, but what about this trillion dollar deficit government leads you to believe they won't spend it? And what you get back is roads, schools, a military, all the things that make commerce efficient and safe! I can't tell if this is supposed to be an argument towards anarchy or total ignorance of the fact that the american government is a GIANT part of the economy. About the only thing they could do to "take the money out of the economy" would be to pay off our debt. But unless you are suggesting that we should never do that, I don't see an eventual way around that one.
Assuming that the money is 100% redistributed to people, they can do less with the money because economic activity has fallen. Nothing good comes out of this.
What? Are you experiencing some kind of fever dream where you type? Assuming that 4 trillion dollars were handed out to to populace at large, there would be the same effect as we see from income tax rebate time. Want to know how much that stimulates the economy, stop by a gamestop and ask any manager what kind of massive sales increase they see. Now multiply that by 10,000. Short term, if such a reckless plan were enacted, you would see massive inflation, but only due to supply, and that is precisely why the government would likely find a more responsible way of using the money. Like our crumbling roads that business drive their goods on, or huge investment in good paying green energy which will require massive hiring.
Honestly, you talk like nobody in the world even remotely asked anyone who knows anything about economics before proposing a carbon tax. We have these nifty guys called economists, and they have these fancy things called PHDs. In fact, other countries have them too! I am sure at least a few were consulted and didn't come up with the "this does nothing" claim that you seem to have arrived at.
But hey, Trump University might teach a different take on it.
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed
In the report, there is this gem:
The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Looks like wealth redistribution to me.
The first line of the news article:
A global carbon tax that would raise trillions of dollars if applied across the world should be introduced if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change
further in the article, quoting from the report.
“The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change,” they said.
From the preamble of the executive summary in the report, just to emphasize the absurdity of you citing a report that explicitly says it ignores climate impacts!!
This report does not focus on the estimation and evaluation of the climate change impacts that would be avoided by reducing carbon emissions.
And the second point of the executive summary where the report still talks briefly about the impacts you claim it didn't:
Carbon prices are intended to incentivize the changes needed in investment, production, and consumption patterns, and to induce the kind of technological progress that can bring down future abatement costs.
They sure don't make denialists like they used to, you can't even cherry pick evidence right!!
I stole this Sig
We had two pebble bed reactor here in Germany. Both didn't work - the pebbles cracked and broke - and one of them is now the most contaminated site in Germany. The operator failed to clean up and now the government has to do that. The second one was probably the most expensive German reactor ever built and it operated only for four years with the best availability of 40% - a total failure. The reactor wasn't closed by the government, it was closed by the operator because operating cost was so high that it almost killed the operator. The original manufacturer of the reactor was more intelligent and left the project even before the reactor was completely built.
Basically there are either old and unsafe designs that can be operated at high, but bearable cost, newer and not that much better designs that are prohibitively expensive to manufacture and operate and new awesome reactors that only exist on paper, without knowing that the design would actually work in real life, or, at best, they are research reactors that probably won't scale and would have to be operated by actual scientists to be safe.
Might just as well wait for fusion.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap