Slashdot Mirror
The US Is the Biggest Carbon Polluter in History (nytimes.com)
Justin Gillis, and Nadja Popovich, writing for The New York Times: The United States, with its love of big cars, big houses and blasting air-conditioners, has contributed more than any other country to the atmospheric carbon dioxide that is scorching the planet. "In cumulative terms, we certainly own this problem more than anybody else does," said David G. Victor, a longtime scholar of climate politics at the University of California, San Diego. Many argue that this obligates the United States to take ambitious action to slow global warming. Against that backdrop, factions in the Trump administration are engaged in a heated debate over whether to remain a party to the 195-nation agreement on climate change reached in Paris in 2015. President Trump promised on Wednesday to announce his decision at 3 p.m Thursday in the White House Rose Garden. A decision to walk away from the accord would be a momentous setback, in practical and political terms, for the effort to address climate change. Several news outlets, citing people in the administration, reported on Wednesday that the US is likely to pull out of the agreement.
This is assuming that carbon is a "pollutant".
Australia (per capita), a country that faces a similar geographic situation.
love is just extroverted narcissism
The Trump administration made clear months ago that it would abandon the emissions targets set by Obama, walk away from pledges of money to help poor countries battle global warming, and seek to cut research budgets aimed at finding solutions to climate change.
USA #1 Fuck Yeah We're #1!! We're #1! Eat it yuropoors!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
So it's not only because the USA has a large population that it is the worst polluter.
Can we quit with the hyperbole, please? Climate change research is a serious matter. I know that's all journalists know how to do, but we need everyone to get on board with at least researching this stuff.
Saying it's "Scorching the Planet" is inflammatory and highly unrelatable to 99% of the people of the Earth, having likely only seen nearly undetectable average temperature increases.
I'm from the U.S., and you probably wouldn't even have to cite me any sources for me to believe we have generated the most cumulative CO2 of any other country. That doesn't seem like it should be news to anyone..
The US is also one of the first countries to establish the Environmental Protection agency to explicitly DO something about getting emissions down. Which is why things like smog in Los Angeles is much less a problem today than it was before and we didn't need a worldwide treaty to do it. But I guess the EPA did nothing according to these guys. Nor do I suspect they've bothered to really look into China's carbon emissions or Russia's (which I'm sure China and Russia's governments are open about sharing information and that the information is actually... y'know... factual)
We saved the world from Hitler and the Soviets and created air conditioning, internet, mobile phones, air travel, and thousands of other critical inventions. The rest of the world hasn't done much to thank us or help us out in any way.
So I see no need to feel bad about some CO2. Especially since US emissions are falling faster than other countries due to cheap natural gas from fracking - another great US invention.
The US was ahead of the technology curve vis-a-vis other countries. We learned to use fossil fuels effectively in the 1800's and developed both drilling and refining capacity before almost anyone else.. We bought cars and lived middle class lifestyles before the Chinese and Indians. Honestly, my perception is that folks in those countries are basically butthurt because they were still humping goats in the rice patty fields while we were building skyscrapers. Now, they want the US to pay for our sins by carbon taxing ourselves into oblivion while they do very little or nothing at all. I'm not a climate change denier. Yes, this is manmade. However, I'm also not convinced that the USA is the sole evil climate killer. China is polluting more than us right now. What about that fact? What about the fact that they have HUGE populations and in places like India, they can't be bothered to try and control them. China tries marginally, but they already have more than 1.3 Billion people. The US population is a rounding error on China's. Face it, the main problem is actually overpopulation. If we don't do something about that obvious issue, being "green" isn't going to help much. People just can't imagine having to restrict the number of children they have. Just wait until some enterprising molecular biologist figures out a way to do it for 99% of the population via some nasty vector + gene drive. That would be effective against climate change.
As in most Asian metro centres. Such as Beijing, Shanghai, any of China's tier 1 to 3 cities, plus Siberia, pretty much anywhere in India, and the list goes on. Not to mention large parts of Africa and South America.
Their rate of pollution in any sense is staggering and increasing, while the USA has been better than any of them for 20 odd years if not longer.
Adding insult to injury the level of ground water pollution, let alone carbon, in those places is staggering.
Winner of Project Consored top 25 articles for 2009 - 2010 news stories: Pentagon's role in global catastrophe
By Sara Flounders
In evaluating the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen -- with more
than 15,000 participants from 192 countries, including more than 100 heads of
state, as well as 100,000 demonstrators in the streets -- it is important to
ask: How is it possible that the worst polluter of carbon dioxide and other
toxic emissions on the planet is not a focus of any conference discussion or
proposed restrictions?
By every measure, the Pentagon is the largest institutional user of
petroleum products and energy in general. Yet the Pentagon has a blanket
exemption in all international climate agreements.
The Pentagon wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; its secret operations in
Pakistan; its equipment on more than 1,000 U.S. bases around the world; its
6,000 facilities in the U.S.; all NATO operations; its aircraft carriers, jet
aircraft, weapons testing, training and sales will not be counted against U.S.
greenhouse gas limits or included in any count.
The Feb. 17, 2007, Energy Bulletin detailed the oil consumption just for the
Pentagon's aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities that made it the
single-largest oil consumer in the world. At the time, the U.S. Navy had 285
combat and support ships and around 4,000 operational aircraft. The U.S. Army
had 28,000 armored vehicles, 140,000 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled
Vehicles, more than 4,000 combat helicopters, several hundred fixed-wing
aircraft and 187,493 fleet vehicles. Except for 80 nuclear submarines and
aircraft carriers, which spread radioactive pollution, all their other vehicles
run on oil.
Even according to rankings in the 2006 CIA World Factbook, only 35 countries
(out of 210 in the world) consume more oil per day than the Pentagon.
The U.S. military officially uses 320,000 barrels of oil a day. However,
this total does not include fuel consumed by contractors or fuel consumed in
leased and privatized facilities. Nor does it include the enormous energy and
resources used to produce and maintain their death-dealing equipment or the
bombs, grenades or missiles they fire.
Steve Kretzmann, director of Oil Change International, reports: "The ... The war emits ... This information is not readily ... because military emissions abroad are exempt from national
Iraq war was responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (MMTCO2e) from March 2003 through December 2007.
more than 60 percent of all countries.
available
reporting requirements under U.S. law and the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change." (www.naomiklein.org, Dec. 10) Most scientists blame carbon dioxide
emissions for greenhouse gases and climate change.
Barry Sanders in his new book, "The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs ... the Armed
of Militarism," says that "the greatest single assault on the
environment, on all of us around the globe, comes from one agency
Forces of the United States."
Just how did the Pentagon come to be exempt from climate agreements? At the
time of the Kyoto Accords negotiations, the U.S. demanded as a provision of
signing that all of its military operations worldwide and all operations it
participates in with the U.N. and/or NATO be completely exempted from
measurement or reductions.
After securing this gigantic concession, the Bush administration then
refused to sign the accords.
In a May 18, 1998, article entitled "National security and military
policy issues involved in the Kyoto treaty," Dr. Jeffrey Salmon d
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"...longtime scholar of climate politics..."
And there's yer problem right there.
Climate Science is subsumed by politics.
The "science" is tainted by politics.
The "solutions" are tainted by politics.
Oh, and BTW, Thanks mostly to less coal use at power plants, emissions in the first half of 2016 were lowest since 1991
To clear that up...cheaper Gas, enabled by Fracking, has been replacing coal.
To make it even more clear, Fracking has happened mostly on Private Land despite widespread opposition from the Greenies and attempts by the last Administration to regulate and limit its use.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I have been to environmental protests where the event ends and everyone climbs into their SUVs and pickup trucks and drive home. It's hard to get someone to shut down a pipeline when you keep buying their product. We have Three Mile Island nuclear power plant closing down now because the cost to generate electricity with natural gas is so low. We should be protesting coal burning plants, not nuclear ones.
Neither is sugar. But try eating 200 pounds at one siting and see how well it turns out.
Anything is a pollutant if there is too much of it.
The Sun's activity is actually down, while temperatures have soared.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
While there might be something to your argument that past pollutants were high in the US, it does not translate into the current pollution levels in the US. I've been to major cities all around the world, and in most cases, I would gladly choose to breath U.S. big city air over most other places. Visit Asia much? How about South America?
I know Slashdot has a long tradition of weekly inflammatory hit pieces on their pet issues, but this is disingenuous. You need to gauge current action and current levels if you are pushing a change in current behavior.
Much of the carbon was sourced from other countries, so they profited and thereby enabled the production of greenhouse gases as well. The USA has assuredly done both, but if the carbon producers, such as the Mideast, quit selling oil and coal, they could also control the amount of greenhouse gases emitted through supply reduction.
Much of the planet has benefitted from the industry and agriculture that the US and other industrial nations have provided through the use of carbon.
If the USA was located in a more temperate climate and had less area to travel over, then transportation and heating/cooling carbon emissions would be vastly reduced. Comparing other countries, that are smaller and featuring less demanding climates, to the US is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
But we are too far down this path, without incredible efforts on our part, which I do not see happening in today's political climate, Mother Earth's natural temperature regulatory processes will dominate, but will they be enough that we will survive?
It is scary that some of us here have not made it past the 16h Century intellectually.
Paracelsus - 'Solely the dose determines that a thing is not a poison'
Kinda surprised we don't see more about the 'four humors' and the benefits of bleeding.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Sorry for the bad link. Insufficient caffeine (and Slashdot's rather 'minimalist' approach to linking).
Paracelsus.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Because there is no cost for insuring that they can handle peak demand? The power company has to provide the power when the sun is not shining so it needs to maintain enough total generating capacity that's a lot of idle expensive hardware that needs to be paid for. Many states have or had electricity buyback from solar at retail rates, not the pittance that PV goes for wholesale again everybody else is forced to subsidize.
No sir I dont like it.
It may be true that the US has been the largest contributor to long term CO2 emissions, however since 2005, China has been emitting more CO2 than the US, and much more.
Be careful to not just look at CO2 from energy - CO2 from cement production is also important (though typically smaller than energy-related emissions).
CO2 makes up about 0.04 of our atmosphere. Of that small amount we only contributed 3 percent. Of that 3 percent, America only contributed a small part of. Most of the data says that CO2 has gone up and down over the last million years with no correlation to temperature. In other words, CO2 isn't present in large enough amounts to change anything. It's the other green house gasses we need pay attention to. Fighting CO2 is just a political game. Why fix anything when you're too busy being Al Gore fighting Puff the Magic CO2 dragon while enjoying all that oil money he made and having a carbon footprint a 100 times larger than the average human being. It isn't the hypocrisy that bothers me, it's the willful misinformation for political gain that leaves both sides being uneducated and unable to make rational decisions about the subject. The Democrats created an irrational global warming religious cult to attack Republicans. Republicans see the fake science and they tend reject anything that might be real science because of this cancerous political game.
They are looking at this cumulatively, not current levels.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
There are certainly pollutants that have a worse immediate or local effect than CO2, but they are usually also quicker to clean up. If we reduce the particulates, the air will start to clear up right away. If we reduce CO2, it will linger in the atmosphere for centuries. It makes sense to start reducing CO2 well before we experience problems.
And, obviously, we can fight multiple pollutants at the same time.
This is why you have treaties instead of "agreements", so some halfwit doesn't bail because it doesn't fit his agenda.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So...if New Orleans were to sink beneath the waves or, more likely, be washed out due to another hurricane with higher sea levels, then you will have been proud to not pay any additional taxes.
And if other nations sink beneath the waves, then that's okay with you as long as you stay cool. And if other nations lose the ability to feed themselves or enough land mass to support their populations, then you'd be more than happy to accept them graciously into your home as refugees. But you won't be paying more in taxes.
And if your seafood prices go up because we've raised the water temperature enough to kill off the seafood you eat, you'll be happy because you didn't pay additional taxes. And if your land-based food prices go up because the climate change whacked the breadbaskets of the U.S., you'll be happy because you didn't pay any additional taxes.
The world as a whole has gained from the productivity and innovation found in the US. The US has been getting "green" since I was a kid in the late 60s, meaning we have had concerns with pollution and environmental impact. No, it's not something you can fix by hitting it with a mallet, but Yes we have been working toward cleaner solutions, restoration, reforestation, recycling, etc.. Not just changing/updating machinery, but huge cash investments in public awareness and education as well.
Meanwhile counties that have benefited from the US technology boosts have become bigger polluters without the same traction for becoming "green". That is not necessarily nefarious, but because industrialization takes time to implement, and then you have to go back and start fixing stuff to make it "green".
I am really tired of the demonization of the US. The American people are the most generous in the world, with the most concern for other nations in the world. While we don't always take the "right" actions, the intent from the public is never "screw them other guys".
The Paris Climate Treaty was firstly illegal, because a treaty requires congressional approval not an EO. It also happens to punish the American Public, and not for some direct action of the US Public. These are not even punishing for the sins of our father, it's more akin to punishing sins of a second cousins father in-laws adopted brother. If we all somehow got rich polluting the world and continue to do so, where the hell is my share?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If the con artist does withdraw from the accord we'll be cozy neighbors with Nicaragua and Syria, both of whom are not parties to the accord.
How wonderful is that? We'll be at the same level as a Muslim dictator. At least Nicaragua had a reason not to agree: they didn't feel the accord went far enough.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
We asked 100 priests whether God exists and 97% said yes.
Yup, now that we have that established, could you please state your science credentials? The ones that would help us take you seriously?
China is the biggest emitter now, far outweighing the USA. It doesn't even matter what the USA does in view of the horrendous carbon emissions of China. Soon India will become the number two emitter.
This article is trying typical "green religious nut" tactic, trying to instill guilt where there need be none.
Most likely, Trump'll kill the electric car subsidy
I support this. Am I really the only one who thinks it's ridiculous for the poor to be subsidizing the luxury cars of the rich? If you can afford to buy a $100K Tesla you don't need any damn subsidy. Spend the subsidy on providing food and shelter to the homeless. You know, people who actually need help.
Technically, the US isn't a party to the Paris Agreement because Congress never ratified it.
Not pussy, that's only a pollutant if it's too large. Which is admittedly a subset of 'too much of it'.
I am a scientist majored in chemistry. I think US should pull out. CO2 only contributed to 10% of warming effect, while H2O contribute the main green house effect. Controlling CO2 will cost trillions of dollars over the years without much effect. The model and predictions have a bad record. Even if the earth get warmer for 2C degree by 2100, although unlikely, it is good for humanity. Look at the benefit.
To say that the U.S. is "historically" the biggest contributor to CO2 production is true but misleading. It is like saying "China is historically the leading cause of overpopulation" even though China has had a one-child policy for almost 40 years.
Kyoto (1992), Cancun (2010) and Paris (2015) are valid attempts to slow down and end CO2 increase using an international treaty. The problem is in this map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Today's biggest and fastest growing emitters (China and soon India) are in the third world and are developing countries, which are given a pass by the treaty. Russia, Japan, New Zealand and Canada either never signed up or have dropped out because of the developing world loophole.
The issue is per capita emissions (high in first world and energy producers) and total emissions (high in third world). See http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...,
CO2 is a real problem but the NYT is filling the knowledge hole with junk and propaganda, which is too bad.
"Blah, blah, blah...Just how did the Pentagon come to be exempt from climate agreements?...blah, blah, blah"
Oh, are the Russian, Chinese, ISIS military following the accords? Yeah, I didn't think so. Once you get the world to sing Kumbaya, then you'll have a valid argument, but until that, STFU.
Just another day in Paradise
The US is possibly the biggest consumer of copper in history, possibly I think because we started using it in quantity first. Wiring. Telephones, electricity, you know, stuff we adopted pretty early on.
Oh whatever, any negative is celebrated.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You can keep your credentials, I want to see the evidence.
I'm all for replacing coal with gas - it makes economic sense, even if you don't count the hidden pollution cost of coal.
I'm not a fan of big government and complex subsidies - just cancel all the subsidies (invest in R&D where it make sense) and cap+trade, cut income tax, and balance the income tax reduction with a carbon tax which reflects the actual cost of CO emission. Poof - externality disappears, and let capitalism get on with fixing things. Less tax on earning money, more tax on screwing up everyone's home instead.
That'll knock the insane corn-ethanol business out too.
Fortunately, it'll probably no longer make a massive amount of difference whether the US stays in the Paris agreement or leaves. Solar PV is now the cheapest form of energy generation in sunny areas (cheaper than new coal, and fracked gas), and it's still getting cheaper - solar PV module cost is halving every 5 to 10 years (balance of system now makes up the majority of costs for utility scale PV). The cost of battery storage is halving every 8 years. So whilst it'd be best for the US to stay in, it'll not actually have that much effect if they leave.
PV + lithium ion Batteries are already the cheapest form of generation in some parts of the world (e.g. Hawaii), and given the massive increase in R+D which that's causing, it's only heading in one direction. Seems pretty pointless to subsidise people to dig coal out of the ground that no one wants to burn anyway... Definitely a problem if you live in an area which is dependent on coal generation, but hey, the market in horse shoes and saddles isn't what it used to be either, and renewables employ more people than coal already anyway. Same story in China and most other places too.
References - see recent LCOE figures and Swansons law.
... in framework:
- Scientists: Tobacco kills
- Tobacco: Jobs
- Courts: Tobacco kills
- Tobacco: Jobs
--
- Scientists: Reduce carbon
- Americans: Jobs
- Planet: Reduce carbon
- Americans: jobs
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Don't fall for the "hidden cost" or as some here like to harp on, "externalized cost" arguments.
If you go down that path, EVERYTHING is subject to stupid nit picking.
Example. Lithium batteries are dangerous. They blow up, cause fires, they use heavy metals that need to be mined and processed (producing carbon). The used batteries are toxic waste, etc.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Sure. Even breathing emits carbon dioxide.
But chances are you emitting carbon dioxide in ways that aren't even useful to you. For example, if you're air conditioning a room heated by a big picture window all day while you are out, that's emitting carbon that's doing you no actual good. Draw the curtains and put the AC on a timer and you'll be just as cool and save money too.
There's lots of things like this where you're actually paying to pollute for no benefit to yourself. Like not keeping your tires inflated. That seems like It's too easy to possibly make any difference, but keep in mind transportation is the single largest use of energy in the economy. People saving themselves wasted money could have a big impact.
As with anything else, the place to start with a problem is the low-hanging fruit: carbon emissions that do us no good, or even cost us money no result. Is that enough to turn the tide? No, but there's no reason not to get started there.
That and I don't want to pay any "world taxes" either, I"m playing plenty enough for the US fed/state/local as it is.
What makes a "tax" a "tax"? An accountant will tell you that the defining characteristic of a tax is that it's an exaction. You don't get to choose to forgo the tax.
Pollution also exacts a non-voluntary cost from people. If you live in Beijing, you have no choice but to pay the costs of breathing a mix of diesel and coal particulates. If the climate of the planet changes, everyone has to pay the price of adaptation (although some people will also make money off that adapation). Chances are you'll be using more Btus of air conditioning, and because everybody else will be doing the same you'll be paying more for each BTU.
If the government tried to tax you that much, you'd be livid. But the fact it's not an elected official who's doing the exacting doesn't change the fact that you're paying for someone else's wasteful habits.
If you don't want to pay pollution exaction you can either forbid people to pollute entirely, or you can tax pollution. The advantage of taxing pollution is that it gives people more freedom in choosing whether the utility of emitting a unit of pollution exceeds the cost. Cap and trade gives you even more freedom in that it involves incentives as well as penalties.
But even under a simple pollution tax, you can still limit your exposure to the tax through conservation. Once the pollution is emitted, you're stuck paying the price.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The state of progress in a few slides:
https://data.bloomberglp.com/bnef/sites/14/2017/04/2017-04-25-Michael-Liebreich-BNEFSummit-Keynote.pdf
Looks like the transition ship has sailed and will continue (because at least 50% decarbonisation - and eventually 100% - will be cheaper than not doing it) with the US in the Paris agreement or outside it.
So I'd be interested in hearing how these things are reconciled.
There's a lot of fabrication in this arena, though.
Who do you think got us to shift off whale oil and wood steamers to coal?
That stuff stays in the atmosphere for 100-400 years, you know. Not the main CO2, but the other parts.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Why should he, he is a long time follower of climate politics.
I'd pay extra taxes to see New Orleans washed out to see, but that's just me. Food is cheap, I'd happily pay double as long as annoyed people looking for let another excuse to give more power to central governments.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
After the US quits, the other 200 countries will decide to implement a 35% tax on all the exports of the 3 countries not playing the game.
China and the EU are already talking right now behind closed doors.
It will cost the US a LOT.
If that's all you hear, you are certainly not talking to the average citizens in the US. Try choosing sources more carefully and you would hear about a different world. Hell, do you think I listen to just the BBC for issues in the UK? How about Der Spiegel for issues in Germany? How about the Pravda for Russia? The answer is "NO", I know what propaganda looks like.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
So let me get this straight...Trump is trying to get the rest of the world to pay their 'fair share' of their own defense but at the same time Trump is undermining the world by propping up the US military complex or something right?
Here's an idea, if the rest of the free world actually paid for their own defense maybe, just maybe the US wouldn't be spending such stupid amounts of money on 'world defense'. There is in fact a reasonable debate about how we got here but there is no debate for instance that Canada for 1 benefits greatly by not having to spend STUPID amounts of money on defense of the 2nd largest country in the world. Push comes to shove, if it wasn't for the US Canada would have to spend FAR more than the measly 2% of GDP on it's defense & Canada doesn't even spend that 2%.
We live in a world with borders son and someone has to guard those borders...
Perhaps you meant Bill Clinton? Jackoff versus getting one? Oh wait, you are repeating propaganda without considering your words. Obama using the EPA to "put coal out of business" was fine because it fits your agenda better. Obama giving hundreds of billions of tax dollars to great projects like Solyndra are similarly fine. Typical hypocritical leftist bullshit.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Pollution also exacts a non-voluntary cost from people.
Every action you will ever take "exacts a non-voluntary cost from people" to some degree. Freedom requires allowance for that, since you can argue that any action at all should be disallowed, on the basis that it does some trivial harm to someone, somewhere.
Try making an argument that a specific person's pollution will cause material harm to some other specific person. That's certainly true with hazardous waste, for example.
But I suspect you're actually just looking for an excuse for a new tax. Anything to make government stronger, am I right?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
After that exaggeration, how could I believe whatever was written next?
But I suspect you're actually just looking for an excuse for a new tax. Anything to make government stronger, am I right?
I propose a carbon tax, offset by lowering existing taxes by the same amount.
If you go down that path, EVERYTHING is subject to stupid nit picking.
Sure, but not in the same amount.
It's all the fat people cranking the AC down to "fast-food restaurant freezer". As long as we're the fattest nation on Earth, we'll be the AC-pollutingest nation on Earth, too.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
You failed miserably at both. I can only suggest that you get outside of your echo chamber, because it's making you appear to be an imbecile. Perhaps you are, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Why is this here? Paris "agreement" and "trump". The problem with the paris agreement is that it did not go through the senate. Expecting something to stick simply because the president enacted it by fiat is not reasonable. Whatever you feel about the "agreement", it is understood that treaties of this significance must go through the senate. That did not happen.
Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Executive agreements are not binding on subsequent administrations. Treaties ratified by the Senate are binding until broken by the legislature.
Whatever you feel about the Paris "agreement" it was merely an agreement between Obama and some other heads of state. At no point did the US agree to hold to the agreement beyond the Obama administration. Everyone that knew anything already knew that. If you want the US government to enter into a long term agreement, then get the US Senate to ratify it or you don't have actual agreement.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I think we should subsidize solar and wind by three times the amount per MWH as we do other sources. Agree?
Agreed. I support this reduction in solar and wind subsidies.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
are they using some sort of New Math or does the fact that multiple cities in china have smog problems so bad they are building Ion Cleaners the size of Trump Tower just so folks can breath without a mask "skewed data" or something??
Save the human race.
Mothball the US Navy.
Ground the USAF.
Evict the USA from North America.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
You will ever take "exacts a non-voluntary cost from people" to some degree.
Yes, but the degree matters, and reasonability matters.
Try making an argument that a specific person's pollution will cause material harm to some other specific person. That's certainly true with hazardous waste, for example.
That's not true of hazardous waste in general; the problem with hazardous waste isn't for the most part polluters sneaking it onto a neighbor's property. It's dumping it in a sewer, throwing it into a community landfill, discharging it into rivers, ocean, or atmosphere. Most people will not take steps that immediately harm an identifiable person. But they will throw it "away" in ways that harm indeterminate people at some indeterminate time in the future.
But I suspect you're actually just looking for an excuse for a new tax. Anything to make government stronger, am I right?
Your mind reading skills are truly amazing. Particularly in their ability to turn anything you don't want to think about into a strawman.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I partly agree. I think that there should be a price ceiling for subsidies on electric cars, for example it should only apply to cars under $35k. That way you'd still be subsidising electric cars but not expensive luxury electric cars that rich people don't need help affording.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If only we were capable of the latter part of your statement, it might not be a bad plan.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
When you do not know it is a problem, it is not fair to blame them. Once known , and u continue to grow it, then you are to blame.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If there's no one harmed by the dumping of hazardous waste, then obviously it was disposed of properly. Not very likely in your examples, though, is it? It's very likely to poison someone, somewhere. That's material harm to a specific person (or the high likelihood thereof), probably many people.
Contrast that with someone driving a car with lower gas mileage than some other option.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The amount of nitpicking applied is a purely political decision.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just sell the French quarter to Disney and doze the rest already. Leave the port and oil terminal though.
Build a New New Orleans upriver. Perhaps somewhere around Memphis.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I didn't say nobody was harmed. I said nobody identifiable to the polluter was harmed. People take an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude toward pollution.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
My comment was that Solyndra went bankrupt after receiving _more_ than Half a Billion. Considering all of the other loans and grants, taking a selective view of one successful company getting a loan can only be described as selective stupidity. Let me prove the point:
Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.
550M to Solyndra, 140M to Fisker, 70M Abound, you are at the 780 million who allegedly defaulted. Yet there is another several Billion in defaults which magically vanish from this article's point of view (linking to the Government loan office is not a link to the sheets), and another few hundred billion in Grants.
All of which is done by confiscating money from people like me, who pay our taxes. Given to people the Government decides should be "winners" instead of letting consumers decide.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It's not always silent, especially if someone is drowning in it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I do like your comment about changing machinery, especially given the gas guzzling pieces of inefficient crap you guys drive 500m to collect a bag of groceries.
I happen to walk to the Grocery store or drive less than a few miles to get to a specialty market. And since I don't have time for a 9 hour drive to a store, I tend to limit my shopping to very few times a week. You will find that the same is true for all Americans. Not only does the majority of people not have a gas guzzling car, but we don't have the free time for driving hours a day for shits and giggles.
The American people are the most generous in the world, with the most concern for other nations in the world. While we don't always take the "right" actions, the intent from the public is never "screw them other guys".
Oh fuck off. You only need to look at some of your threads, talk to your fellow Americans or try and decipher the sounds coming out your presidents mouth to realise you're living in a reality distortion field strong enough to bring Jobs back to life.
In terms of actual numbers, the US has been the leader in charitable donations (by massive margins) for nearly a century. Per Capita, we are number 1 except for 2 years where a single country passed the US. Not Germany, not France, not China, not Russia, not the UK, but Myanmar. Sources are very easy to find, if you are willing to actually look. You are simply a biased moron.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The problem in Beijing isn't so much carbon mono/di-oxide, as it is soot, sulfur compounds, ozone, and others. I mean, the carbon is there too, but I presume you were referring to what is visible, or hurts you when you inhale it. That is what sets the air in Beijing apart from the air in LA, where those problems have been solved or pre-empted by regulation.
So why is the US being declared the biggest carbon producer a hyperbole? Do you take issue with the measurements they used? There are a number to choose from, and by all of them the US is either #1 or close to the top.
Actually, never mind, I don't think you are interested in getting to the bottom of this issue. You just needed another opportunity to throw around the phrase "White guilt". Let me guess, you also rail against identity politics?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sounds like Trump has his way out then. All he has to do is follow through on his campaign promise to withdraw the military back within US borders and reduce headcount by 95%.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
....if I have to turn off my AC in during the LOOONG summers of New Orleans, then sure..pull out of the fscking treaty.
Just use solar power. I know it's surprising to some but its power output nicely correlates with the heat you're trying to pump out.
Ezekiel 23:20
One of these things is not like the others- and you can only do two out of the three. Without the Navy or the Air Force, what are you going to use to evict the USA?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
For CO2 to be problem the models pull a CO2/H2O vapor positive feedback coefficient from a dark place.
It's very true. Water, carbon dioxide, and heat are all very difficult to obtain and study.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Counting industrial emissions by itself is not the correct way of accounting for carbon. Europe contributed massively to carbon levels in the atmosphere through deforestation prior to 1850, both in terms of emissions and in terms of failure to capture carbon. (Furthermore, it also matters is what those emissions have been used for.)
Well, it isn't just NOLA proper....but the whole area here hear the gulf.
If your wish comes true, say goodbye to about 1/3 of the US's supply of seafood....and if the oil spigot gets turned off here (all those oil rigs in the gulf and the processing plants inland associated with them), well, you'll get your energy change *VERY* quickly as that prices will shoot through the roof, long before your alternative sources are ready.
And sad....why is NOLA any less important that any other US city'? Should we abandon wide swaths of land in CA since it is so prone to forest fires? Are we to abandon NYC....that last hurricane was nothing, NYC has been a long time out from predicted city killer hurricane scenarios, just like New Orleans has hanging over its head. Another one is likely just around the corner.
Every city has its natural disaster sword of Damocles hanging above it. Not to mention, that NOLA the city itself is older that the US, and a lot of culture the US has came from this area....so, history alone is worth preserving a bit of, no?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
On one hand it would be nice if a country like the US took a leading role as an example to the rest of the world...
On the other hand all of these accords, agreements, etc... are a bit ridiculous in that the biggest contributors to pollution like China, India, Russia, etc... will never agree to any of it anyway making the whole thing rather moot, and additionally even if they did, or a bunch of other countries do, there is nothing really to stop them from doing whatever anyway... People talk about legally binding etc... but these are independent NATIONS that can and will do whatever is in their best interests. You only have to look are previous historical examples of these things to see nations not meeting their targets etc...
"America has been discovered before, but it has always been hushed up."
-- Oscar Wilde
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."