Slashdot Mirror
Cities Are Scolding Countries at UN Climate Conference To Cut Emissions (vice.com)
A reader shares a report: An alliance of major cities including New York, Toronto, and London challenged nation states attending the United Nations climate talks in Bonn, Germany this week "to kick dirty carbon to the curb" and immediately "commit and work straightaway towards carbon neutrality, 100 percent renewable energy, zero-waste and zero-carbon." The Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance is a new collaboration of 20 international cities (other members include Washington DC, San Francisco, Oslo, and Sydney). All are striving for carbon neutrality and cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050. "Dirty fuels and climate disruption are killing and displacing millions of citizens around the world," the Alliance stated in a strongly-worded letter sent to every country's delegation at climate talks, known as COP 23. "Cities are on the frontline of climate impacts. We see the urgency of climate action and need nation-states to be as committed as we are," Johanna Partin, the director of the Alliance and former advisor to the mayor of San Francisco, told Motherboard by phone.
Burn coal to charge electric cars made with rare earth batteries.
The laws of thermodynamics don't apply to Electric Cars do they? ;)
Yes, announce your edicts from on high and tell those other plebs what is good for them and how to live. Whatever economic burden will be put on the shoulders of the plebs so those in the city can feel smug self satisfaction for "doing something".
...so how many of these cities are willing to spend their own treasuries to make that happen, or do they not know that a huge quorum of the nations they scold have an average GDP smaller than any one city listed in that 'league'? Solar panels and wind turbines ain't cheap, you know.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Let them eat cake.
The biggest polluters tell everyone else to clean up their act.
Next they'll probably demand subsidies because they don't have the money to realize the resulting regulations on their own. Looking at you Berlin!
There is already an established scientific consensus that nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change. Germany has spent 100 of billions on renewables and have not made a dent in their carbon carbon emissions. Germany pollutes 10x as much as France. The New York times recently posted an analysis of the cleanest countries in the world, and they all use a combination of hydro and nuclear.
All those cities the TALL buildings should require the tall buildings to have windmills on them.
Then the power is generated close to where it is being used. Windmills in the countryside are and eyesore.
Perhaps photovoltaic window too.
Get the carbon out of YOUR city before you start trying to run mine.
it's like Wesley Mouch at the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources is writing these, backed up by Dr Stadler's science upon which everyone (everyone who's anyone) agrees.
This is why I'm not worried about the climate accord Trump pulled the US out of. Cities, states, and people are stepping up to take care of the environment on their own. An that is how it should be.
We need to breed a environmental conscious generation and no try to legislate one into existence.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
And the Lefts Agenda continues for no other reason than to line there Pockets with Your Cash!!!
They are just falling into Trump's plan. Do they know this? A big part of what Trump stands for is the rejection of big government and devolving power to smaller entities that are more responsive to their constituents. As government size increases, it gets farther and farther away from the people. It cares less and less about their interests, and more about advancing its own interest of more big government.
Has anyone told them they're doing Trump's dirty work for him? Because they are. Once people get un-used to the idea of big government doing everything for them, they're going to be trained in the idea that they don't need big government, that they can do things for themselves without any help. Someone needs to tell them this so they'll stop doing it, because all it's doing is helping Trump win. Fostering non-dependence and do-it-yourself attitudes like this are going to continue long after he leaves office, and may be his most toxic legacy.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
An interesting thing about using solar power to charge electric cars is that electric cars inherently include storage. You can, in principle, choose to charge cars when the sun is shining.
This would require somewhat of a change in the timing of when you charge. Instead of going home and charging your car overnight, parking spaces would have solar panel roofs-- you'd charge your car in the daytime (which, for most of us, would mean: at work.)
But that's doable.
http://news.energysage.com/solar-canopy-installations-bring-shade-clean-energy-parking-lot/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/28/the-best-idea-in-a-long-time-covering-parking-lots-with-solar-panels/
http://solarbuildermag.com/news/costs-decline-solar-carports-will-spread-across-country/
https://www.borregosolar.com/news/the-design-basics-for-solar-parking-lots-you-need-to-know-2
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The cities are saying "How dare you not enrich our cronies at everyone else's expense!" and throw a temper tantrum.
That all you have to do is mention the LEFT and your Post Is Deleted!!!!
What ever Happened to FREE SPEECH ??????
This is one of the reasons I don't Trust Anything the Have to SAY!!!!!!!!!!!
Go ahead and Delete this one to. It is time to Find some REAL NEWS Site to Visit
The article listed switching to LED lights as an example of some of the things these cities have done, that they consider “no brainers." Note the word "some".
The article also said
'“We’ve proven that cutting emissions is good for the economies of cities.' San Francisco has enjoyed a 78 percent economic gain while reducing greenhouse gas emissions 28 percent since 1990, she said. All of the 20 cities in the Alliance have seen similar results."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Cities world-wide are stuffed-fat & infested with entitled non-productive Trotsky-cunt. Best they die off. The yeomans country-side is trying to put them down with coal-fire emissions/pollution and GMO foodstuffs ... but like rats and ebola city-slickers are a tough lot ... we'll get 'em just you wait on the next Post-Toastiees look-a-like.
Does anyone else find it strange that the United States is basically controlled by Washington DC, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago? And that the UK is controlled by London? And that France is controlled by Paris? And Germany by Berlin?
What a strange concept that one or a handful of cities somehow get to issue dictates to millions of other people in different places with different values.
The world needs more decentralization. Secession is not a left-right issue. The Catalonian separatists were largely leftist, whereas Brexit was right-nationalist. The point is everyone is better off when power structures move closer and closer to local communities.
Since the start of the industry evolution, our air has never been cleaner than right now. CO2 is not a pollutant no matter what your fraudulent consensus says. Fake hockey sticks and hiding the decline is not real science.
You don't like our record on the environment? Because you have to deal with the inevitable concentration of pollution that results from your population densities?
Fine. Whey don't you grow your own food, mine your own minerals (and process them), and generate your own energy within your city limits. Cities can just STFU as long as they consume all the goodies that everyone else produces. You want carbon neutral food (for example)? We'll stop delivering it. You can just get your butts out to the farm and do your shopping there.
Have gnu, will travel.
One of the interesting things is that modern appliances designed to reduce emissions use less energy, which drives down utility bills.
New buildings typically use 20-30 percent as much energy as the old buildings they replace. Running factories in the dark and using LED lighting and modern equipment cuts heat buildup, so you spend far far less on heating and cooling buildings. Building modern factories with solar roofs allows you to run ceiling fans, cuts maintenance, and makes you much more competitive than the slackers with old inefficient outmoded equipment and facilities.
Capitalism cares nothing for your failed energy intensive ideologies. Renewables and modern equipment and DC green data centers just plain outcompete your heavily tax-subsidized fossil fuel heat wasting methods.
Adapt.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The cost of compliance is trivial for those promoting this change, but is significant for those being pushed to accept it. Better to mine to the last rock, pump oil to the last drop, or split atoms to the last reaction. Anything else is less consistent.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
Not in Finland or any other northern place. Winter charging is no charging.
I would consider Finland a poor latitude for use of electric cars, especially since batteries perform poorly at low temperatures. However, since Finland comprises 0.072% of the population of the world, I think we can survive with the Finns finding a different solution.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
That's terrible if you're a energy company. What you want is for energy usage to go down but billing to go up. Here in California I feel like I use less energy each year but my power bill goes up a little bit more each year.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It's hard to tell from the article and their accompanying documents what exactly it means for a city to join this alliance. It could just be some bureaucrat in an obscure agency nobody heard of signing up for some nice conferences overseas. I doubt it has any significance beyond virtue signaling.
Go back in time a little bit to pre-EPA era and you had rivers and lake catching on fire
So instead of a few places having that problem you have the EPA polluting a river so bad it changes the river to orange across multiple states.
Or you had multiple communist governments entirely in control of the environment and utterly fucked it up.
You give examples of local government making mistakes on a small scale, what is it about larger government even further removed from the area of control, that would make it MORE responsible? At least with a local government people if they get upset enough can act directly.
What can you do when the EPA destroys an entire river from the mountains to the sea? Nothing at all, that's what - not a single EPA employee was every charged with a crime or fined. Because after all, you can almost never really sue the government...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So can you, just use google scholar and read a large random selection of the papers. And, no, Ridley is wrong, utterly wrong.
Scolding my ass. First in order for me to consider them scolding I have to attribute to them some kind of moral superiority or like. They have none so therefore cannot scold.
'100% renewable energy', 'zero waste' & 'zero carbon' are MYTHICAL just as 'super powers' are mythical. At least the first two are impossible according to physics & I doubt any energy source would not require some carbon emissions in the life cycle. Seriously '100% renewable energy'? Did someone invent a perpetual motion machine when I wasn't looking? Now, sure, there are other energy sources available other than burning carbon we could use but why limit ourselves to someone's random idea of what is best for us to use?
Perhaps if these supposed 'leaders' of ours worked on attainable goals then something would actually get done. But they'd rather just 'scold' & 'point fingers'. Heck, as large cities they likely have the purchasing power to sway the direction of technology. Want to sell police cars to Toronto? They should be electric only, of course when the batteries run out in the middle of a car chase someone might reconsider that thought & the costs will be higher but hey its not 'government money' really so they can spend it however they want the people won't mind their taxes going up I'm sure. Toronto has access to Nuclear Power as well so they have cheap, clean 'renewable' energy (they aren't using breader reactors but the spent fuel can be reprocessed & reused in other designs) at their disposal for whatever they want to do with it.
The worst offenders trying to palm the problem off on somebody else. The basis of liberal politics.
This is nothing to do with SJWs worried about which toilet you get to use or how many micro aggressions per day you have to put up with. This is about collapse of civilisation.
And if you think it's not about the potential global collapse of civilisation, you just aren't paying any attention.
We need to work harder than now just to avoid total world economic collapse. We need to work much harder than that to avoid major disruption. We need to work much, much harder than that to remain comfortable and secure.
That's the real issue here, not pettiness and name calling.
From TFA:
Itâ(TM)s a tired myth that there is a conflict between environmental protection and economic growth, Partin said.
If we want environmental protection without killing the economy then we need to take a list of what's "green" and what's cheap and see where they overlap, then use those.
What's low on CO2 output? Look here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/u...
(Page 7 has a nice chart BTW)
What's cheap? Look here:
https://www.instituteforenergy...
(Charts and graphs near the bottom of the page.)
Looks to me like the winners are wind, hydro, and nuclear. Of course future developments will shift these numbers around so let's not stop the analysis there but now, today, those are our best three choices.
This is not hard people.
Oh, I almost forgot. I'm sure people will bring up issues of safety so let's have a look:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...
Look, still wind, hydro, and nuclear at the top. To those that think solar has any part to play in this I say look again at the costs, it's easily double or triple what we pay now for natural gas. Natural gas is so cheap now that it will be impossible to do away with it but even then it's got half the CO2 output per MWh compared to coal. If we have to choose between coal, natural gas, or our energy costs doubling then I choose natural gas. Wind, hydro, and nuclear are already cheaper than coal so that choice is obvious.
So, there's our solution, wind, hydro, nuclear, and some more natural gas until we can make the others cheaper. Anything else means more CO2 and/or much higher costs.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
You can have clean air or you can have jobs/consumables but you can't have both.
The easy way to do this is just end manufacturing. We can all move to the country and engage in subsistence farming. How're your farming skills?