Slashdot Mirror
Paris Summit Finds New Money, Tech To Fight Climate Change (apnews.com)
An anonymous reader shares an Associated Press report: World leaders, investment funds and energy magnates promised Tuesday to devote new money and technology to slow global warming at a summit in Paris that President Emmanuel Macron hopes will rev up the Paris climate accord that U.S. President Donald Trump has rejected. Trump wasn't invited to the event but his name was everywhere. One by one, top world diplomats, former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, business leaders like Michael Bloomberg and even former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry insisted that the world will shift to cleaner fuels and reduce emissions regardless of whether the Trump administration pitches in or not. Central to Tuesday's summit was countering Trump's main argument that the 2015 Paris accord on reducing global emissions would hurt U.S. business. Macron, a 39-year-old former investment banker, argues that the big businesses and successful economies of the future will be making and using renewable energy instead of pumping oil. Macron's office announced a dozen international projects emerging from the summit that will inject hundreds of millions of dollars in efforts to curb climate change. "The United States did not drop out of the Paris agreement. Donald Trump got Donald Trump out of the Paris agreement," Schwarzenegger said. The projects also aim to speed up the end of the combustion engine to reduce the emissions that contribute to global warming. With that aim, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim announced that his agency would stop financing oil and gas projects in two years, except in special circumstances for very poor nations.
Spend all the money you want. As long as it doesn't come out of the US Treasury we're all good.
The Paris Accords are entirely and solely about extracting money from the US Taxpayer - and we are going to meet and exceed the emissions goals even without it.
I've always said that even if you don't buy into climate change that simply ignoring it is stupid because it's a huge economic opportunity. I think it's simply been that politicians have been paid enough to turn a blind eye and keep the status quo for as long as possible. The reality is that renewable energy sources are not limited to locations that a small collective of companies own which means that there can be lots of competition that will drive the price of energy way down. Energy companies want to bleed the all the money they can out of people and some idiots think that's a good thing.
The age of hydrocarbons is coming to an end... and now we have to clean it all up.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The conference was more political posturing to little effect, otherwise they would have all done a large group video chat instead of expelling 30K tons of CO2 in air travel alone.
Is there warming? Yes. Is there a crisis? It would seem not since the people that claim there is a crisis are not acting like there is a crisis. They act like used car salesmen telling you how very much they want you to do something, which they themselves will not do.
I'm sure it did make a lot of climate posers feel better about themselves though, so there's that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only solution is carbon sequestration. Until then, all this is is a welfare scam. After the discovery of carbon sequestration this will all be irrelevant. The communists win!
Every country supporting this simply wants money from the US taxpayer in exchange for trying to reduce emissions. It's a cash grab and there is nothing in it for the US that is good. I don't like Trump, but he's right.
Much like Obama became the greatest gun salesman of all time, it appears like Trump might actually save the environment.... by trying to ignore it.
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
I've always said that even if you don't buy into climate change that simply ignoring it is stupid because it's a huge economic opportunity.
I totally agree, which is why I see no need for giant government programs costing billions of dollars. The economic benefit of moving to renewable sources is eventually so cost effective it is inevitable; so we do we need to try to force people into something we know is eventually inherently compelling?
There's no way the larger warming predictions are accurate because they are all predicated on CO2 levels staying where they are. That's simply not going to happen as people everywhere switch to cheaper non-carbon energy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's all been about the capital to switch to more efficient, cheaper renewables.
That problem has been solved, and as a bonus, every dollar spent on renewables cuts Russia and Saudi fossil fuel revenue by four dollars.
Commence the industry-paid whining about how the world is changing and we must protect buggy whips and whale oil and baleen corsets.
Climate Change is here, and we ran out of time for discussions.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
... and use that money to invest in clean energy.
Yes! They should have all backpacked to the summit!
V I D E O C O N F E R E N C E
Also, it goes without saying RTFA which covers exactly what is meant.
A few people's actions don't make a measurable difference.
To the contrary 30,000 tons of anything is a very measurable amount.
We need a global solution
Translation: *I* don't have to change anything, everyone else does.
Good luck with that!
Real change starts with local changes across many areas, not idealistic and unrealistic global change. Real change is made up by the kind of small choices you are handwaving away as meaningless.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Thanks for the demonstration.
The Paris accords are nothing but wealth redistribution from the American taxpayer to third world scumbags, because there are no means to hold said scumbags accountable for how they spend the money.
Americans who support the Paris accords are either a) profoundly stupid or b) know exactly what the accords are about, and the American taxpayer should hold *them* accountable for their attempted fraud.
Doubling down on the crazy "predictions" doesn't fly anymore. Sky didn't fall in two decades, and now no one but the terminally gullible will believe it's ever going to.
Even if it really, really is, and liars do not lie THIS time, pinky swear.
You people had your credit of trust. You decided to waste it. Now you have none. Too bad.
Do you think the US will be getting free pass forever? Eventually other countries will start taxing US goods based on their carbon footprint.
Then why haven't you been screaming about them subsidizing coal and oil for the past century?
I've not been "screaming" about anything but I agree that is also equally not needed. I'd be just as happy to see that go.
It will cost more to clean up the longer we pump CO2
Pretty stupid to say when you understand what plants are and how they work. The entire Earth is nothing but a giant CO2 recycler, given time. You do realize that historically the Earth has had different levels of CO2, right, including some higher? If it's not possible for the Earth to re-absorb it, what happened in your mind, hmm?? Aliens, obv.
The difference government can make is perhaps a decade earlier adoption, if that... in the meantime wasted vast sums of money that could have been used to address REAL POLLUTION, like environmental toxins. Which I guess you are not in favor of? That's right, just like you accuse me of supporting oil, because you made no mention of pollution I will assume you are a filthy pollution mongering son of a bitch.
and trees are not going to be able to "suck it all up" because that's not how trees function.
The biosphere is not just trees you know... it's true mature forests do not sequester carbon but there are a lot of plants that do. Also of course as plants process CO2 some of that is stored in the soil rather than being released.
I'll let you have the last response since you are clearly of a one-track mind about this, having been already told what to think and not really willing to divert from your faith on the matter.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Over the last two centuries, the only reason people have starved is because some asswipes thought they had a better idea on how to run society and they had to eliminate excess people in order to implement their, "better idea".
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Arent all those concerned people, for the last two weeks, wearing GPS boots?
#LockThemUp
Do you know what a pharmacist calls "alternative medicine" that works? They call it "medicine".
So long as wind and solar remain "alternative energy" we are admitting it does not work. If people want to see others use "alternative" energy instead of coal, petroleum, and natural gas then offer an alternative that's as inexpensive, plentiful, easy to store and transport, safe, and as long of a shelf life.
People are willing to trade on some benefits for an alternative if there's a gain on another so any replacement for carbon based fuels doesn't have to be better in every respect. Take electric cars for example, people are willing to pay more on a vehicle, compromise on range, and put up with long recharge times, if it means not having to stop at a filling station and getting cheap electricity at home instead.
The Stone Age didn't end for lack of rocks. The Bronze Age began because bronze tools are better than stone tools. We can't mandate the end of carbon based energy, it has to come from the development of something better. Taxing carbon is not likely to help because we use carbon based energy yet to build things like windmills and solar collectors. Also, we use our excess wealth for things like scientific endeavors, taxing people for carbon use and expecting to accelerate scientific advancement requires the belief that our elected officials know better how to invest in science than the people that earned that money in the first place.
If you think that carbon taxes and government involvement is going to fix the environment then look at who has been elected recently and ask yourself if those are the people that are going to save the world.
I'm almost sorry to say this but we are on our own on this, the government isn't going to save us.
Hopefully that's gonna be postponed 'til I'm dead. As the Germans say, "hinter mir die Sintflut" (it loses a bit in translation, basically it means "for all I care, the deluge may follow when I'm gone"). Literally.
You do know that this is just the German translation of the well-known Louis XV quote "Après moi, le déluge", right?
(Wikipedia tells me that is probably better attributed to Madame de Pompadou: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... )
a buncha maroons
The real polluters? You delisional American. Per person US CO2 emissions are twice China and 8x India. Those are big countries with lots of people. Why is the US polluting so much? They are allowed to because they are rich?
Economics is what's putting coal miners out of work. Coal can't compete with natural gas and wind and barely with solar. If coal had to pay the economic costs of it's pollution it probably couldn't even compete with nuclear power.
Because people are continuing to overbuild in flood prone areas.
Because floods are due to rainfall and not just sea level rises.
Because of 15 MPH wind high tides and 1 foot higher seas.
We need better alternatives instead one should use the money to invest in sustainable energy and other alternatives. Infact alternative energy replace many resources leading to sustainability. One has to contribute towards these alternative energy here are some examples read more http://www.publicdebate.in/alt...
Go into your garage, turn on the engine of your car and breath deeply. No one else wants your shit, take it all yourself.
They can void your immaterial property and stop respecting patents, copyrights and agreements of US companies. What are you going to do when all the IP is gone? Bomb everyone?
If only his Dad had done this also . . .
When my boss takes ALL of what I produced and gives me PART of what they got for selling what I did, why the fuck is THAT OK with you when it's even worse than government taxes? Fucking moron.
Your point is?
My point is that both India and China are enormous countries with large economies doing many many different things that can't really be summarized in two sentences totaling twelve words. Both of them, in fact, are doing a lot of work-- and putting in a lot of their own money-- on reducing their carbon intensity.
And they're also building coal plants. Your point is?
If we did want them to increase their focus on implementing low-carbon technologies, and reduce their focus on increasing their populations standard of living by building more coal plants, it would be useful to come to an agreement to that effect.