Slashdot Mirror
Trump Administration Sees a 7-Degree Rise in Global Temperatures By 2100 (washingtonpost.com)
Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century. From a report: A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe. But the administration did not offer this dire forecast as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet's fate is already sealed. The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump's decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.
The best thing that could happen, for both the planet and human beings, is for the price of oil and coal to skyrocket. Would it cause an economic disaster? Perhaps, but I don't think that really matters at this point.
Why the hell does anyone still repeat those tired debunked talking points? This even goes beyond LALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU denial, it is like living under a rock for the last five years.
It's probably the cherry-picking. Although the US did better than the EU in 2017, if you look at the last decade or more, they're on a similar reduction trend, and Asia (mostly China) has also reduced emissions sharply in recent years, although from a very high level.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Waste heat isn't the problem, it's the atmosphere's capability to retain heat which mostly comes from the sun. Human-generated waste heat is a gnat's fart in the Cat6 hurricane of the sun's heat.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You are absolutely a troll for conveniently omitting that the US has the greatest emissions per capita in the world, and its federal administration is staffed by climate change deniers.
> You are aware that it's entirely possible to troll with facts
If you're being triggered by facts, then just maybe you should reexamine what you believe and why.
Reality does not have a magical liberal bias and it won't go away just because you don't believe it.
I dunno why climate scientists even bother anymore.
Scientists: "The world is going to overheat if we don't do something!"
Everyone else: We don't believe you cause I had to put on a sweater yesterday! And your data is wrong and sketchy!
Scientists: "Ok it's even worse than we thought and we're already starting to see the effects!"
Everyone else: Oh well, too late now. Fuck it. *throws environmental standards out the window*
It's awe inspiring. It really is.
Since the USA consumes much of what China produces, the USA has a lot of influence on China's emissions. For example, we could tax foreign carbon and thereby force China to find less carbon-intensive ways to make things. So even though our emissions are only half of China's (and more than any other country besides China), we have a lot of power to reduce emissions in both countries.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
What makes it a troll? The EU and Asia continue to raise their carbon emissions. A global rise of 7 percent F is a very sensible projection. It makes no difference if the US changes their car emissions standards: it isn't going to help or hurt. I think Europeans just get upset when I point out that they are all talk and no action.
You were marked troll because people don't want to believe the facts if they run counter to their world-view of USA evil. China and the EU - in fact, pretty much the rest of the world - saw their emissions rise. China emits the most CO2 by a large margin. But somehow it's always twisted around to be the US' fault. Reminding people of the actual facts is now considered a near-hate-crime so you were modded troll.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Let me try rephrasing this for you:
Country A has 100,000 people in it, and they emit 200,000 units of pollution. Country B has 400,000 people in it, and they emit 400,000 units of polution.
Question: which country hurts the environment more?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
If you want to me take anything you say seriously then you best back up your words. I'm not doing the legwork for you.
The bullshit argument of the loser. You're uneducated on a topic to the point that you don't know basic facts about it, then when presented with those facts you raise objection because you don't like them, but you still refuse to learn anything about the topic you're bitching about. Instead, you expect everything to be spoonfed to you.
Try stepping out into the real world. You're expected to have a base level of competency and familiarity about something before anyone will engage in that thing with you. Or you can pay them for education / training.
And how much of those emissions are due to making stuff for the rest of the world? Other countries have outsourced their CO2 to China.
Just because China is currently emitting the most in the past couple of years they haven't put most of the historical CO2. The developed nations have spewed CO2, and many other substances that have been found dangerous over time, for a long time while their economies grew up. Now as China tries to build up their economy they are vilified for doing the same steps as the other countries took before. (This also includes their policies on IP. The US stole a lot of IP from England when it was building up it's industry.)
Stop this cherry picking nonsense involving only the last two data points of many, there are only three ways out of this for you:
1: Find a credible source for a graph that backs your assertion regarding the US vs. EU CO2 emissions trends.
2: STFU
3: Accept your status as a liar and continue lying.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
uh no. You are correct in saying that America is neither the biggist nor the worst, HOWEVER, that does not mean that we are not big. We are 14% of the emitted CO2. To be fair, once OCO3 comes on-line and we can fully map the emissions around the world, I think that America's calculated levels will remain about the same, however, our % of the total will drop. BUT, we are STILL A LARGE EMITTER. Make no mistake about it. We are either #2, or possibly #3.
America has been headed in the right direction for the last 10 years. We need to continue that. Right now, it is the states that are doing it, not the feds. In fact, Trump's recent bill about methane emissions by oil companies may finally be the bill that increases America's GHG emissions.
OTOH, Tesla is continuing to push EVs at a faster and faster rate and consumers are walking away from ICE.
And yes, the HUGE emitter is China. The worst part is that they are continuing to grow and the far left along with trolls are good with that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
There are loads of far lefties here combined with trolls that will scream that China deserves to pollute.
They do not. But what they also don't deserve to do is get criticised for producing 1/3rd of the emissions per capita compared to the USA.
Physician heal thyself.
Your numbers do not support the statement "the big emitter is not the USA, it doesn't matter what the USA does.". 5 Gt is not insignificant compared to 10 Gt. But, even if it was, the argument would still be flawed which can be easily seen if you bring it full circle:
1. France only emits 300,000 kt which is "nothing" (6%) compared to the US 5,000,000 kt so it doesn't matter what France does.
2. USA only emits 5,000,000 kt which is "nothing" (50%) compared to Chinas 10,000,000 kt so it doesn't matter what the USA does.
3. China only emits 10,000,000 kt which is "nothing" (30%) compared to the total of 36,000,000 kt so it doesn't matter what China does.
So, by that logic it doesn't matter if China reduces its emissions unless everyone else does since China emit "nothing" of the total. But all countries (like France) emit "nothing" of the total so it doesn't matter what anyone does.
The obvious solution is of course global cooperation and international agreements but... I guess you don't like that either, especially since good arguments are made why the developed world should take a larger part of the costs than the developing world (historical emissions, economic headroom, emissions per capita etc).
I used the numbers from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A more fuel efficient car may be trading passenger lives for higher miles per gallon.
A heavier, less fuel efficient vehicle may be trading safety of the occupants of other vehicles it may get into an accident with for the safety of its occupants.
Are you really going to say an American should be allowed 3 times the carbon output of a Chinese citizen? If you aren't willing to cut your own output significantly, you have no right to bitch about another human, regardless of whether they are your neighbor or on the other side of the planet.
Repubs hate green energy because they view it in regressive. (Mindmills were around in the 15th century).
People who can do arithmetic hate the headlong-rush to replace base load generating capacity with sunny-days-when-the-wind-is-blowing energy.
Nuclear energy can be the compromise. It will look like we are moving forward, while not producing evil carbon dioxide. We will need to lesson the regulatory burdern but not eliminate it. As it is we have a stalemate.
Yeah, I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear for ... oh, about 40 years now. The so-called "Greens", of course, hate nuclear with an undying white-hot hatred. They will hate any energy source that threatens to be able to supply industrial/technological civilization. ANY energy source. Mark my words. If flow batteries threaten to actually make "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy sufficient to keep industrial/technological civilization running, they *will* find some reason that it's The Most Horrible Evil Ever. Guaranteed.