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.
Since the EU and Asia has only increased their emissions year after year it makes sense. The EU in particular increased their carbon emissions by 1.7 percent in 2017. The problem will continue to exist until countries reduce their emissions.
The Space Force will fix it by orbiting thousands of sun umbrellas, and all the rockets will be made in the former rustbelt in bustling rocket factories. We thought he was a babbling lunatic, but it all makes sense now! Sorry I doubted. MAGA!
Table-ized A.I.
This is an NHTSA study to weigh the costs and benefits of automobile fuel efficiency standards.
A more fuel efficient car may be trading passenger lives for higher miles per gallon. It makes sense to determine what the benefits are.
In this case the preliminary study is saying the beneficial impact on warming may be insignificant. You can argue about those conclusions, but arguing about climate change as a whole is irrelevant to the point of the study.
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.
"Make the lie big, keep it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it." - Joseph Goebbels
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It matters insofar as prosperity is the only know non-cruel means of drastic population control, because economically secure modernized families seem to trend towards less than replacement births voluntarily the world over. Even in India, educated women who can easily feed and get medical care for their children just shrug after two or even one baby -- they are not personally interested in a larger than small family.
It would sure be nice not to have severe climate transitions over a measly century or so to create poverty and cause a few billion people to "die off" by other means.
China has 4x the number of people that the US has
So the US produces 3x as much CO2 output per person than China?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Currently but the USA is the biggest per capita. China is actually investing heavily in renewables and leading in the field so their output will start to decline at some point. So you can help by not buying cheap chinese goods and not being so individually wasteful with resources and bring down the per capita usage levels.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
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.)
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.