Slashdot Mirror
UK Steps Towards Zero-Carbon Economy (bbc.com)
The UK is taking a tentative step towards a radical "green" future with zero emissions of greenhouse gases. From a report: The government is formally seeking Climate Change Committee (CCC) guidance about how and when to make this leap. If it happens it would mark an extraordinary transformation of an economy built on burning fossil fuels. The decision was prompted by last week's UN report warning that CO2 emissions must be stopped completely to avoid dangerous climate disruption.
Climate minister Claire Perry told BBC News: "The report was a really stark and sober piece of work -- a good piece of work. "Now we know what the goal is and we know what some of the levers are. But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that, both in the UK and in the global economy. The question is: what does government need to do, where can the private sector come in, and what technologies will come through?"
Ms Perry has declared this week to be Green GB Week, which aims to raise debate in society about how to tackle climate change while also growing the economy. The UK's current target is a reduction of 80% of emissions by 2050 based on 1990 levels. But the CCC is warning that the UK will drift further away from this goal unless new policies are introduced.
Climate minister Claire Perry told BBC News: "The report was a really stark and sober piece of work -- a good piece of work. "Now we know what the goal is and we know what some of the levers are. But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that, both in the UK and in the global economy. The question is: what does government need to do, where can the private sector come in, and what technologies will come through?"
Ms Perry has declared this week to be Green GB Week, which aims to raise debate in society about how to tackle climate change while also growing the economy. The UK's current target is a reduction of 80% of emissions by 2050 based on 1990 levels. But the CCC is warning that the UK will drift further away from this goal unless new policies are introduced.
Oh sorry, we're not talking about Brexit.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that
Wrong question. The correct question is how much will it cost if you don't do anything. These violent storms that cost you hundreds of millions of pounds every time they hit are just the beginning.
No sig today...
Not the fluff from the climate minister that is, rather that Gove The Flower Pot Man isn't in charge of this.
The Tories reversed the law on new homes needing to be zero carbon three years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
The means to get to a zero carbon economy exists today, nuclear power and hydrocarbon synthesis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I keep hearing about how if we don't reduce our CO2 immediately then we will create runaway global warming. We have a technology that can provide energy that is zero carbon (or rather closer to zero than wind and solar), plentiful, inexpensive (again compared to wind and solar), reliable, domestically sourced (no matter how you define "domestic"), and exists today.
Why don't we have more nuclear power? Because some nuclear waste is "scary"? You want me to believe that some nuclear waste is a greater threat to humanity than global warming? I'm not convinced. You want me to believe that "any day now" wind and solar will displace coal, oil, and natural gas? Well, we've been trying to do that for decades now and it's not happening very quickly. For an island nation like the UK the ability to meet their energy needs from wind and solar is likely impossible. Maybe they have enough friendly neighbors across the channel to get more wind and sun. What of Japan? They don't have any friendly neighbors, what should they do?
Again, which am I to fear more, nuclear power or global warming? Pick one, because we are running out of time for wind and sun to save us.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Carbon emissions are not the problem. That we're not recycling them back, is.
Because that's the difference between running out of food at one side and drowning in shit at the other, and survival.
But hey, not like this was about any of that. ;)
enjoy your horrible painfull black lung death may it last 20 years.
The UK has done a good job reducing emissions since 2012. Unfortunately the EU has not, and has been increasing their emissions.
Nitpicking very mich?
We had a bad winter, idiot. So we used more oil and gas and coal to heat houses. And that was in a single year: 2017. Before that the EU just did reduce as much as the UK did.
And in the year 2017, the UK increased their CO2 emissions, just like the rest of the EU did.
And: UK are still in the EU ... which makes comparisons a bit more complicated. Especially if so many people proudly write since 2012. Which makes no sense. The EU is reducing CO2 emissions since roughly 1995. And Germany since roughly 1980. What is so special about 2012? The UK joined late, but not that late.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No, you need to ask both of these questions and then look at the delta between them.
Say we spend $1 trillion and prevent $10 trillion in damage over 100 years. 10% return per year. Good, let's do that.
Say we spend $10 trillion and prevent $50 trillion in damage. Only half as good, but still worthwhile.
Say we can spend $100 trillion and prevent $100 trillion in damage. Umm... not so good. Given the inherent uncertainties in forecasting, let's not bother with that one.
Bad:
>It's snowing therefore global warming is a lie!
Good:
>It's raining therefore global warming is true!
Okay.
Why u not show up for fight?
Unironically this. Warmer, more storms (which I love), massive global catastrophe in my lifetime, and a much-overdue culling of the human species. Bring it on. If the human race outlives me I'm going to be pissed.
Less long-term damage will be done to the environment with a full-blown catastrophe than if humanity figures out how to be just sustainable enough that the planet doesn't literally melt and clings to Apex Predator status for another 100,000 years.
IMHO, general solution for Global Warming, is definitely NOT, carbon tax nor drastic (& extremely risky & costly!) global geoengineering attempts, etc!
What is really most effective against Global Warming (and by far!) is forests!
So, what is really needed is a global UN agreement about which country must increase their forests, by how much, by when?!
(But, obviously, all new forests need to be created in a well planned way that cannot be burned all down easily/completely!)
Of course, increasing solar & wind power plants, increasing efficiency of all kinds of vehicles, etc would also help greatly!
But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that
Wrong question. The correct question is how much will it cost if you don't do anything. These violent storms that cost you hundreds of millions of pounds every time they hit are just the beginning.
Gee if only people hadn't of built in places that always got hit by hurricanes. Here's a prediction for you, in the future they will do still more damage. Because there will be even more people living in their paths and the property will be even more valuable.
We had a bad winter, idiot. So we used more oil and gas and coal to heat houses. And that was in a single year: 2017. Before that the EU just did reduce as much as the UK did.
Wait, the EU missed their carbon emission goals because the winter was cold? That's grade A bullshit right there. You didn't know that winter was going to be cold? Oh, but it was really cold, you say? Well, that's a pretty lame CO2 reduction effort if "bad winter" can make your reduction efforts be reversed.
Here's an idea, stop buying natural gas from Russia and build some nuclear power plants. Then replace those old oil and gas furnaces with some heat pumps and resistance heaters. You'd not only reduce your CO2 but you quite likely reduce your electricity costs as well.
Here's my theory on why the EU has seen increases in their CO2 emissions. The use of unreliable energy from wind and solar means relying on inefficient natural gas turbines to make up for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Instead of 60% efficient boilers the need to back up wind and solar means needing 30% efficient turbines. As the wind and solar use grows so does the need for more turbines. You see reductions of CO2 until you hit the point that turbines are displacing natural gas boilers instead of coal. As you get more and more wind and solar the need for turbines keeps going up and so does your CO2 emissions for the same "real" energy produced.
This isn't just my theory, lot's of people that study things like this came up with this theory. Wind and solar only work as energy sources so long as there is natural gas to back them up. Relying too heavily on wind and solar means CO2 emissions start to go up instead of down.
The EU has been going wild building out wind and solar (mostly wind though) and they've now met the max they can deploy this and see a reduction in CO2. Going from 0% wind to 10% wind is easy. Going from 10% to 20% is also trivial. Going from 20% to 30% is going to get a bit difficult. Getting from 30% to 40% will be nearly impossible. Well, impossible in that you'll see any reduction in CO2 as a result.
I predict another "bad winter" for the EU, with plenty more to come. At some point people will have to question the sanity of deploying so much wind power and/or the validity of global warming scares. If it keeps getting so cold there that you need to burn so much coal to stay warm then maybe you should just keep burning that coal, global warming would be a bit helpful.
Even if you don't believe in climate change wouldn't it be nice to enjoy cleaner air and purer water? It sure would make those hunting and fishing trips much more enjoyable now wouldn't it? No matter which side of the great "climate debate" you fall on, it makes no sense to be against improving the environment we all have to live in.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
To be for CO2 control while wanting economic growth is simply not possible. We must have CO2 control but we must resist all growth. That includes population growth. Pollution is a consequence of human activity. The more humans we have the more pollution we must have. So yes, we must totally change all of our economic policies and habits. And yes, wealthier people will take a harder hit than the poor. In my area it would help to freeze new construction including not allowing new rooms to be added to homes or businesses. We also need to get gas and diesel cars and trucks reduced in number quite quickly. We are left with electric vehicles or hydrogen using vehicles as a consequence. We also need to consider limiting travel and tourism to reduce emissions. We then might want to look at how close a person would be required to live to their place of employment. It will be shocking but there really is zero choice if we wish human life to survive.
Except solar is a damn site cheaper than coal if you take into account the capital costs spent on coal. (3 cents a kilowatt hour). It's only because you've already SPENT that capital on profits to Murray Energy that Murray is able to undermine solar capital spends with propaganda.
And that's not counting the costs of the pollution from the coal*.
* And if Murray Energy gets their way and the head of the EPA (a former Murray Energy lobbyist) eliminates the mercury limit, the cost of pollution will be a lot higher.
All this story says to me is that the UK's climate minister is a little green. Firstly, she's confused if she thinks the science tells us "what the goal is". The 1.5 degrees C goal is an arbitrary line that humans drew, it doesn't come from any science. And surely she must know that the first rule of commissions and inquiries is, don't ask a question unless you want to know what the answer is? Because if she is leaving herself open to committing the UK to a vastly expensive transition to non-fossil fuels at the same time as Brexit, she obviously doesn't value her job very much.
The
Lmao violent storms. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. You libtards are so god damn stupid.
In this post, APK is revealing his favorite activities for him and his ex-marine "roommate". You guys have some disgusting fetishes.
Get woke, go broke.
at least not in the United States. Here we're afraid of private businesses operating unsafe reactors to save a buck. Worst case with a natural gas plant is a big explosion. With a nuke plant you're talking decades of contamination.
What you need to do to get folks like me to buy into nuclear is convince me it's cheaper to run a safe plant than an unsafe one. And not just because "We'll be sued". Fukushima has more or less proved that there's no real consequences for the folks in charge. They'll be dead before the wheels of justice turn if they ever do. No, we need plants who's day to day operations are cheaper to run safe. Safety is always an option when you need to save money now.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Now everyone else will have to pick up the slack in production of waste and green house gasses to make up for these losses.
The BREXIT will leave the UK in poverty.
Just like south Italy, parts of Portugal or Greece.
They won't be in any position to work on CO2 emissions.
They simply will be another poor neighbour of the EU wanting to be dragged around and spoon fed.
Sad, sad, Sad!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I see, you're stupid.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Let me quess: Trump said it's so.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Nuclear power is yet another idiotic non-renewable trick from those who forever will not get, that non-renewable inevitably means it will run out, resulting in death. And non-renewable waste. So drowning in our own shit.
Although the latter will not happen, because nuclear fuels will be used up, way before even fossil fuels.
Making it a *really* Trump-level stupid "solution".
I see, you're stupid.
Neat trick. Do you do animal impressions as well ?
Yeah, because Switzerland and Norway are such poverty-stricken counties...
Greece, Italy and Portugal were still in the EU last time I checked.
But otherwise - a sound argument. Thanks, Jean-Claude!
So the UK is going for a Norwegian or Switzerland agreement now? Last I checked that crossed to many red lines taking rules from the EU looks more like a no deal. Norway have their oil and are willing to pump alot of money on to the EU. Switzerland have a rich population that moved there to hid their assets, and are happy to pay alot in to the EU. What does the UK have and what are they willing to pay?
Again, which am I to fear more, nuclear power or global warming? Pick one, because we are running out of time for wind and sun to save us.
Nice job with the scare tactic - nuclear power or we all die! The sky is falling! And nice try in your post below, in using the very specialized case of the US Navy in their attempt to project power around the globe with boats. Fortunately US consumers have a few more choices and a little more flexibility than the Navy.
Scare tactics and false dichotomies aside, there's a long history behind the two old arguments you are making, now cleverly rolled into one. And they're both a shell game. Where's the pea, quick, follow my hands! There is no pea. And there is no argument for nuclear saving us, or that the sky is falling. We have work to do, but we're not all gonna die. Unless you make me spill my drink, or cheat me in a card game, or look at my woman... except I don't drink or gamble, and my woman is fiercely independent and loyal, and I am unnaturally studly... so, we're probably not all gonna die. Not even from global warming. There are many potential solutions, and we're just getting started.
First, big nuclear has been living on life support from the government tit from day one. The full-cycle economics have always been questionable, but the lure of 'more funding!' and 'more research, we're almost there!' have kept that ball rolling. Niche markets for nuclear will continue on - like aircraft carriers and submarines. For civilian energy, pick a fission design - the latest and greatest is just around the corner, if we just try that, then we're saved! Except, human error. Hey, we can design that out. Great! Except, tidal wave. Damn, we can fix that too. What next? Sabotage? Meteorite? Rapid disruptive innovation making massive, nation-state enterprise level energy projects obsolete? Don't laugh.
Fission, the neglected ugly stepchild of Nuclear, is even more interesting. Always 30 years away with the promise of 'saving the world' with abundant, clean energy. That only a nation-state can build, maintain, and provide. For which you will pay taxes. For energy. And protection. And god knows what else. Just give us more research money. Any day now. For what, 40 years now? Great, no thanks.
When nuclear is discussed, why is so little mentioned about the promising young upstarts - the Filo T. Farnsworth inspired (yep, the guy that invented the television picture tube while trying to make a fusion reactor new designs, such as the Polywell? Or something really new, like Helion's Magneto-inertial fusion reactor, or even Lockheed Martin's Compact Fusion Reactor?
They aren't mentioned because there's no Westinghouse behind them to buy publicity. Or is it Toshiba now, no, wait, it's Brookfield Business Partners". Just follow the money and the claims of saving the world (and corporate desperation) - they will both lead to a special interest group somewhere, with their own little Buddy Jesus bobble head and claims of salvation.
The same goes for the fossil fuel shell games. If we can just keep the promise of abundant ,cheap fossil fuels alive, we'll keep our increasingly monopolistic empire alive! Look, we can make fossil fuels, sans new carbon, and it will save the world! Everybody will be happy! Especially the status quo.
Back in the 1970's the US ran out of oil because it was controlled by a few who didn't see eye to eye with the US, and your grandparents had to wait in line at the gas station due to federally mandated rationing.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Did anyone actually look at the Paris agreement? It was a gigantic scam. America pays a huge amount of taxpayer money and gets nothing in return. The whole world agrees this is a fine state of affairs. Why do you think they screamed so much when Trump pulled out of it?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
No, because nuclear has not yet been safely applied.
We have spam fritters... a vast and mostly untapped resource of culinary delight.
Yes.
Wrong. The limit was chosen based on modelling climate change and estimating its effects with different amounts of warming. We know for a fact thanks to climate related sciences that 1,5 degrees of warming is better for us and the planetary ecosystem as whole than say 2 or more degrees, and we also know that if rapid action is taken, the 1,5 degrees is still attainable.
That's why it was chosen. It represents the best-case scenario with the data we currently have. It's still not great, but it's the least bad alternative going forwards, and that's an estimate based entirely on science(s) and what we know 2+ degrees will do to the planet/us.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Does the trillions spent by the USA on "defense" prevent trillions in damage? No, but they still do it.
How about for just one year they use the money to install renewable energy instead? See what happens.
No sig today...
Gee if only people hadn't of built in places that always got hit by hurricanes. Here's a prediction for you, in the future they will do still more damage. Because there will be even more people living in their paths and the property will be even more valuable.
They have pretty scenery. And a neat government insurance plan that means the taxpayers buy the people brand new houses every time theirs is wrecked.
Take away that insurance and they'll soon move out.
No sig today...
Nothing ... except a future.
To be fair, they are the biggest polluters and their crap affects the entire world.
No sig today...
Who knows what agreement they will get. But they will surely be better off than south Italy. They have a lot more industry than southern Italy, and a lot less mafia ruining things.
After pulling out, they are not guaranteed unhindered access to the EU market. But then, any blocks the EU throws up can be countered by EU not getting unhindered access to the UK market.
If they loose market access, stopping EU products will be easy. Competition from German mass-production & cheap labor in southern EU was some of the reasons for pulling out.
The #tory commitment to climate change consists of giving up plastic bags for a month and getting ones picture in the local rag. The UK Government has given the go ahead to pursue fracking and we have a minister for the environment who couldnt be bothered to go to the climate change summit. Those are facts , probably wont be reported by the BBC / Ministry of Propaganda.
oh yeah.. helping the poorer countries to modernise is so UnChristian.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Yeah because we can totally know what long term effects the climate will have.
Wake up! We can't even reliably predict the f*king weather two weeks out, let alone the climate 30-100 years out. And since we can't do that there is NO way of knowing what anything climate will cause in the future.
Besides all these calculations do not take into account the technology and societal avances but assume ceterus paribus on all things except CO2 emissions & climate (read: temperature). That's hilarious as it is but even more so since CO2 is not a leading indicator of temperature.
Of course that's not surprising as the IPCC's task is to search for "evidence" on human induced climate change. The body as it stands is incaoable of stating any other than adverse effects of human activity. We can reduce emissions to the max all we want, the IPCC will keep asking for more.
Don't believe me. Just read up on it and you will see.
The problem is, the UK (at the moment at least) doesn't seem to want either of those models either. Norway has adopted about 75 % of EU regulations as part of its trade agreements with the EU, maintains an open border and pays about 2/3rds of what the UK does no to the Union.
In essence, Norway (and Switzlerland) are basically pretty much quasi-members of the EU: the pay slightly less than they would were they full members but that comes at the cost of them not having any say in EU policies.
The UK is trying to have their cake and eat it too, by maintaining access to the single market without having to follow any of the rules or paying anything for that benefit. It makes zero sense for the Union to give any kind of special treatment to the UK, because that'd be unfair to both Norway and Switzerland (and others), but the UK still does not seem to get this.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
We're Haole, bro; we don't speak Moke.
The value goes "up," huh.
We can't do shit to help the rest of the world if we're racing them to the bottom...
>We can't even reliably predict the f*king weather t climate science 101 fail. climate != weather.
These violent storms that cost you hundreds of millions of pounds every time they hit are just the beginning.
And this is why so many people end up being skeptical. Fear-mongering.
The worst storm I've witnessed in my life was during the 90s. Most people around here would agree with me.
I'm not a denier, at all. But telling all of us "do this or else it'll get worse!" when nobody truly knows for sure, is why there are still a lot of people who dismiss climate change.
Average people are really fucking sick of the whole "the sky is falling!"
I tend to rant.
I live in a sensible part of the country that isn't hit with those storms.
My house is over 100 years old. It isn't just 'part of the country' it's also where you build. The crappy land is the open land that nobody has built on, or is 'cleared' by nature every decade or so. Nobody should build there.
If you want a 'scenic' dwelling right adjacent to the ocean, you should pay the penalty for living there, not the entire rest of us.
Who's Christian here? Why is it that when our own people are suffering at home, we send money away to hostile countries that despise us? Let's fix our own problems first. Then, after that's done we can turn to the rest of the world and start solving their problems for them. Although, do we really have something to lose as Americans if we pull back our external activity? It seems the more fingers we have in pies like NATO, the Middle Eastern countries, and so forth, the more problems we create.
World leadership does not employ or feed your starved citizens. It's a white elephant. Any country looks after own interest first and then only other countries. If anyone has problem with that, they can go fuck themselves. American president puts America first. Rest can go and fuck themselves. Same goes with China. Chinese put China first. Others can ... you know what.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Only because the US is the worst major developed nation by far for per-capita emissions. It's not like the EU isn't paying anything either, look at how much money Germany has put in to mitigating climate change. Of course Germany is also reaping the rewards of having pioneered a lot of that technology.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The same reasoning could be used to never get insurance.
The same reasoning could be used to never get vaccinated.
The same reasoning could be used to never wear a condom.
The list goes on...
#DeleteFacebook
Gee if only people hadn't of built in places that always got hit by hurricanes. Here's a prediction for you, in the future they will do still more damage. Because there will be even more people living in their paths and the property will be even more valuable.
They have pretty scenery. And a neat government insurance plan that means the taxpayers buy the people brand new houses every time theirs is wrecked.
Take away that insurance and they'll soon move out.
This is very true. I just wouldn't hold my breath, seeing as beachfront property and a property on the water in general is something that only the wealthier parts of the population can afford, and they are more politically connected than ever.
Does the trillions spent by the USA on "defense" prevent trillions in damage? Yes it does. Can you make the estimate of how much the united states of america is worth. Without sufficient defense spending the united states will cease to exist aka total loss and I suspect the country and it's security is 'worth' a lot more the $10 trillion dollars. ;)
Even if you simply count the GDP over the next 20 years
Mind you, I'm not really an advocate of increased defense spending. I tend to think we spend to much, but I'd rather have people making arguments against defense spending that make good sense rather then this kind of messy thinking.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Yeah the UK did so well before the EU. The English always think that trade is the objective for the EU. But for the EU trade has always been a means to an end. Guessing that's why negotiations goes so poorly and the UK representatives act so surprised.
Once they get rid of all those troublesome people and animals exhaling carbon dioxide, the goal will be reached. Soon after that, all the plans will be gone too.
"Without sufficient defense spending the united states will cease to exist aka total loss and I suspect the country and it's security is 'worth' a lot more the $10 trillion dollars. ;)
Even if you simply count the GDP over the next 20 years
Mind you, I'm not really an advocate of increased defense spending. I tend to think we spend to much, but I'd rather have people making arguments against defense spending that make good sense rather then this kind of messy thinking"
When talking about "defense spending" make sure to include that bloated tick called Homeland Security.
How much less safe would America be if spending were cut back to pre-2001 levels?
A LOT of defense spending is just a welfare program for defense contractors.
USA has 6000+ aircraft across several branches of the military and now there's going to be Space Force, FFS???
The US spends about $700 billion a year on defense. Clearly not all of that is spent on oil and the Middle East, but let's say it is. The EU gets about 20% of its petroleum from the Middle East, and the US gets about 16% from the Middle East. Assuming that oil runs about 30% of the economy of a region (transport, pharma, power, manufacturing, plastics, etc) that means about $7 trillion in annual economic activity is dependent upon the US military in the Middle East. And assuming that all US military spending is in the Middle East, that would be about a 10X return.
Now, we could always slash all our involvement in the Middle East, and turn off the spigots. The US currently has a net import of oil around 30% of its consumption (we do produce a massive amount domestically), and most of our imports are from Canada and Mexico. The EU has a net import of oil around 85% of its consumption - meaning it would have essentially no way of replacing oil (at least for now). So, ultimately, we're spending those hundreds of billions of dollars to protect and ensure the delivery of power predominantly for our allies in the EU. And that's generating around 10-15X returns in terms of economic activity. Is that worth the cost?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Gee if only people hadn't of built in places that always got hit by hurricanes. Here's a prediction for you, in the future they will do still more damage. Because there will be even more people living in their paths and the property will be even more valuable.
Like the Caribbean?
Accumulated cyclone energy has been trending down since 1992. So the "energy" of storms has been decreasing, even though costs from storm damage have been increasing. Construction costs have roughly doubled in the last 25 years, meaning you can do half the damage and end up with the same total cost.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
To be fair, they are the biggest polluters and their crap affects the entire world.
You mean China? China was essentially exempted from the Paris Accord until 2030. They can continue to be the worst polluter for another 14 years, that was all A-OK. In fact, the US was supposed to pay China to continue polluting...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Nations, countries, America, China... how quaint... Man, you are barking up a tree without a paddle! You really like being the businessman's boy-toy? Assume the position!
Only because the US is the worst major developed nation by far for per-capita emissions.
Does the climate depend upon "per capita" or does it depend upon total emissions? If the former - then go ahead, beat up the US. If it is the latter (and you know it is), then China is the biggest offender by far - but somehow they are given a pass on all things CO2-related...
It's not like the EU isn't paying anything either, look at how much money Germany has put in to mitigating climate change. Of course Germany is also reaping the rewards of having pioneered a lot of that technology.
Germany also pays about the highest price in the EU per kWh for electricity, nearly double most of its neighbors and quadruple that of the US. That new technology certainly is extremely expensive, and with increasing CO2 emissions for Germany (as opposed to falling CO2 for the US), it's not doing much to lower their impact.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Perhaps the UK could join the new US-Mexico-Canada Agreement? Who says they have to stand alone, they could join the biggest trading bloc out there - and we'd welcome them.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I saw another article that said we're past the point of no return, so there is no use trying at this point.
So it's straight to point 13 these days?
Ezekiel 23:20
Fear-mongering.
The worst storm I've witnessed in my life was during the 90s
Define "witness"?
You mean caught into it, or saw on news?
The biggest storm in mankind's recorded history was January/February 2016. It spanned more or less the whole north atlantic. Obviously it was not in the news in the US. Perhaps because it only made partial landfall in north UK?
Anyway, thousands of ships got rerouted, hence we had no losses.
Average people are really fucking sick of the whole "the sky is falling!" ... I'm sure you will be able to weather it out the next decades just you did right now ...
It is just water
Ignorance is a bliss.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If it is the latter (and you know it is) ... and we all know that except you.
No it is not
As you are the 3rd or 4th worst polluter in total, who cares anyway? You have a long way to go ... but you don't want to admit it.
Germany also pays about the highest price in the EU per kWh for electricity, nearly double most of its neighbors and quadruple that of the US.
No, not double of it as it neighbours, only France is "cheaper" but electricity there is heavily subsidized.
Considering that a German only needs a 6th or less the electricity an american needs, obviously our rate per kWh is higher. Infrastructure costs the same, regardless how much power you consume.
And: power prices here are 50% taxes. To encourage people to use less power. So no idea what you find wrong with it. As long as my power bill is only half of what a typical american pays: why would I care about cent / kWh?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Does the climate depend upon "per capita" or does it depend upon total emissions?
No, which is why the US is bad because it's both wasteful AND large. However, the population of Earth between the alternatives is fixed. If you covered the Earth with Chinas to match the current population, it would better emissions-wise than covering it with USes.
Germany also pays about the highest price in the EU per kWh for electricity, nearly double most of its neighbors and quadruple that of the US. That new technology certainly is extremely expensive
Germany's high prices are caused by paying for OLD technology. Costs of future installations CAN'T be extrapolated from German payments to operators of OLD equipment with grandfathered feed-in tariffs.
Ezekiel 23:20
You simplify quite a bit.
Norway is a full EU member, it is just not part of the Euro Zone.
Switzerland is no EU member at all. The businesses there mostly accept Euro, but only to treat it as a 1 : 1 currency ratio and hand back change in Franks and shrive on the exchange rate.
The only thing Switzerland has "in common" with the EU is that they either joined or associated somehow to the Schengen Treaties, that means an EU wide "Schengen" visa is valid for Switzerland, too.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So the climate only worries about who emits the most per capita, not the most overall? Great to know! So why not rail against Luxembourg with higher emissions per capita than the US? Hey, it's even part of the EU! Luxembourg is much worse for the environment than the US - their CO2 emissions are higher per capita, after all...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Huh - an either/or question and you answer "no"?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You skipped the part where I said I wasn't a denier.
I just understand lay-people apparently.
I tend to rant.
Wake up! We can't even reliably predict the f*king weather two weeks out, let alone the climate 30-100 years out.
If I'm filling a pool with a hose, and I know that the average water surface is rising by a millimeter per minute, I won't know any better how high a wind-induced wave is going to be in a given place at a given time, but I will *still* know that the average will be six centimeters higher an hour from now.
Ezekiel 23:20
Listen to yourself. I better quit farting if we want these storms to subside. What a bitch.
Luxembourg is much worse for the environment than the US - their CO2 emissions are higher per capita, after all...
Luxembourg actually has 39% lower emissions per unit of GDP than the United States.
Ezekiel 23:20
Don't exhale!!
That's their motto, you know. "Space Force, For Free Space!"
Does the climate depend upon "per capita" or does it depend upon total emissions? If the former - then go ahead, beat up the US. If it is the latter (and you know it is), then China is the biggest offender by far - but somehow they are given a pass on all things CO2-related...
Getting tired of this excuse. Stop worrying about who is the worst and clean up your shit. When you're 50th on the list then you can whine - it still won't help anyone, but at least you won't sound so fucking entitled.
Oh, so it's not CO2 per country, nor CO2 per capita, it's now CO2 per unit GDP? Is the actual goal to always find a way to paint the US as "bad"?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It's simple. Given a fixed population of Earth, CO2 per capita needs to be below a certain level to prevent adverse consequences. Given the resulting permissible CO2 per capita, CO2 per unit of GDP *also* needs to be low enough to ensure a decent standard of living. So both need to satisfy certain limits. US fares badly at both, Luxembourg fares badly at CO2 per capita but less so at CO2 per unit of GDP. Some other countries have the opposite problem of Luxembourg.
Ezekiel 23:20
So now we must require that countries reign in their population growth to stabilize the population? Take a look at where the population is growing - it's not the 1st world. We started with "CO2 is bad for the Earth" and now we've reached eugenics.
If CO2 is bad, it doesn't matter where it comes from, or who generates it - it should be limited. Calling out a country that is reducing its CO2 - and is half as much as the leader - seems petty and done from spite. If you want to solve the CO2 issue, focus on the big source of CO2 - China.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Calling out a country that is reducing its CO2 - and is half as much as the leader - seems petty and done from spite. If you want to solve the CO2 issue, focus on the big source of CO2 - China.
Given that China is the one emitting half as much CO2 per inhabitant as the US, why are you being petty?
Ezekiel 23:20
I have read, and you are an idiot who doesn't know weather from climate.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Luxembourg has less population than NYC ...
The parent is just an idiot.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Being a moran sounds like more fun!
But an equally unsupported argument, and maybe even better one, can be made that things would be better if the US wasn't involved in the middle east.
"UK Steps Towards Zero-Carbon Economy" - ha they've just restarted fracking in the North West! Against the wishes of everyone in the area :-(
Because the climate cares not one whit about how much each person emits - it cares about the TOTAL emissions. If you want to solve CO2 emissions, you have to start with the biggest out there - China. They cannot be left alone, like the Paris Accord and most other climate treaties do. Of course, China's not going to give hundreds of billions of dollars to other nations, so that's the real reason they are ignored - they are not a source of money. Only the biggest (twice the US) source of CO2.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
per-capita emissions? Really?
People, including myself, have already explained to you that individuals are a blip in greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions comes from industry. For myself and 99.9% of the rest of the people on this planet, we do not get to share in the wealth that industry creates, so why would you put the onus of climate change on those same people with "per-capita emissions".
You are intellectually dishonest in your thinking and in your arguments. Furthermore, I don't like you as a person. All of that said, I still modded something you said in another "article" in a positive manner because what you had said there was positive.
TL;DR, stop talking about climate change and emissions until you are honest with yourself. The individual has close to zero influence or control over emissions. Even the dumbasses who "roll coal" don't make a difference.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Per capita doesn't mean the emissions of actual people individually, it means the amount the whole country including industry produces divided by population. It's a useful metric because it allows us to compare countries directly despite their differing size, and is fair because we all have to share this planet.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You said "went boom" because you wanted to say "they exploded" but didn't have the facts to back it up. Using a synonym lets the reader insert the phrase you actually wanted them to hear while you get to feign ignorance like you just did. It's a common psychological method employed by advertisers, politicians, and psyops.
I dunno about that dude, but you're doing an AWESOME jackass impression.
I dunno about that dude, but you're doing an AWESOME jackass impression.
Oh man I've got nothing on AC's when it comes to that.
Because the climate cares not one whit about how much each person emits - it cares about the TOTAL emissions.
If you want to solve CO2 emissions, you have to start with the biggest out there - China.
Oh, if *that* is how you reason, then the solution is simple - split China into smaller countries and the problem is solved!
Ezekiel 23:20
People, including myself, have already explained to you that individuals are a blip in greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions comes from industry.
A small hint: "Per-capita emissions" don't mean breathing and farting of individuals.
Ezekiel 23:20
Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the gigantic amounts of crap you've put in atmosphere?
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.