Your president pledged that your country will work with the rest of the world to keep global warming under 2 Celcius. That's it. That's the Paris agreement,
That's what's known as an international treaty, which for the US requires the Senate to agree with it and approve it.
No, since it falls in the powers of the presidency. Just like keeping the US embassy in Tel-Aviv.
If President Obama signed off on something without putting it before the Senate for approval, it means nothing to our nation.
Wrong, the president has many powers that do not require senate approval. I am not a US-american and I know your country better than you.
Our federal government does not put that much power into the hands of a single man, because that would be moronic.
Haha good one.
If it is only symbolic, why the big hubbub about Trump stepping back from it?
Because symbols matter in international diplomacy. The fact that Trump can't even keep a symbolic agreement means a lot on what he thinks of climate change.
Again, what President Obama signed up for without Senate approval/confirmation can be rescinded by any other president just as quickly. Nothing can force us to follow an international treaty we never agreed to. And if it is only symbolic, as you argue, what can possibly be done to us for four years, symbolically speaking?
I agree and Trump just did it. However, other countries will continue to consider the USA is part of the agreement if the 4 year clause exists (I didn't check). And nothing can be done, since it is symbolic. Except of course naming and shaming the USA.
People are always going to choose to emit more CO2 than what is sustainable for the planet if they can make others pay for the consequences of that pollution. That's why we need CO2 to be taxed and/or capped (cap and trade).
The total energy use per capita is still lower in Norway compared to the USA, 84% according to wikipedia (Sweden is at 69%). Despite the fact that Norway is a richer country. And Canada uses more energy per capita than USA, which proves my point that heating uses more energy than cooling.
I would even say that the USA pretty much has the perfect latitude, as a whole. Put it more into the north or the south and the energy usage would be even higher. But the north would have the biggest impact.
The problem is that people in the USA use way to much gas in their way to big cars.
If you regularly use heat of any type, the heat pump would be a no-brainer.
The problem is that you need a backup heater for cases when the temperature drop below about -15 C. Because of that, a minority of houses have a heat pump in cold climates.
$1000 is nothing, a few months of heating at most. The problem with reversible heat pumps is that they get inefficient at low temperature, which means they don't give any advantage when heating below say, -15 C. So in short, when heating, you pay for 100% of your energy. When cooling, you only pay for one third as you just throw your heat outside. The 29 degree spread of Oslo (vs 33 in Philly) doesn't explain why they emit half the CO2 of the average US person.
Air conditioning takes almost no energy compared to heating. Even if it's 30 C all summer, it's much cheaper to cool than it would be to heat from -20 C. Add to that that AC uses a heat pump instead of inefficient resistive (or fuel burning) heating, and AC costs can almost be considered a rounding error.
Nordic countries have low population density, harsh winters, prosperous economy and pollute far less per capita (around half I think). But they don't drive pick-up trucks or large SUV 45 minutes each way to go to work and their houses are smaller.
It's not being jerk, but it's the effect of the choice of having very low fuel taxes for decades, which contributed to the big car culture of the USA. And you also elect politicians which don't even think global warming is caused by human activity to begin with. How are you supposed to solve a problem you don't even think exists?
Your president pledged that your country will work with the rest of the world to keep global warming under 2 Celcius. That's it. That's the Paris agreement, and it's as symbolic for the USA as it is for other countries. Now, I heard there is a 4 years period to get out of the agreement, so technically the USA will still be bound by the symbolic agreement for the whole Trump mandate, but not that it changes anything.
it doesn't matter, you shouldn't have the right to pollute more than someone living in a developing nation just because you happen to live in a country with a larger GDP/capita.
The estimated cost of being in the treaty is $1.28 trillion. *
Bullshit, the cost is 0, because there is no commitment within that treaty. You can't sue the USA for not respecting the goal of keeping the planet under an increase of 2 C.
Couldn't the money be better spent on battery technology, nation-wide electrical fill stations, hyperloops, and other technology we have not even thought of yet (rather than paying someone like Kenya for carbon credits to excuse us using old polluting technology we can't afford to replace)?
Let say your 1.28 Trillion was true. Where do you think that money will go? The goal of carbon taxes / cap and trade systems is exactly to help the development of new battery technologies and other stuff that will help fight global warming. If it's more efficient to do it in Kenya then why not?
Per capita assumes that ppl make the choices for emissions. We do not.
Yes we do. We choose to have large cars and big houses.
Not to a large degree that is. How much say do you think that the average chinese has on new coal plants being put in? Absolutely NONE. Otherwise, China would have a fraction of the plants that they have and ppl would not be dying from the pollution.
They are not a democracy. It's their problem to fix.
How much say do you think that the Average American, or even eastern European has on their say about coal plants going in? Do you really think that Poland's citizens want to continue putting in new coal plants? NOPE.
They don't want coal, but they don't want to pay for wind power. You can't have both cheap and clean energy. Although these days natural gas is pretty cheap and cleaner than coal.
We own a Model S and have 10 KW of solar city on our roof. How much influence did I have on society? Very little. HOWEVER, how much influence has Tesla and Solar city had? EVERYTHING.
If people paid for the real cost of their CO2 emissions, we wouldn't need to subsidize electric cars so that they become attractive. And there would have been electric cars sooner. If it isn't Tesla, then somebody else would have done it.
As to the continuing rise in $GDP yearly, not a big deal. After all, the number of ppl rise as well. Instead, we tie it ultimately as a % of the global GDP. Buf for now, just getting taxes going and getting ALL NATIONS to change, is what matters.
So you are going to tell that poor African living with nothing that he has to forfeit his tap water because his share of the global GDP is close to 0? And all that so that big fat people continue to drive their big fat SUV?
Hopefully, instead, the GOP will push for a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS/Services based on what state/nations the worst CO2 comes from.
So they should tax countries like Qatar and... the USA. Worst CO2 emitters per capita.
All that needs to happen is that we need OCO3 to have precise measurements between states/nations, along with normalizing based on emissions / $ GDP.
Per GDP? Why per GDP? What kind of fucked-up measurement is that? If the global GDP doubles, do you really think the Earth will absorbs twice as much CO2? The only valid metric is CO2 per capita. And we should cut all financial insensitive to birth to make sure the total population remains acceptable.
the US is free to choose whether it wants to consider the agreement a treaty (and pass it through the senate) or not. But it's not up to other countries to decide which kind of internal procedure the US should take to sign this international agreement.
Nothing in the agreement requires the consent of the US senate, by the way.
Tell that to everyone who tries to give it the legal force of a treaty.
Either it is a treaty, it which case it is one the USA has never been in (lack of Senate ratification), or it's just a meaningless piece of paper. The US Constitution gives no legal validity to any international agreement other than a treaty.
Yeah, fuck the rest of the world, if it's not a treaty according to the US constitution, it has no value, anywhere on earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Your president pledged that your country will work with the rest of the world to keep global warming under 2 Celcius. That's it. That's the Paris agreement,
That's what's known as an international treaty, which for the US requires the Senate to agree with it and approve it.
No, since it falls in the powers of the presidency. Just like keeping the US embassy in Tel-Aviv.
If President Obama signed off on something without putting it before the Senate for approval, it means nothing to our nation.
Wrong, the president has many powers that do not require senate approval.
I am not a US-american and I know your country better than you.
Our federal government does not put that much power into the hands of a single man, because that would be moronic.
Haha good one.
If it is only symbolic, why the big hubbub about Trump stepping back from it?
Because symbols matter in international diplomacy. The fact that Trump can't even keep a symbolic agreement means a lot on what he thinks of climate change.
Again, what President Obama signed up for without Senate approval/confirmation can be rescinded by any other president just as quickly. Nothing can force us to follow an international treaty we never agreed to. And if it is only symbolic, as you argue, what can possibly be done to us for four years, symbolically speaking?
I agree and Trump just did it. However, other countries will continue to consider the USA is part of the agreement if the 4 year clause exists (I didn't check).
And nothing can be done, since it is symbolic. Except of course naming and shaming the USA.
I am waiting for quick charge 8++++
The agreement dozen cost a single cent. It's only an agreement of good will, with no consequence for polluting countries.
The USA is 82% urban, 78% for Norway, 84% for Finland and 86% for Sweden.
Pretty much equal if you ask me.
People are always going to choose to emit more CO2 than what is sustainable for the planet if they can make others pay for the consequences of that pollution.
That's why we need CO2 to be taxed and/or capped (cap and trade).
The total energy use per capita is still lower in Norway compared to the USA, 84% according to wikipedia (Sweden is at 69%). Despite the fact that Norway is a richer country.
And Canada uses more energy per capita than USA, which proves my point that heating uses more energy than cooling.
I would even say that the USA pretty much has the perfect latitude, as a whole. Put it more into the north or the south and the energy usage would be even higher. But the north would have the biggest impact.
The problem is that people in the USA use way to much gas in their way to big cars.
If you regularly use heat of any type, the heat pump would be a no-brainer.
The problem is that you need a backup heater for cases when the temperature drop below about -15 C.
Because of that, a minority of houses have a heat pump in cold climates.
Are you saying you think the government is spending less in healthcare than what they collect on tobacco taxes?
$1000 is nothing, a few months of heating at most.
The problem with reversible heat pumps is that they get inefficient at low temperature, which means they don't give any advantage when heating below say, -15 C. So in short, when heating, you pay for 100% of your energy. When cooling, you only pay for one third as you just throw your heat outside.
The 29 degree spread of Oslo (vs 33 in Philly) doesn't explain why they emit half the CO2 of the average US person.
you can always get better insulation
Again, it's a choice / part of the culture.
There is no reason why people in the USA can't make different choices.
exactly that's why we need a carbon tax, so that insulation becomes profitable
Air conditioning takes almost no energy compared to heating. Even if it's 30 C all summer, it's much cheaper to cool than it would be to heat from -20 C. Add to that that AC uses a heat pump instead of inefficient resistive (or fuel burning) heating, and AC costs can almost be considered a rounding error.
Nordic countries have low population density, harsh winters, prosperous economy and pollute far less per capita (around half I think). But they don't drive pick-up trucks or large SUV 45 minutes each way to go to work and their houses are smaller.
It's not being jerk, but it's the effect of the choice of having very low fuel taxes for decades, which contributed to the big car culture of the USA. And you also elect politicians which don't even think global warming is caused by human activity to begin with. How are you supposed to solve a problem you don't even think exists?
persian gulf countries such as Qatar do worse per capita
So it's not only because the USA has a large population that it is the worst polluter.
Your president pledged that your country will work with the rest of the world to keep global warming under 2 Celcius. That's it. That's the Paris agreement, and it's as symbolic for the USA as it is for other countries.
Now, I heard there is a 4 years period to get out of the agreement, so technically the USA will still be bound by the symbolic agreement for the whole Trump mandate, but not that it changes anything.
it doesn't matter, you shouldn't have the right to pollute more than someone living in a developing nation just because you happen to live in a country with a larger GDP/capita.
no it doesn't, as long as it stay within the powers of the president
let's face it, the Paris agreement is symbolic. There is no CO2 reduction target in the agreement.
The estimated cost of being in the treaty is $1.28 trillion. *
Bullshit, the cost is 0, because there is no commitment within that treaty. You can't sue the USA for not respecting the goal of keeping the planet under an increase of 2 C.
Couldn't the money be better spent on battery technology, nation-wide electrical fill stations, hyperloops, and other technology we have not even thought of yet (rather than paying someone like Kenya for carbon credits to excuse us using old polluting technology we can't afford to replace)?
Let say your 1.28 Trillion was true. Where do you think that money will go? The goal of carbon taxes / cap and trade systems is exactly to help the development of new battery technologies and other stuff that will help fight global warming. If it's more efficient to do it in Kenya then why not?
There is a difference between sharing an opinion as an individual, and pledging to something as the head of state.
Who's talking about more money? I'm all for that every penny collected trough a carbon tax be used to reduce income or sale taxes.
LOL.
Per capita assumes that ppl make the choices for emissions. We do not.
Yes we do. We choose to have large cars and big houses.
Not to a large degree that is. How much say do you think that the average chinese has on new coal plants being put in? Absolutely NONE. Otherwise, China would have a fraction of the plants that they have and ppl would not be dying from the pollution.
They are not a democracy. It's their problem to fix.
How much say do you think that the Average American, or even eastern European has on their say about coal plants going in? Do you really think that Poland's citizens want to continue putting in new coal plants? NOPE.
They don't want coal, but they don't want to pay for wind power. You can't have both cheap and clean energy. Although these days natural gas is pretty cheap and cleaner than coal.
We own a Model S and have 10 KW of solar city on our roof. How much influence did I have on society? Very little. HOWEVER, how much influence has Tesla and Solar city had? EVERYTHING.
If people paid for the real cost of their CO2 emissions, we wouldn't need to subsidize electric cars so that they become attractive. And there would have been electric cars sooner. If it isn't Tesla, then somebody else would have done it.
As to the continuing rise in $GDP yearly, not a big deal. After all, the number of ppl rise as well. Instead, we tie it ultimately as a % of the global GDP. Buf for now, just getting taxes going and getting ALL NATIONS to change, is what matters.
So you are going to tell that poor African living with nothing that he has to forfeit his tap water because his share of the global GDP is close to 0? And all that so that big fat people continue to drive their big fat SUV?
It make no sense.
It does. Your president signed it. It means as much as anything else signed by your president alone.
Hopefully, instead, the GOP will push for a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS/Services based on what state/nations the worst CO2 comes from.
So they should tax countries like Qatar and... the USA. Worst CO2 emitters per capita.
All that needs to happen is that we need OCO3 to have precise measurements between states/nations, along with normalizing based on emissions / $ GDP.
Per GDP? Why per GDP? What kind of fucked-up measurement is that? If the global GDP doubles, do you really think the Earth will absorbs twice as much CO2?
The only valid metric is CO2 per capita. And we should cut all financial insensitive to birth to make sure the total population remains acceptable.
the US is free to choose whether it wants to consider the agreement a treaty (and pass it through the senate) or not. But it's not up to other countries to decide which kind of internal procedure the US should take to sign this international agreement.
Nothing in the agreement requires the consent of the US senate, by the way.
It's not a treaty idiot. It's an "agreement".
Tell that to everyone who tries to give it the legal force of a treaty.
Either it is a treaty, it which case it is one the USA has never been in (lack of Senate ratification), or it's just a meaningless piece of paper. The US Constitution gives no legal validity to any international agreement other than a treaty.
Yeah, fuck the rest of the world, if it's not a treaty according to the US constitution, it has no value, anywhere on earth.