New York State Lawmakers Agree To Pass a Sweeping Climate Plan (nymag.com) 278
New York lawmakers have agreed to pass a sweeping climate plan that could help the state achieve a net-zero economy in which all energy is drawn from carbon-free sources by 2050. "The bill would require New York to get 70 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, and by 2050, the state would have to cut emissions by at least 85 percent below 1990 levels," reports New York Magazine. "To offset the remainder, the state would enact measures to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, like mass tree-planting and the restoration of wetlands." From the report: The bill, if passed, would be one of the world's most ambitious climate plans, made more impressive by the size of New York's economy. If the state were its own country, its economy would be the 11th largest in the world, falling between those of Canada and South Korea. "This unquestionably puts New York in a global leadership position," Jesse Jenkins, an energy expert and postdoctoral fellow at Harvard, told the New York Times.
Of course, energy costs will go up in pursuit of the goal. New York gets around 60 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources -- primarily an energy mix of hydroelectric and nuclear power. To make up the difference, the state will invest in large-scale offshore wind farms and rooftop solar projects. More challenging than the electric grid is the heat for homes and commercial buildings, which generally burn natural gas or oil, and take up around a quarter of the state's emissions. In New York City, for example, an April law requiring skyscrapers to retrofit to meet new energy standards is expected to cost building owners over $4 billion. The bill also marks the first major piece of legislation to include aspects of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, routing hundreds of millions of dollars into polluted or environmentally vulnerable areas of the state in an attempt at both economic and environmental revival.
Of course, energy costs will go up in pursuit of the goal. New York gets around 60 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources -- primarily an energy mix of hydroelectric and nuclear power. To make up the difference, the state will invest in large-scale offshore wind farms and rooftop solar projects. More challenging than the electric grid is the heat for homes and commercial buildings, which generally burn natural gas or oil, and take up around a quarter of the state's emissions. In New York City, for example, an April law requiring skyscrapers to retrofit to meet new energy standards is expected to cost building owners over $4 billion. The bill also marks the first major piece of legislation to include aspects of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, routing hundreds of millions of dollars into polluted or environmentally vulnerable areas of the state in an attempt at both economic and environmental revival.
Sweeping Climate Plan (Score:2)
Obviously though we are yet to discuss the environmental impact of the brooms used in this plan.
As usual we just brush those issues under the rug!
Re: (Score:2)
Neither are people discussing the environmental impact of wind and solar power.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
People look at a windmill and likely don't think much of what keeps it standing. Sure, they see the thin steel tower but what they don't see is the buried concrete block that the tower is anchored to. Solar power also takes a lot of materials for the energy returned. Those thin plates of silicon and glass must also be anchored to something, and that means steel posts coming from concrete anchor
More blindseer BS (Score:2)
Neither are people discussing the environmental impact of wind and solar power. http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
You've posted this time and again and it misrepresents the source data which examines the medical impact of power generation methods.
People look at a windmill and likely don't think much of what keeps it standing. Sure, they see the thin steel tower but what they don't see is the buried concrete block that the tower is anchored to.
That's why I suggest using uranium mine tailing to use as concrete aggregate to anchor wind towers. Solve two problems at once. As it is a one time input once built the wind tower can be upgraded over and over to re-use the base over and over again.
There is millions of tons of uranium mine tailing so there is plenty of aggregate to use.
What the blog post has is two things, all relevant information in one place, and the citations to the primary source. The blog post is not in itself the citation, the citations are in the blog post.
Once of which is about medical impacts
Re: (Score:2)
Your nuclear idealism is so boring and easily dismissed. The only reason to tolerate it is because of the damage you do to the nuclear industry.
As opposed to the damage done to the global warming alarmism by not allowing nuclear power plants to be built?
This is going to be a matter for the next election. It's already being brought up to Democrat hopefuls for POTUS. If these candidates will not allow nuclear power plants to be built to avert what is supposed to be the greatest threat to humanity then people will question their motives. Is nuclear power a greater threat than global warming? That's what I'm hearing. If nuclear power is a greater
Re: (Score:2)
Your nuclear idealism is so boring and easily dismissed. The only reason to tolerate it is because of the damage you do to the nuclear industry.
As opposed to the damage done to the global warming alarmism by not allowing nuclear power plants to be built?
So you're saying that global warming is alarmism and all you want is nuclear power to be built.
Is nuclear power a greater threat than global warming? That's what I'm hearing. If nuclear power is a greater threat then global warming looks mild by comparison.
Nuclear power isn't the answer to global warming. You can't look at the flaws in it and figure out what has to be done to make it viable. All you do is point the finger at people who oppose it as if they are the problem.
What you do with nuclear power isn't advocacy, it is idealism. It is that very idealism that prevents any evolution of the nuclear industry. I've told you what you can do to usher in a nuclear
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that global warming is alarmism and all you want is nuclear power to be built.
I'm saying I want inexpensive, safe, clean, reliable, and plentiful energy in the future. Nuclear power does this as well as produce less CO2 emissions than any other energy source we know of. If the global warming alarmists can't support nuclear power then I have to wonder what their deal is, because it isn't about actually solving the problem they present. Everyone should be able to agree on nuclear power for the future, and if someone cannot then they are ignorant, mentally unfit, or have an agenda no
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying I want inexpensive, safe, clean, reliable, and plentiful energy in the future. Nuclear power does this as well as produce less CO2 emissions than any other energy source we know of.
Well that's your demonstrably biased opinion. Geothermal, amongst many, that is a good example of why you are wrong.
If the global warming alarmists can't support nuclear power then I have to wonder what their deal is, because it isn't about actually solving the problem they present. Everyone should be able to agree on nuclear power for the future, and if someone cannot then they are ignorant, mentally unfit, or have an agenda not conducive to a free and prosperous future.
You demonstrate the contempt you deserve with your manipulative statements. Clearly you hate people.
That's right, nuclear power isn't THE answer
That's right.
Fukushima is irrelevant. As is Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Those were 50 year old second generation designs. No one will ever build a reactor like those again. At least not in the USA.
Which is true of any generation of reactor. The problem was they are run by fallible people which is the lesson we took from them all. Their radio-isotopes will be with us for tens of thousands of years.
Any problem you can bring up with nuclear power is either solved
Neutron embrittlement of the reactor vessel limits the service life of the
Re: (Score:2)
As if I care what you "think".
Then why bother replying to me? It seems I'm catching some flak which must mean I'm close to my target.
Facts don't care about your feelings. All you brought were feelings and no facts. The fact is that our current economy simply cannot support itself without fossil fuels or nuclear power. We can do without one or the other but not both. You can propose we do without nuclear power but that just means we keep burning natural gas. I am not suggesting we choose to use more nuclear power, I'm telling you t
Re: (Score:2)
As if I care what you "think".
Then why bother replying to me?
I choose to expose how you lie with impunity.
All you brought were feelings and no facts.
Neutron embrittlement of a reactor vessel or S class facilities isn't a feeling. You projecting the symptoms of your idealism onto me.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
You're entitled to your own opinion however you're not entitled to your own facts.
How much more to pay to stay? (Score:2, Insightful)
Paying a climate plan tax.
Extra spending on state and city services.
Time to find a state that welcomes you and lets you enjoy the pursuit of Happiness.
Better states without oppressive energy taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Time to find a state that welcomes you and lets you enjoy the pursuit of Happiness."
Just out of curiosity at just how big the train wreck inside your head actually is, what state do you think won't do anything with which you don't agree?
Good. This is how the United STATES of America is (Score:5, Insightful)
Good. This is how the United STATES of America is supposed to work. Each state can pass their own laws and set their own agenda. You want Green New Deal? Pass it in New York or California. Of course they will be paying much more for energy and taxes, but people are free to move to a different state if they don't agree with that agenda. You want government health care? Pass it in New York or California. Once again, they will be paying more in taxes, but that is a choice each person gets to make. Instead of trying to pass massive bills at the federal level and force it on all Americans, these "experiments" should be done at the state level. If they actually work well, then more states will start to incorporate them. Think of it like running a prototype with a focus group before trying to implement it for the whole user base.
Re: (Score:2)
so you'd rather still have Polio and Smallpox? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't eradicate diseases with a voluntary state-by-state program, and you can't deal with catastrophic threats like climate change by waiting for everyone's "rational self interest" to come to the conclusion that letting the planet burn isn't the best idea. Especially when so many people make so much money while watching said burning.
Libertarianism isn't so much an ideology as it is a cult. One as rational as flat-earthers.
Re: (Score:2)
You can in fact make reducing CO2 output a state by state issue where the individual self interest drives it. This can be done by making reducing CO2 output profitable.
Taxing CO2 output will not work in driving people to reduce their CO2 output because in any kind of democracy it can be voted out as quickly as it was voted in. To make this "stick" there must be a natural and inherent means to reduce CO2 output that does not also raise costs.
What we have right now are three energy sources that are already
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that any tax usually comes with "offsets" that a polluter can buy. Why upgrade a facility to reduce pollution when you can buy offsets/credits to meet any regulation?
This happens now. The local water treatment facility near me should be upgraded but the company finds it cheaper to buy clean water credits and suddenly they are "non-polluting". It's a bad joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems a wee bit contradictory. As long as carbon is cheap there is no "rational self interest" that would make it go away without taxing it or providing massive subsidies to alterna
Re: (Score:2)
It is more and more interesting to see what I interpret as "panic" from climate alarmists when smaller-scale and feasible ideas are offered to address carbon emissions. It's almost as if you don't get the fact that not everybody believes in the "catastrophic threat" that climate change poses, specifically because computer models are flawed and people don't want to alter their lifestyles based on what has now become an overt Leftist political talking point.
Why is it so surprising that people are suspicious o
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is already costing the United States hundreds of billion each year, denialist dumbfuck. You don't have to wait for doomsday scenarios [wikipedia.org] to pull your head out. You're free to do so at any time, as extreme weather events have been increasing for decades. The only losers in mitigating climate change are stockholders in fossil fuel companies and war contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can't eradicate diseases across the country if you only implement a law in one state. But what you can do is try several different approaches in several different states and determine which approach works best. THEN you apply that approach at the federal level.
There is far too much push to apply every law federally before we even know if that law is effective or not. People should focus on trying stuff out at the state level, especially major initiatives like the Green New Deal. Then we wa
Re: (Score:2)
Once a vaccine has passed clinical trials, why wait for the results of $X different programs, because reasons? More kids would be crippled from polio or killed by smallpox while waiting for results to come in from California, New York, T
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely, facts seem to disagree with you. The population is bigger now than it ever was. Average earnings are higher. I couldn't find a nice chart of the number of physicians over time, but since the population is going up, it's not hard to infer the number of physicians is likely to do the same.
Protip: Because you heard it on fox news doesn't make it real.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why not take it all the way- every county, every city make their own laws."
For any who are slow to comprehend; there is a reason that the federal government makes certain laws: It is impractical and often dangerous for those laws to be different in every locality. If the interstate speed limit is different in each state, county and city; travel becomes far more troublesome than necessary. Likewise it's not best for local communities to design creative street signs, signals, and road stripe patterns that wo
Can't complain about that (Score:2, Interesting)
"the state would enact measures to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, like mass tree-planting and the restoration of wetlands."
Can't complain about that.
Alternative Headline: (Score:5, Funny)
New York to Maintain Leadership in Population Decline [bizjournals.com]
So this is the same New York (Score:3)
...that is shutting down the Indian Point nuclear plant, right? And attempting to get a a natural gas plant built in NJ to make up some of the difference?
Yeah. Big carbon plans, but when it comes to action they bow to the anti-nuke people. I think it's clear where their priorities actually lie.
Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
New York State lawmakers agree to pass a sweeping tax plan that will not affect anything remotely related to the global climate.
NYS has 0.06% the CO2 emissions of China.
Re: (Score:2)
NYS has 0.06% the CO2 emissions of China
Translation: nobody should do anything until China fixes their problem first.
Correct Translation (Score:2)
Per person Americans are twice as bad as Chinese.
New York is lets say 20 million people. 20 million Chinese make 1/2 the CO2 as the New Yorkers do.
So each group of 20 million Chinese will say, "Why should we do anything, New Yorkers are twice as bad as us."
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change doesn't seem to care about the "per person" ratio.
It ain't a sweeping NYC climate plan... (Score:2)
Unless it includes opening Shoreham.
New York state globe (Score:2)
I am so happy they will finally put a stop to New York state globe warming
Re:Welcome to the howling wasteland (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering how everyone's moving away from petrochemical fuel, wouldn't you want to short the US petrodollar instead?
Nah, no sense to that plan (Score:2)
Considering how everyone's moving away from petrochemical fuel, wouldn't you want to short the US petrodollar instead?
Why, when the value of the U.S. dollar is greatly increased by undercutting the rest of the world for the remaining petrochemical market... sure it's shrinking, over like 100 years or so. Meanwhile the U.S. will develop the best nuclear and solar technology, and still be ahead.
Sure wouldn't want to short USD these days! No way a Democrat is beating Trump in 2020 for example, not with the lo
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? Global coal consumption has been increasing since 2016 and the projection for the next five years is more of the same. Oil consumption has been increasing for a long time. so has nat gas.
the reason is that fossil fuel use is lifting people out of poverty, it's the accessible solution.
Re: (Score:2)
This says that 2017's 0.3% increase was the first in three years: https://yearbook.enerdata.net/... [enerdata.net] .
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, why I picked the "after 2016" year...
but point is it's going up and will continue to do so for about 5 years at least. The new coal plants are in places that can't do alternative solution to setting carbon compound on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
The planet doesn't give a shit how much anyone is using.
If you want to address 2climate change" then you have ot deal with countries, and the countries that need to deal with it are: China and India. All this from NY is insignificant on the global scale.
Re: (Score:2)
India is building more new coal plants, and China is doing the crafty thing of building new plants outside their borders for their remote manufacturing so they don't get the blame.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody is moving away from petroleum fuels until someone comes up with an alternative source for those hydrocarbons. The US Navy has been working on that for many years now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I say we give these people some money for research and development. If it works as well as they claim then it's a source of fuel for the aircraft on aircraft carriers. Maybe not all of their fuel in an all out battle but enough fuel that they can perform the needed patrols and training without needing
Re: (Score:2)
What's not to love about this technology?
Its poor efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrocarbons can be eliminated for many of their current uses. The most obvious being electric vehicles. Most European countries have already announced dates for banning fossil cars, and demand for EVs outstrips supply.
Re:Welcome to the howling wasteland (Score:4, Funny)
You are welcome to leave the USA if this bothers you so much. Get as many like minded people as you can to go with. Assuming you can convince enough people to follow then you will have your wish of there no longer being any US military to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
You are welcome to leave the USA
The US military is also welcome to go home. Go clean up the nuclear mess you left in the pacific you hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
First, you apparently missed the point that if enough people leave the USA then the military will not have enough people to operate those planes and carrier fleets.
Second, if the US Congress would get off their collective thumbs and actually fund the military like they should then we'd have US Navy technology like that described in this video below in common civilian use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The video describes a means by which a nuclear powered Navy ship can produce the fuel needed for the airc
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's the Democrats that hate the military so much. That's why they elected a draft dodging asshole who talks shit about a dead war hero. Oh.... wait.....
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you bringing up Bill Clinton? He's been out of office for nearly two decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but why can't we just fund the research and not funnel it through the military industrial complex?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but why can't we just fund the research and not funnel it through the military industrial complex?
Because the Democrats are holding it up.
The US Navy funds a lot of research in nuclear power. They do this because private industry won't and because no other government entity will either. They do this because vital Navy assets are nuclear powered.
The US Air Force has also been funding a lot of research in alternative sources of fuel. They do this because there is little similar funding in private industry and, outside of the Navy, no other government agency is interested. Private industry and other go
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People have been predicting this kind of thing for decades. I remember a post from some time in the mid 2000s predicting that by 2020 electricity would be intermittent and a luxury most could not afford.
In fact what tends to happen is life gets better for the residents.
Re: (Score:3)
Not if all the younger trees started by their seeds in the same area consume the CO2 first.
Re: (Score:2)
A given piece of real estate can support a certain amount of plant life. So the land that supports one full-grown tree now will continue to support about that mass of baby trees.
So, you're either talking increasing the amount of forest (to the detriment of your agricultural sector), or reaching steady state (which, for the most part, you're already at).
The only way you're going to change that is to plant trees, the
Re:Plant trees? (Score:5, Informative)
So, you're either talking increasing the amount of forest (to the detriment of your agricultural sector)
Many areas are too hilly or rocky for agriculture, but can still be used to grow trees.
Also, you don't need to cut down and replant. Coppicing [wikipedia.org] is more efficient for carbon capture.
The only way you're going to change that is to plant trees, then chop them down and bury them in landfills
Landfills are not the only, nor best, way to bury carbon. Producing biochar [wikipedia.org] as a soil amendment to increase agricultural yields, is a much better option.
Re: (Score:2)
Bring a shovel to a forest sometime and step on it.
Re: (Score:3)
Bring a shovel to a forest sometime and step on it.
He should bring a rake, and step on that instead.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if anyone has told them that trees die? And when they do, they return all the CO2 they've used over their lifetime to the atmosphere as the wood rots.
In short, no. A percentage of the carbon is retained in the soil, even when trees are burned.
Re:Plant trees? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can recall a number of people that took global warming seriously and proposed using trees as carbon sinks, by growing trees for lumber. The use of the wood to build houses meant the carbon would be sequestered in the walls of people's homes. Those suggesting this were berated by the "greens" for daring to suggest we cut down trees.
Yes, trees do die. They also make lumber for homes. We can use trees for lumber AND as a carbon sink but we need the treehuggers to realize that people are a part of the natural world, rather than creatures that must somehow live outside of it. If we cannot use trees to make homes then where are we to live? What are we to use to build our homes instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it also true that a newly grown tree will sequester more carbon than an old growth/virgin trees?
No.
That was what I thought, then I looked it up. Whether you're talking forests or individuals, mature trees sequester more carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
If those trees are imported from old growth forests cut down in other countries, yeah. Funny how you left that part out.
Re: (Score:3)
If those trees are imported from old growth forests cut down in other countries, yeah. Funny how you left that part out.
Greenies were protesting sustainable forestry from the US, and using it as a smear campaign back in the 1980's. That's when we did nothing but clear previously harvested forests and plant new trees. Now we've got millions of acres of trees that haven't been harvested, but suffer from a monoculture because of it. Why do you think the pine beetles spread so fast and so quickly? It was because those trees were bred specifically to grow fast, and even if the trees were bad during harvest, they could be used
Re: (Score:2)
There is more raw forest coverage today then there was in the 1800's in Canada, the same is true in the US. Know why? Because the natives used slash and burn quite often to make new pasture land. Your fundamental ignorance doesn't get you off the hook for being an idiot and swallowing propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty much all a steady state system, with marginal effects on CO2.
We'd be much better off focusing on plans to keep fossil fuel reserves in the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what looks to be a viable plan to keep those fossil fuels in the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Instead of digging up hydrocarbons for fuel we can synthesize them from any electrical source. The video proposes using nuclear power because the presenter is talking about research by the US Navy to use the nuclear reactors on aircraft carriers, and potentially other surface ships, to synthesize the fuel they need for the aircraft and small support watercraft that it carries.
Fund this research,
Re: (Score:2)
I was reading an article on the BBC website earlier this evening about electric airplanes. It looks like electric powered planes for short haul flights, about 600 km, will be in production in about two to three years. In about 8 to 10 years medium range flight planes will be in production. I forget what carrier it was but they mentioned using the planes on routes such as London to Amsterdam.
Unfortunately the long haul flights are going to need a revolution in technology in order for them to be converted to
Re: (Score:2)
I think you were mistaking "Don't cut down ALL the trees" for "Don't cut down ANY trees." From your choice of wording, I think it's easy to see why.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you were mistaking "Don't cut down ALL the trees" for "Don't cut down ANY trees." From your choice of wording, I think it's easy to see why.
No, the discussion is about cutting down more trees versus fewer trees.
The greenies want to see fewer trees cut down because they believe the lumber industry somehow threatens forests. The lumber industry knows that without planting new trees to replace those they cut down that in 10 years they will be out of a job. We can sequester more carbon by using wood where today we currently use concrete, bricks, or other materials. The concrete and cement industry produces a lot of carbon emissions, both in foss
Re: (Score:2)
Belomorkanal
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, countless other animals DO build homes. Ants, birds, beavers, rabbits, spiders are all part of the natural home builders.
Re: Is there a big climate problem in New York? (Score:2)
There is no war problem either and yet it still contribute to the military
Re: (Score:2)
There is no war problem either and yet it still contribute to the military
"If you seek peace then prepare for war."
It seems the world became more peaceful after we got a crazy warmonger for POTUS.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not a climate change thing.
the NY area up there has been WAY overdue historically for a hurricane.
NYC actually has had a doomsday scenario much like New Orleans does, for a long time.
I think back in the 1800's or so, there used to be a big time vacation island just off the coast from NYC....it disappeared forever after a hurricane back then.
Re: (Score:2)
A gallon of soda releases about 0.065 pounds of CO2, most of which was an existing byproduct of other industrial processes. Burning a gallon of gasoline in your car releases 20 pounds, all new.
The US consumes 10 billion gallons of soda, and 3 billion gallons of gasoline, each year. Soda is 0.00002 of the problem here.
Re: (Score:3)
CO2 on drinks isn't useless (Score:2)
It goes beyond simple gimmick.
Water has a neutral bland taste.
To make people want tobdeink more, there's two things you can into it:
- sugar/sweet taste
- acid
( ^- CO2 does that).
Adding CO2 to drinks is essential for companies because it makes people wanting to drink their stuff more than water.
The company would be fighting CO2-in-drinks ban...
except that the CO2 in drinks is basically a rounding error on the scale of other source and doesn't require a ban.
(unlike the health-related issue which would be worth
Re: (Score:2)
sounds to me like it is EXACTLY a gimmick. Or worse. It's a trick to fool people's taste buds into craving more and more of that soft drink,
I wasn't clear I meant it's not simply a bullet point feature "But this one is colored *blue* !" (basically a neutral feature added for the sake of being different)
But indeed a consumer-manipulation tool to make them crave the drink.
I've heard that soda pop companies add sodium (aka salt, like drinking sea water) to further cause people using their product to become more thirsty.
Technically, at these level, it won't cause you to get thirsty. (it's *not* as high as see water)
It's still playing small trick on your taste buds and making you crave for it.
Doesn't that at all sound like a fraud to you? It's much like when Facebook uses psychological tactics to take over people's minds, keeping them captive as active users of their product...
...and there's a word for that fraud: it's called "Marketing" :-D
I'm not so sure I buy into the health issue idea. Sugar is food. It's calories, something everybody needs to consume if they're going to get up and run around doing stuff all day.
And that for most of the developed worl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Is there a big climate problem in New York? (Score:4, Informative)
Is this the same Paris Accord that is not being met [canadafreepress.com] by the other signatories, whereas the US is actually beating those same countries in CO2 reduction?
Since leaving the agreement, the US has led the world in reducing CO2 emissions. Last year we cut our production by over 40 million tons.
In that same span China and India increased their production by 120 and 95 million tons, respectively. But, they aren’t the only ones. The European Union, champion of the Paris Accord, increased their production by more than the US decreased hers.
If you compare the combined efforts of the Paris Accord countries to the US, the US wins the competition by more than 200 million tons of CO2. To put it simply, the US has done more to reduce CO2 emissions than the rest of the combined world. This isn’t a brand new development. Since the turn of the 21st century, the US has led the world in cutting CO2 for 9 separate years.
It’s been more than two years since countries worldwide signed the Paris Accord, which obligates nations to pledge to commit themselves to intending to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in order to ‘safeguard the planet’s future.’ Yet, not a single EU state is meeting its climate target, a recent analysis by Climate Action Network (CAN) finds.
Is that the Paris Accord you're referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just out of curiosity... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone got a list of all the idiotic bullshit that governments in the 1980's were promising they'd do by 2020 that never fucking happened?
I'm more interested in a list of climate catastrophes that were predicted to plague us by 2020 that never happened.
If these people want to be taken seriously on the threat of global warming then they need a plan that doesn't destroy the economy, actually will be effective in reducing CO2 output, and can be done without some new technology.
We should be able to build new nuclear power plants, that's a technology available today that is a near one-to-one replacement for coal power. We should be able to do proper forest management to harvest lumber, prevent wildfires, and generally perform proper wildlife conservation. This means being able to cut down trees, start controlled burns of areas, and other related actions such as issue licenses for hunts.
It would also help if these people stopped with the scaremongering on how every little thing we do is destroying the environment. I look around and I see clean air, clean water, and generally happy and healthy people. Calm down a bit, we aren't going to destroy the planet by 2040 or whatever future year they are predicting now. At least not if we make some logical choices instead of panic and try to do the impossible and fail at it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to be taken seriously, you've got to stop claiming that accounting for carbon will destroy the economy. Climate change is what's actually going to do that.
Re:Climate its not CO2 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm willing to go along with believing that there is a threat that CO2 emissions from dug up coal, gas, and oil can cause significant and potentially detrimental changes to the climate so long as it means building more nuclear power plants to reduce this reliance on coal, gas, and oil. If there is any opposition to nuclear power as part of the solution then I question the threat that global warming poses. This is telling me that nuclear power use is somehow a greater threat to humanity than global warming.
Here's a few statistics. There are 90+ operational nuclear power reactors in the USA providing 20% of our electricity. There are 400+ operational nuclear power reactors in the world providing 10% of the world's electricity. This has resulted in immeasurable reductions in CO2 emissions, air pollution, and loss of human lives from lung disease and mining accidents. You want me to believe that because of a handful of high profile nuclear power accidents we need to end the use of nuclear power and no longer reap the rewards that nuclear power has brought. To those that say we can't have nuclear power I have two things to say.
First, if the threat of global warming is so great then nuclear power would still be worthwhile in lives saved even if all of them were built like a Chernobyl ticking time bomb. We don't build reactors like that any more, and we haven't for decades. If these old nuclear power plants concern you so much then we need new nuclear power plants to replace them. If we don't build new nuclear to replace old nuclear then the lights go out or it's more CO2. We can build windmills and solar collectors too, and I fully expect we will. This is a problem in which all options need to be considered. By ruling out nuclear power, an energy source with lower CO2 output than any other energy source we use today, you are condemning us to fail in our efforts to reduce our CO2 output.
The second thing I'd like to say is this, FUCK YOU.
Oh, and a few points of reference...
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm willing to go along with believing that there is a threat that CO2 emissions from dug up coal, gas, and oil can cause significant and potentially detrimental changes to the climate so long as it means building more nuclear power plants to reduce this reliance on coal, gas, and oil. "
Petulant child announces plan to ignore reality unless he gets his way.
Reality does not notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is a great, clean source of power, but if your plan waiting on the completion of the gaggle of plants it would take to offset coal alone, then you are setting us up to burn a LOT of coal in the meantime. I researched it recently, on average, all over the world (not just in US regulatory environments) it takes about a decade to build a plant. And that is assuming the low number being built today. There are only so many companies that know how to build these things competently. You can't just spin
Re: (Score:2)
I remember having a discussion about drilling for oil in ANWR. I supported drilling because it meant that the USA would have greater independence from foreign oil price fluctuations. The person I was having this discussion with said that this was a useless endeavor because it would take 5 years for any well drilled in ANWR to produce any oil. Well, there was no drilling in ANWR for the next 5 years but we did see oil prices spike dramatically.
Would drilling in ANWR for oil have averted this spike in pric
Re: (Score:2)
OR we could take the money you are advocating that we sink into nuclear power for 10 years before we get any return, and start building MORE solar and wind and get the benefits from it now. See, this is why I say you have a nuke boner, because you didn't even see the bleedingly obvious third option to which I alluded to in my post. Didn't even cross your mind as a possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't even cross your mind as a possibility.
Yes it did. That happened 20 years ago. Two engineering degrees, work on a solar race car while at university, and lots of research in my spare time beat that idea out of me years ago.
It simply won't happen. Not in 10 years anyway.
You want to deny the USA access to nuclear power after 50 years of keeping the lights on? On a dream of wind and solar power saving us all? What happens if that dream doesn't come true? I know what will happen. We will have half the nuclear power capacity we have today. CO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More BullShit from BlindSeer the bullshitter (Score:2)
Neither are people discussing the environmental impact of wind and solar power. http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
You've posted this time and again and it misrepresents the source data which examines the medical impact of power generation methods.
People look at a windmill and likely don't think much of what keeps it standing. Sure, they see the thin steel tower but what they don't see is the buried concrete block that the tower is anchored to.
That's why I suggest using uranium mine tailing to use as concrete aggregate to anchor wind towers. Solve two problems at once. As it is a one time input once built the wind tower can be upgraded over and over to re-use the base over and over again.
There is millions of tons of uranium mine tailing so there is plenty of aggregate to use.
What the blog post has is two things, all relevant information in one place, and the citations to the primary source. The blog post is not in itself the citation, the citations are in the blog post.
Once of which is about medical impacts
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
The citations are in the blog.
Re: (Score:2)
Blogs are often biased opinion not fact.
Yes, "often" but not always. This blog is one of those based on fact.
If you don't like the facts then present a link to some facts of your own.
Re: (Score:2)
Blogs are often biased opinion not fact.
Yes, "often" but not always. This blog is one of those based on fact.
If you don't like the facts then present a link to some facts of your own.
You already know this is bullshit and you haven't presented any fact at all. You deceived people for a few mod points and so you could promote your political position.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cut the opposition and the costs drop dramatically.
Re: (Score:2)
Blindseer, what is your connection to the nuclear power industry?
Some years ago the Nuclear industry launched a massive "re-education" program to come to forums like /. and evangelize nuclear power.
We have seen loads of them here MrDfrom63, atomicasshole, blindseer and the epic khallow. I generally argue with them for entertainment because its so much fun to force them into mental gymnastics so they confront their own idealism.
This, of course, makes them double down on their social proof because every.single.time you dig into their arguments, they go nowhere. At thet
Re: (Score:2)
It's surprising how organized they are. Enough to have mod points. They really seem to care about influencing Slashdot, which is... A pretty ridiculous waste of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation needed]
The world is full of self-satisfied hypocrites, who come in all kinds of shapes, colors, genders, and political affiliations.
With climate change and environmental issues, I think that a lot of problem is that the whole damn thing is so abstract that most people have a hard time getting their heads around what is an