67 ms·
Paris climate deal: US and China announce ratification
- smb06 10y agoThis is great news. China is and needs to be a major player in all climate change negotiations.
- themodelplumber 10y agoWhat was their position prior to this? What changed to make this happen? Really curious.
- pen2l 10y agoI am guessing that the fact that they very visibly _see_ pollution might have something to do with it. Those that were in Beijing when things got bad with smog know -- after spending a day outside and coming home, you'd find your nose to have black debris. It's a really unsettling thing especially if you're not used to it. Beijing has gotten a lot better recently, the joke is that it's because the Politburo leaders mostly live in Beijing and if affects them the most.
- vidarh 10y ago> after spending a day outside and coming home, you'd find your nose to have black debris. Travelling in to London zone 1 still does this for me, and yes it was unsettling when I first moved to London...
- k-mcgrady 10y agoThis has never happened to me. Is it possible it's nothing to do with being in central London but due to dust and debris in the tube system? The amount of stuff that gets blown around in the air in the deep level lines is blinding if you don't look away as a train approaches.
- pcr0 10y agoChina used to be the go-to place for cheap labor and manufacturing. Now that they're richer than before, Low-tech and highly pollutive manufacturing has moved to other countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh. [0] They're willing to pay more for the environment.[1] [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/business/international/china-jobs-donald-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/business/international/chi... [1]: http://qz.com/769957/chinese-people-want-renewable-energy-more-than-anyone-but-nobodys-selling-it-to-them/ http://qz.com/769957/chinese-people-want-renewable-energy-mo...
- jdavis703 10y agoEnvironmental stewardship is actually something that economists refer to as a luxury good --- it's something you'll start purchasing the more disposable money you have. Which makes sense, if I have to choose between starvation and air pollution, I'll take air pollution. Now my belly is full, but I can't breath? Now maybe I'll think about spending some money on cleaner air. That's why I find the West's scolding of developing economies for environmental degradation to be hypocritical. If we really care, then we'll give those countries the money to preserve their environment.
- smb06 10y agoIt shouldn't be a zero-sum game where you have to choose between starvation and air pollution. The west did not go about industrial development in an environmentally friendly way and that only increases the onus on the developing countries to learn from their mistakes, instead of repeating them.
- eyelidlessness 10y agoThe west hasn't ceased industrial development, and we'd be remiss to pretend that we have. The fact that we've outsourced a lot of the costs to China and then to other countries doesn't change the fact that we extract growth from dumping toxins and pollutants into the environment. If we want to preach learning from mistakes, we should take our privileged position and lead the charge. We do the opposite of that, externalizing the costs of ongoing industrialization to societies that can least afford the costs. The ultimate math is a zero-sum game. Industrialization produces efficiency and waste, and a lot of the meaningful waste comes in the form of harm to our future environment. We haven't actually devised a way to produce industrial goods without producing massive byproducts that harm people somewhere. Until we have, the best course of action we can take is to reduce consumption. But so far we've done the opposite.
- zhte415 10y ago> The ultimate math is a zero-sum game. It is most definitely not a zero sum game so far, but there certainly are losers.
- legulere 10y agoChina wasn't inclined to join climate deals when the US wouldn't
- barney54 10y agoTheir is little evidence that their position has changed on the ground. Green peace says China is still building a ton of coal. http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-keeps-building-coal-plants-despite-new-overcapacity-policy/ http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-keeps-buil...
- nikdaheratik 10y agoTheir position on CO2 hasn't changed all that much. The major issue for them is particulates and other side effects from burning coal. However, switching to renewables and/or anything non-coal is something that would also help with the air quality problem they have. And there's been alot of diplomacy pushing them towards that anyway so why not sign up.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- noobermin 10y agoCan any climate scientists comment on the 2C degree number and what it entails?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- shoo 10y agoThere's a paper from 2014 that frames global warming in terms of global cumulative CO2 emissions. By that metric we can fix a global cumulative CO2 emission budget that has a decent chance of limiting warming to +2C. As of 2014 we had used 2/3rds of that budget, with the remaining 1/3 of the budget projected to be used up in 30 years if global emissions continued at the 2014 level. I find it unrealistic that temperature increase will be limited to +2C, that would require serious efforts and a change in focus and behaviour that to date has not been observed. In terms of the impact, there was a conference in 2009 focusing on +4C scenarios that might be worth a look at. [2] (i am not a climate scientist, but there are plenty of articles written by climate scientists) [1] - https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/20695/Persistent%20growth%20of%20CO2%20emissions%20and%20implications%20for%20reaching%20climate%20targets.pdf?sequence=1 https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/2... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Degrees_and_Beyond_International_Climate_Conference#cite_note-MOX-4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Degrees_and_Beyond_Internati...
- chillacy 10y agoWe'll see how this turns out, since it seems this agreement 1. allows each country to set its own reduction goals 2. has no consequences if a country fails to meet its goals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Nationally_determined_contributions_and_their_limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Nationally_det...
- ams6110 10y agoYes, agreeing to do something is very easy compared to actually doing it.
- robryan 10y agoIt is interesting how everyone can pass the blame for emissions. In Australia there is an argument from some that even though we are the highest polluter by capita our net emissions are low enough that it doesn't really matter what we do. A country like India or China could then turn that around a say if other countries that have a very high standard of life won't do anything then why should we.
- shoo 10y agoputting blame aside, the behaviour isn't particularly surprising if we assume that people are more or less rationally looking out for their own interests: it's not in my own interest to reduce my consumption and emissions. it's very much in my own interest for all of you to reduce your consumption and emissions. it's easy for me to change my own behaviour, but very hard for me to coerce you to change your behaviour against your own interests. it is in my interest to support global regulation of everyone's consumption and emissions, including my own, provided i believe i will gain more than i lose by participating.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y agoBut it's a false dilemma. Ultimately, it's possible to reduce our emissions without reducing consumption, either of energy or resources.
- TheSmiddy 10y agoThe coal lobby has done a good job of making renewables look like they're a significantly different way of life. At the end of the day your aircon will still run whether it's powered by coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro or literally anything else that can push electrons. Where the power comes from has very little effect on the utility of that power.
- xbmcuser 10y agoWell China started investing in renewables some time ago and are now adding almost half the world renewables. The reality is though climate change can't be changed or reversed by capitalism fast enough. And because of the financial crisis over the last few years the developed world probably doest have the money it needs to finance the developing worlds energy needs. The next 1-2 billion people from Asia Africa will start using electricity a few times more than what they are now and the developed world curtailing their emissions wont be enough.
- dragonbonheur 10y agoMeanwhile Donald Trump promises he'll get the USA out of this agreement when he gets to be dictator... [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174 http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174
- agumonkey 10y agoNot long ago I saw a documentary about a Chinese entrepreneur that started a "clean coal" company, by doing a SpaceX, redesigning plants from scratch, he claimed to be near pollution free (implying other plants pollute only because of naive careless design, not physics). I wonder if the claims are proven and if it influenced China decision.
- T-A 10y agoI guess he was talking about soot and other aerosols. That's huge for air quality, but climate change is primarily driven by the fundamental law of coal burning: C + O_2 -> CO_2. If he managed to reduce the emission of sulfate aerosols (a likely target, since those are the primary cause of smog and acid rain) he is actually making the warming problem worse: http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/06/common-climate-misconceptions-why-reducing-sulfate-aerosol-emissions-complicates-efforts-to-moderate-climate-change/ http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/06/common-climate...
- cesis 10y agoIt seems bbc can't get math right - increase of 2 degrees Celsium doesn't equal increase of 36 degrees Fahrenheit
- cel1ne 10y ago35.6 degree Fahrenheit then.
- cesis 10y agoWrong. Anyway bbc fixed it by removing any complex Celsium to Fahrenheit conversions :)
- neppo 10y agowhile we're at correcting things: it's celsius not celsium :)
- lobster_johnson 10y agoCelsius, not Celsium.
- nothrabannosir 10y ago1 diff C = 1.8 diff F, so 3.6.
- jwr 10y agoThis should make #1 on HN. Oh, sure, there are many doubts as to how and when this will actually be implemented, but still, it's a great step forward. We are finally starting to do something about the fact, that our grandchildren will not have a planet to live on, and even our children might be affected.
- Shivetya 10y agodepends, they get to set the goals and they don't get penalized if they don't. its not a treaty. if the numbers get set to per capita then they will be bullshit numbers and we effectively have zero progress.
- semi-extrinsic 10y agoNot to dismiss the seriousness of climate change, but "our grandchildren won't have a planet to live on" is a completely unfounded assertion with no roots in reality. Humans are vastly good at adapting.
- earlyriser 10y agoAlso, humans have a good history of taking too much to time to do the right thing (slaves, women rights, gay rights). Added to that, there are gigantic economic forces slowing down the change this time. I'm sure human will thrive at least for the next centuries, but the current mass extinction is a sad thing.
- kodfodrasz 10y agoYou couldn't stand mentioning the woman's rights and gay rights as rights stuff... How are you sure those are the right thing? I think your ideology should not be mixed into scientific topics, as climate change. I don't brag about my religion in the topic, nor should you.
- infinite8s 10y agoWomen and homosexuals arent human enough to be accorded rights given to every heterosexual male?
- tunichtgut 10y agoAll these agreements are worthless. The question is, will there be a technology that prevents earth from heating up from burning fossil fuels.
- semi-extrinsic 10y agoWe have the technology for large scale carbon capture, that's no problem. The problem is that carbon capture is pure cost, no gain (measurable on a company balance sheet). To solve this, we need a global carbon tax, probably close to $100/ton. For reference, US emissions per capita is ~17 tons.
- drjesusphd 10y ago> To solve this, we need a global carbon tax, probably close to $100/ton. For reference, US emissions per capita is ~17 tons. This seems... remarkably affordable. For the US, this is less than TARP. We really need to get our act together.
- dirtyaura 10y agoThere is. Constructing nuclear power at the same rate as France did successfully in 70s and 80s would be a big part of the solution. France constructed 40+ reactors for population of 60 million in ~20 years. If we did same everywhere, we could build ~9000 reactors in 40 years. If one reactor would be on average 1000MW, producing roughly 8TWh yearly, we would get 72000TWh from the nuclear power alone. That is about a half of world's current energy production (155,000TWh). This would be of course a gigantic political and engineering project, but no major new scientific or technical breakthrough would be needed.
- noiv 10y agoFor a start, there are bikes...
- tomohawk 10y agoThe senate hasn't ratified it, which is required by the constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
- marcoperaza 10y agoDear Leader Obama "has a pen and is going to use it." Besides, the electorate in 2014 wasn't the real electorate according to him, so of course he dismisses Congress's authority. You can't make this shit up: "To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too."
- charonn0 10y agoYou do yourself and your argument no favors by being willfully dishonest. From the very same speech: "Congress will pass some bills I cannot sign. I’m pretty sure I’ll take some actions that some in Congress will not like. That’s natural. That’s how our democracy works"
- marcoperaza 10y agoThat's not really relevant, just hollow words. His actions since then indicate very clearly what he really meant. He said for years that he couldn't act unilaterally on immigration because "he isn't king". Yet once he realized he'd blown his last chance to get a friendly Congress to pass his agenda, he went ahead and acted unilaterally anyway.
- j_h_s 10y agoEvery two years, a third of the senate is elected for a six year term. So no senate election can express the will of the entire nation.
- marcoperaza 10y agoI see your point, but you've got it a bit backwards. The reason for spacing out the Senate elections is to temper the political winds. Had the whole Senate been up for grabs in 2014, it would have been an even bigger Republican sweep.
- reddog 10y agoIt hasn't been ratified in the US. The lame duck Obama administration may have agreed to it, but it still needs to pass the senate by a two thirds vote before it becomes a treaty and binding on the US in any way. I doubt that they will even bother submitting it.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- codecamper 10y agoMeanwhile fslr, spwr, jks, csiq all sit near 52 week & longer lows. The stock market thinks that solar power won't happen -- or at least the next year will be rough for solar due to a drop-off in demand.
- gozur88 10y agoNo deal an American president makes is binding until approved by the Senate. Wake me up when that happens.
- nikdaheratik 10y agoIf you'd actually read about this, you would see that the agreement is binding as it was made within the framework of an existing treaty. However, it may not be binding on the next administration unless ratified by the Senate.