5 ms·
They're building solar power plants everywhere, shutting down factories and coal power plants around large cities. "Other main targets include: – reduction of
by meric 10y ago
They're building solar power plants everywhere, shutting down factories and coal power plants around large cities.
"Other main targets include:
– reduction of emissions from coal burning industries and vehicles2
– boost cleaner and more efficient use of coal
– promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal
– support for wind, solar and bio power sectors; increase in proportion of clean energy
– encourage the use of waste straw as a resource
– reduction in-field burning
– implementation of control measures to deal with air pollution
...
By 2020, he said, the intensity of water use per unit of GDP will fall by 23%, energy intensity by a further 15%, and carbon intensity by 18%."
What about U.S.? It's people saying "as long China and India get a pass... Even if the US disappeared off the face of the map, its still to late... so let it happen."
You're the problem. Even if the rest of the world disappeared of the map, U.S.'s carbon emissions and pollution still exceed world's capacity to absorb it. Do you know how much of the world's environment is scorched to produce raw resources to produce goods for consumption in the U.S.? You're not taking it seriously.
- M_Grey 10y agoNot to mention that we're incredibly hypocritical about the fact that we happily burned coal and oil and continue to, but expect developing economies to just... stop. It's worse when you consider Europe getting uppity about migrancy, which is being causes in large part by drought related to climate change. It's going to be the story of this century: the people least responsible for climate change are going to disproportionately suffer for it. Meanwhile those most responsible will demonize them for their efforts to survive it.
- refurb 10y agowhich is being causes in large part by drought related to climate change Have an example? I thought it was a war in Syria.
- greglindahl 10y agoThere actually was a drought in Syria when that civil war started. Of course, at most that's only part of the problem. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-syria-conflict-to-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links-...
- M_Grey 10y agoA significant part, when you consider that the tensions we've seen explode have existed for decades. As we saw in Egypt however, when people can't support themselves, they become desperate enough to finally act. Sadly people in this part of the world seem to only see said events in either the rosy "Arab Spring", or some version of "Islam is fundamentally evil/unstable" sense.
- strainer 10y agoThe other parts of the problem deserve mentioned here, because they are extremely problematic and eclipse present environmental crisis and strategy. Syrias civil war began after billions of dollars where somewhat clandestinely spent on fomenting violent revolution there - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lawmakers-move-to-curb-1-billion-cia-program-to-train-syrian-rebels/2015/06/12/b0f45a9e-1114-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lawma... Libyas security collapsed after its infrastructure, including its world class irrigation system was bombed out under the guise of implementing 'no fly zone'
- M_Grey 10y agoHow dishonest can you get? Would you like to explain why Libya was an issue at that time, and not in the preceding decades?
- strainer 10y agoDishonest? I do not know why violent revolution was fomented in Syria or have a reasonable explanation why Libya was bombed. You should explain your comment.
- Gustomaximus 10y agoI hear this logic but dont buy it. Yes many western countries were polluting heavily during the industrial age, but that was using the best technology that existed at the time. The world now knows better about these harmful environmental practices, and has access to better tech to avoid this. If you apply this thinking that 'its what the other countries did previously' that's fine but then you do you expect developing continues not to utilise computers and other new technology for 50 years while they catch up? You cant have it both ways or your just cherry picking what suits your bias. I feel the better arguement is that per capital these countries are lower polluters and we need to all strive to reduce pollution to an acceptable per-capita level. And as a global population need to look at how we lift everyone lifestyle while reducing environmental harm. This 'you had your turn polluting the world and now it's mine' lacks logic and will not solve the problem.
- capisce 10y ago> The world now knows better about these harmful environmental practices, and has access to better tech to avoid this Except the better tech tends to be more expensive and less labor intensive. A country with a huge cheap labor force would handicap itself by not using the most cost effective means to grow their economy, negative externalities notwithstanding.
- saiya-jin 10y agowhich doesn't make it right in any way - caring only about "me", "now", and not "us" and "tomorrow" Or in other words - it explains it, but doesn't justify it. We as mankind can do better
- M_Grey 10y agoThe problem is that people don't really exist as a "We, mankind"... we exist as various competing nations and other divided groups. It's laughable to think that what's good for "We, mankind" in the US is somehow good for "We, mankind" in North Africa, or China, or India.
- XaYdEk 10y agoSolar and wind based energy production is not going to fully or even mostly replace our gas/coal burners because they lack constant and predictable outputs. Also, we have neither infrastructure for storing power at this level, nor would it be economically feasible. Hydro and geo-thermal are better sources in this sense, but neither are abundant and have their own drawbacks. '- promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal' - Only valid if the electricity is produced by means other than burning fossil fuels, otherwise you are just moving the problem up the supply chain. Same way with electric cars, if the electricity is still being produced by dirty means, it is not all that impressive a reduction in poluttion or emissions, it's just moving the problem up the chain. Not trying to sound defeatist or anything, it's just not a complete solution, still seem like band aid attempts by themselves.
- Qantourisc 10y ago"lack constant and predictable" We can solve this with batteries, which we have so far not been able to succeed in to do at large scales. There has been some small scale success with liquid batteries, using cheapish elements. Which in theory is feasible to scale up.
- XaYdEk 10y agoTechnically yes, economically difficult for most nations, if it's approached at this level. Germany has had an interesting approach to solar, where they subsidized solar panels for homeowners. I think it is the smarter approach because you incentives individuals to go green, rather than trying to implement a top down solution. And even so, we will need to keep power plants on call for redundancy and high load purposes. There is a video about peak power usage in England which I found fascinating (though this is a rather unique case) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=slDAvewWfrA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=slDAvewWfrA
- ar-jan 10y agoBoth real-world examples and simulations say it's possible, by combining different renewable energy sources, spreading them out geographically, and using large distribution networks, among others: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/dispelling-the-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-do-better-94486 http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/dispelling-the-nuclear-basel...