5 ms·

Keep it simple: unless Trump is kicked out of power any meaningful change is unlikely

lazyjones 7y ago
Under Trump, the US implemented record / word-leading carbon reductions. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/25/donald-trump-denied-credit-us-emissions-decline/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/25/donald-trum...
- wffurr 7y ago
  The US government implemented no such thing. It happened under Trump's tenure due to the economics of coal power and wind, despite his campaign promises to prop up coal and the phase out of wind power subsidies. The reduction isn't even close to the scale of the cuts required to make meaningful progress on climate. As someone earlier in the thread said, look how much progress has been made under a hostile policy regime. Imagine if there was actually a carbon tax and oil subsidies were transferred to clean tech.
  - corebit 7y ago
    > It happened under Trump's tenure due to the economics Which let's be real is his only platform, so I'm willing to grant it
- Brakenshire 7y ago
  The US is the largest developed economy and has some of the high per person emissions in the world. It’s hardly going to be possible for another country to have a larger fall if it’s five times smaller with half the per person emissions. The other point is this relies on fracking, and the carbon intensity of fracking depends on the level of escaped Methane. It can actually be worse than coal. And Trump has just reversed a lot of the regulation which prevented venting of Methane from fracking sites.
- jayd16 7y ago
  Isn't this from the continued steady decline of coal power in the US and not any new policy? The current administration hasn't made good on their policy to boost coal power (imo that failure being a good thing). What recent policies have been passed that you think should be lauded?
  - lazyjones 7y ago
    The point is that "Trump has to go for anything to happen" contradicts facts. If anything, the virtue signalling by other politicians has been less effective than whatever happened under Trump.
    - jayd16 7y ago
      >The point is that "Trump has to go for anything to happen" contradicts facts. Unless we can point to a policy change then "Trump has to go for anything to happen" seems reasonable, doesn't it? If the gains are from coal's decline, it seems reasonable to be worried that won't be enough.
foolinaround 7y ago
these kind of comments should remain relegated to reddit
mattbk1 7y ago
It's fuzzier than that. For example, there is a lot of momentum behind carbon capture and storage research and implementation that was built up under previous presidents (yes, even pre-Obama), and it would take a great deal of work for congress to re-route funding that the Department of Energy has already allocated. Even 45Q tax credits for capturing and storing CO2 started working through the federal government before the current administration, with the partial goal of determining what a carbon price would actually be. CCS technology may be currently used to say "look, clean coal!", but it's still useful and important for a low-carbon future.

Under Trump, the US implemented record / word-leading carbon reductions. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/25/donald-trump-denied-credit-us-emissions-decline/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/25/donald-trum...

wffurr 7y ago
The US government implemented no such thing. It happened under Trump's tenure due to the economics of coal power and wind, despite his campaign promises to prop up coal and the phase out of wind power subsidies. The reduction isn't even close to the scale of the cuts required to make meaningful progress on climate. As someone earlier in the thread said, look how much progress has been made under a hostile policy regime. Imagine if there was actually a carbon tax and oil subsidies were transferred to clean tech.
- corebit 7y ago
  > It happened under Trump's tenure due to the economics Which let's be real is his only platform, so I'm willing to grant it
Brakenshire 7y ago
The US is the largest developed economy and has some of the high per person emissions in the world. It’s hardly going to be possible for another country to have a larger fall if it’s five times smaller with half the per person emissions. The other point is this relies on fracking, and the carbon intensity of fracking depends on the level of escaped Methane. It can actually be worse than coal. And Trump has just reversed a lot of the regulation which prevented venting of Methane from fracking sites.
jayd16 7y ago
Isn't this from the continued steady decline of coal power in the US and not any new policy? The current administration hasn't made good on their policy to boost coal power (imo that failure being a good thing). What recent policies have been passed that you think should be lauded?
- lazyjones 7y ago
  The point is that "Trump has to go for anything to happen" contradicts facts. If anything, the virtue signalling by other politicians has been less effective than whatever happened under Trump.
  - jayd16 7y ago
    >The point is that "Trump has to go for anything to happen" contradicts facts. Unless we can point to a policy change then "Trump has to go for anything to happen" seems reasonable, doesn't it? If the gains are from coal's decline, it seems reasonable to be worried that won't be enough.

foolinaround 7y ago

these kind of comments should remain relegated to reddit

mattbk1 7y ago

It's fuzzier than that. For example, there is a lot of momentum behind carbon capture and storage research and implementation that was built up under previous presidents (yes, even pre-Obama), and it would take a great deal of work for congress to re-route funding that the Department of Energy has already allocated. Even 45Q tax credits for capturing and storing CO2 started working through the federal government before the current administration, with the partial goal of determining what a carbon price would actually be. CCS technology may be currently used to say "look, clean coal!", but it's still useful and important for a low-carbon future.