3 ms·

Rather, whatever diet you impose on western co2 emissions, which are already decreasing, is going to be dwarfed by China’s increase. China is building new coal

by cm2187 6y ago

Rather, whatever diet you impose on western co2 emissions, which are already decreasing, is going to be dwarfed by China’s increase. China is building new coal power plants now. Environmentalists are not helping their credibility by focusing on second or third order details.

LatteLazy 6y ago
This is the core environmental problem: how do you get every country to cut their emissions and buy quite a lot? If you can't get them to do that (and we've failed completely) trying to get them to cut and cut a lot AND do it with nuclear (or whatever else) is a non starter.
- pjc50 6y ago
  International agreements? Like the Paris agreement that the US sabotaged for domestic political point-scoring?
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Yeah. But if the US won't sign it it's already badly damaged. And if others won't act without them we're fucked. The US should get its shit together and get going. But I think plenty of other nations also wouldn't sign but can avoid admitting it because the US sabotages it for them. Otherwise we'd have a real agreement on climate between the EU, China, India and others. And then gradually force more people to join with trade scantions etc.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      > But if the US won't sign it it's already badly damaged. The USdid sign it .. under Obama. So Trump pulled out of it. > a real agreement on climate between the EU, China, India and others That is* the Paris accords.
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        I thought the (republican) senate refused to ratify it before Trump got in? Not to argue trump isn't a turd (he is), but US participation is Paris was dead long before he formally withdrew from it. It's sort of irrelevant anyway, Paris was an "agreement" (not even that technically) to do nothing. That's why it's been in force for most of the world for a while and made zero difference.
  - ryathal 6y ago
    Any plan that relies on the U.S. shelling out unlimited money to other countries isn't a plan.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      And what does that have to do with the Paris agreement, which is about limiting emissions?
      - ryathal 6y ago
        The Paris agreement was a bout wealth transfer more than it was emissions. Lip service was given to emissions so it could be positioned as a climate focused agreement.

by cm2187 6y ago

LatteLazy 6y ago

This is the core environmental problem: how do you get every country to cut their emissions and buy quite a lot? If you can't get them to do that (and we've failed completely) trying to get them to cut and cut a lot AND do it with nuclear (or whatever else) is a non starter.

pjc50 6y ago
International agreements? Like the Paris agreement that the US sabotaged for domestic political point-scoring?
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Yeah. But if the US won't sign it it's already badly damaged. And if others won't act without them we're fucked. The US should get its shit together and get going. But I think plenty of other nations also wouldn't sign but can avoid admitting it because the US sabotages it for them. Otherwise we'd have a real agreement on climate between the EU, China, India and others. And then gradually force more people to join with trade scantions etc.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    > But if the US won't sign it it's already badly damaged. The USdid sign it .. under Obama. So Trump pulled out of it. > a real agreement on climate between the EU, China, India and others That is* the Paris accords.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      I thought the (republican) senate refused to ratify it before Trump got in? Not to argue trump isn't a turd (he is), but US participation is Paris was dead long before he formally withdrew from it. It's sort of irrelevant anyway, Paris was an "agreement" (not even that technically) to do nothing. That's why it's been in force for most of the world for a while and made zero difference.
- ryathal 6y ago
  Any plan that relies on the U.S. shelling out unlimited money to other countries isn't a plan.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    And what does that have to do with the Paris agreement, which is about limiting emissions?
    - ryathal 6y ago
      The Paris agreement was a bout wealth transfer more than it was emissions. Lip service was given to emissions so it could be positioned as a climate focused agreement.