ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

morbo wrote:

If "climate change" was so critical and settled science, the political solutions proposed to fix this problem would not be so bad, completely giving a pass to heavy polluters that are classified as "countries in development" (China & India), while heavily penalizing countries that are already at the forefront of applying clean energy (Europe).

"

The climate change solutions would also address the skyrocketing population growth in the 3rd world and include a stop to all migration into the 1st world - since, as you know, people living in the West produce more emissions - you'd logically want less people living in USA / Europe, not more ;)

"

I dunno if climate change is real or not (otoh, I know that pollution & destruction of the environment is real), but the proposed accords are 100% bollocks and should not be supported because it all smells like a global socialist / bureaucratic scam.

"

rojimboo wrote:

This was relevant in the old Kyoto Protocol, but in the Paris agreement, China and India, and actually pretty much everyone except the US, have to cut emissions.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Overpopulation is not even a little bit of a problem.

Spoiler

"

rojimboo wrote:

China's emissions have seemingly plateaued for now, at least, there is no more exponential growth in emissions.

"

China’s carbon emissions growth has accelerated since the beginning of the year, leading to warnings that the country could be headed for its largest annual increase in climate pollution since 2011.

"

morbo wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

China's emissions have seemingly plateaued for now, at least, there is no more exponential growth in emissions.

doesnt seem like it

Dramatic surge in China carbon emissions signals climate danger

"

China’s carbon emissions growth has accelerated since the beginning of the year, leading to warnings that the country could be headed for its largest annual increase in climate pollution since 2011.

And I wouldn't trust what the Chinese gov says. Their emissions are probably higher than what they report.

There is only one thing we can individually do, that will help more than any politicians bs: stop consuming so much stuff, by living simpler lives. How many Chinese produced electronic crap have you bought and already thrown into the bin in your life? Do you really need to travel for vacations on the other side of the planet? Everyone needs to answer that for themselves and start fighting with your wallets.

"

deathflower wrote:

If climate change is a Chinese hoax, why should people panic??

"

morbo wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

If climate change is a Chinese hoax, why should people panic??

Who said is a Chinese hoax?

There are three different layers you need to trust and accept:

1.) Carbon emissions or pollution, which is by itself bad for the environment and people. Its good to limit all pollution no matter if it causes "climate change" or not, because besides "climate change", pollution has a plethora of other bad impacts. I doubt you'll find anyone arguing against this.

2.) Then you have to accept "climate change" and believe it's mostly due to carbon emissions. Some people argue against this, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to tackle this from a scientific pov, so let's assume it's true.

3.) Then you have to believe in the effectiveness of proposed political solutions to fight "climate change". Here is where I get stuck and can use logic to argument against the proposed policies, not "climate change" itself.

1 is true, 2 can be true, but it still doesn't guarantee you that 3 will solve anything. The same political elites who support neoliberal globalist capitalism, are telling you to trust their plan on "solving climate change". Call me skeptic, especially when these elites all pile up on USA (Orange man bad!) and not China.

You require me to believe that in 10 years "it will be too late", while the Paris accord gives China free reign until 2030. Yeah, no.

"

morbo wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

This was relevant in the old Kyoto Protocol, but in the Paris agreement, China and India, and actually pretty much everyone except the US, have to cut emissions.

Last time I've read the agreement, China is given a complete pass until 2030. By this date they are supposed to reach peak emissions, not even scale down.

At the same time we are to believe that in 15 years the planet will reach a point of no return (latest scaremongering update). Excuses "but the West polluted in the past", should not be valid when it's supposed to be a critical planetary condition. The Chinese are the second biggest polluters and since the impact of this is global, it's also not valid to reduce their responsibility per capita.

"

rojimboo wrote:

What people forget, is that the current emissions should be compared to the business-as-usual scenario of not doing anything, i.e. what would the emissions be like now without any houlabaloo regarding climate change? I think then it has quite dramatically decreased emissions, an argument could be made.

"

China’s CO2 emissions rose in 2017, suggesting that it is still too early to say if CO2 emissions have peaked. China’s Paris Agreement commitment requires its CO2 emissions to peak by 2030. Declining emissions between 2014 and 2016 led some researchers, including the Climate Action Tracker, to postulate that the peak may have been reached. However, 2017 saw coal use increase for the first time in three years (although it remained below its 2013 peak), which, together with rising demand for oil and gas, drove CO2 emissions above 2014 levels, the previous record high.

The question is, what comes next? If the recent overall downward trend in China’s coal use continues for the next few years, it is plausible that overall CO2 emissions peaked in 2017. In this case, total Chinese GHG emissions would be likely to only show a very slight increase in the period between 2015–2030 and will essentially plateau at close to 12.0 GtCO2e/year. If, however, coal consumption does not continue to decline, and instead stalls at today’s levels, and no additional policies are introduced to limit other, non-CO2­ gases, China’s total GHG emissions could continue to rise until at least 2030.

With current policies, China is on track to meet or exceed its 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement. The CAT rates China’s NDC “Highly insufficient,” as it is not ambitious enough to limit warming to below 2°C, let alone limiting it to 1.5°C as required under the Paris Agreement, unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort.

Despite the increase in 2017 emissions, China’s top climate official, Xie Zhenhua, has announced that China met its 2020 carbon intensity target in 2017, three years ahead of schedule. CAT analysis based on official Chinese GDP data confirms this. If China maintains this intensity level (or lowers it) over the next three years, it will achieve the intensity element of its 2020 pledge. Under current policies, China is also likely to achieve its (more stringent) 2020 target to limit fossil fuels, but neither of these targets are compatible with limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C.

On 3 September 2016, China ratified the Paris Agreement, and it has policies in place to reach its NDC goals. These policies are currently centred around the targets set in its NDC, which include a commitment to peak CO2 emissions by 2030 at the latest, lower the carbon intensity of GDP by 60%–65% below 2005 levels by 2030, increase the share of non-fossil energy carriers of the total primary energy supply to around 20% by that time, and increase its forest stock volume by 4.5 billion cubic metres, compared to 2005 levels.

"

China’s National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC) has written a draft policy that would increase the renewable energy target from 20% to 35% by 2030.

For a long time, it has seemed that the Chinese 2030 renewable energy target of 20% was incredibly low given the amount of renewable energy it has been adding. For example, in 2017, China installed more than 52 gigawatts (GW) of solar, which is about as much as has been installed in the United States since … forever.

"

There is only one thing we can individually do, that will help more than any politicians bs: stop consuming so much stuff, by living simpler lives. How many Chinese produced electronic crap have you bought and already thrown into the bin in your life? Do you really need to travel for vacations on the other side of the planet? Everyone needs to answer that for themselves and start fighting with your wallets.

"

Overpopulation is the top problem Earth has