• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump says privately he will leave Paris climate agreement, and does!

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Roflmouth said:
Once liberals calmly and carefully (LOL!) explain to American taxpayers why it makes sense for them to pay extra money for other countries' carbon emissions, I'm sure they'll be happy to support the Paris accords.
Click to expand...

Like how conservatives calmly and carefully (LOL!) assured everyone that climate change is a giant commie conspiracy?
 
OutHouse said:
lol its hilarious watching you liberal idiots crying in here that the sky is falling and the earth is doomed. lol you morons said the same thing when Bush pulled out of Kyoto and somehow the US reduced its global warming numbers by 20%. news flash for you hysterical lemmings. even with Trump pulling out of the Paris turd agreement, the US will continue to reduce its emissions and other nations like china and india will continue to destroy the earth. focus your rage on them.
Click to expand...

...and the reductions Kyoto was trying to implement were going to destroy the US Economy! That was the screed from those wanting out of Kyoto. Apparently they were dead wrong.
 
brandonbull said:
I think we should have more items shipped across the oceans because those large container ships use the cleanest fuels and practically have zero emissions. +1 for globalization. /sarcasm
Click to expand...
Workers in China live in dormitories next to the plants, not in a McMansion 30 miles away that they drive to in a huge SUV's. And they eat less meat. Do every canned American worker is a net reduction in global warming. +1 for globalization.
 
brycejones said:
You do realize those cargo ships are the most efficient method of transport available right? Still waiting for you to provide sources for the other claims you made in this thread.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about efficiency or the lack of for ships. They burn the garbage of fuel oils. If your posts were able to be converted to fuel, that's what ships would use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/02/27/eu-clashes-with-maritime-industry-over-ship-emissions/

http://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/environment/air-emissions/carbon-emissions

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/shipping_en
 
 
brandonbull said:
I never said anything about efficiency or the lack of for ships. They burn the garbage of fuel oils. If your posts were able to be converted to fuel, that's what ships would use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/02/27/eu-clashes-with-maritime-industry-over-ship-emissions/

http://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/environment/air-emissions/carbon-emissions

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/shipping_en
Click to expand...

Those aren't sources for your earlier claims care to try again? You may have forgotten but you made several claims about what the Paris accord required of the US.

Yes HFO is pretty shitty with a high sulphur content which has many air quality issues. Still doesn't change the fact that ships are the most carbon efficient method to transport goods over long distances.
  • Air cargo - 1.7739 lbs CO2 per Ton-Mile
  • Truck - 0.3725 lbs CO2 per Ton-Mile
  • Train - 0.2306 lbs CO2 per Ton-Mile
  • Sea freight - 0.0887 lbs CO2 per Ton-Mile
The bolded is just your projection again.
 
edcoolio said:
I know climate change is real... we used to call it the weather.
Click to expand...
aahhh hahaha... damn that's clever. :colbert:
Oh and
115bbafef2550e1fcf9c8a71423d3a7b.jpg
 
brycejones said:
Those aren't sources for your earlier claims care to try again? You may have forgotten but you made several claims about what the Paris accord required of the US.

Yes HFO is pretty shitty with a high sulphur content which has many air quality issues. Still doesn't change the fact that ships are the most carbon efficient method to transport goods over long distances.
  • Air cargo - 1.7739 lbs CO2 per Ton-Mile
  • Truck - 0.3725 lbs CO2 per Ton-Mile
  • Train - 0.2306 lbs CO2 per Ton-Mile
  • Sea freight - 0.0887 lbs CO2 per Ton-Mile
The bolded is just your projection again.
Click to expand...

Ships travel many thousands of miles over open oceans spewing other nasty by-products of diesel engines and all the garbage being dumped into the ocean. If we are so concerned about the climate, promoting globalization is not good. Products should be made closer to their customers and not outsourced to far flung locations.

The US has to make a 26% greenhouse gas cut by 2025. Some countries have until 2030 to make changes. Some countries are "reducing emission intensity of economy(GDP)" which sounds different than absolute emissions. Nothing is enforceable. Some countries are using carbon credits. The US gets to send a bunch of money($3B), which $1B has been provided, to other countries with the hopes that they will do something. We can spend that money domestically to develop alternatives and then provide that tech to other countries.
 
brycejones said:
Those aren't sources for your earlier claims care to try again? You may have forgotten but you made several claims about what the Paris accord required of the US.

Yes HFO is pretty shitty with a high sulphur content which has many air quality issues. Still doesn't change the fact that ships are the most carbon efficient method to transport goods over long distances.
  • Air cargo - 1.7739 lbs CO2 per Ton-Mile
  • Truck - 0.3725 lbs CO2 per Ton-Mile
  • Train - 0.2306 lbs CO2 per Ton-Mile
  • Sea freight - 0.0887 lbs CO2 per Ton-Mile
The bolded is just your projection again.
Click to expand...

Also new UN regs will kick in in 2020 lowering allowable sulphur content from 3.5% to 0.5% on bunker fuel. Some companies are moving toward LNG as a replacement with the cruise lines at the forefront, which is a far cleaner solution than any oil product. You already can't burn bunker fuel exceeding 0.1% sulphur within 200 miles of US/EU/Canada coastlines.
 
Trump's agenda has always revolved around how he can extract the highest yield out of the government for himself, and if other billionaires like himself benefit from it, well good for them.

That he has to pander to his base to continue to amass for himself the greatest wealth possible via exploiting his position as POTUS is also high on his list of to-do's.

These two key factors are what most influences Trump's decision making processes. As we have already witnessed, he will lie, he will obstruct, he will deceive, he will ignore reality, he will create a state of "new normalcy" that fits his agenda in order to pursue his personal goal of self-enrichment at any and all costs.

This pullout from Paris is just another ruse toward pandering to his base, to have them see that he is "keeping his promises to them" without actually giving his base a single thing of substance that his base can actually benefit from, other than convincing them that they were "right all along" in their support for him.

For Trump, his efforts to enrich himself have been thwarted by his own greed, his ignorance of, and now his resistance to how the processes of government work. He's gotten himself into a situation where he may lose his job because he stubbornly stands his ground on the idea that all things must bend to his will by force of will, just as he had done for years as a real estate developer.

The one and only thing he can rely on now is that his base of supporters that have joined him in living inside his state of mind will stick with him no matter how bad things get for him.

Trump taking a stance that "climate change is a hoax" is simply Trump eliminating another obstacle toward his and his fellow billionaires goal of self-enrichment any way he/they can get it, while also creating a side benefit of having his base cluster around him even closer than ever.

Trump fully understands that the more deeply he gets in trouble, the more his base will attempt to protect him and he will exploit this to the fullest extent.
 
brandonbull said:
I never said anything about efficiency or the lack of for ships. They burn the garbage of fuel oils. If your posts were able to be converted to fuel, that's what ships would use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/02/27/eu-clashes-with-maritime-industry-over-ship-emissions/

http://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/environment/air-emissions/carbon-emissions

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/shipping_en
Click to expand...

Unemployed Trump Trash won't have money to buy Chinese made junk, so this problem will solve itself.
 
senseamp said:
Fossil fuels are doomed. Republicans can't change it, no matter how hard they cling on.
Click to expand...

Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, and Coal cover 70%+ of electrical generation on Earth.

In the long run (very long run), you will be correct. Unfortunately, you will be correct long after there is no such thing as a Republican or Democratic party and we are all long dead.

For now, the strange partisan "Republican vs Democrat" narrative is an unsupported position as this percentage is unlikely to significantly change - regardless of which party is in power.
 
edcoolio said:
Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, and Coal cover 70%+ of electrical generation on Earth.

In the long run (very long run), you will be correct. Unfortunately, you will be correct long after there is no such thing as a Republican or Democratic party and we are all long dead.

For now, the strange partisan "Republican vs Democrat" narrative is an unsupported position as this percentage is unlikely to significantly change - regardless of which party is in power.
Click to expand...

It's more immediate than that in the US. Coal in the country is dying right now. On top of that, there are about twice as many people employed in the American renewable energy field versus the fossil fuel industry. Trump and the Republicans aren't just making a futile effort in a bid to prop up coal and oil -- they're actually chasing after the industry that has the least potential for new jobs.

I'm not presuming that we'll all have solar panels on our roofs in 10 years, but I wouldn't be surprised if the US effort gains momentum. Technology has a habit of growing rapidly once it hits a certain threshold.
 
edcoolio said:
Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, and Coal cover 70%+ of electrical generation on Earth.

In the long run (very long run), you will be correct. Unfortunately, you will be correct long after there is no such thing as a Republican or Democratic party and we are all long dead.

For now, the strange partisan "Republican vs Democrat" narrative is an unsupported position as this percentage is unlikely to significantly change - regardless of which party is in power.
Click to expand...
Technology transitions on an S-curve, not linearly, and we are entering the vertical part of the curve.
 
brandonbull said:
If we are so concerned about the climate, promoting globalization is not good. Products should be made closer to their customers and not outsourced to far flung locations.
Click to expand...

saying that globalization and the "local" market are mutually exclusive is an absolute fallacy. globalization is a reality that has only progressed and grown for around a century now and has been enabled by transportation, telephonic communication and the ultimately the internet. in the past decade, the "local" product and services markets have also progressed and expanded significantly, be it despite, or in response to globalization.
 
Commodus said:
It's more immediate than that in the US. Coal in the country is dying right now. On top of that, there are about twice as many people employed in the American renewable energy field versus the fossil fuel industry. Trump and the Republicans aren't just making a futile effort in a bid to prop up coal and oil -- they're actually chasing after the industry that has the least potential for new jobs.

I'm not presuming that we'll all have solar panels on our roofs in 10 years, but I wouldn't be surprised if the US effort gains momentum. Technology has a habit of growing rapidly once it hits a certain threshold.
Click to expand...

It's already on an exponential growth curve.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-solar-market-grows-95-in-2016-smashes-records

Solar alone also employs 260,000 in the US. Almost four times more than coal.
 
Last edited:
edcoolio said:
Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, and Coal cover 70%+ of electrical generation on Earth.

In the long run (very long run), you will be correct. Unfortunately, you will be correct long after there is no such thing as a Republican or Democratic party and we are all long dead.

For now, the strange partisan "Republican vs Democrat" narrative is an unsupported position as this percentage is unlikely to significantly change - regardless of which party is in power.
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "significant"

IEEFA-US-coal-power-share-300x200-v1.jpg

Fig1-SolarGrowthWithITC-2017YIR.png

eia_3_8.png
 
I got some acquaintances who used to work in low skill manufacturing, but are now installing solar panels. They go to a place with a big parking lot and sign a deal with owner to install solar panel roofs over it, and they share the revenue. It's a win win win, they have jobs, business or school gets some extra money, and customer cars stay cool. Of course they could just sit around and dream about working in the coal mines, but they've moved on to greener pastures. I don't know what the exact numbers are, but a bank loans them money to buy panels, so it must be decent enough on risk reward basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top