US and China make historic agreement to cut carbon emissions by 26-28%

[sunzt]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/world/us-china-climate-change-agreement/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

A few points:

- Under the deal, the U.S. will cut carbon emissions by more than 26-28% by 2025
- China will have to cut carbon emissions by 26-28% by 2030 to reach a peak emissions level
- First time a joint press conference held in Beijing where US reporters were allowed to ask questions to Chinese president (Watch the CNN video for squirming Xi respond to human rights question)
- Obama says he doesn't need new legislation to move towards goals; well see how GOP tries to stall this... maybe "Obamacare for the Environment?"

Regardless of your opinion on climate change or the administration, this is a key diplomatic win for the administration.

 

[blake0812]

Sounds like something that was needed. A shame it couldn't come sooner.

 

[PokerGuy]

A vague agreement to set goals for cutting carbon emissions is fine and dandy, but it means nothing until you start figuring out how exactly you're going to do that. Doing it by jacking up costs of energy (as the president famously said before, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket") is another terrible idea from the dear leader, and the gop should (and will) do everything in it's power to derail such stupidity.

Of course the media will then revert back to the old "obstructionism" charge, but that's exactly what the gop would need to do.

 

[Sonikku]

Then again, China has labor "laws". They're just never enforced or taken seriously. Same deal here.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Did Xi Jinping have his fingers crossed behind his back when he shook President Obama's hand? I don't see China holding up their end of the bargain.

 

[thraashman]

The problem is that with Republicans having any sort of power in this country, nothing will ever happen regarding carbon emissions and climate change. Unfortunately Republicans are all about the "me" and the "now". What will carbon emission reduction to to me right now, it will cost me more money right now. They don't care that in the future not reducing carbon will cost them far more and hurt others. Republicans are the most short-sighted and selfish individuals.

 

[manimal]

The thing about china is they are spending alot more money converting their infrastructure too greener options. Look at Hebei province. It used to be one of the most beautiful places in that part of china but damn that pollution now is so bad families are moving away in droves and kids all have asthma or worse. Environmentally china is even shutting down businesses in areas to improve smog.

 

[rudder]

Way to go China.... they will continue to peak emissions sometime around 2030. And they will also work to increase the amount of energy derived from non-fossil fuel sources. Which currently is probably pretty low so anything would be an improvement.

 

[rudder]

The problem is that with Republicans having any sort of power in this country, nothing will ever happen regarding carbon emissions and climate change. Unfortunately Republicans are all about the "me" and the "now".

Are you going to pay for the switch to solar? If the answer is yes, you need to start a crowdfund campaign for the Ivanpah solar plant. It was built with the help of a $1.6 billion federal loan and now needs another federal loan to pay off the federal loan. The plant is only producing about 1/4 of the power that was thought it could supply.

Can our economy handle this? Obama and the dems want to regulate and tax carbon energy out of existance... but the technology to replace this industry is not there yet.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting. Yet another talking point against action on climate change bites the dust.

 

[bshole]

I was driving up north this weekend for my son's hockey tournament. As I drove through a literal forest of windmill farms, I couldn't get over how perfectly hideous they looked. They have completely ruined once beautiful landscapes.

T. Boone Pickens, billionaire Texas oilman and several years ago, strong proponent of building a wind energy facility with over 2000 wind turbines in the central United States, was interviewed about the project by Fast Company magazine.

Fast Company: And you’ll do all this on your beautiful 68,000-acre ranch?
Pickens: I’m not going to have the windmills on my ranch. They’re ugly. The hub of each turbine is up 280 feet, and then you have a 120-foot radius on the blade. It’s the size of a 40-story building.
​

When even strong supporters of wind energy projects say the huge wind turbines are ugly, not something they want to see near their homes, why are opponents criticized when they say the same thing?

 

[sunzt]

A vague agreement to set goals for cutting carbon emissions is fine and dandy, but it means nothing until you start figuring out how exactly you're going to do that.

Everything has to start somewhere. Just getting the Chinese, the leading emitter of Carbon emissions, to publicly announce (and jointly with the US) their plan to reduce emissions is a HUGE step. Remember, they could have done the same thing they always did by saying "we shouldn't be reducing this cause we're developing economy blah blah."

Believe it or not, the primary driver for the Chinese doing this is because of domestic issues. Their government acknowledges that increasing pollution is causing problems for development and creating unrest in the population. President Xi said that everyday he (and many Chinese) would check what the pollution level is outside. I have more confidence in the Chinese acting on their commitment than the US.

Doing it by jacking up costs of energy (as the president famously said before, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket") is another terrible idea from the dear leader, and the gop should (and will) do everything in it's power to derail such stupidity.

Of course the media will then revert back to the old "obstructionism" charge, but that's exactly what the gop would need to do.

Obama won't be able to implement cap-and-trade with a GOP congress (which the Chinese are currently doing BTW), but he can issue incentives and other emission reducing initiatives to reach the target without GOP approval.

 

[theeedude]

Are you going to pay for the switch to solar? If the answer is yes, you need to start a crowdfund campaign for the Ivanpah solar plant. It was built with the help of a $1.6 billion federal loan and now needs another federal loan to pay off the federal loan. The plant is only producing about 1/4 of the power that was thought it could supply.

Can our economy handle this? Obama and the dems want to regulate and tax carbon energy out of existance... but the technology to replace this industry is not there yet.

Of course our economy can handle that. Do you even know the size of our economy? Let me give you a hint, it's 10,000 times larger than $1.6 Billion. We can afford to experiment on new energy sources, even if some of these experiments don't pan out. Especially when there is labor market slack, and the alternative is paying people unemployment to sit at home and watch TV.
Technology is there already. Photovoltaic solar panels.

 

[sunzt]

Way to go China.... they will continue to peak emissions sometime around 2030. And they will also work to increase the amount of energy derived from non-fossil fuel sources. Which currently is probably pretty low so anything would be an improvement.

It's not practical to suddenly switch from skyrocketing emission peaks every year for the last 10+ years to suddenly reducing or stop creating new peaks in a year. It takes a gradual reduction in the emissions that will lead to it. This happened with the US.

per article:

China has agreed to provide another 800-1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero emission generation capacity by 2030.

That amount of zero-emission output exceeds all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and is close to total current electricity generation capacity in the United States.

Not a marginal amount, but is only accounts for about 20% of their energy source i think.

 

[michal1980]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/world/us-china-climate-change-agreement/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

A few points:

- Under the deal, the U.S. will cut carbon emissions by more than 26-28% by 2025
- China will have to cut carbon emissions by 26-28% by 2030 to reach a peak emissions level
- First time a joint press conference held in Beijing where US reporters were allowed to ask questions to Chinese president (Watch the CNN video for squirming Xi respond to human rights question)
- Obama says he doesn't need new legislation to move towards goals; well see how GOP tries to stall this... maybe "Obamacare for the Environment?"

Regardless of your opinion on climate change or the administration, this is a key diplomatic win for the administration.

This is just a bold faced lie.

"China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, pledged in the far-reaching agreement to cap its rapidly growing carbon emissions by 2030, or earlier if possible"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...768504-69e6-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html

What that means is that China can for the next 16 years grow CO2 limits without a cab.

While the USA has to cut our output?

anyone supporting this is stupid, or hates america.

 

[michal1980]

Interesting. Yet another talking point against action on climate change bites the dust.

and what point is that?

China can grow CO2 emissions for another 16 years unabated, while the USA has to cut ours from day 0?

 

[michal1980]

The problem is that with Republicans having any sort of power in this country, nothing will ever happen regarding carbon emissions and climate change. Unfortunately Republicans are all about the "me" and the "now". What will carbon emission reduction to to me right now, it will cost me more money right now. They don't care that in the future not reducing carbon will cost them far more and hurt others. Republicans are the most short-sighted and selfish individuals.

mean while democrats don't care about anyone now, and are willing to sacrifice american jobs and competitiveness in their fight against the global warming boogie man.

 

[glenn1]

mean while democrats don't care about anyone now, and are willing to sacrifice american jobs and competitiveness in their fight against the global warming boogie man.

<shrug> Those are Democrat jobs anyway, ultimately I don't care if they kill off the remaining smokestack company jobs which are barely hanging on anyway. At least that way we can all be relieved of their bipolar behavior about them and we can all proceed to building out our back to the future energy grid of water wheels, windmills, and the imaginary source that will inevitably result from a Manhattan Project style funding dump.

 

[OutHouse]

and what point is that?

China can grow CO2 emissions for another 16 years unabated, while the USA has to cut ours from day 0?

exactly.

Obama got owned once again by a foreign leader. thanks for the higher energy cost you asshat.

 

[fskimospy]

and what point is that?

China can grow CO2 emissions for another 16 years unabated, while the USA has to cut ours from day 0?

If you understood what the word 'unabated' means you would know that's not true, unless you are implying that China will flip a magic switch one day and instantly cut their emissions by 26-28%.

 

[chucky2]

So when they don't hit the caps (after puking out years more excessive pollution), and/or just say 'And?' when they don't uphold their end of the agreement, what exactly is going to happen? Nothing. This is effectively a smokescreen for continuing emissions - if the Science is to be Believed - we already cannot afford at our present levels.

In short: Cool story bro...

 

[michal1980]

If you understood what the word 'unabated' means you would know that's not true, unless you are implying that China will flip a magic switch one day and instantly cut their emissions by 26-28%.

Umm I'm fully away of what unabated means.

"continuing at full strength or force without becoming weaker"

For the next 16 years China can grow their CO2 output without limits. They promise that whatever peak output of emissions they reach in 2030 will be the cap.

This agreement gave them every incentive in the world to pollute as much as possible for the next 16 years. While their main competitor (the USA) has to cut its CO2 use.

So if we are keeping score, China 1, USA 0. Well that's actually wrong, its China 1, USA -1. Because we have to reduce out output.

 

[glenn1]

If you understood what the word 'unabated' means you would know that's not true, unless you are implying that China will flip a magic switch one day and instantly cut their emissions by 26-28%.

You must not have read the article, since it's the U.S. who has the 26-28% reduction commitment not China. Unless the article omits the information, China has no reduction obligation whatsoever so the "magic switch" is moot.

Under the agreement, the United States would cut its 2005 level of carbon emissions by 26-28% before the year 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions by 2030 and will also aim to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources by the same year.

 

[fskimospy]

You must not have read the article, since it's the U.S. who has the 26-28% reduction commitment not China. Unless the article omits the information, China has no reduction obligation whatsoever so the "magic switch" is moot.

Under the agreement, the United States would cut its 2005 level of carbon emissions by 26-28% before the year 2025. China would peak its carbon emissions by 2030 and will also aim to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources by the same year.

You're right, I took that from the OP, so thanks for the correction!

China most certainly does have a reduction obligation, however. In order to meet its requirements of getting 20% of its power from zero-carbon emitting sources that's going to require them to build a shitload of their new power plants as emission free ones.

 

[Jaskalas]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/world/us-china-climate-change-agreement/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

A few points:

- Under the deal, the U.S. will cut carbon emissions by more than 26-28% by 2025

Hah... so we do nothing, by essentially continuing our switch to natural gas.

Regardless of your opinion on climate change or the administration, this is a key diplomatic win for the administration.

If China follows through with it. We won't know the... "win" for another decade or two.