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

[glenn1]

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.

Might be a toe-may-toe / toe-mah-toe kinda deal. I'd look at that as selecting generation capacity to limit emissions in the go-forward. "Reduction" IMHO implies you're cutting emissions from current baseline, instead of taking steps to slow down year-over-year rate of growth in emissions. Either way it could be a positive step but would like to see what (if any) enforcement and monitoring measures are in place to see how China is holding up their end of the deal.

 

[Jaskalas]

P.S., if this agreement is fully realized and followed through on - Climate Change STILL happens.

Assuming the IPCC is 100% correct:
We still hit 600ppm this century.
We still lose the ice caps.

 

[fskimospy]

P.S., if this agreement is fully realized and followed through on - Climate Change STILL happens.

Assuming the IPCC is 100% correct:
We still hit 600ppm this century.
We still lose the ice caps.

Sadly, this is true. At this point we've already gone too far to stop climate change completely. (it's already happened) Now we're just trying to limit the damage.

 

[rudder]

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.

Actually you are incorrect. It is China 2, USA -1. Since China got $30 billion of r&d for pennies on the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/11/us-china-military-idUSKCN0IV0WY20141111

Yet our government remains their bitches.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Interesting, so you think that they will flip a magic switch in 2030 and make 20% of their power generation from non-emitting sources overnight.

That is literally the only way your position makes any logical sense.

 

[michal1980]

Interesting, so you think that they will flip a magic switch in 2030 and make 20% of their power generation from non-emitting sources overnight.

That is literally the only way your position makes any logical sense.

so what if they do make 20% of their power from non-emitting sources? It still means they can until 2030 increase CO2 emissions by an infinite amount.

It means that from today until 2030, for every 10 power plants they'll build, 8 can be coal, 2 will be alt fuel. The math doesn't magically change.

Furthermore, that 20% isn't even a pledge...

"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."

wow, they will 'aim' to have 20% of the power be zero-carbon by 2030. Typical liberalism, at least you can say you tried to do something, even if you didn't do anything at all.


So for the next 16 years china can expand cheap power sources an unlimited amount, while the USA has work using more expensive sources of energy immediately.

How is this agreement good for the USA? Our costs go up, their costs are flat or go down. Our pollution goes down, but their pollution continues to grow unabated.

What has this historical agreement achieved?

Nothing. But you liberals will give you selves high fives, saying you are doing something. something GOOD. When reality is you did nothing but hurt Americans again.

 

[Denly]

Am I the only one think that Asia as a whole can not survive another 15years of uncontrolled pollution?

 

[fskimospy]

so what if they do make 20% of their power from non-emitting sources? It still means they can until 2030 increase CO2 emissions by an infinite amount.

It means that from today until 2030, for every 10 power plants they'll build, 8 can be coal, 2 will be alt fuel. The math doesn't magically change.

That's what 20% means, yes. Are you saying that they are going to deliberately build other plants that generate more carbon than they were planning to before? If so, why?

Furthermore, that 20% isn't even a pledge...

wow, they will 'aim' to have 20% of the power be zero-carbon by 2030. Typical liberalism, at least you can say you tried to do something, even if you didn't do anything at all.

Well good news for you then, by that logic our commitment to decrease emissions isn't a pledge either.

International agreements function so long as both parties think they function. Welcome to the world of international relations.

Typical michal1980 post. Be mad at something because you don't understand what the hell you're talking about.

So for the next 16 years china can expand cheap power sources an unlimited amount, while the USA has work using more expensive sources of energy immediately.

How is this agreement good for the USA? Our costs go up, their costs are flat or go down. Our pollution goes down, but their pollution continues to grow unabated.

Only if you think they will conjure 20% of their energy production from non-emitting sources instantly in 2030. Do they have a magic wand I am unaware of?

What has this historical agreement achieved?

Nothing. But you liberals will give you selves high fives, saying you are doing something. something GOOD. When reality is you did nothing but hurt Americans again.

It is most certainly something good. Your inability to understand the deal has no effect on whether or not it is good.

 

[michal1980]

That's what 20% means, yes. Are you saying that they are going to deliberately build other plants that generate more carbon than they were planning to before? If so, why?
.

Because dirty energy is cheaper then clean energy?


Why make your peak co2 emission targets 16 years from now if you arent going to generate more co2 emissions?


Still avoiding the question of how this is good for america.


NM, you wont answer because your a die hard liberal. As long as the goal is 'good' nothing else matters.

 

[piasabird]

Just outlaw cars trains and planes.

 

[fskimospy]

Because dirty energy is cheaper then clean energy?

Why make your peak co2 emission targets 16 years from now if you arent going to generate more co2 emissions?

Because they are being graded on electricity generation, not CO2 emissions.

Still avoiding the question of how this is good for america.

NM, you wont answer because your a die hard liberal. As long as the goal is 'good' nothing else matters.

Limiting climate change is good for America. This does that. This is not difficult to understand.

 

[OutHouse]

Because they are being graded on electricity generation, not CO2 emissions.



Limiting climate change is good for America. This does that. This is not difficult to understand.

your position is difficult to understand. climate change is global. why does china get a pass to pollute but we have to cut?

 

[michal1980]

Because they are being graded on electricity generation, not CO2 emissions.

Please source.

All the news stories say this:

"Under the deal, China pledges to cap its growing carbon emissions by 2030. The United States, meanwhile, is setting a target to cut its emissions by 26% to 28% of 2005 levels by the year 2025."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nping-climate-change-agreement-coal/18901537/

Limiting climate change is good for America. This does that. This is not difficult to understand.

This deal doesn't do that. US CO2 goes down, China CO2 goes up.

The usa has to cut its CO2 output from levels set 9 years ago, China is allowed unlimited growth until 2030.

 

[fskimospy]

Please source.

All the news stories say this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nping-climate-change-agreement-coal/18901537/

From the OP article:

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.

This deal doesn't do that. US CO2 goes down, China CO2 goes up.

The usa has to cut its CO2 output from levels set 9 years ago, China is allowed unlimited growth until 2030.

Of course it does. China's CO2 goes up less than it would otherwise. China is only allowed unlimited growth if they still have that magic wand I keep asking about.

 

[fskimospy]

your position is difficult to understand. climate change is global. why does china get a pass to pollute but we have to cut?

How is my position hard to understand? Both countries are going to emit less carbon than they would have. Unless you believe China was going to build the exact same number of zero-emission generation facilities anyway, that should answer things.

 

[michal1980]

From the OP article:

learn to read

1)China would peak its carbon emissions by 2030

2) and will also aim to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources by the same year.

1) allows China unlimited CO2 growth until 2030.

2) says the they will try to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources.


Its not that difficult.

 

[fskimospy]

learn to read

1)China would peak its carbon emissions by 2030

2) and will also aim to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources by the same year.

1) allows China unlimited CO2 growth until 2030.

2) says the they will try to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources.

Its not that difficult.

So, for the third time, unless you think China is going to deliberately build additional, dirtier power plants than they previously were going to just for the hell of it or they are going to magic 20% of their energy into existence in 2030, that's a reduction in emissions.

 

[michal1980]

So, for the third time, unless you think China is going to deliberately build additional, dirtier power plants than they previously were going to just for the hell of it or they are going to magic 20% of their energy into existence in 2030, that's a reduction in emissions.

1) why wouldn't they?

2) they were already on pace to reach peak around that time.

3) China was already expanding the use of zero-emisson plants

4) There is no reduction in emissions. China will pollute more in 2030 then they do today.

 

[fskimospy]

1) why wouldn't they?

Why would they? They currently make the power plants that make the most economic sense to them exclusively. Now they would be doing that along with non-emissions plants.

Unless you think they are going to turn into a Captain Planet villain your point is nonsensical.

2) they were already on pace to reach peak around that time.

3) China was already expanding the use of zero-emisson plants

Yes, and not to this extent. Hence, the agreement. How is this hard to understand?

4) There is no reduction in emissions. China will pollute more in 2030 then they do today.

It's a reduction compared to the baseline. This is common sense.

 

[Fern]

learn to read

1)China would peak its carbon emissions by 2030

2) and will also aim to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources by the same year.

1) allows China unlimited CO2 growth until 2030.

2) says the they will try to get 20% of its energy from zero-carbon emission sources.
-snip-

Yeah, right now that seems accurate. Let's see what additional info comes out.

So, for the third time, unless you think China is going to deliberately build additional, dirtier power plants than they previously were going to just for the hell of it or they are going to magic 20% of their energy into existence in 2030, that's a reduction in emissions.

Unlike us, China plans long-term. E.g., they've already announced more nuclear power plants. They'll claim those as their zero carbon emission plants.

I'll wait to see what other additional info is forthcoming, but right now looks more like we gave up something for nothing.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, right now that seems accurate. Let's see what additional info comes out.

Unlike us, China plans long-term. E.g., they've already announced more nuclear power plants. They'll claim those as their zero carbon emission plants.

I'll wait to see what other additional info is forthcoming, but right now looks more like we gave up something for nothing.

Fern

This is incorrect. The current agreement goes above and beyond what China had previously planned.

By the way, we have also already planned carbon reductions. Do you think China gave up something for nothing?

 

[ElFenix]

Yeah, right now that seems accurate. Let's see what additional info comes out.



Unlike us, China plans long-term. E.g., they've already announced more nuclear power plants. They'll claim those as their zero carbon emission plants.

I'll wait to see what other additional info is forthcoming, but right now looks more like we gave up something for nothing.

Fern

we didn't give up anything. we're already on target to meet our goal. further, there's no enforcement mechanism.

 

[Fern]

This is incorrect. The current agreement goes above and beyond what China had previously planned.

By the way, we have also already planned carbon reductions. Do you think China gave up something for nothing?

Neither you nor anybody else here actually knows what China has planned.

At best you're suggesting we give up something to induce China to build out more nuke plants. I can't wait to see how they dispose of nuke waste, what with how careful they are about stuff like that now.

France or Germany build more nuke plants, no problem. China?

Fern

 

[smackababy]

An agreement? Ah, great! Global warming is official reversed. Agreements with countries known for cyber espionage, deplorable civil rights, and little care for where they dispose of their waste sounds like a great plan. I'm glad Obama is on this one!

 

[fskimospy]

Neither you nor anybody else here actually knows what China has planned.

At best you're suggesting we give up something to induce China to build out more nuke plants. I can't wait to see how they dispose of nuke waste, what with how careful they are about stuff like that now.

France or Germany build more nuke plants, no problem. China?

Fern

If you are now arguing that we don't know what China had planned then you can't possibly say that it 'looked like we gave up something for nothing', now can you?

There's actually quite a bit of analysis of Chinese energy policy. Most of it says that this is a decent reduction from what was previously planned. Not sure what the hostility is here for, other than the fact that it was Obama that negotiated it.