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

[sunzt]

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.

1. Because the government wants to stay in power and avoid unrest. Even the president admits the pollution is bad and needs to be cut down. He (and many chinese) look at pollution reports each day to determine how safe it is to go outside. Believe it or not, actually reducing pollution is a domestic play to stay in power.

2 & 3. They are increasing investment in non-fossil sources beyond the planned baseline. As per article, it's their commitment to work together and lead in this area that is most important:

The goals laid out by Obama and Xi were not as ambitious as some hoped, said Lo Sze Ping, CEO of the World Wildlife Fund Beijing.

But "what's important is that both these two large emitters are taking the responsibility to act and work together to resolve the problem, not the numbers or targets themselves,"

As i have said before, China's leadership current polluting path is unsustainable for remaining in power. Excessive pollution is hurting their economy, citizens, and political stability. This is why China has been making investments in greener sources and has implemented Cap-and-Trade in areas of the country. They WILL NOT go on an unlimited CO2 emitting spree before 2030, as some have suggested, because it is not in their interest.

 

[michal1980]

1. Because the government wants to stay in power and avoid unrest. Even the president admits the pollution is bad and needs to be cut down. He (and many chinese) look at pollution reports each day to determine how safe it is to go outside. Believe it or not, actually reducing pollution is a domestic play to stay in power.

2 & 3. They are increasing investment in non-fossil sources beyond the planned baseline. As per article, it's their commitment to work together and lead in this area that is most important:

The goals laid out by Obama and Xi were not as ambitious as some hoped, said Lo Sze Ping, CEO of the World Wildlife Fund Beijing.

But "what's important is that both these two large emitters are taking the responsibility to act and work together to resolve the problem, not the numbers or targets themselves,"

As i have said before, China's leadership current polluting path is unsustainable for remaining in power. Excessive pollution is hurting their economy, citizens, and political stability. This is why China has been making investments in greener sources and has implemented Cap-and-Trade in areas of the country. They WILL NOT go on an unlimited CO2 emitting spree before 2030, as some have suggested, because it is not in their interest.

Thanks for proving my point. China is not cutting emissions. What China says they will do and what happens are two different things.

If its in their economic interest to go all in on coal before 2030 they'll do it.

There is no limit on what peak they can reach in 2030.

 

[Fern]

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

I'm highly skeptical of that.

I've heard much of our reduction (we actually went up last year from what I've read) was from a crappy economy. That's a very bad way to meet the goal, and that's exactly what many are concerned about - it's going to take a 'bad economy' to reach it.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Where's India in all of this?

I don't understand why GW supporters are happy with this.

Obama has 'shot our country's wad'. If that promise was our bargaining chip he just played for it for good. It can't be played again. He's just tied our country's hands. No future President can use it to get emission reduction from India, for example.

Still, I'll be waiting to see what other info on this is forthcoming.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

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.

Agreed. From the OP's article:

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.​

They continue to increase carbon emissions while we're cutting them.

It's a horrible agreement and I really hope it is not ratified under the lame duck session.

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.

It's bad, agreed, but it's not quite as bad as it could be. China does have targets, just reducing the increase rather than actual reductions. What the article should have said is that China agrees to cut its projected increase in carbon emissions by 26-28% and to let that year be its peak.

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.

No matter which party is in power.

There is possibly a way to live with this without losing all our remaining manufacturing. If we abolish the corporate income tax, then very profitable manufacturing corporations might find the increased energy costs livable. Less profitable manufacturing corporations and small to medium manufacturing corporations will be gone though. Our standard of living is still going to take the hit, of course - the consumer pays for everything in the end - but saving the planet is never without cost.

 

[sunzt]

Thanks for proving my point. China is not cutting emissions. What China says they will do and what happens are two different things.

If its in their economic interest to go all in on coal before 2030 they'll do it.

There is no limit on what peak they can reach in 2030.

They will have to cut emissions to reach their goals and it is not done over night. The US went through a similar path.

If you want to entertain unrealistic scenarios then that's fine, but in reality it is NOT in their economic, political, or societal interest to be all in on coal because leadership wants to stay in power.

We know what China will do in relation to emissions because:
1) Leadership wants to stay in power, and growing emissions (pollution) are a threat to it
2) China has ALREADY taken steps to reduce emissions by increasing the % of non-fossil fuel energy, and implementing cap-and-trade

 

[werepossum]

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

Pish. So they'll have all these nuclear plants. We'll have near-total loss of our manufacturing base and proper tire inflation. No number of new nuclear plants can match the abundant clean energy of proper tire inflation.

Perhaps this is the time to institute federal housing, "free" government health care and higher education, and the Basic Income Stipend. Our government borrows money from Red China, hands it out "fairly", and we then send it back to Red China. Who needs good jobs?

 

[fskimospy]

Thanks for proving my point. China is not cutting emissions. What China says they will do and what happens are two different things.

If its in their economic interest to go all in on coal before 2030 they'll do it.

There is no limit on what peak they can reach in 2030.

What you're basically asking is why China didn't agree to a deal that would be wildly unfair to them. Their per-capita carbon emissions are about 6 tons per capita per year. Those of the U.S. are more than 17 metric tons per capita.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

The idea that a country that emits one third as much carbon per capita as we do should be following the same trajectory is ridiculous. No one would ever sign that deal. Reduction in their increase is a much better course for the world even if it's not as far as we need to go.

 

[michal1980]

What you're basically asking is why China didn't agree to a deal that would be wildly unfair to them. Their per-capita carbon emissions are about 6 tons per capita per year. Those of the U.S. are more than 17 metric tons per capita.



http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC



The idea that a country that emits one third as much carbon per capita as we do should be following the same trajectory is ridiculous. No one would ever sign that deal. Reduction in their increase is a much better course for the world even if it's not as far as we need to go.

So now you admit they aren't decreasing anything.

Your just a liar on this issue. There is nothing, Nothing in this agreement about them limiting output. All they said it's that 16-years from now they'll cap output.

this policy is bad for America. Our largest competition has a blank check on pollution where as we're going to limit ours.

 

[michal1980]

.





It's bad, agreed, but it's not quite as bad as it could be. China does have targets, just reducing the increase rather than actual reductions. What the article should have said is that China agrees to cut its projected increase in carbon emissions by 26-28% and to let that year be its peak..

But that's not what China agreed to. They agreed to cap CO2 in 2030. And until then they will try to use 20% clean engery. But until 2030 they are free to pollute as much as they want. While the USA has to increase our enegry costs from day one.

So China wins. Their costs stay low, our cost good up.

 

[werepossum]

But that's not what China agreed to. They agreed to cap CO2 in 2030. And until then they will try to use 20% clean engery. But until 2030 they are free to pollute as much as they want. While the USA has to increase our enegry costs from day one.

So China wins. Their costs stay low, our cost good up.

That's what the article says, but the actual agreement is a bit more complicated. China has reduction goals for intermediate years just as do we, it's just that ours are actual reductions and theirs are reductions in the increase. There are no enforcement mechanisms on China, but unless this is ratified by our Senate as a treaty there are none for us either. Of course, China could take us to international court.

 

[michal1980]

That's what the article says, but the actual agreement is a bit more complicated. China has reduction goals for intermediate years just as do we, it's just that ours are actual reductions and theirs are reductions in the increase. There are no enforcement mechanisms on China, but unless this is ratified by our Senate as a treaty there are none for us either. Of course, China could take us to international court.

Can you link anything that says there are going to be any actual reductions by china?

this whitehouse fact sheet doesn't mention that at all

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...nnouncement-climate-change-and-clean-energy-c

At the same time, President Xi Jinping of China announced targets to peak CO2 emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early, and to increase the non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20 percent by 2030.

nothing I've found says they are going to limit the co2 output. Its just plan wishful thinking by bleeding heart liberals who think they've somehow accomplished something.

The only accomplishment is making the USA less competitive on the world market.

 

[ivwshane]

This agreement is so much more worse than the previous agreement the US had with China!

/s






God damn you righty retards are fucking stupid!

 

[finglobes]

"Thanks for proving my point. China is not cutting emissions. What China says they will do and what happens are two different things."

Exactly. Obama made a dog and pony show with China in order to cripple the US once again. The agreement also allows China to "visit" with US military to "observe" how we do things. Obama is such a osycho-wierdo

 

[ivwshane]

"Thanks for proving my point. China is not cutting emissions. What China says they will do and what happens are two different things."

Exactly. Obama made a dog and pony show with China in order to cripple the US once again. The agreement also allows China to "visit" with US military to "observe" how we do things. Obama is such a osycho-wierdo

Honestly I think that's why Obama met with china in the first place, to hand them our secret plans for building spy drones.

 

[OutHouse]

God damn you righty retards are fucking stupid!

More insults? Why don't you take your meds and go away.

 

[schmuckley]

I saw some Chinese newsperson talking about how Obama did not fare well at that thing last night.

 

[ivwshane]

More insults? Why don't you take your meds and go away.

More irony from our resident hypocrite troll.

 

[1prophet]

How about this solution, require any product from China sold in the USA be made under the same OSHA, EPA, and Labor rules as if they were made here in America,

no more American corporations using China, India or other countries to avoid meeting regulations, especially environmental ones, and watch the pollution problems take care of themselves automatically.

 

[sportage]

All you have to do is look at the rare glimpse into the reality of clean air or lack of in China.
People wearing face masks so they can go outside, go to work, shop, breathe.
That is one thing we here in America don't have to put up with. Yet.
And what China will never let out to the world is the number of those Chinese people that die of cancers and illness from smog and bad air.
The government of China puts business and industry before the people and health.
Which, btw, is the very same goal of the republican congress, in America.
Business and industry first, the people second, or third, or fourth, or ????

When your baby is put down for their afternoon nap wearing a face mask so the air doesn't kill them in their sleep, maybe then people will think differently?
And refuse to vote for any republican that puts industry and gutting the EPA before clean air and peoples health.

China has a long way to go to even make a dent in their environmental cleanup.
Probably the reason they were given until 2030.
Where as America has the opportunity to do something now.
Well, that was until republicans took over last week.

Queue the face masks.
I think Walgreen's has a sale on them.
Better stock up while they last.

 

[michal1980]

All you have to do is look at the rare glimpse into the reality of clean air or lack of in China.
People wearing face masks so they can go outside, go to work, shop, breathe.
That is one thing we here in America don't have to put up with. Yet.
And what China will never let out to the world is the number of those Chinese people that die of cancers and illness from smog and bad air.
The government of China puts business and industry before the people and health.
Which, btw, is the very same goal of the republican congress, in America.
Business and industry first, the people second, or third, or fourth, or ????

When your baby is put down for their afternoon nap wearing a face mask so the air doesn't kill them in their sleep, maybe then people will think differently?
And refuse to vote for any republican that puts industry and gutting the EPA before clean air and peoples health.

China has a long way to go to even make a dent in their environmental cleanup.
Probably the reason they were given until 2030.
Where as America has the opportunity to do something now.
Well, that was until republicans took over last week.

Queue the face masks.
I think Walgreen's has a sale on them.
Better stock up while they last.

so you and the left will now stop bitching about jobs going to china? After all your ok with them having unlimited pollution and cheap energy.

 

[Pneumothorax]

They will have to cut emissions to reach their goals and it is not done over night. The US went through a similar path.

If you want to entertain unrealistic scenarios then that's fine, but in reality it is NOT in their economic, political, or societal interest to be all in on coal because leadership wants to stay in power.

We know what China will do in relation to emissions because:
1) Leadership wants to stay in power, and growing emissions (pollution) are a threat to it
2) China has ALREADY taken steps to reduce emissions by increasing the % of non-fossil fuel energy, and implementing cap-and-trade

Since when does the Chinese Communist Party ever fricken worry about losing power? They just swap faces around and everything stays the same. And when a few people get a bit unruly, just send in the anti-riot brute police first and then execute the leaders of dissent. IF that doesn't work, run over a few students with tanks. They've gotten away with in the past and will continue to do so...

 

[Lash444]

So are we all in agreement that it would be harder for China to meet a % reduction by 2030 (compared to ourselves) if we started today?

Are we also in agreement that China had no reason maximum emissions requirement in place previously?

So since we have a lot of resident geniuses on this board, how would you have come to a carbon emissions cap agreement with China. Please, enlighten us. And don't go into a "well I don't believe emissions are bad line of bullshit.". Assume they are bad. How would you get a growing country like china to come to an agreement without conceding something? And what did we concede? Lower emissions for ourselves? Aren't we already doing that? Isn't our goal already to do that?

 

[fskimospy]

So now you admit they aren't decreasing anything.

Your just a liar on this issue. There is nothing, Nothing in this agreement about them limiting output. All they said it's that 16-years from now they'll cap output.

this policy is bad for America. Our largest competition has a blank check on pollution where as we're going to limit ours.

They are decreasing their emissions from what would have happened otherwise. How is this hard to understand.

Seriously, you're so overcome by partisan rage that it's made you retarded.

 

[michal1980]

They are decreasing their emissions from what would have happened otherwise. How is this hard to understand.

Seriously, you're so overcome by partisan rage that it's made you retarded.

Your the one blinded by partisan rage.


Please point to one thing in the agreement that caps or lowers China's CO2 emissions.

One thing.

You cant, because there is nothing in the agreement that lowers or caps China's emissions.

All China agreed to was to cap emissions somewhere around 2030, and they'll TRY to use 20% clean energy. They didn't say the WILL use 20% clean energy, just try to.

Open up your eyes.