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

[cabri]

China currently supplies itself with electricity by the most economical means possible, regardless of pollutant levels.

If China has to make 20% of its power generation non-emitting, that by definition will make its emissions lower than had it continued on its present course.

Unless you are arguing that China plans on becoming a Captain Planet villain and will deliberately make uneconomical decisions for the sole purpose of increasing their pollutants, the agreement obviously limits their CO2 as compared to the previous baseline.

Come on guys, this isn't brain surgery.

You are tap dancing around the issue.

Where are the limits for China on pollution levels?

All that is being said by you and others is that China is supposed to lower their levels by using non-emitting energy come 2030.

Throwing out numbers - 8/11 may not be accurate but are representative in the way that the levels can be analyzed

2014 is 8B tons
2030 is projected to be 11B tons


20% of 11B tons is 2.2B tons.

8.8B is still an 10% increase over the current levels IF they honor the agreement and stay on the projected path.

Yet the US has to look at where we were 10 years ago and cut from that point.

 

[michal1980]

The only person here who doesn't understand the word limit is you.

So please tell me what the limit on China emissions is? A number please.

 

[Paratus]

So please tell me what the limit on China emissions is? A number please.

2030

 

[michal1980]

2030

that's a date.

Whats the limit on their pollution. Unless your willing to admit, that currently there is ZERO limit as to what their pollution can be?

 

[Paratus]

that's a date.

Whats the limit on their pollution. Unless your willing to admit, that currently there is ZERO limit as to what their pollution can be?

I just said you didn't understand limit. Thank you for proving it again.

Here's the thing Michal. With this self-imposed limit China in 2031 will produce less emissions than 2030. Before this limit they could have emitted however much you in your ranting could come up with by 2030 and even more in the following years.

 

[fskimospy]

You are tap dancing around the issue.

Where are the limits for China on pollution levels?

All that is being said by you and others is that China is supposed to lower their levels by using non-emitting energy come 2030.

Throwing out numbers - 8/11 may not be accurate but are representative in the way that the levels can be analyzed

2014 is 8B tons
2030 is projected to be 11B tons


20% of 11B tons is 2.2B tons.

8.8B is still an 10% increase over the current levels IF they honor the agreement and stay on the projected path.

Yet the US has to look at where we were 10 years ago and cut from that point.

Look at per capita carbon emissions and learn.

 

[michal1980]

I just said you didn't understand limit. Thank you for proving it again.

Here's the thing Michal. With this self-imposed limit China in 2031 will produce less emissions than 2030. Before this limit they could have emitted however much you in your ranting could come up with by 2030 and even more in the following years.

no, they can continue producing the same amount of pollution as 2030.

heres the thing Paratus, until 2030, China can grow their pollution an infinite amount.

 

[Paratus]

Look at per capita carbon emissions and learn.

I have a a very long post about a third done for the "how would you fix climate change" thread. Basically my point was we want the third world to reach first world per capita energy consumption (~5000kwh/person year), as fast as possible while using a mix of power sources that limits per capita emissions.

The benefit to first world living standards is decreasing birth rate. I think I calculated needing 9.5TW of clean power for the world by 2050 to reduce emissions by 40%. To go to 100% emission free by 2100 we'd only need an extra 1.5TW due to declining population. (Takes these calca with a boulder sized grain of salt of course.)

 

[Paratus]

no, they can continue producing the same amount of pollution as 2030.

heres the thing Paratus, until 2030, China can grow their pollution an infinite amount.

Here's the thing Michal with out this limit, in your world disconnected from the reality that no they can't reach infinite emissions, they could have done twice an infinite amount after 2030.

So I think we can agree they have a limit. A time limit. Many people are familiar with those.

 

[cabri]

Look at per capita carbon emissions and learn.

Still providing an excuse.

Why not use tons per capita income?
Economic. Or if there is concern about climate, use the area of country.

China stacked the deck and used marked cards. And Obama still played the game knowing that. He was not concerned with what was best for this country; but willing to hurt our economy in favor of China.

 

[cabri]

Here's the thing Michal with out this limit, in your world disconnected from the reality that no they can't reach infinite emissions, they could have done twice an infinite amount after 2030.

So I think we can agree they have a limit. A time limit. Many people are familiar with those.

Why does the US need to go to a baseline measurement of 2005 and China does not?

The playing field is not level.

 

[fskimospy]

Still providing an excuse.

Why not use tons per capita income?
Economic. Or if there is concern about climate, use the area of country.

China stacked the deck and used marked cards. And Obama still played the game knowing that. He was not concerned with what was best for this country; but willing to hurt our economy in favor of China.

Why would you use tons per capita income. That makes zero sense.

Clearly Obama was fighting against America.

Seriously, listen to how ridiculous you sound.

 

[fskimospy]

Why does the US need to go to a baseline measurement of 2005 and China does not?

The playing field is not level.

You're right it isn't level. It is massively in Americas favor. Have you done the math?

 

[cabri]

You're right it isn't level. It is massively in Americas favor. Have you done the math?

How can it be level when the baseline for the US is LESS than current levels and a cut is required.

Yet China baseline is potentially greater than their current levels, is actually unknown and no incentive to lower their baseline.

Why should China have an advantage in terms of economic impact? 15 years of unrestrained growth while we get handicapped to where we were 10 years ago.

 

[cabri]

Why would you use tons per capita income. That makes zero sense.

Clearly Obama was fighting against America.

Seriously, listen to how ridiculous you sound.

It was made to be deliberately crazy. Yes, I understand want to justify China getting a break because of the population size.

But why, it benefits China. Not the US. The guidelines will impact the US economy much more than China and you seem fine with that. Why?

 

[Lash444]

It was made to be deliberately crazy. Yes, I understand want to justify China getting a break because of the population size.

But why, it benefits China. Not the US. The guidelines will impact the US economy much more than China and you seem fine with that. Why?

I guess to prove your case on that, you'd have to show that the U.S. economy would be hurt by reducing carbon emissions of that size, correct?

Do you think that Obama pulled those numbers out of a hat?

How are you so sure that it favors them more than us?

What is your background?

 

[fskimospy]

How can it be level when the baseline for the US is LESS than current levels and a cut is required.

Yet China baseline is potentially greater than their current levels, is actually unknown and no incentive to lower their baseline.

Why should China have an advantage in terms of economic impact? 15 years of unrestrained growth while we get handicapped to where we were 10 years ago.

Use math. Once you do it is pretty clear.

Hint: how many people live in China.

 

[Lash444]

Use math. Once you do it is pretty clear.

Hint: how many people live in China.

Meh, they will just counter with the infinite + 1 argument.

Which again, begs the question of why would China sign this in the first place unless:

1.) They were going to attempt to reduce their emissions
2.) Wanted to legitimately sabotage the U.S. economy

Its not entirely out of the question that China would do what they can to sabotage our economy. Who would think this would be a reasonable way to accomplish that?

Everyone else on the planet knows that we are going to self impose tighter environmental and worker restrictions. Clearly we are making strides to increase fuel economy in all sectors.

If you know the U.S. is going to do that anyway, why would you even make a spectacle of yourself, by self imposing a limit on your future production? Just shut up, and let them cripple themselves.

 

[Paratus]

It was made to be deliberately crazy. Yes, I understand want to justify China getting a break because of the population size.

But why, it benefits China. Not the US. The guidelines will impact the US economy much more than China and you seem fine with that. Why?

Currently the average amount of electrical power per capita in the US was:
13200 kwh/year

For China it's:
3300 kwh/year.

In comparison Italy has first world living conditions (and a negative birth rate) at
5500 kWh/year

So China is going to want to increase per capita power by at least 2000kwh/yr

IMHO

 

[ivwshane]

Meh, they will just counter with the infinite + 1 argument.

Which again, begs the question of why would China sign this in the first place unless:

1.) They were going to attempt to reduce their emissions
2.) Wanted to legitimately sabotage the U.S. economy

Its not entirely out of the question that China would do what they can to sabotage our economy. Who would think this would be a reasonable way to accomplish that?

Everyone else on the planet knows that we are going to self impose tighter environmental and worker restrictions. Clearly we are making strides to increase fuel economy in all sectors.

If you know the U.S. is going to do that anyway, why would you even make a spectacle of yourself, by self imposing a limit on your future production? Just shut up, and let them cripple themselves.

Why would China sabotage our economy when they are heavily invested in it? You'd have to be a nut to believe #2.