• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

awaken said:
Pay for India's clean up and transfer to cleaner fuels. That was their volunteered contribution to Paris: "give us money and we'll clean up." US was on the hook for $200 billion. Hence, Trump and wailing response. The money left the room. Countries left to pay their own way (or Europe will finance?). China's volunteered contribution at Paris was to delay ten or more years. The biggest polluters are delaying and looking for handouts. The fate of the world is at stake. China and India alone can cause the world's demise. Does their behavior indicate this is real or a ruse? Why aren't they taking this more seriously? Who here will start and contribute to a gofundme account for India?
Click to expand...

I don't know what $200 billion you're talking about that the US is "on the hook" for. Developed countries agreed to provide $100 billion per year, public and private, by 2020. OECD estimates that about $67 billion was provided in 2014, including things like high-interest loans.

You are only partially right on India's Paris contribution. They pledged a number of targets unconditionally. They stated that they could increase the ambition of those targets with appropriate international finance and technology transfer. You can view that document here.

You are 100% wrong on China's contribution. You're just spouting talking points. If a country as big as China and whose energy demand is growing like China's says they will reach peak emissions by 2030, it means they need to begin transitioning their infrastructure immediately. It's not like on December 31, 2029 they're going to start acting. They have already canceled over 100 coal-fired power plants. They are committing to deploy as much renewable energy by 2030 as the entire US electricity grid. They have budgeted $360 billion to spend on renewable energy by 2020.

Get your facts straight before you come on here spouting smart-ass bullshit
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41218243#

"China, the world's biggest car market, plans to ban the production and sale of diesel and petrol cars and vans.

The country's vice minister of industry said it had started "relevant research" but that it had not yet decided when the ban would come into force. "Those measures will certainly bring profound changes for our car industry's development," Xin Guobin told Xinhua, China's official news agency

China made 28 million cars last year, almost a third of the global total.

Both the UK and France have already announced plans to ban new diesel and petrol vehicles by 2040, as part of efforts to reduce pollution and carbon emissions.

Chinese-owned carmaker Volvo said in July that all its new car models would have an electric motor from 2019.

Geely, Volvo's Chinese owner, aims to sell one million electric cars by 2025.




Thank fuck we backed out of the future the rest of the world is going to dominate....
 
It's time people recognize that while China is a human rights abuser and severely restricts individual rights, they are also super fucking smart and have been quietly gaining leverage over the developing world's open markets while the US continues to intervene militarily. They own a great deal of mineral rights in Africa and bait them with bribes and development assistance in return for corporate monopoly. Their "Belt and Road Initiative" is essentially a huge down-payment on massive investment in Eurasia, building infrastructure to bring raw materials from the area to China. They've put almost $4 billion down for climate change assistance/sustainable development in the developing world, and instead of putting it into the Green Climate Fund they chose to control it with their own fund. That includes an additional $500 million last week. They're super good at this and their breakneck development over the past 2 decades proves it.
 
knowell said:
Trump right again? So much winning for these next 8 years.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? I recall Trump saying climate change was not real, not that it "isn't as bad as we might have thought." Basically, as I outline below, it shows that those of us who have taken this threat seriously, combined with economics and technology advancements, have done better than we've feared, no thanks to, and despite of, Trump, or you.

If this is right, this is welcomed news, but I haven't had the opportunity to get a full analysis. Let's assume it's right, because it's in a peer-reviewed journal and from solid sources. It apparently suggests that if we can peak and decline emissions by 2030 (not sure what the peak tonnage levels are) and still have a 66% chance of staying under 1.5ºC. It also suggests we'd still need rapid deployment of renewables, the economics of which are getting better by the day, and that after that 2030 date we'd need an even sharper emissions decline curve.

It also takes into account stronger than expected emissions stabilization in *ahem* CHINA, so there goes another smack on that Trump administration lie they've been peddling that China isn't doing anything. Now, we had been thinking that 2020 was the year by which we'd need to peak emissions globally, and we should still aim for that in order to increase that 66% chance every bit we can. Time to double down, if you ask me.
 
BaseballBoomhauer said:
Did you read the article? I recall Trump saying climate change was not real, not that it "isn't as bad as we might have thought." Basically, as I outline below, it shows that those of us who have taken this threat seriously, combined with economics and technology advancements, have done better than we've feared, no thanks to, and despite of, Trump, or you.

If this is right, this is welcomed news, but I haven't had the opportunity to get a full analysis. Let's assume it's right, because it's in a peer-reviewed journal and from solid sources. It apparently suggests that if we can peak and decline emissions by 2030 (not sure what the peak tonnage levels are) and still have a 66% chance of staying under 1.5ºC. It also suggests we'd still need rapid deployment of renewables, the economics of which are getting better by the day, and that after that 2030 date we'd need an even sharper emissions decline curve.

It also takes into account stronger than expected emissions stabilization in *ahem* CHINA, so there goes another smack on that Trump administration lie they've been peddling that China isn't doing anything. Now, we had been thinking that 2020 was the year by which we'd need to peak emissions globally, and we should still aim for that in order to increase that 66% chance every bit we can. Time to double down, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

We do need to be careful here. It seems pretty obvious that the green folks have been super successful with the renewables and such. The success has been so dramatic that if we don't pump the brakes on this anti-global warming movement, we may bring on the next ice age. It seems we have been underestimating man's ability to alter the environment. With great power comes great responsibility.

This is a time to proceed with great caution.
 
knowell said:
We do need to be careful here. It seems pretty obvious that the green folks have been super successful with the renewables and such. The success has been so dramatic that if we don't pump the brakes on this anti-global warming movement, we may bring on the next ice age. It seems we have been underestimating man's ability to alter the environment. With great power comes great responsibility.

This is a time to proceed with great caution.
Click to expand...

What the fuck is this post, even. I'll never understand how just being a troll advances anything. It makes you look fucking stupid, because you obviously don't have an argument here.
 
BaseballBoomhauer said:
What the fuck is this post, even. I'll never understand how just being a troll advances anything. It makes you look fucking stupid, because you obviously don't have an argument here.
Click to expand...

So you are good with "our catastrophic predictions were way off but it is because we have done such a bang up job lowering CO2 emissions"? If so, then I see why you missed my point.
 
knowell said:
So you are good with "our catastrophic predictions were way off but it is because we have done such a bang up job lowering CO2 emissions"? If so, then I see why you missed my point.
Click to expand...

Read my fucking post. Our predictions were not "way" off. We are still in a lot of trouble. Furthermore, the authors themselves have come out to say that the media reports were overblown. I'm still looking into those details in my spare time.

What I don't understand is the entirety of your argument. We should what, stop cutting greenhouse gas emissions lest we go backwards? Is that really your argument? Can you spell it out for me? Because your cryptic posts aren't doing that for me. You're saying what, that we are just wrong about the predictions of climate change? That is not at all within the conclusions of that paper.
 
BaseballBoomhauer said:
Read my fucking post. Our predictions were not "way" off. We are still in a lot of trouble. Furthermore, the authors themselves have come out to say that the media reports were overblown. I'm still looking into those details in my spare time.

What I don't understand is the entirety of your argument. We should what, stop cutting greenhouse gas emissions lest we go backwards? Is that really your argument? Can you spell it out for me? Because your cryptic posts aren't doing that for me. You're saying what, that we are just wrong about the predictions of climate change? That is not at all within the conclusions of that paper.
Click to expand...

Kidding around a bit. It seems that most every time the predictions and models show the worst case scenario and losing some credibility.
 
knowell said:
Kidding around a bit. It seems that most every time the predictions and models show the worst case scenario and losing some credibility.
Click to expand...

not really; the 24 hrs news cycle reports worst case scenarios and conservatives/anti-science people are idiots
 
Really is remarkable how Trump just keeps nailing everything. I think when it's all said and done he'll be a top 5 President
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top