As a European this is the main fear I have during this election. 4 more years of inaction from the government of one of the biggest polluters in the world will really bite us in the ass. Not that I’m super proud of how we are doing in my country, but it can’t get worse.
>4 more years of inaction from the government of one of the biggest polluters in the world will really bite us in the ass.
But that's not the case. America is reducing its emissions greatly by shifting from coal to natural gas (which mirrors what Germany is doing, for example). Coal is ostensibly dead in US. If you look at the charts from Wikipedia [1][2], you'll see the US has cut emissions at about the same rate (or faster) than Europe. That trend will continue. So what will Paris actually do in practical terms?
The problem is that after transitioning away from coal, there isn't a clear answer about the next step. Renewables are not a panacea and may never be able to power a modern economy as they will probably always require fossil fuel baseload ... not to mention that because renewables are a diffuse energy source, they require HUGE land areas which makes no different for CO2 emissions, but makes a huge difference for environmental collapse.
The biggest issue with the Paris Accords is that China did not commit to begin any restrictions until 2030. ...and since they are both the world's largest CO2 emitter and world's fastest growing CO2 emitter, the Accords became a corporate strategy to just move more manufacturing to China (and other non-limited countries).
Frankly, I think the Paris Accords does more harm than good by giving anyone the notion that we were solving the problem.
The optimal strategy to combat Global Warming is to bring manufacturing back to the EU and US and regulate emissions strongly.
Here are some interesting graphs from arguably the most transformative economic miracle in human history [0]. The risk isn't the US doing nothing, it is India, Africa, etc, etc deciding that they seriously want a comfortable standard of living.
As a European living in the US I think it’s time for Europe to stop looking at the US and start leading. If you are worried about climate change, there is plenty of stuff that can be done in Europe without the US. Europe could also take a strong lead in developing green technologies.
Stop worrying about the US and stand on your own feet!
I hope I’m wrong but it seems the world may have to leave the United States in the 1950s where it currently plans to reside.
Seriously, it’s time counties who want to improve the situation need move on from worrying about what the United sates is doing because it doesn’t look like much will be happening for a long time.
The Paris Climate Accord is not going to have any major impact on the drive and desire to develop renewable energy sources in the US. Politics don't decide technological outcomes like this, despite what politicians would like to tell us.
You cannot do that on a nation by nation basis as you will just push the pollution to other unregulated nations - although if done globally, this might work.
Originally the thought was to do this on a product by product basis, but unwinding supply chains is effectively impossible.
Actually, it's still pretty tough because some countries buy and rebrand products to slip around tariffs even now.
Does this include the past? Should we "tax" the US and Europe since they've been burning coal and diesel faster than everyone else for more than a century?
Should we also favor countries like Kenya, who have burned zero coal historically and are currently some of the greenest countries in the world?
And how is it not worth it? You said it yourself. It was non-biding, no enforcement, goals where self imposed and the US government still didn't want to take part.
It was a big virtue signaling show where nobody involved made any changes. Which some will always see as a huge success because it avoids any need to do anything as long as declarations of support are cheered and awareness is raised and verbal support is given.
>the US leaving might force world leaders to actually do something
Hah! No, the Paris accord, the "no enforcement, and the goals where self imposed and for some countries ridiculous" Paris accord is the world "doing something".
We’re a severe embarrassment. Sorry everyone. Hopefully some day America will get our act together, but at this point I doubt it. Stupider by the minute.
The Paris Accord has no teeth and places the West at an economic disadvantage to China, who keeps riding its “developing nation” label to get out of any restrictions. The US is already reducing emissions and has been doing so for years.
If you want to fight climate change, pressure China.
The US is a net importer of CO2 emissions if you account for trade. Goods that cause CO2 emissions in China and Europe are imported, amounting to about 7% of the US domestic total emissions in 2017 (edit: while China is a net exporter, about 14% of its emissions are for goods that leave the country). So reducing emissions only matters if they're not moved to somewhere else. [0]
Also, China emitted about half as much CO2 per capita as the US in 2018, still ofc more in total, with about 4 times as large a population than the US.[1]
Edit 2: If you calculate in the trade, the US ends up with almost 3 times the emissions per capita of China.
Meanwhile, awareness/disclosure of climate risk is rising sharply in large publicly traded companies, measured by counting the percentage of companies reporting "climate risk" in their 2019 annual reports:
- 26% of companies in EU
- 9% of companies in APAC
- 7% of companies in US
Still a long way to go obviously, but these numbers have doubled compared to fiscal 2017.
Wow. Rising sharply, from what, 0%? Assuming the size of the US public markets is the largest in the world, and that we needed to take action decades ago to prevent climate change's worst effects, these statistics place the blame squarely on large corporations
To be fair, the US is just doing overtly what every other signatory to the agreement has been doing covertly. Not a single goal of the Paris agreement has been met, it's like being bound to an agreement in which the terms are TBD.The heads of state at the table of the agreement made sure that they legally had no liability. Stringent treaties are big no for a lot of countries. Leaders need to be held accountable for the upcoming climate disaster.
On a related note, if all of the frozen ice goes melty melty, Paris will be underwater. It’s at 35m, and sea levels could rise by 70m if Earth goes full thaw.
It can absolutely happen, yes, but note that this is nothing that anyone alive today will witness (barring progress in life extension technology).
Sea level rise is projected to be around 2.4 meters by 2100 in the worst scenarios. Maybe it'll be a bit higher than that but not by much. And by the time the oceans do rise by that level, maybe we'll have reclaimed most of the continental shelves anyways by building dams, so we'll have a firm grip on the technology needed to build dams at scale.
There are far graver consequences of climate change that affect humans immediately, this decade, this year, this century.
This is quite a good tool to explore what would happen at different sea level rises - http://flood.firetree.net/ - it maxes out at 60m, but even there it's a very different world.
>along with the growing economic competitiveness of renewable energy sources
I feel that this is the key sentence. Solar panels are getting better every year, batteries are getting better, and in the meantime we have natural gas replacing coal plants which helps to bring down carbon dioxide emissions. I'm personally OK with this.
The market is doing its best to counter Trump's efforts here, as renewables and storage are dropping faster in price than anybody expected, even the biggest boosters of the tech. We will never build another coal plant in the US. And our energy is getting cheaper, and the grid will get more reliable as we distribute more storage through it.
And fortunately for the environment, Trump's efforts at the DoE to help coal have been staggeringly incompetent and ineffective. But I fear that in the past four years, the administration might have found some lawyers that understand the basics of how executive branches can legally execute given the laws that gave them executive powers.
> We will never build another coal plant in the US.
Because of natural gas, not renewables. Renewables still need base load due to variable generation because storage technology isn’t economical.
If the price of natural gas didn’t collapse due to fracking the fuck out of the whole country for the last 15 years, we would still be building coal plants hand over fist.
I highly doubt that. As others have said, China has no plans to reduce pollution until 2030 (negotiated at the accord) and is currently increasing their polluting infrastructure.
I'm not a trump supporter or right wing or a climate denier. But the Paris agreement is shit. Its a non binding "accord" to do nothing and hope that the problem goes away. The pretense that it matters or will make a difference (let alone actually solve the issue) activey prevents progress.
[+] [-] originalvichy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] macspoofing|5 years ago|reply
But that's not the case. America is reducing its emissions greatly by shifting from coal to natural gas (which mirrors what Germany is doing, for example). Coal is ostensibly dead in US. If you look at the charts from Wikipedia [1][2], you'll see the US has cut emissions at about the same rate (or faster) than Europe. That trend will continue. So what will Paris actually do in practical terms?
The problem is that after transitioning away from coal, there isn't a clear answer about the next step. Renewables are not a panacea and may never be able to power a modern economy as they will probably always require fossil fuel baseload ... not to mention that because renewables are a diffuse energy source, they require HUGE land areas which makes no different for CO2 emissions, but makes a huge difference for environmental collapse.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...
[+] [-] koheripbal|5 years ago|reply
Frankly, I think the Paris Accords does more harm than good by giving anyone the notion that we were solving the problem.
The optimal strategy to combat Global Warming is to bring manufacturing back to the EU and US and regulate emissions strongly.
[+] [-] roenxi|5 years ago|reply
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china?country=~CHN
[+] [-] tootie|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spaetzleesser|5 years ago|reply
Stop worrying about the US and stand on your own feet!
[+] [-] bamboozled|5 years ago|reply
Seriously, it’s time counties who want to improve the situation need move on from worrying about what the United sates is doing because it doesn’t look like much will be happening for a long time.
[+] [-] TehCorwiz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] libraryatnight|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zanneth|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] einpoklum|5 years ago|reply
1. Drop the US dollar as a reserve currency.
2. Free the SWIFT system from subservience to US decrees.
[+] [-] panpanna|5 years ago|reply
Because that would address the argument about cost and staying competitive.
[+] [-] arethuza|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hokkos|5 years ago|reply
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/news/commission-launch...
[+] [-] koheripbal|5 years ago|reply
Originally the thought was to do this on a product by product basis, but unwinding supply chains is effectively impossible.
Actually, it's still pretty tough because some countries buy and rebrand products to slip around tariffs even now.
[+] [-] jeroenhd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zshrdlu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Seasonwreckage|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xondono|5 years ago|reply
The Paris accord is not worth the paper it’s written on.
It’s non-biding, it has no enforcement, and the goals where self imposed and for some countries ridiculous.
Even if it’s not for the right reasons, the US leaving might force world leaders to actually do something.
[+] [-] fbelzile|5 years ago|reply
What kind of message is that sending?
[+] [-] bamboozled|5 years ago|reply
Seems like very obscure logic.
[+] [-] VLM|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emptyfile|5 years ago|reply
Hah! No, the Paris accord, the "no enforcement, and the goals where self imposed and for some countries ridiculous" Paris accord is the world "doing something".
Even that will not be reached.
[+] [-] chadlavi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OscarTheGrinch|5 years ago|reply
That is not how steps in the right direction work.
[+] [-] DFHippie|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceilingcorner|5 years ago|reply
If you want to fight climate change, pressure China.
[+] [-] wnkrshm|5 years ago|reply
Also, China emitted about half as much CO2 per capita as the US in 2018, still ofc more in total, with about 4 times as large a population than the US.[1]
Edit 2: If you calculate in the trade, the US ends up with almost 3 times the emissions per capita of China.
[0] https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-import...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...
[+] [-] __jf__|5 years ago|reply
- 26% of companies in EU
- 9% of companies in APAC
- 7% of companies in US
Still a long way to go obviously, but these numbers have doubled compared to fiscal 2017.
[+] [-] treypitt|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cryoshon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Havoc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nodpekar|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elgenie|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notRobot|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cblconfederate|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PopeDotNinja|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] est31|5 years ago|reply
Sea level rise is projected to be around 2.4 meters by 2100 in the worst scenarios. Maybe it'll be a bit higher than that but not by much. And by the time the oceans do rise by that level, maybe we'll have reclaimed most of the continental shelves anyways by building dams, so we'll have a firm grip on the technology needed to build dams at scale.
There are far graver consequences of climate change that affect humans immediately, this decade, this year, this century.
[+] [-] onion2k|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdhn|5 years ago|reply
I feel that this is the key sentence. Solar panels are getting better every year, batteries are getting better, and in the meantime we have natural gas replacing coal plants which helps to bring down carbon dioxide emissions. I'm personally OK with this.
[+] [-] epistasis|5 years ago|reply
And fortunately for the environment, Trump's efforts at the DoE to help coal have been staggeringly incompetent and ineffective. But I fear that in the past four years, the administration might have found some lawyers that understand the basics of how executive branches can legally execute given the laws that gave them executive powers.
[+] [-] kortilla|5 years ago|reply
Because of natural gas, not renewables. Renewables still need base load due to variable generation because storage technology isn’t economical.
If the price of natural gas didn’t collapse due to fracking the fuck out of the whole country for the last 15 years, we would still be building coal plants hand over fist.
[+] [-] legulere|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giantg2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sethammons|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alphakilobravo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghransa|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LatteLazy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lcall|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]