Biden recommits US to Paris climate accord

I'll see your link and I raise you with mine. China defenders....ugh


Why Is China Placing A Global Bet On Coal?

China, known as the world's biggest polluter, has been taking dramatic steps to clean up and fight climate change.

So why is it also building hundreds of coal-fired power plants in other countries?

President Xi Jinping hosted the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing over the weekend, promoting his signature foreign policy of building massive infrastructure and trade links across several continents.

The forum, attended by leaders and delegates of nearly 40 countries, came amid growing criticism of China's projects, including their effect on the environment.

Yet China's overseas ventures include hundreds of electric power plants that burn coal, which is a significant emitter of the carbon scientifically linked to climate change. Edward Cunningham, a specialist on China and its energy markets at Harvard University, tells NPR that China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal

 

A little holier than thou for the country with the highest per capita pollution.

 

Like I said, pay in proportion to the actual DAMAGE each country does to the environment... TODAY.

 

John Kerry said the people losing their jobs will get better paying jobs building solar panels and becoming wind turbine techs. So people who have done nothing but oil and gas all their lives are now qualified to build solar panels and fix wind turbines, eh? And whose going to force these solar and wind companies to hire these unqualified people and who is going to pay for them to move?

We've already seen this with Solyndra, a few of Obama's bundlers received hundreds of millions in loan guarantees to make solar gizmos only to be under cut by China, so they closed down and all the top dogs walked away with millions in their pockets.

But to Kerry's point, who is going to start up all these wind and solar companies and why would they when China is going to under cut them again? What will happen when China dumps their solar stuff in our market? Will we ban Chinese imports on solar panels? If we did that then the companies that make the panels in the US can name their own price and profits will soar into their companies and into the pockets of the people who supported them?

Two things:

1. Why would I listen to Kerry on anything related to global warming when he owns more homes, cars, planes and yachts than I do?

2. Why is Biden doing this when fro the last decade or so his own son worked his ass off to make money while spreading fossil fuels around the world all with daddy's help?

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1354491102276022272

 

That would be based on CO2 output. But surely that would be unfair to the larger countries. Russia is a good example. It is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and fossil fuels are a large part of the economy. They would see output of gases to be an unfair measurement.

 

The whole CO2 thing is manipulated fraud -- let's get that out on the table before going any further.

FACT: Carbon Dioxide makes up approximately 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere (not a 'typo')... 0.04%.

You're right, though -- Russia is "heavily dependent on fossil fuels" -- and so are the two biggest polluters in the world -- China and India.

But who should pay the lion's share for all this 'global warming' hoopla that American radical Democrats raise so much hell about...? If you're an American citizen-taxpayer, go look in the mirror!

It makes sense to those with a manipulative, internationalist agenda -- after all, they can't levy carbon taxes on the sun, or volcanoes, or the Earth itself for changes in its climate... so who does that leave? The Chinese and the Indians aren't going to pay in anything remotely resembling a "fair share" (whatever that might be dreamed-up to be) -- so, if you're a gullible, pliable American, 'YOU'RE IT!".

 

And which countries have the most people?
Oh yeah. China and India.

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

Also China is aggressive about going green, their efforts simply haven't caught up with the damage yet. China is basically California in the 90s, you can breathe the air in LA now. Anyone acting like China is a problem and then using it as an excuse for the US to be a problem is either arguing in bad faith or has no ****ing idea what their talking about.

 

What is your point? Pollution is pollution is pollution is POLLUTION!

Hint: It doesn't matter whether the polluting country has a thousand citizens or more than a billion. Pollution is pollution is pollution....

Oh, and as far as the big 'carbon dioxide bugaboo' itself is concerned, looks like I have to repeat this... AGAIN:


. Source: UCAR Center for Science Education

 

That's not a gotcha moment, Cy.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/

 

What question? Your most recent reply, Post #80, did not ASK any question....

Maybe you meant your earlier reply, Post #67, where you asked a completely irrelevant question: "How do you want to measure that? By the size of national land mass? Population? GDP? Historical factors (to account for past colonialism)?"

If that's your 'question', then, "national land mass", "population", "GDP", and "Historical factors" have nothing (NOTHING) to do with it. Pollution itself is the factor -- the only important factor that's germane to the discussion.

Oh, and BTW, what the hell has "past colonialism" got to do with ANYTHING...?

 

Still dont understand why people carry water for oil companies?
We know polluted air is bad to breath!
We know that dumping pollution in water is bad to drink!
Its was the GOP that were champions of the EPA!....and the last 40 years they have gone against their own policy?

This is like someone still sticking up for cigarette companies and saying they dont cause cancer?

We live in bazzaro world!

 

Colonialism prevented industrial growth in the colonies. And in developing international CO2 emission levels, the population size, energy needs, degree of industrialization, use of land mass, etc. would all need to be considered. It would be unreasonable to establish a single standard for everyone to meet within the same time period. There can be a collective goal, with countries such as India, China, the U.S. on different tracks to meet the same collective goal within different timelines to transition to non-fossil fuels.

 

Actually, even though the article at your link is 15 years old, it has a lot of valid information in it!

But I didn't see anything in this short piece that suggests that the United States' taxpayers should be slammed with 'carbon taxes' to pay for all the pollution in the world. I didn't see anything that suggests it's 'ok' for the biggest polluters of the Earth's atmosphere, China and India, to ignore their role in this situation. Why is it that the rest of the world thinks that "Uncle Sugar" has to 'pick up the tab' for everybody else...?

We DO need to develop hydrogen fusion as our primary power-plant source of energy. When you mash all the air bubbles out of the argument, it is the only thing that makes any long-range sense! But to get there, we need to move away from coal, and s-l-o-w-l-y away from natural gas, while we put all our R&D money into hydrogen fusion reactors! They run on molecules found in sea water -- and the only emission is oxygen!

If ALL countries would fund hydrogen fusion R&D in proportion to the amount of pollution they currently put into the atmosphere, many of us Conservatives would see the logic and fairness of that. But to just tax the crap out of everybody to fund some internationalist, 'feel-good' bureaucracy with little but imaginary, theoretical 'goals' is nonsense we won't willingly buy into!

 

If "Colonialism prevented industrial growth in the colonies" then there should be very little pollution being emitted into the atmosphere from those countries... right?

What I've suggested is that the BIGGEST actual polluters pay the most -- China, India, and yes, we in the United States, too, and so on down the line, in proportion to the pollution generated and released into the atmosphere! But we must have a goal, and I've further suggested that all our efforts and combined revenue should be focused tightly on hydrogen fusion as the new standard for energy production for the world. What is wrong with that concept? We can get off coal, slowly wean ourselves away from much-cleaner natural gas, and develop hydrogen fusion. Really, it's the only thing that makes sense. Wind power is useful, and so is solar, but only on a much smaller scale, in limited areas.

 

Wrong...they are no longer colonies and are trying to catch-up with the rest of the developed and post-industrial world. But, it seems you agree with the problem emissions create, but disagree only with the means by which the problem is solved.

 

Well, I'm not of the opinion that a tax will fix the climate.

My only point was the % of the composition isn't relevant. .1 micrograms for 176 pounds is a fraction so tiny, that it's one of those E numbers nobody understands. 176 has this many micrograms: 7.983225712e+10

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends consuming a daily maximum of 0.1 micrograms of mercury for each kilogram of your body weight. That would limit a 176-pound adult (the national average) to 8 micrograms of mercury each day.

 

I bring up China and India because their emissions are growing, and any reduction is really inconsequential to the amount contributing.

 

They want to spend my money to try to control the climate. I can't help but wonder how money can do that. Psssst! Hey guys you don't have the power to control the climate. Throwing money in the toilet won't work. Mother nature is much stronger than you are. She will continue to control the climate no matter what you do.

 

Appointing Swift Boat Annie was the punch line! And don't you just love how the rich, privileged elites rhapsodize over the never, ever appearing new "opportunities" for displaced workers?

 

“NET ZERO,” INDEED. Biden climate plan aims to put U.S. on path to ‘net-zero economy.‘

 

Nah...the "new economy" will be post-industrial and based on high-tech and non-fossil fuel, clean energy.

 

If what you say is true why aren't we all still on farms, like we were in 1800? Progress DOES happen and displaced people DO go on to do more, and usually easier and more rewarding, things

 

What are we missing pray tell?