It really is just about politics, and not saving the planet.

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Saturday, May 4, 2019 20:41
VIEWED: 17379
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

GEEZER

Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
1. Your emissions total is high, by my calcs...

Let's see them.

Not that it matters, but:

9.181 x (1.07)^7 X 0.42 = 6.2 billion tonnes.

6.2 vs. 6.6 is negligible

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So why are you projecting that China's BTPTD will go back up to 0.42 in 2020?

Because that's their stated goal

This is a low for you Geezer. When countries set emissions targets obviously the aim is to come in anywhere below that target, not try and hit it dead on.

If they were actually setting a emissions target, maybe. But they're not. They're saying that they can increase emissions as long as their GDP goes up, and then planning for their GDP to go up by 7% a year.

Quote:
Quote:
So controlling climate change by reducing emissions is pretty much out the window, as far as you're concerned.

No, but setting emissions targets that make poor countries sacrifice economic growth is a non-starter. Setting emissions targets that see poor countries minimise emissions, while their economies grow, and developed countries cut emissions to offset this growth, is workable, and could produce a sustainable global fall in emissions quite soon.

So you're okay with the potential for 100 million deaths due to climate change by 2030, as long as China's economy continues to grow?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_19153
65.html

Quote:
Quote:
Good. Then they can stop increasing emissions.

Very rich for America to tell China to stop growing its economy and stop increasing emissions, when it still has far more wealth and CO2 emissions per person than China. But I've made this point before...

No. tell them to stop increasing emissions before 100 million people die.

Their pollution is already killing 1 million a year. Acceptable price for you?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/04/02/176017887/chinas-air-pollut
ion-linked-to-millions-of-early-deaths

If the U.S. stopped carbon emissions right now: no electric generation except for renewables, no transportation, no agriculture, no heat, etc. China's expected increase alone would make up the reduction in annual emissions in a few years. This is not to mention India, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, and other developing countries which are increasing emissions 5% to 10% a year.

Quote:
Quote:
IEA's hope. Reading the article, China expresses skepticism. They're politely saying no.

As I said, a climate deal would be needed...

The deal you're suggesting above, with your determination that China and other developing countries should be allowed major emissions increases, is not going to actually do any good in reducing emissions.

I've known this for some time, which is why I tend to look at U.S. spending focused more on preparing for inevitable climate change, rather than mainly on emissions reductions that will be overwhelmed by the increases from developing countries.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:10 PM

Quote:
6.2 vs. 6.6 is negligible

That is about 8%, not negligible, since that is the approximate amount of decrease that the USA experience (which has since gone up by the way) and what you were pointing to as a measure of our success.

GEEZER

Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
6.2 vs. 6.6 is negligible
That is about 8%, not negligible, since that is the approximate amount of decrease that the USA experience (which has since gone up by the way) and what you were pointing to as a measure of our success.

In the amount of total emissions China produces, it's negligible. At current rates, its about the amount of emissions China produces in 55 days.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

STORYMARK

Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:17 PM

And as long as there's someone worse, there's no reason for us to try and do better.

Kindergarten mentality.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

KPO

Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:51 PM

Quote:
6.2 vs. 6.6 is negligible

Haha

Quote:
If they were actually setting a emissions target, maybe. But they're not.

They set an emissions intensity target. And they're going to come in below it.

Quote:
So you're okay with the potential for 100 million deaths due to climate change by 2030, as long as China's economy continues to grow?

You've clearly failed to read and understand half of what I've been saying.

Quote:
If the U.S. stopped carbon emissions right now: no electric generation except for renewables, no transportation, no agriculture, no heat, etc. China's expected increase alone would make up the reduction in annual emissions in a few years. This is not to mention India, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, and other developing countries which are increasing emissions 5% to 10% a year.

I don't trust any of your calculations. Especially if this is based on your earlier, wrong-headed projections, which I suspect it is. To save you time, I'm not interested.

Quote:
The deal you're suggesting above, with your determination that China and other developing countries should be allowed major emissions increases

Quote?

Quote:
is not going to actually do any good in reducing emissions.

Wrong, a climate deal would make global emissions peak and start to fall quite soon.

Quote:
it's negligible. At current rates, its about the amount of emissions China produces in 55 days.

Way to disprove your own point. 1/6 of China's current emissions is negligible??

It's not personal. It's just war.

GEEZER

Friday, January 31, 2014 1:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
6.2 vs. 6.6 is negligible

Haha

China's emissions for 55 days at current levels. negligible.

Quote:
Quote:
If they were actually setting a emissions target, maybe. But they're not.

They set an emissions intensity target. And they're going to come in below it.

And they can increase their annual emissions over 200% while doing so.

Quote:
Quote:
So you're okay with the potential for 100 million deaths due to climate change by 2030, as long as China's economy continues to grow?

You've clearly failed to read and understand half of what I've been saying.

I understand. You're saying that it's okay for China, which now produces over 25% of the world's carbon emissions, to continue to greatly increase their emissions because its not "fair", and that if a few hundred million folks die, that's just the cost.

Quote:
Quote:
If the U.S. stopped carbon emissions right now: no electric generation except for renewables, no transportation, no agriculture, no heat, etc. China's expected increase alone would make up the reduction in annual emissions in a few years. This is not to mention India, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, and other developing countries which are increasing emissions 5% to 10% a year.

I don't trust any of your calculations. Especially if this is based on your earlier, wrong-headed projections, which I suspect it is. To save you time, I'm not interested.

You could figure it out yourself, if you'd take your head out of the sand.

These folks figure that China's emissions per capita will equal those of the U.S. between 2020 and 2025.

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-co2-emissions-driven-china-coal.html

Quote:
Quote:
The deal you're suggesting above, with your determination that China and other developing countries should be allowed major emissions increases

Quote?

"CO2 emissions are of pressing importance, but they are not the only important issue in this world. Poverty is also an important issue, and carbon zeal should not come at the expense of efforts to lift people out of poverty. If it's down to a poor village getting electricity from coal, or no electricity at all, I will support the village getting electricity from coal. This is a dichotomy you have in developing countries (including parts of China), but not developed countries, so developing countries should get off easier."

"Very rich for America to tell China to stop growing its economy and stop increasing emissions, when it still has far more wealth and CO2 emissions per person than China. But I've made this point before... "

Quote:
Quote:
is not going to actually do any good in reducing emissions.

Wrong, a climate deal would make global emissions peak and start to fall quite soon.

I'd like to see a cite for that.

Quote:
Quote:
it's negligible. At current rates, its about the amount of emissions China produces in 55 days.

Way to disprove your own point. 1/6 of China's current emissions is negligible??

In terms of planning until 2020 or farther out, yep. Negligible.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Friday, January 31, 2014 1:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And as long as there's someone worse, there's no reason for us to try and do better.

As noted above...

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm not about to use what China does as an excuse for our own lack of action.

Neither am I. I've proposed increased efficiency, renewables, and reductions in carbon emissions several times (something you repeatedly and conveniently forget).

As noted throughout, and also apparently ignored, I have no problem with the U.S. setting reasonable emissions reduction goals. I'm just afraid it won't do much good in re climate change if the folks like China and India, who are greatly increasing emissions, don't also at least stop their increases soon(and soon doesn't mean 20 years down the road).

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

KPO

Friday, January 31, 2014 4:47 AM

Quote:
China's emissions for 55 days at current levels. negligible.

Roughly 1/6 of China's total emissions. More than the annual emissions for France, Italy, Spain... Is 'negligible'. Yet another low for you Geezer.

Quote:
And they can increase their annual emissions over 200% while doing so.

But they won't, so that's irrelevant.

Quote:
The deal you're suggesting above, with your determination that China and other developing countries should be allowed major emissions increases

Let's try again. Quote?

Meanwhile, here's some quotes of me saying the opposite:

"I don't think anyone is 'okay' with China's CO2 increases. But to a large extent it's inevitable: economic growth needs energy, and China, unfortunately, is reliant on coal. As I've said, the sooner we get them on board with a climate deal the better, and then they can at least use their coal more cleanly."

"The hope is that China's emissions peak relatively soon... But a climate deal will almost certainly be needed for this to happen."

"Setting emissions targets that see poor countries minimise emissions, while their economies grow, and developed countries cut emissions to offset this growth, is workable"

It's not personal. It's just war.

GEEZER

Friday, January 31, 2014 8:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
China's emissions for 55 days at current levels. negligible.

Roughly 1/6 of China's total emissions. More than the annual emissions for France, Italy, Spain... Is 'negligible'. Yet another low for you Geezer.

As noted, in terms of China's emissions between now and 2020, it is negligible.

But it is interesting that you can state that 55 days of China's emissions is more than annual emissions for France, Italy, or Spain, but don't seem to see a problem with that. Man, there is something seriously wrong with your view of the world.

Quote:
Quote:
And they can increase their annual emissions over 200% while doing so.

But they won't, so that's irrelevant.

I'd like to see a cite for that.

Then again, even if they only increase them 100% between now and 2020, that's still quite a bit, and will have them producing four times the U.S. total.

And while we're at it, Still waiting for a cite for your statement that a climate deal would make global emissions peak and start to fall quite soon.

Quote:
Quote:
The deal you're suggesting above, with your determination that China and other developing countries should be allowed major emissions increases

Let's try again. Quote?

Meanwhile, here's some quotes of me saying the opposite:

"I don't think anyone is 'okay' with China's CO2 increases. But to a large extent it's inevitable: economic growth needs energy, and China, unfortunately, is reliant on coal. As I've said, the sooner we get them on board with a climate deal the better, and then they can at least use their coal more cleanly."

"The hope is that China's emissions peak relatively soon... But a climate deal will almost certainly be needed for this to happen."

"Setting emissions targets that see poor countries minimise emissions, while their economies grow, and developed countries cut emissions to offset this growth, is workable"

And here again are the quotes of you saying exactly that.

"CO2 emissions are of pressing importance, but they are not the only important issue in this world. Poverty is also an important issue, and carbon zeal should not come at the expense of efforts to lift people out of poverty. If it's down to a poor village getting electricity from coal, or no electricity at all, I will support the village getting electricity from coal. This is a dichotomy you have in developing countries (including parts of China), but not developed countries, so developing countries should get off easier."

"Very rich for America to tell China to stop growing its economy and stop increasing emissions, when it still has far more wealth and CO2 emissions per person than China. But I've made this point before... "

Seems like you'll say pretty much anything.

Also how about a response to this cite, which I posted above.

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-co2-emissions-driven-china-coal.html

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

1KIKI

Friday, January 31, 2014 10:08 AM

RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!

As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies

And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.

I feel so vindicated.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 31, 2014 10:11 AM

Is everyone as tired of the stierscheißen-meister, Herr Geezer, as I am?

GEEZER

Friday, January 31, 2014 7:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Is everyone as tired of the stierscheißen-meister, Herr Geezer, as I am?

And as usual, when you have no facts to back up your opinions, you turn to insult.

But wait. There's more.

Quote:
China's Per Capita CO2 Emissions Are Now Greater Than Europe's

China's per capita carbon dioxide emissions, at 7.1 tonnes, are only marginally lower than the EU average, at 7.4 tonnes. And they already are higher than France, Italy and Spain's. China's CO2 emissions are also rising by over 6 per cent each year, while the EU's are falling. Therefore we can be highly confident that China will overtake the EU in per capita emissions either last year or next year. We can also be fairly certain that it will overtake the United Kingdom in per capita emissions this year In fact by the end of the decade per capita carbon dioxide emissions will be higher in China than in almost every European country, on current trends.

For various reasons people ignore the rapid growth of China's carbon emissions - parochialism, an unwillingness to admit that the West alone cannot "save the world", or a fear that climate change "skeptics" can use it as a talking point . However the facts are the facts.

http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/329626/new-reality-chin
ese-capita-carbon-emissions-are-now-same-europes

Quote:
"If US emissions continue to decline as in the last five years, then China will emit more than the US on a per capita basis in the period 2020-2025," said Glen Peters, with Norway's Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo (CICERO), who contributed to the report.

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-co2-emissions-driven-china-coal.html#jCp

And besides the climate change-related problems...

Quote:
A new study has found that global estimates of black carbon emissions in certain areas of India and China could be two to three more times concentrated than previously thought. Black carbon, a major element of soot, is a particle that is generated by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuel or biomass.

Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of researchers from France and China developed a new model for discerning the amount of black carbon pollution in the air. Previous models had failed to take into account regional differences, and instead provided information at the country level. By mapping regions rather than countries, the study indicated that parts of India and China could have as much as 130 percent higher black carbon concentrations than shown in standard country models.

Short-term and long-term exposure to black carbon can lead to a broad range of health impacts, including respiratory and cardiovascular effects as well as cancer and premature death, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Black carbon contributes to particulate matter, or PM, pollution, which is made up of a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets in the air. Black carbon falls within the PM2.5 category, otherwise known as “fine particles,” with diameters that are between 1.0 and 2.5 micrometers and are considered to pose the greatest health risks.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/28/3214571/black-carbon-emiss
ions-worse-thought/

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Friday, January 31, 2014 10:04 PM

Quote:
And as usual, when you have no facts to back up your opinions, you turn to insult.

No, you've gotten plenty of facts in this thread. But like rappy, you ignore them.

STORYMARK

Friday, January 31, 2014 10:07 PM

Its amazing that these chumps will demand details, scroll right past them when they are given, and then whine that they were given no details.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

KPO

Friday, January 31, 2014 11:30 PM

Quote:
As noted, in terms of China's emissions between now and 2020, it is negligible.

What, are you adding up China's emissions over 7 years, and saying that 0.4 billion tonnes is negligible compared to that?? Why not say 0.4 billion tonnes is negligible compared with the weight of the sun? That's more emphatic, and just as relevant.

Quote:
But it is interesting that you can state that 55 days of China's emissions is more than annual emissions for France, Italy, or Spain, but don't seem to see a problem with that. Man, there is something seriously wrong with your view of the world.

Because China's population is more than 6x that of France, Italy, Spain combined. You're obsessed with countries' total emissions, saying that's all that really matters. So to you should China (and India) have much tighter environmental regulations than everyone else, to bring its 'total emissions' in line with other countries? Countries should be punished by virtue of their size?

You demand that Chinese emissions be reduced, as part of a 'fair' climate deal. Let's say that you got your way. Would you then be happy for the US to have exactly the same environmental regulations enforced on it, reducing its emissions per capita to the same level as China's?

Quote:
And while we're at it, Still waiting for a cite for your statement that a climate deal would make global emissions peak and start to fall quite soon.

I'll give you all the cites you want, if you answer the above questions.

Quote:
Seems like you'll say pretty much anything.

Seems you'll misrepresent pretty much anything.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NIKI2

Friday, January 31, 2014 11:45 PM

"Is everyone as tired of the stierscheißen-meister, Herr Geezer, as I am?"

No, Sig; actually, I just popped into this thread, curious as to what could possibly keep it going this long (I kinda figured it had to be The Geez; anyone with half a brain wouldn't have let Rap string them along this long). Personally, I'm glad you guys are keeping him busy and out of other threads. ;o) Thanx, and keep it up!

GEEZER

Saturday, February 1, 2014 3:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
As noted, in terms of China's emissions between now and 2020, it is negligible.

What, are you adding up China's emissions over 7 years, and saying that 0.4 billion tonnes is negligible compared to that?? Why not say 0.4 billion tonnes is negligible compared with the weight of the sun? That's more emphatic, and just as relevant.

I'm wondering why you think .4 billion tonnes is relevant to anything, and why you continue to harp on it. Are you trying to change the subject again?

Quote:
Because China's population is more than 6x that of France, Italy, Spain combined. You're obsessed with countries' total emissions, saying that's all that really matters.

Because for controlling climate change, total emissions ARE all that matters. Unless you can show me that the planet is affected differently by emissions from China than from France, I'll continue to point this out.

Then again, I've noted that China's PER CAPITA emissions in 2010 were higher than either France or Spain, and were close to Italy's (and probably past it by now), but you just skip right over that.

Quote:
So to you should China (and India) have much tighter environmental regulations than everyone else, to bring its 'total emissions' in line with other countries? Countries should be punished by virtue of their size?

I'd be happy if they had the same regulations as everyone else, assuming those regulations were written to actually have some effect rather than just looking good.

Quote:
You demand that Chinese emissions be reduced, as part of a 'fair' climate deal. Let's say that you got your way. Would you then be happy for the US to have exactly the same environmental regulations enforced on it, reducing its emissions per capita to the same level as China's?

I'd be quite happy to cap U.S. emissions at current levels and propose reductions. I'd like to see China do the same thing, since their emissions per capita are in line with Europe, as noted above, and may well exceed U.S. emissions per capita in six to eleven years, also as noted above.

Quote:
Quote:
And while we're at it, Still waiting for a cite for your statement that a climate deal would make global emissions peak and start to fall quite soon.

I'll give you all the cites you want, if you answer the above questions.

Answered. Cites please.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

KPO

Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:45 AM

Quote:
I'm wondering why you think .4 billion tonnes is relevant to anything, and why you continue to harp on it.

I'm just watching you squirm, trying to deny that your inflated figure was significantly wrong. I'm enjoying the display of dishonesty - especially the bit about '1/6 of China's current emissions', where you shoot your own argument in the foot. By the by, you'll notice that I didn't make a big thing of this when it first happened, only when you started along your 'negligible' line.

Quote:
I'd be happy if they had the same regulations as everyone else

But that's not what I asked, and that's not enough to bring China's TOTAL emissions in line with other countries. China has well over a billion people. Let's compare it to Italy - roughly 1/20th its size. According to you they have the same per capita emissions. But China's TOTAL emissions dwarf Italy's - just by virtue of China's size. So I'm asking you, should China be forced to have MUCH MORE STRINGENT emissions standards than Italy, to bring its TOTAL emissions down to be more in line with Italy's, and the rest of the world - since country's total emissions is what matters?

Quote:
I'd be quite happy to cap U.S. emissions at current levels and propose reductions. I'd like to see China do the same thing

Again, not what I asked.

Quote:
I'd like to see China do the same thing, since their emissions per capita are in line with Europe, as noted above, and may well exceed U.S. emissions per capita in six to eleven years

I don't care what may or may not happen in 6-11 years. That's not what I asked. If China's emissions are halted urgently, and reduced, as you say needs to happen, its emissions per capita will stay in line with Europe's. I'm asking whether you are in favour of the US having to drop its emissions per capita to match European levels AS WELL - just like China. Or are you saying that the US should be allowed to retain higher emissions per capita than China, and Europe? If so, can you say why?

It's not personal. It's just war.

1KIKI

Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:47 AM

Geezer

"It really is just about politics, and not saving the planet."

You have done an excellent job proving this is your position. BRAVO!

And now back to our regularly scheduled program.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!

As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies

And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.

I feel so vindicated.

GEEZER

Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
I'd be happy if they had the same regulations as everyone else

But that's not what I asked, and that's not enough to bring China's TOTAL emissions in line with other countries. China has well over a billion people. Let's compare it to Italy - roughly 1/20th its size. According to you they have the same per capita emissions. But China's TOTAL emissions dwarf Italy's - just by virtue of China's size. So I'm asking you, should China be forced to have MUCH MORE STRINGENT emissions standards than Italy, to bring its TOTAL emissions down to be more in line with Italy's, and the rest of the world - since country's total emissions is what matters?

It answers exactly what you asked. "So to you should China (and India) have much tighter environmental regulations than everyone else, to bring its 'total emissions' in line with other countries?" I said they should have the same regulations as everyone else, so obviously I don't think they should have tighter regulations.

I'd be happy with something similar to the Kyoto Protocol, where a base year is determined, and countries have targets for emissions reductions based on that year's emissions. x% below year y levels by year z.

Quote:
Quote:
I'd be quite happy to cap U.S. emissions at current levels and propose reductions. I'd like to see China do the same thing

Again, not what I asked.

You asked what would make me happy. I answered. Sorry if you don't like the answer.

Quote:
I don't care what may or may not happen in 6-11 years.

That's pretty obvious.

But since there's probably not going to be any binding limits on emissions until 2020, per the UN Climate Change Conference, it seems likely that China's emissions per GDP will be much higher by the time any treaty is on place.

Quote:
That's not what I asked. If China's emissions are halted urgently, and reduced, as you say needs to happen, its emissions per capita will stay in line with Europe's. I'm asking whether you are in favour of the US having to drop its emissions per capita to match European levels AS WELL - just like China. Or are you saying that the US should be allowed to retain higher emissions per capita than China, and Europe? If so, can you say why?

As noted above, I and others expect that China's emissions per capita will equal those of the U.S. shortly, especially since the U.S. is already decreasing per capita emissions. No treaty implementation is in sight until 2020.

Looking at European countries, most had their historic emissions per capita highs between the early 1960s and early 1990s, so they've been bringing down per capita emissions for 20 to 50 years. Apparently it's not something anyone has done overnight. I'd be pleased to see the U.S. reduce emissions per capita to, say, Germany's current level (around 2.47 tonnes) in 30 years.

China's emissions per capita is currently around 1.94 tonnes , and is going up around .13 tonne a year, so they'll be at Germany's level in about four years. If they were to stop there, that would be great.

So that's two rounds of you answering your questions, and no answer to mine yet.

Still waiting for a cite for your statement that a climate deal would make global emissions peak and start to fall quite soon.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 1, 2014 10:12 PM

Yanno, I started to scroll thru this thread to do a point-by-point of GEEZER'S posts, but in doing so I see a pattern: GEEZER is doing here what he did in the Conservatives have no ideas what to do about recessions thread http://www.fireflyfans.net/medit.aspx?mid=961457 and that is, first of all, setting up an irrelevant demand for evidence, and then refusing to acknowledge that evidence when it is presented, no matter how well-founded.

First of all, there is no reason for GEEZER to insist that China willingly reduce its emissions in the future, either voluntarily or by treaty. The reason is that the emissions policy of China can be swayed by external pressure, because - while China is many things- the one thing it is NOT is independent of the world economy. Tariffs, trade sanctions, and bank sanctions (a la Iran), or even just a simple carbon tax applied at the border, would have a profound effect on China's internal policy.

Second, GEEZER is dismissing well-founded evidence. In this sense, he's pulling a rappy, who insists to this day that Saddam had sufficient WMD to make invasion and occupation a military necessity. Now, as some point in the distant future, I may come back to this thread and bird dog GEEZER down on the topic, but the reality is that GEEZER is pulling several rhetorical tricks in order to avoid having an honest discussion on this topic.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 1, 2014 10:24 PM

However, to shift the conversation off a hot-button topic, here is the same air pollution dynamic, but with different contaminants. The discussion exposes one factor which is increasing China's emissions and reducing North America's, and also points out a way to have a productive discussion without getting tangled up on the global climate shift debate. Especially since both Geezer and rappy have espoused the general idea of conservation and not fouling the environment (as long as it doesn't involve global warming gases!)

West Coast air being fouled by Asia’s industrial emissions, study shows

Quote:
Canada and the United States may have outsourced a large amount of manufacturing to China over the years, but a new study shows that pollution from heavy industry concentrated on the east coast of Asia is drifting across the Pacific Ocean and helping foul the air on North America’s west coast.

The emissions from that outsourced production – which have contributed to pushing heavily polluted areas such as Los Angeles over air quality limits – have even greater impact on sparsely populated areas with less industry, such as British Columbia.

The study was published in the Washington, D.C.-based Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and was written by nine scientists on both sides of the Pacific, including scholars from the prestigious Peking and Tsinghua universities in China and the University of California, Irvine.

The paper’s authors say it is the first to link Chinese emissions related to the export industry to pollution in North America. The study comes as China seeks to refocus its economy away from polluting, unsustainable exports and toward domestic consumption. It also adds to the debate about who should be held responsible for pollution that occurs in developing countries but is linked to western consumption.

Steven J. Davis, an assistant professor at the University of California’s Department of Earth System Science and a co-author of the paper, said in an interview that the study’s focus was on the United States, but he is confident up to 20 per cent of sulfate pollution – a product of burning coal and other fossil fuels – on Canada’s west coast could come from China’s export-geared industries.

“You guys have a pretty clean atmosphere up there,” said Mr. Davis, who is based in the greater Los Angeles area. “In places like the west coast of Canada, there aren’t as many sources of local pollution, so the Chinese pollution would be a larger source of the [overall] pollution.”

China is the world’s worst polluter, followed by the United States. As U.S. corporations moved manufacturing to Asia, China’s emissions from that kind of production have increased between 3.6 per cent and 7.4 per cent, depending on the type of pollution, and U.S. emissions related to those industries has dropped off.

But China’s less advanced technology to control emissions also means it “emits far more pollutants per unit of gross domestic product than countries with more advanced industrial and emission control technologies,” the study said, in some cases, six to 17 times more than the United States.

The rapid expansion of heavy, industrial processes behind China’s exports has been powered by the inefficient combustion of fossil fuels, particularly coal. This has led to a global increase in emissions of carbon dioxide and other air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, black carbon and carbon monoxide.

“And as scientific evidence of transport of Chinese air pollution across the Pacific Ocean has grown since the late 1990s,” the study notes, “the United States and Canada have a special interest in reducing Chinese air pollution.”

China’s leaders have said they want to reduce the country’s reliance on coal for roughly three-quarters of its energy needs in part by growing the amount provided by cleaner-burning liquified natural gas, some of which could eventually come from British Columbia.

Although the study showed emissions related to production

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

GEEZER

Saturday, February 1, 2014 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
First of all, there is no reason for GEEZER to insist that China willingly reduce its emissions in the future, either voluntarily or by treaty. The reason is that the emissions policy of China can be swayed by external pressure, because - while China is many things- the one thing it is NOT is independent of the world economy. Tariffs, trade sanctions, and bank sanctions (a la Iran), or even just a simple carbon tax applied at the border, would have a profound effect on China's internal policy.

Show me where the UN or other international bodies are working on something like this.

Then again...

Quote:
China unlikely to set total greenhouse gas emissions reduction target

(Globalpost/GlobalPost)China is unlikely to set an overall greenhouse gas emissions reduction target under a post-2020 global framework to curb climate change, a member of the Chinese delegation to the U.N. climate change conference said Thursday.

With no senior Chinese official involved in the climate change negotiations having made any remark about China's post-2020 target so far, the comment by China's Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin offers a rare peak into the future climate change policy of Beijing, climate negotiation experts say.

In defending the view that it is hard for China to set such a target, Liu told a press conference that China remains a developing country and will obviously increase its emissions as it is still in the process of pursuing industrial growth.

Liu is deputy chief of the Chinese delegation attending the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change being held in Warsaw.

He said it is not right for the international community to expect China to make the same commitment as developed nations.

Liu also rapped Japan for its recent decision to set a lower carbon emissions target than the previous goal, saying many countries have expressed their frustration at Japan for setting a poor example in climate change negotiations.

The Japanese government decided last Friday to aim at a 3.8 percent reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions by fiscal 2020 from the level in fiscal 2005, backtracking from its earlier proposed 25 percent cut by fiscal 2020 from the fiscal 1990 level.

The government has since decided that the earlier envisioned goal of a 25 percent reduction was unrealistic assuming that Japan's nuclear power plants remain offline, leading the country to rely more on thermal power generation.

Liu urged industrialized countries to financially help developing nations to reach emissions reduction targets under a new international climate framework. He did not say, however, when China will state its own goal for emissions cut.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/13112
1/china-unlikely-set-total-greenhouse-gas-emissions-redu

So looks like I don't have to wait for KPO to provide a cite about China being willing to reduce emissions through global treaties, since they say they won't.

Quote:
Second, GEEZER is dismissing well-founded evidence.

Cites for that, please.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 1, 2014 11:31 PM

Quote:
Show me where the UN or other international bodies are working on something like this.

This is where the USA could take an active leadership role. Instead, the USA (Obama) is pushing for the TPP, which abrogates environmental, food safety, minimum wage, and worker-protection regulations in favor of "expected profits"; in exchange for recognition of USA intellectual property laws.

What I'm saying, GEEZER, is that the USA could take action, on its own, to not only internally reduce our greenhouse gas emissions (and BTW become energy-independent by improving fuel savings and increasing solar and wind) but also to redirect China's energy policies irrespective of what China "wants". Instead, we are doing the exact opposite... fostering more and more greenhouse gas emissions thru our trade and energy policies.

KPO

Sunday, February 2, 2014 2:12 AM

Quote:
I said they should have the same regulations as everyone else, so obviously I don't think they should have tighter regulations.

Ok, thanks.

Quote:
I'd be happy with something similar to the Kyoto Protocol, where a base year is determined, and countries have targets for emissions reductions based on that year's emissions.

That's fine (and certainly suits the US), but how do we establish China's 'base year'? Is it 2005? 2014? 2020? And what is the RATIONALE for choosing that particular year? I don't need to tell you that it will make a massive difference, which of these years we choose. What about other big countries, less developed than China: India, Nigeria - that have low emissions per capita - what is their base year? 2014? Do we say that they're not allowed to industrialise, and increase emissions? Do we doom them to poverty? These are questions that I don't think you've begun to think about yet.

Quote:
I'd be pleased to see the U.S. reduce emissions per capita to, say, Germany's current level (around 2.47 tonnes) in 30 years.

China's emissions per capita is currently around 1.94 tonnes , and is going up around .13 tonne a year, so they'll be at Germany's level in about four years. If they were to stop there, that would be great.

So you're saying that both Chinese and US emissions per capita would ideally stabilise around Germany's current level. It's just China has to stop there NOW, while the US has 30 years grace to get there. Is it not fairer to give China that same 30 years to get its emissions per capita under control, and brought down to German levels - as the US has got?

Quote:
Still waiting for a cite for your statement that a climate deal would make global emissions peak and start to fall quite soon.

First, China's emissions by 2020:

You've highlighted coal as driving China's CO2 emissions increase, well this article cites a recent Citigroup study that suggests China's emissions due to coal will peak/stablilise soon: http://qz.com/121608/china-may-get-over-its-addiction-to-coal-sooner-t
han-anyone-thought/

This is the main graph (I would say the grey dotted line is the most likely scenario):

Now as to CO2 peaking fairly soon under a climate deal:

This recent paper says this: http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-
report

"The small increase in emissions of 1.1% in 2012 (including a downward correction of 0.3% for it being a leap year), may be the first sign of a more permanent slowdown in the increase in global CO2 emissions, and ultimately of declining global emissions"

The conditions it gives are:

"if (a) China achieves its own target for a maximum level of energy consumption by 2015 and its shift to gas with a natural gas share of 10% by 2020; (b) the United States continues a shift in its energy mix towards more gas and renewable energy; and (c) in the European Union, Member States agree on restoring the effectiveness of the EU Emissions Trading System to further reduce actual emissions."

All countries' voluntary targets - they would be the very minimum of a climate deal.

And from before, the IEA director believes it is possible for China's emissions to peak by 2020 with existing technology and government support: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/07/16/us-china-carbon-iea-idUSTRE66
F2XC20100716

It's not personal. It's just war.

1KIKI

Sunday, February 2, 2014 2:19 AM

Signy

But geezer won't discuss that.

That's b/c for him it really IS just about politics, and not saving the planet.

If he were interested in saving the planet he would be discussing what the US could and should do on its own to reduce its own emissions, and how it could and should cause other countries to do the same through its policies. Instead, his entire discussion is about shifting the onus off of the US and blaming China - which is politics, and is irrespective of the environment.

He has also spent the entire thread pretending that emissions of global warming gases has only started NOW, and there is no history or past responsibility that needs to be accounted for to be fair.

But that's Geezer for you, a troll through and through.

The ORIGINAL topic of this thread? He has failed to address it, instead trying to shift the debate to bend to his terms. And when it comes to the ORIGINAL topic of this thread, he's also failed to look in the mirror.

I predict geezer will not ever discuss what the US can and should independently do to save our planet - and us. Not in this thread, and not in any other.

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:27 PM

I want to describe the TPP just a bit more in its relation to saving the planet.

If CA has passed a law to reduce global warming gases (which it did) and requires that various sources of fuel meet sustainability standards, and that law denies Exxon or BP-Arco a market in CA, those companies (not the national signatories of the trade agreement, the corporations specifically) the RIGHT to sue CA for an illegal "taking" of expected profit if it involves any of the signatory nations (for example oil extracted from Malaysian waters). CA would then be made to go before an international trade tribunal to defend its environmental protection law.

If Obama blocks Keystone XL on environmental grounds, then TransCanada has the right to sue to US government, and take it before an international trade tribunal to defend its decision.

The negotiating parties are Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.

GEEZER

Monday, February 3, 2014 12:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What I'm saying, GEEZER, is that the USA could take action, on its own, to not only internally reduce our greenhouse gas emissions (and BTW become energy-independent by improving fuel savings and increasing solar and wind) but also to redirect China's energy policies irrespective of what China "wants". Instead, we are doing the exact opposite... fostering more and more greenhouse gas emissions thru our trade and energy policies.

Stop trading with China until they reduce their emissions, perhaps? If you thought that the 2007 Great Recession was really great, Cut economic ties with our second largest trading partner and see what happens. Not to mention that this would probably violate all sorts of international agreements we've already signed, and leave us open to sanctions from the rest of the world.

You claim to have a good grasp of economics. Figure what the loss of China's trade would do, not only to importers and exporters, but to retailers who'd have no product to sell.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Monday, February 3, 2014 12:41 AM

As usual, you require that action needs to happen only the way YOU imagine it happening- suddenly and impractically. It's the same fallacy as that rappy presented us with in the thorium reactor thread: false dichotomy. If you really were thinking about how to save the planet, you'd find your way around the politics.

1KIKI

Monday, February 3, 2014 1:02 AM

"You claim to have a good grasp of economics."

And you claim to have a good grasp of impartial logic. Apparently you stopped studying the topic after you learned all the logical fallacies you figured you'd need. Not only is your post a false dichotomy, it's a strawman argument.

So, just for fun, and to redeem yourself out of troll territory, how about you find and quote, in full, any argument that says we need to "Stop trading with China until they reduce their emissions" and/ or "Cut economic ties with our second largest trading partner ..." and/ or "(lose) China's trade ... so that there'd be "importers and exporters, (and) retailers who'd have no product to sell".

Give it a try.

And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster

I feel so vindicated.

"Just glad that some Democrats are acknowledging the bad job done in developing Healthcare.com." "it'll be interesting to see if these same Democrats acknowledge" "these Democrats seem to understand what the real Obama Kool-Ade drinkers still won't address" " it's about Democrats using criticism of the rollout in their campaign ads".

GEEZER

Monday, February 3, 2014 1:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
I'd be happy with something similar to the Kyoto Protocol, where a base year is determined, and countries have targets for emissions reductions based on that year's emissions.

That's fine (and certainly suits the US), but how do we establish China's 'base year'? Is it 2005? 2014? 2020? And what is the RATIONALE for choosing that particular year? I don't need to tell you that it will make a massive difference, which of these years we choose.

No rationale, since that is just a random year chosen as an example. I'd expect that the conference setting up a new agreement would determine this, just like they did for Kyoto. That's why the " x% below year y levels by year z." was the next sentence.

Quote:
What about other big countries, less developed than China: India, Nigeria - that have low emissions per capita - what is their base year? 2014? Do we say that they're not allowed to industrialise, and increase emissions? Do we doom them to poverty? These are questions that I don't think you've begun to think about yet.

As noted above, I don't have a base year, and would leave that to an international climate conference to set. That being said, if they allow developing countries free rein, I see a problem cutting overall global emissions at all.

Quote:
Quote:
I'd be pleased to see the U.S. reduce emissions per capita to, say, Germany's current level (around 2.47 tonnes) in 30 years.

China's emissions per capita is currently around 1.94 tonnes , and is going up around .13 tonne a year, so they'll be at Germany's level in about four years. If they were to stop there, that would be great.

So you're saying that both Chinese and US emissions per capita would ideally stabilise around Germany's current level. It's just China has to stop there NOW, while the US has 30 years grace to get there. Is it not fairer to give China that same 30 years to get its emissions per capita under control, and brought down to German levels - as the US has got?

[/b

It might be fairer, but it's not going to do anything for global emissions if you let China run theirs up for another 15 or 20 years before starting to reduce them. Since they're already equal in per capita emissions to many European countries, and will catch Germany in four years, why not stop now?

I might also note that the U.S. had its highest per capita emissions back in 1973, when folks were not as aware of the potential of emissions to affect climate change. Now we know that it matters, so stopping increases is better than letting them go on and hoping the planet can deal with it until they come down later.

Quote:
Quote:
Still waiting for a cite for your statement that a climate deal would make global emissions peak and start to fall quite soon.

First, China's emissions by 2020:

You've highlighted coal as driving China's CO2 emissions increase, well this article cites a recent Citigroup study that suggests China's emissions due to coal will peak/stablilise soon.

This is the main graph (I would say the grey dotted line is the most likely scenario):

Lots of "ifs" in this, and the IEA, which should have a clue, predicts figures quite a bit higher than Citi. Also, this depends on China slowing its growth to around 6% GDP per year, when the 12th Five Year Plan target is 8% through 2015. The 13th Five Year Plan (2016-2020) aims to double GDP and per capita income by 2020. Based on this, I'm going with the high estimates.

Quote:
Now as to CO2 peaking fairly soon under a climate deal:

This recent paper says this: http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-
report

"The small increase in emissions of 1.1% in 2012 (including a downward correction of 0.3% for it being a leap year), may be the first sign of a more permanent slowdown in the increase in global C

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

1KIKI

Monday, February 3, 2014 1:22 AM

The Bill of Rights in the National Archives

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!

As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore

Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies

And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster

I feel so vindicated.

"Just glad that some Democrats are acknowledging the bad job done in developing Healthcare.com." "it'll be interesting to see if these same Democrats acknowledge" "these Democrats seem to understand what the real Obama Kool-Ade drinkers still won't address" " it's about Democrats using criticism of the rollout in their campaign ads".

GEEZER

Monday, February 3, 2014 1:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If you really were thinking about how to save the planet, you'd find your way around the politics.

But its the politicians who have to find a way around the politics, unless you think I have control of international trade.

So tell me what levers you think the U.S. government could unilaterally use to force/convince/sweet talk/bribe China into reducing emissions.

You must have some ideas, or you wouldn't suggest the possibility.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

KPO

Monday, February 3, 2014 2:14 AM

Quote:
No rationale, since that is just a random year chosen as an example. I'd expect that the conference setting up a new agreement would determine this, just like they did for Kyoto.

So no disagreements if the base year for China is set at 2020?

Quote:
if they allow developing countries free rein, I see a problem cutting overall global emissions at all.

You rule out free rein, and you criticise me for saying allow them moderate emissions increases. That only leaves banning emissions increases for developing countries - and dooming them to poverty for the next century or so.

Quote:
It might be fairer, but it's not going to do anything for global emissions if you let China run theirs up for another 15 or 20 years

We're back to punishing China because of its size.

Quote:
Also, this depends on China slowing its growth to around 6% GDP per year

There were 3 different forecasts for 3 different scenarios of economic growth. But I'm not going to in-depth debate my cites with you; I'm wise enough to know that would be pointless. But you asked for them, and there they are.

Quote:
and the Chinese said no.

I will point out that this is wrong on two counts. The article says: "Chinese academics in attendance responded critically to the remarks..."

Nobody ruled out anything, and the people in question were not the Chinese government, but some attendant academics... And anyway, countries posture all the time around these kind of things. The reality is you won't know for sure what China will concede until you get them to a negotiating table, and offer concessions of your own.

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Monday, February 3, 2014 11:21 AM

Quote:
But its the politicians who have to find a way around the politics, unless you think I have control of international trade.

I am discussing this with you, not with them. Therefore, I've looking for YOUR ideas.

Quote:
So tell me what levers you think the U.S. government could unilaterally use to force/convince/sweet talk/bribe China into reducing emissions.You must have some ideas, or you wouldn't suggest the possibility.

Trade policy, as I mentioned before. But you're the one who seems to think that the only thing to be done is to

Quote:
Stop trading with China until they reduce their emissions, perhaps? If you thought that the 2007 Great Recession was really great, Cut economic ties with our second largest trading partner and see what happens. Not to mention that this would probably violate all sorts of international agreements we've already signed, and leave us open to sanctions from the rest of the world.

Really, Geezer? Like KIKI said, this is just a false dilemma (Either do nothing, or cut off trade).

I'm sure even you can suggest something more practical and realistic. Or is this gong to be a replay of the "conservatives have no ideas how to deal with recessions" thread, which turned out to be that Geezer had no ideas. So, I'll let you mull on that and see if you can come up with anything before I post my ideas.

GEEZER

Monday, February 3, 2014 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
No rationale, since that is just a random year chosen as an example. I'd expect that the conference setting up a new agreement would determine this, just like they did for Kyoto.

So no disagreements if the base year for China is set at 2020?

Not quite within the spirit of the Kyoto Accords, which were adopted in 1997 with a 1990 base year target to be reached by 2008 to 2012. I don't see any conference that's really interested in reducing climate change giving China such a break.

Quote:
Quote:
if they allow developing countries free rein, I see a problem cutting overall global emissions at all.

You rule out free rein, and you criticise me for saying allow them moderate emissions increases. That only leaves banning emissions increases for developing countries - and dooming them to poverty for the next century or so.

So what's your idea of "moderate emissions increases"? From above it seems that going full bore until 2020 and then trying to stop is your "moderate". I've shown above that your estimates of 2020 emissions are at the low end, and require actions by China they've said they wouldn't do.

Quote:
Quote:
It might be fairer, but it's not going to do anything for global emissions if you let China run theirs up for another 15 or 20 years

We're back to punishing China because of its size.

Nope. We're back to trying to control climate change. As noted above, and not yet addressed by you, estimates are that 300 million people could die from the effects of climate change if reductions are not made soon. I could ask why you want to punish these people so China can have a higher GDP?

Quote:
Quote:
Also, this depends on China slowing its growth to around 6% GDP per year

There were 3 different forecasts for 3 different scenarios of economic growth. But I'm not going to in-depth debate my cites with you; I'm wise enough to know that would be pointless. But you asked for them, and there they are.

In other words, you can't support them, whereas I can provide strong evidence that China intends to double GDP and Per Capita income in the 2010-2020 period.

Quote:
Quote:
and the Chinese said no.

I will point out that this is wrong on two counts. The article says: "Chinese academics in attendance responded critically to the remarks..."

Nobody ruled out anything, and the people in question were not the Chinese government, but some attendant academics...

Given all the cites I've provided for China planning significant growth,
Plus the cite from above, which notes "China is unlikely to set an overall greenhouse gas emissions reduction target under a post-2020 global framework to curb climate change, a member of the Chinese delegation to the U.N. climate change conference said Thursday.", it looks pretty much like Chinese government policy.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/13112
1/china-unlikely-set-total-greenhouse-gas-emissions-redu

And it's pretty far from your statement that "the IEA director believes it is possible for China's emissions to peak by 2020 with existing technology and government support:", especially given the direction of Chinas 12th and 13th Five Year Plans.

Quote:
And anyway, countries posture all the time around these kind of things. The reality is you won't know for sure what China will concede until you get them to a negotiating table, and offer concessions of your own.

So assuming you do this, and China, as I expect, says no? What then? Do you have a Plan B?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Monday, February 3, 2014 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
But its the politicians who have to find a way around the politics, unless you think I have control of international trade.
I am discussing this with you, not with them. Therefore, I've looking for YOUR ideas.

I've been stating my ideas all through this discussion. They've refined down to:

- International treaty with binding targets along the lines of Kyoto, i.e. not targets years in the future.

- China to limit emissions per capita to those of Germany.

- The U.S. to reduce emissions per capita to those of Germany over time.

I doubt that China will go along with this, although I'd like to see the U.S. reduction.

Quote:
Quote:
So tell me what levers you think the U.S. government could unilaterally use to force/convince/sweet talk/bribe China into reducing emissions.You must have some ideas, or you wouldn't suggest the possibility.
Trade policy, as I mentioned before.

This?

Quote:
First of all, there is no reason for GEEZER to insist that China willingly reduce its emissions in the future, either voluntarily or by treaty. The reason is that the emissions policy of China can be swayed by external pressure, because - while China is many things- the one thing it is NOT is independent of the world economy. Tariffs, trade sanctions, and bank sanctions (a la Iran), or even just a simple carbon tax applied at the border, would have a profound effect on China's internal policy.

Okay, so you are going to use tariffs, trade sanctions, etc. to force China to reduce emissions, just not cut them entirely. Just how much of a reduction in trade due to these actions do you think it'd take to get them to make major cuts in emissions? 10%? 20%? anything above that and you're probably getting into actions that will seriously affect both economies.

Then again, how much time do you think would get spent in various international courts before China would actually start reducing emissions, assuming that the courts ruled our way, and then ruled our way in multiple appeals?

And apparently you want to do this unilaterally.

Quote:
What I'm saying, GEEZER, is that the USA could take action, on its own, to not only internally reduce our greenhouse gas emissions (and BTW become energy-independent by improving fuel savings and increasing solar and wind) but also to redirect China's energy policies irrespective of what China "wants". Instead, we are doing the exact opposite... fostering more and more greenhouse gas emissions thru our trade and energy policies.

Quote:
I'm sure even you can suggest something more practical and realistic. Or is this gong to be a replay of the "conservatives have no ideas how to deal with recessions" thread, which turned out to be that Geezer had no ideas. So, I'll let you mull on that and see if you can come up with anything before I post my ideas.

You're the one who thinks that the U.S. can unilaterally take action "to redirect China's energy policies irrespective of what China "wants"."

Why should I provide ideas for something I don't believe will work?

I think the best bet is an international treaty, as noted above, although I have doubts about whether China will go along.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Monday, February 3, 2014 10:06 PM

Thank you for actually reading and responding to my posts. Not many right-wingers do that.

There are things we could do, some of them collective and some of them unilateral.

The first thing we could do is to emplace real, effective, punishable environmental protection laws into the TPP. Or at least remain silent on the issue. Instead, the TPP leaves national/ local environmental protection laws at the mercy of a corporate trade tribunals. Big step backwards. Maybe we if we don't take so many backward steps, we wouldn't be in such a fix, neh? (China isn't part of the TPP, but the TPP effects many of China's trading partners.)

The second thing we can do is enter climate negotiations with a real willingness to save the earth. It's not by accident that the USA has a reputation for being one of the major stumbling-blocks on climate negotiations: we have walked out of talks, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and have torpedoed every motion to put real limits in place. These talks happen nearly every year, and every event is another opportunity to put saving the earth front and center. Which we refuse to do. But we DID spy on everyone, so that's something!

The third thing we can do is put a carbon tax on every burned carbon fuel. I think internal taxes, as long as they're evenly applied and don't affect imports more than internally produced fuel, should pass muster by the WTO. In any case, this is something that can be discussed at the WTO; they're not immune to national interests because they just created a loophole for developing nations to tariff imported food and to subsidize agricultural production in the interest of food security. The tax doesn't have to be very high at first; but it CAN ratchet up over time, making fossil fuels (and fossil fuel imports) less and less attractive over time.

We can stop subsidizing fossil fuel extraction. They're very profitable, do we really need to give them $550+ BILLION every year??? Wow, help balance the budget, and help save the earth all in one package??? How sweet is that??

Also, we have an outsized influence on the World Bank (whose President is traditionally American) and the IMF (whose President is traditionally an American-friendly foreigner). These "development banks" have a long a storied history of lending to environmentally-destructive projects.

If worst comes to worst and China refuses to limit its per capita emissions to something like Germany's, we CAN pull the trade plug. That would require years of negotiation and preparation, and we would have to be prepared to go it alone. But yanno, it was the transnationals who outsourced manufacturing to China because of cheap labor and no environmental protection. Unfortunately, even for something as simple as sulfate pollution, it's clear that outsourcing manufacturing doesn't protect us from environmental degradation.

This is all just off the top of my head, typing as I go. If I were to do some real research, I could probably come up with a 200-page monograph, but yanno, it's all been done before. The ideas are out there. What ISN'T there is the willingness to put the earth first.

KPO

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:33 AM

Quote:
So no disagreements if the base year for China is set at 2020?

Not quite within the spirit of the Kyoto Accords, which were adopted in 1997 with a 1990 base year

Kyoto didn't set targets for developing countries at all. The 'spirit of the Kyoto Accords' is accepting that developing countries need to develop, and that carbon reduction should come from advanced economies. Now obviously Kyoto was flawed, but capping developing countries emissions at current or past years is ridiculous, and a million miles away from 'the spirit of the Kyoto Accords'.

Quote:
So what's your idea of "moderate emissions increases"? From above it seems that going full bore until 2020

You've misunderstood the point of my line of questioning above. It is to show that you have no rationale for choosing a fair way to cap China's CO2. And no good reason for why the US should not be capped at the same level.

Quote:
As noted above, and not yet addressed by you, estimates are that 300 million people could die from the effects of climate change if reductions are not made soon. I could ask why you want to punish these people so China can have a higher GDP?

An emotional appeal for why we have to treat China hard, while the US gets it relatively easy.

Quote:
In other words, you can't support them

I can defend my cites, and my prediction that China will come in under its own voluntary target, I just choose not to. I've had enough blind stubbornness, dishonesty and misrepresentation of my words that I'm not going to open up the debate wider. Signy's right when she describes your debating style. All you do is dig yourself into a position and then fight to stay in it at all costs - these 'costs' being honesty, common sense, logic, evidence... You reject a graph quite clearly showing a plateau, saying there's not enough years to read a plateau. You reject a graph showing a straight flat line as invalid - for no reason. You say the difference between 6.6 and 6.2 is 'negligible'. You dismiss economic studies and analysis by the IMF, the CBO and the most respected independent financial agencies - for no reason. In my view, someone who is capable of all of these examples of flagrant dishonesty is not somebody to engage in earnest, thoughtful, prolonged debate. That's why I'm letting a lot of your wrong points fly - not because I can't answer them.

It's not personal. It's just war.

GEEZER

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Thank you for actually reading and responding to my posts. Not many right-wingers do that.

There are things we could do, some of them collective and some of them unilateral.

The first thing we could do is to emplace real, effective, punishable environmental protection laws into the TPP. Or at least remain silent on the issue. Instead, the TPP leaves national/ local environmental protection laws at the mercy of a corporate trade tribunals. Big step backwards. Maybe we if we don't take so many backward steps, we wouldn't be in such a fix, neh? (China isn't part of the TPP, but the TPP effects many of China's trading partners.)

If you can figure some way to actually fix the TPP, I'd be all for it. As you've noted elsewhere, it seems to be the Administration and the corporations colluding to dodge regulation. I'm not too hopeful that either party would do anything different, and don't think a new party is going to come along any time soon.

Quote:
The second thing we can do is enter climate negotiations with a real willingness to save the earth. It's not by accident that the USA has a reputation for being one of the major stumbling-blocks on climate negotiations: we have walked out of talks, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and have torpedoed every motion to put real limits in place.

As noted above, the Senate voted 95-0 not to ratify the Kyoto Accords because of the pass developing countries got. Imagine how different things might be if developing countries had gotten, back in 1997, targets that required, at least, a slowdown in their emissions increase.

Why the Obama Administration is causing problems with new treaties...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-22/u-s-rejects-rigid-rules-as-ro
adblock-to-climate-treaty.html

...is a mystery to me.

Then again, Pres. Obama has pledged to cut U.S. emissions by 17% from 2005 amounts by 2020. As of 2012, we're already down by 13%, so that's something.

Quote:
The third thing we can do is put a carbon tax on every burned carbon fuel. I think internal taxes, as long as they're evenly applied and don't affect imports more than internally produced fuel, should pass muster by the WTO. In any case, this is something that can be discussed at the WTO; they're not immune to national interests because they just created a loophole for developing nations to tariff imported food and to subsidize agricultural production in the interest of food security. The tax doesn't have to be very high at first; but it CAN ratchet up over time, making fossil fuels (and fossil fuel imports) less and less attractive over time.

Explain how this would prevent China from burning coal to make the electricity that they use to make the Lenovo computers we might buy, for example. Do we estimate how much carbon was generated making the computer and tax them on that amount?

Quote:
We can stop subsidizing fossil fuel extraction. They're very profitable, do we really need to give them $550+ BILLION every year??? Wow, help balance the budget, and help save the earth all in one package??? How sweet is that??

Fine with me, but it does nothing about China. Might also affect jobs, which is as much a hot-button issue as the environment or the budget.

Quote:
Also, we have an outsized influence on the World Bank (whose President is traditionally American) and the IMF (whose President is traditionally an American-friendly foreigner). These "development banks" have a long a storied history of lending to environmentally-destructive projects.

This assumes the will to influence the WTO and World Bank to take such action. As above, I agree this would be a good thing, but I don't see it actually getting done.

Quote:
If worst comes to worst and China refuses to limit its per capita emissions to something like Germany's, we CAN pull the trade plug. That would r

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

GEEZER

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
So no disagreements if the base year for China is set at 2020?

Not quite within the spirit of the Kyoto Accords, which were adopted in 1997 with a 1990 base year

Kyoto didn't set targets for developing countries at all. The 'spirit of the Kyoto Accords' is accepting that developing countries need to develop, and that carbon reduction should come from advanced economies. Now obviously Kyoto was flawed, but capping developing countries emissions at current or past years is ridiculous, and a million miles away from 'the spirit of the Kyoto Accords'.

But if China has the same emission per capita as developed countries, why isn't it considered a developed country as well? What would be your breakpoint at which they become "developed"?

Quote:
Quote:
So what's your idea of "moderate emissions increases"? From above it seems that going full bore until 2020

You've misunderstood the point of my line of questioning above. It is to show that you have no rationale for choosing a fair way to cap China's CO2. And no good reason for why the US should not be capped at the same level.

So you don't have an idea of Moderate emission increases, then.

It would be nice if you'd actually answer a question once in a while, instead of dodging them.

Quote:
Quote:
As noted above, and not yet addressed by you, estimates are that 300 million people could die from the effects of climate change if reductions are not made soon. I could ask why you want to punish these people so China can have a higher GDP?

An emotional appeal for why we have to treat China hard, while the US gets it relatively easy.

Not to the people who die. And you don't consider your "NOT FAIR" complaint an emotiona appeal?

Quote:
Quote:
In other words, you can't support them

I can defend my cites, and my prediction that China will come in under its own voluntary target, I just choose not to. I've had enough blind stubbornness, dishonesty and misrepresentation of my words that I'm not going to open up the debate wider. Signy's right when she describes your debating style. All you do is dig yourself into a position and then fight to stay in it at all costs - these 'costs' being honesty, common sense, logic, evidence... You reject a graph quite clearly showing a plateau, saying there's not enough years to read a plateau. You reject a graph showing a straight flat line as invalid - for no reason. You say the difference between 6.6 and 6.2 is 'negligible'. You dismiss economic studies and analysis by the IMF, the CBO and the most respected independent financial agencies - for no reason. In my view, someone who is capable of all of these examples of flagrant dishonesty is not somebody to engage in earnest, thoughtful, prolonged debate. That's why I'm letting a lot of your wrong points fly - not because I can't answer them.

In other words, you can't support them.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

1KIKI

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:36 AM

More like you can't read what's already there.

And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster

I feel so vindicated.

"Just glad that some Democrats are acknowledging the bad job done in developing Healthcare.com." "it'll be interesting to see if these same Democrats acknowledge" "these Democrats seem to understand what the real Obama Kool-Ade drinkers still won't address" " it's about Democrats using criticism of the rollout in their campaign ads".

SIGNYM

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:11 AM

GEEZER- Because every objection you made was political, you just demonstrated (again) that it really IS just about politics, and not saving the planet. But not as rappy intended to say.

Also

Quote:
Not to the people who die. And you don't consider your "NOT FAIR" complaint an emotiona appeal?

I haven't been following this. Do you mean the Chinese people or the American people?

GEEZER

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GEEZER- Because every objection you made was political, you just demonstrated (again) that it really IS just about politics, and not saving the planet. But not as rappy intended to say.

Which, unfortunately, is the point.

Solutions to these problems have to be implemented at the political level, be it national or international.

If you can't, for example, get the politicians who run the U.S. government to implement treaties, tariffs, trade restrictions, etc. against China, then that plan won't work. To have a hope of doing so, you have to work in the political arena - campaigning, forming interest groups with emotional or financial clout, lobbying, letter writing, arm twisting, and so on. And you have to compete with other groups who want other things - like more trade, more jobs, and cheaper products.

When it gets to the international arena, it's even worse, since many governments are corrupt kleptocracies on a level we in the U.S. can hardly fathom. They are going to the highest bidder, and their vote counts just as much in climate change decisions.

If you believe that climate change problems can be effectively addressed without the involvement of politics, I'd be interested in knowing how you think this can occur.

As to what you as an individual can do, I'd suggest (if you haven't already done this) finding the environmental action and lobbying organization you believe is most effective, supporting them with your money and time, and recruiting as many folks as you can.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:24 PM

Of course.

I just wanted to make sure that we both agree that the issue isn't economic. Because the USA has plenty of money, but preferred to spend $3-17 trillion (depending on who's counting) on bank bailouts, slightly more than a half-trillion per year on fossil fuel subsidies, and about a trillion per year on the military (much of it linked to obtaining and defending oil).

ETA: ALSO, that the problematic politics involve the wealthy, not the average person.

GEEZER

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Also
Quote:
Not to the people who die. And you don't consider your "NOT FAIR" complaint an emotiona appeal?
I haven't been following this. Do you mean the Chinese people or the American people?

Just people.

And I jumped the number up quite a bit in later repetitions, it's 'only' 100 million, per my first reference. Hard to keep all the numbers in two or three long threads like this straight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_19153
65.html

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:32 PM

People die of poverty, and having a baseline energy allowance would alleviate that. You mean those deaths, and those people? Or are you talking about the people who would die as a result of CO2 emission reductions? Or the people who would die as a result of global climate shift?

Okay, nevermind. I'll go scroll up. No need to re-explain.

GEEZER

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Of course.

I just wanted to make sure that we both agree that the issue isn't economic. Because the USA has plenty of money, but preferred to spend $3-17 trillion (depending on who's counting) on bank bailouts, slightly more than a half-trillion per year on fossil fuel subsidies, and about a trillion per year on the military (much of it linked to obtaining and defending oil).

ETA: ALSO, that the problematic politics involve the wealthy, not the average person.

I'd be interested in knowing where you got the half trillion annual fossil fuel subsidy figure, since most I see googling 'u.s. fossil fuel subsidy' end up in the $50 billion range.

Lester Brown puts it at $500 billion or so globally, but not all on the U.S.

http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2012/highlights24

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
People die of poverty, and having a baseline energy allowance would alleviate that. You mean those deaths, and those people? Or are you talking about the people who would die as a result of CO2 emission reductions? Or the people who would die as a result of global climate shift?

Okay, nevermind. I'll go scroll up. No need to re-explain.

Use the link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_19153
65.html

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

KPO

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:48 PM

Quote:
But if China has the same emission per capita as developed countries, why isn't it considered a developed country as well?

Because it's not a developed country. And it has the same emissions per capita as some developed countries - not all.

Quote:
So you don't have an idea of Moderate emission increases

Minimising emissions growth of developing countries IS the idea. And it's the only realistic approach. It's either that or unrestrained emissions growth for developing countries. But you're right that you do need to establish a ceiling for each particular country - but I would say one that is suited to each country's unique energy situation. For example why set China's ceiling to Germany's? Why not France's, or Iceland's, or the USA's? There ought to be fair logic that goes into this decision, not just arbitrariness backed with emotional appeals.

Quote:
An emotional appeal for why we have to treat China hard, while the US gets it relatively easy.

Not to the people who die.

Doesn't make sense.

Quote:
And you don't consider your "NOT FAIR" complaint an emotional appeal?

No, fairness is the essence of pragmatism here. An 'unfair' deal will never be implemented, and if it were, there'd be backlash in the harshly penalised countries, and it would be scrapped.

Quote:
In other words, you can't support them.

I could, but I would be making complex, nuanced arguments to somebody who rejects the validity of a straight line on a graph, if it suits him.

I'll back up my case if anyone else is particularly interested; if not, the cites can stand by themselves quite well.

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:01 PM

Quote:
For example why set China's ceiling to Germany's? Why not France's, or Iceland's, or the USA's?

There ARE some differences to be looked into- climate, particularly. Nations which are very hot, or very cold, or very dry, prolly need more energy per capita than nations in very temperate climates.

For example, I looked at the per capita of a number of nations. Costa Rica is pretty low, and their standard of living is decent. It's tempting to use them as an example of what nations could achieve if they tried. But Costa Rica doesn't manufacture much. Its main source of revenue is tourism. And Cost Rica is by and large a livable, well-watered nation, plus it's very small. Hardly a reasonable paradigm for other nations. Cuba, with roughly the same per capita and climate, doesn't have the same standard of living because it doesn't receive the foreign dollars that Costa Rica does. But it is a more realistic example of a small economy with that level of energy intensity. Setting the minimum somewhere near Cuba would provide a survivable standard of living for developing countries, altho people would naturally aspire to greater.

REAVERFAN

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:37 PM

KPO

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:20 PM

Good graphic RF. This might have to be my stock response to Auraptor's idiot denialist threads.

It's not personal. It's just war.

KPO

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
For example why set China's ceiling to Germany's? Why not France's, or Iceland's, or the USA's?
There ARE some differences to be looked into- climate, particularly. Nations which are very hot, or very cold, or very dry, prolly need more energy per capita than nations in very temperate climates.

For example, I looked at the per capita of a number of nations. Costa Rica is pretty low, and their standard of living is decent. It's tempting to use them as an example of what nations could achieve if they tried. But Costa Rica doesn't manufacture much. Its main source of revenue is tourism. And Cost Rica is by and large a livable, well-watered nation, plus it's very small. Hardly a reasonable paradigm for other nations. Cuba, with roughly the same per capita and climate, doesn't have the same standard of living because it doesn't receive the foreign dollars that Costa Rica does. But it is a more realistic example of a small economy with that level of energy intensity. Setting the minimum somewhere near Cuba would provide a survivable standard of living for developing countries, altho people would naturally aspire to greater.

I think a minimum target would be harder for some countries to hit than others though - for some of the reasons you said, and others. Not every country can base its economy around tourism - nor do we want them to. We want countries to manufacture. The world wants those goods, so we don't want to punish the countries that make them. What we do want is to make the global manufacturing industry (and mining industry - another example of an industry bad for greenhouse gases) as clean as possible, while recognising that it will never be as clean as other industries. I would have thought that Geezer, as a libertarian, would be sympathetic to this position.

Good points about climate. I also wonder about population density: if your country is big, that might increase emissions because everything needs to be moved about large distances. There's also questions of what energy sources are readily available in a particular country: better to have a wealth of natural gas, than a wealth of coal. Even better to have a wealth of hydroelectric, or geothermal. It's fine to have lots of nuclear (in my opinion) but the country needs to be quite technologically developed. The list goes on, and no two countries are the same in terms of their energy needs, and potentials. So to me it makes sense that every country should have different targets. And this of course, was a key part of Kyoto.

It's not personal. It's just war.

GEEZER

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
But if China has the same emission per capita as developed countries, why isn't it considered a developed country as well?

Because it's not a developed country. And it has the same emissions per capita as some developed countries - not all.

At current rates, it'll have the emissions per capita of Germany in four or five years. Should Germany be allowed to create more emissions?

Besides, you noted above that China has electricity, etc. in 95% of its towns and villages. Sounds pretty developed to me.

So, as I asked above, what would be your breakpoint at which they become "developed"?

Quote:
Quote:
So you don't have an idea of Moderate emission increases

Minimising emissions growth of developing countries IS the idea. And it's the only realistic approach. It's either that or unrestrained emissions growth for developing countries. But you're right that you do need to establish a ceiling for each particular country - but I would say one that is suited to each country's unique energy situation. For example why set China's ceiling to Germany's? Why not France's, or Iceland's, or the USA's?

They already have more emissions per capita than Iceland or France, and as noted above, will overtake Germany in four or five years. The U.S. should be working to it's emissions down to around 2.5 - 3 tonnes per capita where most of the developed nations are.

Quote:
There ought to be fair logic that goes into this decision, not just arbitrariness backed with emotional appeals.

So what's fair? Should China be able to destroy everyone else's planet in the quest for economic fairness? If every nation on earth had China's current emissions per capita, total emissions would be around 12 billion tonnes. This is about half again what is generated annually right now.

Quote:
Quote:
An emotional appeal for why we have to treat China hard, while the US gets it relatively easy.
Not to the people who die.

Doesn't make sense.

I posted the link before, but:

Quote:
LONDON, Sept 26 (Reuters) - More than 100 million people will die and the global economy will miss out on as much as 3.2 percent of its potential output annually by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday.

As global average temperatures rise due to greenhouse gas emissions, the effects on the planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said the report conducted by humanitarian organisation DARA.

It calculated that five million deaths occur each year from air pollution, hunger and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-intensive economies, and that toll would likely rise to six million a year by 2030 if current patterns of fossil fuel use continue.

More than 90 percent of those deaths will occur in developing countries, said the report that calculated the human and economic impact of climate change on 184 countries in 2010 and 2030. It was commissioned by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a partnership of 20 developing countries threatened by climate change.

"A combined climate-carbon crisis is estimated to claim 100 million lives between now and the end of the next decade," the report said.

It said the effects of climate change was already costing the global economy a potential 1.6 percent of annual output or about $1.2 trillion a year, and this could double to 3.2 percent by 2030 if global temperatures are allowed to rise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_19153
65.html

As noted in my response to SignyM above, it's "only" 100 million in the next 16 years, rather than my latest cite of 300 million. Too many threads with numbers in them I guess.

Quote:
Quote:
And you don't consider your "NOT FAIR

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KPO

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:15 AM

Quote:
So, as I asked above, what would be your breakpoint at which they become "developed"?

I didn't invent the term 'developed country', nor am I using my own special definition. Why ask me to explain it? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

Quote:
They already have more emissions per capita than Iceland or France, and as noted above, will overtake Germany in four or five years. The U.S. should be working to it's emissions down to around 2.5 - 3 tonnes per capita where most of the developed nations are.

None of this answers my question. Or my point, that your setting China's emissions to Germany's is completely arbitrary. (And I know that Iceland and France have lower per capita emissions than China, that was part of my point, but nvm)

Quote:
So what's fair?

Some of my thoughts on the matter are in the post to Sig above.

Quote:
Should China be able to destroy everyone else's planet in the quest for economic fairness?

Since the ONLY possible climate deal will be a fair one, the quest for fairness is a quest to SAVE the planet. China's emissions have to peak very soon. We more or less agree about that. I'm actually not arguing setting Germany as a target for China - I'm just pointing out the arbitrariness of the decision. The arbitrariness and unfairness of your system *really* kicks in with your setting crippling emissions ceilings on very poor countries.

Quote:
As noted in my response to SignyM above, it's "only" 100 million in the next 16 years

Evidence for why we need a fair, workable climate deal that will bring down global emissions.

Quote:
I would be making complex, nuanced arguments to somebody who rejects the validity of a straight line on a graph, if it suits him.

This was referring to the debt/GDP ratio graph in the recessions thread. Yes, I compiled some of your dishonesty highlights over the past couple of months, for that paragraph. A more recent example, almost as good, is the staunch denial of the obvious Korea plateau.

It's not personal. It's just war.

GEEZER

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
So, as I asked above, what would be your breakpoint at which they become "developed"?

I didn't invent the term 'developed country', nor am I using my own special definition. Why ask me to explain it? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

Actually, this link has more relevant info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

From their current GNI, looks like China is in the "Upper middle income countries" category, which the World Bank does not consider "Developing". They instead fit into Newly Industrialized Countries (NIC), which fits "...between developed and developing countries, and ... includes South Africa, Mexico, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, India, Philippines, Thailand and Turkey."

Quote:
None of this answers my question. Or my point, that your setting China's emissions to Germany's is completely arbitrary. (And I know that Iceland and France have lower per capita emissions than China, that was part of my point, but nvm)

Germany seems to be a good example of the emissions level a developed and prosperous country can sustain. Any particular reason you think China should have a higher level that that?

Quote:
Quote:
So what's fair?

Some of my thoughts on the matter are in the post to Sig above.

So countries that manufacture need higher limits to allow them to do so. But Germany manufactures, and keeps emissions relatively low.

Countries that are larger need higher limits due to transportation needs. At first look, this might be somewhat valid, as the Russian Federation, Australia, Canada, the U.S. all run pretty high. Not sure I'd be happy with China, India, and Brazil all running at the same rate, though. I'd rather see the big developed countries come down.

Quote:
Quote:
Should China be able to destroy everyone else's planet in the quest for economic fairness?

Since the ONLY possible climate deal will be a fair one, the quest for fairness is a quest to SAVE the planet. China's emissions have to peak very soon. We more or less agree about that. I'm actually not arguing setting Germany as a target for China - I'm just pointing out the arbitrariness of the decision. The arbitrariness and unfairness of your system *really* kicks in with your setting crippling emissions ceilings on very poor countries.

So why would a German level of emissions per capita be "crippling" to China? Germany seems to do pretty well.

Do you have any emissions goals for China that you consider "fair"?

They're still sticking to the emissions per unit of GDP "reduction" that allows them substantial increases.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/07/china-say
s-it-will-not-set-carbon-cap

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

KPO

Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:20 AM

Quote:
From their current GNI, looks like China is in the "Upper middle income countries" category, which the World Bank does not consider "Developing". They instead fit into Newly Industrialized Countries (NIC), which fits "...between developed and developing countries, and ... includes South Africa, Mexico, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, India, Philippines, Thailand and Turkey."

Glad that's settled.

Quote:
Germany seems to be a good example of the emissions level a developed and prosperous country can sustain. Any particular reason you think China should have a higher level that that?

Why not Korea? Or Japan? Or Iceland? Or France? Why is Germany's emission level exactly right for China?

If you want to know my thoughts, I think if CO2 was not a greenhouse gas and global warming was not an issue, China's CO2 emissions per capita would eventually settle at a level closer to the US's than to Germany's. Now obviously the planet can not afford for China to be as polluting as America (this is the point you keep going on about, which is funny coming from an American, especially when you get all moralistic about it). But nevertheless, if we were to be completely laissez faire, I'd say that was China's 'natural' level. I think these natural levels (or estimates of them) have to be taken into consideration when we devise targets for countries - especially non-developed countries whose low emissions are mainly a factor of their under-developed economies.

Quote:
Countries that are larger need higher limits due to transportation needs.

I'd suggest population density, not size, is the key. This lets Australia, Russia, Canada, the US off the hook to some extent, in my book. But there are other factors.

Quote:
So why would a German level of emissions per capita be "crippling" to China?

I never said it would. I specifically said 'very poor' countries. A German ceiling would still be costly to China though, just like it would be costly to the US, if immediately applied.

Quote:
Do you have any emissions goals for China that you consider "fair"?

Roughly, that it's emissions ought to peak within the next ~6 years (without a dramatic increase up to that point) and thereafter decline at a steady pace. But this would be part of a global climate deal with all countries offering and making cuts that cost them just as much. China would never do this unilaterally, nor should they be expected to.

It's not personal. It's just war.

GEEZER

Thursday, February 6, 2014 8:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

Glad that's settled.

Me too. So no more "China is a developing country" from you.

Quote:
Quote:
Germany seems to be a good example of the emissions level a developed and prosperous country can sustain. Any particular reason you think China should have a higher level that that?

Why not Korea? Or Japan? Or Iceland? Or France? Why is Germany's emission level exactly right for China?

So what part of the word "example" do you not understand?

Quote:
If you want to know my thoughts, I think if CO2 was not a greenhouse gas and global warming was not an issue, China's CO2 emissions per capita would eventually settle at a level closer to the US's than to Germany's.

But CO2 is a greenhouse gas and Germany's emissions have been decreased to their current level because they recognize this.

Quote:
Now obviously the planet can not afford for China to be as polluting as America (this is the point you keep going on about, which is funny coming from an American, especially when you get all moralistic about it).

Since they're twice as polluting in real terms, we agree on this.

Quote:
But nevertheless, if we were to be completely laissez faire, I'd say that was China's 'natural' level. I think these natural levels (or estimates of them) have to be taken into consideration when we devise targets for countries - especially non-developed countries whose low emissions are mainly a factor of their under-developed economies.

Interesting in that I think the U.S.'s emissions are too high and should be reduced to the 2.5 tonnes per capita range.

Quote:
Quote:
So why would a German level of emissions per capita be "crippling" to China?

I never said it would. I specifically said 'very poor' countries. A German ceiling would still be costly to China though, just like it would be costly to the US, if immediately applied.

Then why would it be crippling to other poor countries?

As noted above by SignyM, some countries manage pretty well with much lower emissions per capita.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you have any emissions goals for China that you consider "fair"?

Roughly, that it's emissions ought to peak within the next ~6 years (without a dramatic increase up to that point) and thereafter decline at a steady pace. But this would be part of a global climate deal with all countries offering and making cuts that cost them just as much. China would never do this unilaterally, nor should they be expected to.

As noted above several times, China has said repeatedly that they will not put a cap on emissions in their 13th Five Year Plan, which runs through 2020. The U.N. is not planning to even set limits until 2015, and they won't begin to apply until 2020. China plans to double GDP over 2010 rates by 2020, so their pledge to "reduce" emissions per unit of GDP really allows significant increases in emissions. Whenever I point this out, you ignore it. Maybe you should address it.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

KPO

Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:35 PM

Quote:
So no more "China is a developing country" from you.

The key point of course, is that China is not a developed country, and is still developing. Albeit it has come most of the way towards doing so.

Quote:
So what part of the word "example" do you not understand?

You set Germany as China's target and then justified that by saying it was a 'good example'. Again, why is it a better example for China than France or Iceland, or the UK, or the US...?

Quote:
Quote:
But nevertheless, if we were to be completely laissez faire, I'd say that was China's 'natural' level. I think these natural levels (or estimates of them) have to be taken into consideration when we devise targets for countries - especially non-developed countries whose low emissions are mainly a factor of their under-developed economies.

Interesting in that I think the U.S.'s emissions are too high and should be reduced to the 2.5 tonnes per capita range.

Think you missed my point here.

Quote:
Then why would it be crippling to other poor countries?

You really need to ask that? Have you not been listening to half of what I've said? You see no evidence of a relationship between economy size and emissions size, nor any reasoning for why there might be such a relationship? I grow weary.

Quote:
As noted above several times, China has said repeatedly that they will not put a cap on emissions in their 13th Five Year Plan...

We could go on forever, arguing our predictions of what China's emissions rise will look like, and how much they are willing to bend it. I decided that to go deep into that with you would be pointless. If you're so sure something I've predicted is wrong why don't you copy it to the predictions thread? That's what I've done with your prediction.

It's not personal. It's just war.

KPO

Friday, February 21, 2014 12:27 AM

More on China's plans to curb emissions: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/17/chinas-bold-environ
mental-move/

Quote:
But the government, notorious for being tight-lipped, secretive and unresponsive, had declined. In fact, few people actually believed that Beijing would ever accede to their demands.
Well, guess what? Beijing has ordered 15,000 factories to report details about their emissions: in public, and in real-time.

Quote:
If you look at the numbers, perhaps we should have seen this coming.
According to the World Bank, the impacts of China's environmental degradation costs the country 9 percent of its Gross National Income. Studies by a number of journals show that more than a million Chinese die prematurely every year because of the country's poor air quality.

Quote:
The good news – for China, and the world – is that Beijing seems to be listening. China has promised to spend $280 billion dollars cleaning up its air. According to information from the International Energy Agency: China's carbon emissions per unit of GDP have dropped by half since the 1990s. Massive investments in wind and solar energy mean that China hopes to get 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Would you like to change your predictions Geezer?

It's not personal. It's just war.

GEEZER

Friday, February 21, 2014 7:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
More on China's plans to curb emissions: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/17/chinas-bold-environ
mental-move/

Quote:
But the government, notorious for being tight-lipped, secretive and unresponsive, had declined. In fact, few people actually believed that Beijing would ever accede to their demands.
Well, guess what? Beijing has ordered 15,000 factories to report details about their emissions: in public, and in real-time.

Quote:
If you look at the numbers, perhaps we should have seen this coming.
According to the World Bank, the impacts of China's environmental degradation costs the country 9 percent of its Gross National Income. Studies by a number of journals show that more than a million Chinese die prematurely every year because of the country's poor air quality.

Quote:
The good news – for China, and the world – is that Beijing seems to be listening. China has promised to spend $280 billion dollars cleaning up its air. According to information from the International Energy Agency: China's carbon emissions per unit of GDP have dropped by half since the 1990s. Massive investments in wind and solar energy mean that China hopes to get 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Would you like to change your predictions Geezer?

Not really.

The emissions reporting by factories is just that...reporting. Per other sources, it's not so much to have them reduce emissions, as to get a baseline for cap-and-trade so they can keep emitting and buy carbon credits from elsewhere.

http://carbon-insight.com/china-demands-all-state-owned-enterprises-to
-report-carbon-emissions/

And I see CNN is also pushing the emissions per GDP shell game.

"China's carbon emissions per unit of GDP have dropped by half since the 1990s."

Whoopee. However, when you consider that China's GDP has increased by over ten times since the mid 1990's...

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

KPO

Friday, February 21, 2014 11:20 PM

Quote:
And I see CNN is also pushing the emissions per GDP shell game.

A universally accepted metric, used by all the major energy agencies in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity

It's not personal. It's just war.

GEEZER

Friday, February 21, 2014 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
And I see CNN is also pushing the emissions per GDP shell game.

A universally accepted metric, used by all the major energy agencies in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity

And as noted in this article...

"The U.S. plans to cut carbon intensity per dollar of GDP by 18% by 2012.[17] This has been criticised by the World Resources Institute as this approach does not ensure absolute reductions if GDP grows faster than intensity declines.[18]

From 1990 to 2000, the carbon intensity of the U.S. economy declined by 17%, yet total emissions increased by 14%.[19] In 2002, the U.S. National Environmental trust labelled carbon intensity, "a bookkeeping trick which allows the administration to do nothing about global warming while unsafe levels of emissions continue to rise."[20]"

...which is what I've been pointing out about China, which has GDP growth much more rapid than the U.S., with the U.S. about doubling GDP since 1995, while China has increased theirs ten times.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

KPO

Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:02 AM

Yes it's important to note that in setting emissions targets for itself in this form - emissions/GDP - the US has acted the same as China.

Emissions/GDP does not tell the whole story about a country's emissions - far from it. Used on its own, it can give quite a misleading picture. And yet, all the world's energy agencies use this metric, and rank countries by it, so it must have some significance. What do you understand that significance to be Geezer?

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:11 AM

Emissions/ GDP is a poor metric, because GDP itself is measured poorly.

Much USA GDP is in financial transactions, not in production. By flooding the markets with money, it's possible to raise GDP artificially... boosting allowable carbon dioxide emissions in a way that's decoupled from actual increases in production or actual increases in infrastructural/manufacturing capacity. I think a simple carbon dioxide emissions per capita is a more reliable measure.

KPO

Sunday, February 23, 2014 4:49 AM

Quote:
Per other sources, it's not so much to have them reduce emissions, as to get a baseline for cap-and-trade so they can keep emitting and buy carbon credits from elsewhere.

Only just saw this. I would like to see the passage that you get this bit of analysis from Geezer.

It's not personal. It's just war.

GEEZER

Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Emissions/GDP does not tell the whole story about a country's emissions - far from it. Used on its own, it can give quite a misleading picture. And yet, all the world's energy agencies use this metric, and rank countries by it, so it must have some significance. What do you understand that significance to be Geezer?

It's a shell game, as I noted before. It's a way for governments (especially in places where GDP is sharply rising) to present figures that make it appear they're reducing emissions while still increasing them - sometimes greatly.

A trick. A fraud. A con game.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Per other sources, it's not so much to have them reduce emissions, as to get a baseline for cap-and-trade so they can keep emitting and buy carbon credits from elsewhere.

Only just saw this. I would like to see the passage that you get this bit of analysis from Geezer.

I provided a link for it above.

http://carbon-insight.com/china-demands-all-state-owned-enterprises-to
-report-carbon-emissions

Quote:
There is widespread speculation that China is to launch its own national cap and trade system by the middle of the decade. This would force companies to offset their emissions through the purchase of carbon credits. The Chinese are hoping that having an extensive emissions database made available through carbon reporting before the launch of the scheme will allow them to escape the problems of over-supply which the EU initially faced after the launch of its own scheme in 2005.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

GEEZER

Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Emissions/ GDP is a poor metric, because GDP itself is measured poorly.

Much USA GDP is in financial transactions, not in production. By flooding the markets with money, it's possible to raise GDP artificially... boosting allowable carbon dioxide emissions in a way that's decoupled from actual increases in production or actual increases in infrastructural/manufacturing capacity. I think a simple carbon dioxide emissions per capita is a more reliable measure.

I agree. Can't see any reason to couple emissions and money.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

KPO

Tuesday, February 25, 2014 11:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Per other sources, it's not so much to have them reduce emissions, as to get a baseline for cap-and-trade so they can keep emitting and buy carbon credits from elsewhere.

Ok, wow, so you're trying to spin China's planned introduction of a cap and trade system as a bad thing - that will let them 'keep emitting'? Damn these evil Chinese!

And what's this 'buy carbon credits from elsewhere'? It says in that article it's a national cap and trade system - so quite clearly Chinese businesses will be buying and selling the carbon credits from each other...

No matter how you try to spin it, this is another positive step taken by the Chinese government towards reining in emissions.

It's not personal. It's just war.

KPO

Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:10 AM

Quote:
It's a shell game, as I noted before. It's a way for governments (especially in places where GDP is sharply rising) to present figures that make it appear they're reducing emissions while still increasing them - sometimes greatly.

A trick. A fraud. A con game.

What nonsense.

This is the UN ranking countries by emissions/GDP: http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=MDG&f=seriesRowID%3A788
The Worldbank: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD
The European Environment Agency: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/greenhouse-gas-emission
s-per-capita-1

Again, why would all of these international agencies give such prominent attention to this metric, if it is nothing but a con that national governments use to hide emissions?

Quote:
I agree. Can't see any reason to couple emissions and money.

That's not what Signy said...

You criticise China for its use of a metric that you admit you don't understand. Can I suggest that this is not China's fault?

It's not personal. It's just war.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:33 AM

So I'm a little confused.

Geezer, is the issue for you that you do not believe in climate change, and therefore no action is necessary at all.

Or that climate change is not man made so nothing we do helps

Or that man made climate change is real, but nothing the US does helps because other countries will not curb their emmissions?

Or that man made climate change is real, but the system implemented by countries such as china is ineffective?

Because if you don't believe that a) there is climate change b) it is caused by carbon emmissions, then there is no point arguing the benefits of one type of system over the other, or who does what.

KPO

Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:40 AM

As far as I understand he believes in man made climate change.

He's argued in the past that it's inevitable, that we can't do anything to stop it, that China's emissions are set to keep on rising indefinitely and there's no way we can get them to sign up to a climate deal, and if we did they would break it...

And so on.

It's not personal. It's just war.

JAYNEZTOWN

Saturday, May 4, 2019 1:13 PM

Biodiversity crisis is about to put humanity at risk, UN scientists to warn | "This is the most comprehensive report on the state of the environment. It irrefutably confirms that nature is in steep decline.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/03/climate-crisis-is-
about-to-put-humanity-at-risk-un-scientists-warn

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, May 4, 2019 8:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Telling a thread that you don't give a shit is the exact opposite of what you're doing when you post that in a thread. If it really is of no concern to you, just don't post. Period. But instead, you overtly ignore the ISSUE being discussed in the thread, and then intentionally insult the poster by CLAIMING ( falsely )
indifference. There mere fact you posted in the thread shows otherwise.
Quote:

Then I mention Limbaugh is a blue pill addict - which he is.
Not germane to the topic, at all. Or ANY topic in which you constantly post that as part of your sig. You're just trying to interject disparaging remarks about a radio personality, in a petty attempt to besmirch his character.
Quote:
On top of that I QUOTE THEM BOTH.
You MISQuote, first of all, and then frame quotes in the most absurd and false characterization for the purpose of painting a false image , simply because you lack the intellectual substance to even TRY to have an adult, rational dialogue.
Quote:
Of all the insults, BEING QUOTED has got to be the worst. Oh the horror of being quoted ...

Lying about what others say , for the sole purpose of trying to insult them, shows extremely low character. Since you value none of that which is honest, decent or sincere, pointing these things out to you was a complete waste of time. But it is what it is.

So, does anyone have anything to say about the UN's *climate chief* coming straight out and saying that Communism, instead of free market capitalism, is the way to fight the fictitious issue of AGW, and that China, which is the world's biggest polluter, is the model which should be followed ?

Anyone ? Anyone ?

( really, a climate chief ? Is that what we're paying for ? )

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

Ahhhhhh. Memories of yet another classic Smackdown. RapKnight in his posting Prime.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2