Won't the congress just torpedo this?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/major-milestone-u-s-china-announce-climate-breakthrough-n246636
QuoteThe U.S. and China, which together account for more than a third of all of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, have negotiated a sweeping agreement to cut emissions drastically by 2030, a deal that President Barack Obama called a "major milestone" Wednesday at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Beijing.
The White House said the U.S. would seek by 2025 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below a baseline level from 2005. At the same time, China said it intended to begin reversing the rise of its carbon emissions by 2030 and to increase the share of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission power to 20 percent of all of its energy consumption by that year.
At a joint news conference with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Obama said he hoped the deal — the first time China has ever agreed to "peak" its carbon emissions — would jump-start negotiations with an eye toward reaching a worldwide climate agreement in Paris next year.
"We have a special responsibility to lead the world effort to combat global climate change," Obama said. "We hope to encourage all major economies to be ambitious."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon congratulated Obama and Xi for "an important contribution to the new climate agreement to be reached in Paris next year."
"The joint announcement signals that the transition towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient future is accelerating," Ban said.
To an extent, the two world superpowers are playing catchup. The European Union earlier this year pledged to cut its emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
On the U.S. side, the agreement would double the pace of carbon reduction from 1.2 percent a year through 2020 to 2.3 percent to 2.8 percent a year afterward. The White House said that ambitious target could be met under existing laws and that it would generate as much as $93 billion in "net benefits" from improved public health and reduced pollution.
As for China, Beijing's targets represent "a serious commitment to finally shift the Chinese economy away from coal," said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit public policy institute.
The U.S. and China, which together account for more than a third of all of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, have negotiated a sweeping agreement to cut emissions drastically by 2030, a deal that President Barack Obama called a "major milestone" Wednesday at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Beijing.
The White House said the U.S. would seek by 2025 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below a baseline level from 2005. At the same time, China said it intended to begin reversing the rise of its carbon emissions by 2030 and to increase the share of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission power to 20 percent of all of its energy consumption by that year.
At a joint news conference with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Obama said he hoped the deal — the first time China has ever agreed to "peak" its carbon emissions — would jump-start negotiations with an eye toward reaching a worldwide climate agreement in Paris next year.
"We have a special responsibility to lead the world effort to combat global climate change," Obama said. "We hope to encourage all major economies to be ambitious."
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon congratulated Obama and Xi for "an important contribution to the new climate agreement to be reached in Paris next year."
"The joint announcement signals that the transition towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient future is accelerating," Ban said.
To an extent, the two world superpowers are playing catchup. The European Union earlier this year pledged to cut its emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
On the U.S. side, the agreement would double the pace of carbon reduction from 1.2 percent a year through 2020 to 2.3 percent to 2.8 percent a year afterward. The White House said that ambitious target could be met under existing laws and that it would generate as much as $93 billion in "net benefits" from improved public health and reduced pollution.
As for China, Beijing's targets represent "a serious commitment to finally shift the Chinese economy away from coal," said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit public policy institute.
I think China is doing this not to combat global warming, but to manage public expectations. The air pollution in China has reached horrific and embarrassing levels. It is a public and daily reminder about the disregard of public health and incompetence and corruption of officials. Since they are doing it anyway, may as well sell it to the Americans too to improve the cost/benefit ratio.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 12, 2014, 01:47:52 AM
I think China is doing this not to combat global warming, but to manage public expectations.
Somehow I initially read this as "public executions" :ph34r:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 12, 2014, 12:25:15 AM
Won't the congress just torpedo this?
Either way it's a win for Obama
By making the deal with PRC he eliminates the argument that warming is real but it is pointless to act because the Chinese won't cooperate.
That leaves the denies to take up the charge. Which makes Congress look beholden to the nutbar caucus.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 12, 2014, 12:25:15 AM
Won't the congress just torpedo this?
If they do then I hope Obama comes out with a "Why do I even fucking bother" speech.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 12, 2014, 12:47:00 PM
Either way it's a win for Obama
By making the deal with PRC he eliminates the argument that warming is real but it is pointless to act because the Chinese won't cooperate.
Eh, that argument will still have a lot of traction.
QuoteThe White House said the U.S. would seek by 2025 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below a baseline level from 2005. At the same time, China said it intended to begin reversing the rise of its carbon emissions by 2030 and to increase the share of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission power to 20 percent of all of its energy consumption by that year.
We agree to cut ours, they agree to stop growing theirs 15 years from now.
Quote
With Boehner and McConnell already out blasting Obama's headline-grabbing emissions-deal with China...
- *OBAMA INTENDS TO 'DOUBLE DOWN' ON JOB-CRUSHING POLICIES:BOEHNER
- *OBAMA ANNOUNCEMENT 'CRUSADE' AGAINST AFFORDABLE ENERGY: BOEHNER
- *MCCONNELL SAYS OBAMA EMISSIONS TARGET 'UNREALISTIC'
We thought a look at the 'faux reality' of the agreement would help clarify the farce: In the "historic" U.S.-China climate agreement this week, Beijing simply reiterated previously announced targets.
Authored by Zachary Zeck, originally posted at The Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2014/11/the-faux-us-china-climate-deal/),
<blockquote>The big headline coming out of the second summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Barack Obama is a climate agreement the two sides reached about cutting carbon emissions in the coming decades. News stories have used sweeping language like the "historic climate change agreement (http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/politics/us-china-climate-change-agreement/index.html)" to describe the deal.
This seems to greatly exaggerate the significance of the deal, at least from the perspective of China. In fact, in the agreement Beijing simply reiterates commitments it had previously announced.
According to the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change), the agreement states that "The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030."
As numerous news accounts have pointed out, this means the U.S. will cut its emissions at a significantly faster rate than it had previously announced. According to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/world/asia/china-us-xi-obama-apec.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news), under the new deal the U.S. will "double the pace of reduction it targeted for the period from 2005 to 2020."
This is unimpressive compared to the commitments China made, according to the same article. "China's pledge to reach peak carbon emissions by 2030, if not sooner, is even more remarkable. To reach that goal, Mr. Xi pledged that so-called clean energy sources, like solar power and windmills, would account for 20 percent of China's total energy production by 2030," the NYT article stated.
Actually, China does not appear to have committed itself to anything new in the agreement. Indeed, following an Obama speech on U.S. climate policy back in June, China outlined its own future emissions policy. Specifically, He Jiankun, chairman of China's Advisory Committee on Climate Change, told a conference in Beijing that China would set an absolute cap on its CO2 emissions when it released its next five year plan in 2016. He refused, however, to say what that cap would be.
Further tempering expectations, Reuters paraphrased He as (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/03/china-climatechange-idUSL3N0OK1VH20140603) saying at the time that "China's greenhouse gas emissions would only peak in 2030, at around 11 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent." China's emissions are currently around 7-9.5 billion tonnes. Reuters also reported that He said to achieve this goal, "The share of non-fossil fuels in China's energy mix would reach 20 to 25 percent in 2030."
To be clear, He later tried to walk back his comments in an interview with the South China Morning Post, stating (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1524872/china-considering-cap-greenhouse-gas-pollution), "This is still a proposal made by Chinese experts after extensive research, [but is] not yet a government decision." Still, it would be extremely uncharacteristic for a Chinese official to announce specific targets unless something very close to a decision had already been made.
In that sense, the new deal hardly seems less like a landmark agreement and more like China reiterating what it had already announced, while Obama uses Beijing's commitments as cover to accelerate America's emissions reductions. To be fair, however, the New York Times article quoted above did report that the deal was "worked out quietly between the United States and China over nine months and included a letter from Mr. Obama to Mr. Xi proposing a joint approach." Thus, it is possible (though seemingly unlikely) that negotiations with the U.S. is what spurred Beijing to set these targets in the first place, and the agreement was just reached five months in advance.
Still, at the very least, the agreement announced this week provided little new information about China's climate policy.
* * *
</blockquote> So Obama folded, the Chinese didn't move, and Republicans are not impressed.
Just Kyoto-lite: looks good, means nothing. With the added benefit of sucking Chinese dick.
Don't the plants and plankton consume the co2 during photosynthesis and create oxygen?
It's food for trees.
Quote from: Siege on November 12, 2014, 02:54:54 PM
Don't the plants and plankton consume the co2 during photosynthesis and create oxygen?
Yeah, we just don't have enough of them to offset.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 12, 2014, 01:08:24 PM
We agree to cut ours, they agree to stop growing theirs 15 years from now.
US per capita emissions are 3 times as high so that is actually quite reasonable.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 12, 2014, 03:11:56 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 12, 2014, 02:54:54 PM
Don't the plants and plankton consume the co2 during photosynthesis and create oxygen?
Yeah, we just don't have enough of them to offset.
I'd be happy to sell CO2 offsets to anyone interested :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 12, 2014, 03:42:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 12, 2014, 01:08:24 PM
We agree to cut ours, they agree to stop growing theirs 15 years from now.
US per capita emissions are 3 times as high so that is actually quite reasonable.
Perhaps so, but will that matter to the typical American voter?
And if our per capita emissions are only 3 times as high, their total is already higher. So allowing it to grow further doesn't bode well for trying to stop global warming.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 12, 2014, 03:55:46 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 12, 2014, 03:42:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 12, 2014, 01:08:24 PM
We agree to cut ours, they agree to stop growing theirs 15 years from now.
US per capita emissions are 3 times as high so that is actually quite reasonable.
Perhaps so, but will that matter to the typical American voter?
And if our per capita emissions are only 3 times as high, their total is already higher. So allowing it to grow further doesn't bode well for trying to stop global warming.
But on a certain level you can understand the Chinese position. They do not want to "lock in" their lower level of development by promising to never consume as much power as the developed world.
My understanding is they are emitting significantly more per dollar of GDP.
With the deal for Russian gas apparently going--my understanding is that converting coal plants to gas isn't too hard. They seem to be doing a multi-sided attack on smog.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 12, 2014, 03:11:56 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 12, 2014, 02:54:54 PM
Don't the plants and plankton consume the co2 during photosynthesis and create oxygen?
Yeah, we just don't have enough of them to offset.
Can I see the numbers on this?
Quote from: Siege on November 12, 2014, 04:18:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 12, 2014, 03:11:56 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 12, 2014, 02:54:54 PM
Don't the plants and plankton consume the co2 during photosynthesis and create oxygen?
Yeah, we just don't have enough of them to offset.
Can I see the numbers on this?
321:13
Quote from: Siege on November 12, 2014, 04:18:36 PM
Can I see the numbers on this?
Look at it this way. We are producing way, way, way more CO2 than the environment normally has. We also have destroyed large amounts of vegetation and screwed with the ocean's acidity/biomass in unpredictable ways. It's possible that the plankton will be able to keep up with the new amounts of CO2 being produced, but they haven't so far and there's no sign that they will.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2014, 04:10:12 PM
My understanding is they are emitting significantly more per dollar of GDP.
I would imagine so because coal is such a big part of the energy mix and because in the country-side there is still of dirty burning of charcoal, etc for heat and cooking. Which is why a big part of the Chinese development plan is pushing cleaner energy sources like hydro, nuclear and gas.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 12, 2014, 03:42:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 12, 2014, 01:08:24 PM
We agree to cut ours, they agree to stop growing theirs 15 years from now.
US per capita emissions are 3 times as high so that is actually quite reasonable.
That was always Manmohan Singh's line whenever challenged on emissions by Western journalists - 'I vow our emissions will never exceed the United States' - per capita.'
And it's a fair point.
It's not clear to me why the large population countries should get a pass on producing such large populations.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 04:55:36 PM
It's not clear to me why the large population countries should get a pass on producing such large populations.
What are you suggesting?
I am suggesting that equalizing per capita emissions is not quite as just as some people seem to believe.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 04:58:34 PM
I am suggesting that equalizing per capita emissions is not quite as just as some people seem to believe.
Do you have a more just scheme in mind?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 04:55:36 PM
It's not clear to me why the large population countries should get a pass on producing such large populations.
It's better than the alternatives which India and China have experimented with.
Also the best way to reduce the birth rate is to get rich.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 04:55:36 PM
It's not clear to me why the large population countries should get a pass on producing such large populations.
Saying brown people should have fewer children would be considered racist, so it's not something that can really be addressed in regards to environmental issues.
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 05:02:52 PM
Do you have a more just scheme in mind?
Not right now.
My point is the per capita argument is not a slam dunk.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on November 13, 2014, 05:06:45 PM
Saying brown people should have fewer children would be considered racist, so it's not something that can really be addressed in regards to environmental issues.
Saying anyone who wants lots of children should have fewer is with the zero growth stuff what makes the green movement so detestable. They're anti-human. It's perverse.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 05:08:52 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on November 13, 2014, 05:06:45 PM
Saying brown people should have fewer children would be considered racist, so it's not something that can really be addressed in regards to environmental issues.
Saying anyone who wants lots of children should have fewer is with the zero growth stuff what makes the green movement so detestable. They're anti-human. It's perverse.
Well since children are the future, I think in any notional carbon per capita/family/national scheme, allowances should be given to those with children, say and extra 25-50 tonnes of C02e per child.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 05:08:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 05:02:52 PM
Do you have a more just scheme in mind?
Not right now.
My point is the per capita argument is not a slam dunk.
Yeah it's real tricky choosing a metric that fits your preferred outcome.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 05:08:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 05:02:52 PM
Do you have a more just scheme in mind?
Not right now.
My point is the per capita argument is not a slam dunk.
Okay, fair enough. It's the slam-dunkiest of the ones I've seen so far, but there may be better and/or more practicable approaches.
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2014, 05:15:26 PM
Yeah it's real tricky choosing a metric that fits your preferred outcome.
It's quite easy.
It is.
White people should stop heating their homes and stop living in cold climates. That's irresponsible.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 13, 2014, 05:19:06 PM
It is.
White people should stop heating their homes and stop living in cold climates. That's irresponsible.
What is the preferred outcome that metric serves, and who has that preference?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 13, 2014, 05:19:06 PM
It is.
White people should stop heating their homes and stop living in cold climates. That's irresponsible.
Nothing to do with that as you know - and it can be done environmentally, just look at Scandinavia or Scotland.
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 05:21:37 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 13, 2014, 05:19:06 PM
It is.
White people should stop heating their homes and stop living in cold climates. That's irresponsible.
What is the preferred outcome that metric serves, and who has that preference?
Personally I prefer cumulative lifetime CO2 emissions since becoming an adult.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 05:22:20 PM
Nothing to do with that as you know - and it can be done environmentally, just look at Scandinavia or Scotland.
I'm pretty sure Canada could save a fair amount of money (and CO2) by implementing insulation standards in buildings equivalent to those they have in Scandinavia.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 05:08:52 PMSaying anyone who wants lots of children should have fewer is with the zero growth stuff what makes the green movement so detestable. They're anti-human. It's perverse.
I don't see why it has to be anti-human to prefer a somewhat smaller or at least less rapidly growing human population. It's more of a quality of life vs quantity of life thing. Evidently you prefer quantity. Advocating that people have fewer children should be no more detestable than supporting the reduction of any other form of environmentally destructive activity.
Catholics. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 05:23:52 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 05:22:20 PM
Nothing to do with that as you know - and it can be done environmentally, just look at Scandinavia or Scotland.
I'm pretty sure Canada could save a fair amount of money (and CO2) by implementing insulation standards in buildings equivalent to those they have in Scandinavia.
I wish government would do that. People are worried about the cost increase but when such a small percentage of the cost being made up of construction cost that argument doesnt really seem to hold.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on November 13, 2014, 05:28:39 PM
I don't see why it has to be anti-human to prefer a somewhat smaller or at least less rapidly growing human population. It's more of a quality of life vs quantity of life thing. Evidently you prefer quantity. Advocating that people have fewer children should be no more detestable than supporting the reduction of any other form of environmentally destructive activity.
You're missing the bit about choice. There's nothing wrong with it, wanting to impose it on others is anti-human. Wanting to impose it on others without offering the same route that we took to a low birth-rate - economic growth, female literacy, women's lib - is just inhuman.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 05:32:30 PM
You're missing the bit about choice. There's nothing wrong with it, wanting to impose it on others is anti-human. Wanting to impose it on others without offering the same route that we took to a low birth-rate - economic growth, female literacy, women's lib - is just inhuman.
I'm not missing anything. Who said it should be imposed on others?
Well if there's no force then the best way is what I've said: economic growth, women's education and lib.
But the hard core greens I know - the zero growth type - are not terribly keen on that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 06:17:50 PM
Well if there's no force then the best way is what I've said: economic growth, women's education and lib.
But the hard core greens I know - the zero growth type - are not terribly keen on that.
I don't have a great deal of time for ideologues.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on November 13, 2014, 05:55:36 PM
I'm not missing anything. Who said it should be imposed on others?
I guess the other alternative is to make a bargain that links the West cutting CO2 emissions and India and China focusing on economic growth, womens education, and health services - leading to lower birthrates. But I'm not sure how popular that type of bargain is going to be.
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2014, 06:19:49 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 06:17:50 PM
Well if there's no force then the best way is what I've said: economic growth, women's education and lib.
But the hard core greens I know - the zero growth type - are not terribly keen on that.
I don't have a great deal of time for ideologues.
Oh they're lovely people. But then they start worrying about how old we'll live and all the kids we're having :lol:
More troublesome is that these ideas are in the Green Party who most people seem to think of as cuddly alternatives to the Lib Dems.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 06:31:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2014, 06:19:49 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 06:17:50 PM
Well if there's no force then the best way is what I've said: economic growth, women's education and lib.
But the hard core greens I know - the zero growth type - are not terribly keen on that.
I don't have a great deal of time for ideologues.
Oh they're lovely people. But then they start worrying about how old we'll live and all the kids we're having :lol:
More troublesome is that these ideas are in the Green Party who most people seem to think of as cuddly alternatives to the Lib Dems.
Well, the implacable opposition to nuclear energy, a jinni already out of the bottle, at a time when all pragmatic approaches need to be tried, is just silly and makes me want to run a mile from them.
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 06:29:20 PM
I guess the other alternative is to make a bargain that links the West cutting CO2 emissions and India and China focusing on economic growth, womens education, and health services - leading to lower birthrates. But I'm not sure how popular that type of bargain is going to be.
Surely there must be alternatives other than these two.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 06:59:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 06:29:20 PM
I guess the other alternative is to make a bargain that links the West cutting CO2 emissions and India and China focusing on economic growth, womens education, and health services - leading to lower birthrates. But I'm not sure how popular that type of bargain is going to be.
Surely there must be alternatives other than these two.
Surely. Any suggestions?
We could simply convince people it's not a problem and ignore it.
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 07:23:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 06:59:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 06:29:20 PM
I guess the other alternative is to make a bargain that links the West cutting CO2 emissions and India and China focusing on economic growth, womens education, and health services - leading to lower birthrates. But I'm not sure how popular that type of bargain is going to be.
Surely there must be alternatives other than these two.
Surely. Any suggestions?
What about each of us paying for the CO2 to be captured that we've been responsible for releasing during our adult lives?
My estimate is a average Brit of my age has been responsible for more than 330* tonnes of C02 released into the atmosphere, since the age of 18 years.
Which you could imagine as the equivalent of a small wood of 18 or 19 english oak trees** growing to maturity over the course of 220 years.
That's how much they'd sequestrate over those centuries.
* This is an intentional underestimate as it's based only on primary energy consumption by each country, which ignores the effects of export/import of goods, represents only CO2, CO2e including other green house gases might be 20-25% higher. Oh and because I've yet to get comprehensive historical age breakdowns by age for each country, the figures are actually per capita rather than for each adult at any particular point in time.
** 24 metres high and each comprising the equivalent of 18.2tonnes of CO2
That would be fair. Everyone pays for every bit of carbon they release.
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 05:23:52 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 05:22:20 PM
Nothing to do with that as you know - and it can be done environmentally, just look at Scandinavia or Scotland.
I'm pretty sure Canada could save a fair amount of money (and CO2) by implementing insulation standards in buildings equivalent to those they have in Scandinavia.
Maybe further north, but last time I looked it up(which admittedly may be 10 years ago now) the Canadian standard had something like 4 times the insulation value of the Danish requirements. I had this argument with KC4 back in the day. The Danish requirement was approximately the equivalent of the Canadian standard if you took out the insulation.
Edit: According to this site it's only slightly better now. http://www.paroc.dk/Knowhow/Building-regulations/Danish-Building-regulations-in-accordance-to-BR-10?sc_lang=en (http://www.paroc.dk/Knowhow/Building-regulations/Danish-Building-regulations-in-accordance-to-BR-10?sc_lang=en)
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2014, 07:40:51 PM
We could simply convince people it's not a problem and ignore it.
The greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
Quote from: Maximus on November 13, 2014, 07:53:34 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 05:23:52 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 05:22:20 PM
Nothing to do with that as you know - and it can be done environmentally, just look at Scandinavia or Scotland.
I'm pretty sure Canada could save a fair amount of money (and CO2) by implementing insulation standards in buildings equivalent to those they have in Scandinavia.
Maybe further north, but last time I looked it up(which admittedly may be 10 years ago now) the Canadian standard had something like 4 times the insulation value of the Danish requirements. I had this argument with KC4 back in the day. The Danish requirement was approximately the equivalent of the Canadian standard if you took out the insulation.
Edit: According to this site it's only slightly better now. http://www.paroc.dk/Knowhow/Building-regulations/Danish-Building-regulations-in-accordance-to-BR-10?sc_lang=en (http://www.paroc.dk/Knowhow/Building-regulations/Danish-Building-regulations-in-accordance-to-BR-10?sc_lang=en)
I stand corrected then. I never knew drywall + a layer of paper + some sort of cladding was that effective insulation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 07:48:43 PM
That would be fair. Everyone pays for every bit of carbon they release.
For the average person of my age in these countries that would be:
United Kingdom - 333 tonnes
Germany - 392 t
France - 237 t
China - 114 t
India - 30 t
USA - 709 t
Bangladesh - 8.3 t
I'm on board mongers. Write up the treaty.
Is there any incentive to be above average?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 08:06:02 PM
I'm on board mongers. Write up the treaty.
I'm confused. Weren't you objecting to per capita emissions used at the metric at the beginning of this thread?
Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
I'm confused. Weren't you objecting to per capita emissions used at the metric at the beginning of this thread?
I was objecting to allocating the right to pollute on a per capita basis. In the monger system there is no allocation.
Quote from: Maximus on November 13, 2014, 08:07:41 PM
Is there any incentive to be above average?
People tend to notice you more.
So, no?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 04:55:36 PM
It's not clear to me why the large population countries should get a pass on producing such large populations.
There may be something to this but it would be hard to blame PRC. They have been notoriously aggressive about limiting POP growth.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 04:52:46 PM
That was always Manmohan Singh's line whenever challenged on emissions by Western journalists - 'I vow our emissions will never exceed the United States' - per capita.'
And it's a fair point.
Well here is hoping someday we make that vow wrong.
Quote from: Maximus on November 13, 2014, 08:54:57 PM
So, no?
It depends on whether one wishes to be noticed.