[ennui2]

It has officially begun, with the usual-suspects leading the charge.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gambling-th ... 1447719037

[Tanada]

This is the problem with climate being politicized. I suppose it was inevitable because Universities became politicized 50 years ago in the USA and most climate science comes from University research. The unfortunate fact is, the physics that run the natural world don't care a whit about politics, and the people screaming about the dangers of climate change would do us all a favor if they would be as politically neutral as possible.

[Lore]

It has to be politicized, that is the area from which any action can be taken. Science reports, it's up to us to take the appropriate measures and with something this major, unfortunately, a political solution is the only option.

Bjorn Lomborg has probably been one of the most vocal delayers out there. A trillion dollars should be spent in his view on the world's poor, curing disease and so on rather than slowing climate change. He never points out that the world can do all that at one time.

[Tanada]

It has to be politicized, that is the area from which any action can be taken. Science reports, it's up to us to take the appropriate measures and with something this major, unfortunately, a political solution is the only option.

I disagree. In the 1950's as we entered the Cold War the USSR was seen as an existential threat and the two major parties worked together to keep our country safe from that exisgtential threat. They might have made a lot of mistakes along the way, but they were united against the outside threat.

Climate change is an existential threat to all of us, the smart (Libertarians), the Republicans and the Democrats. We should all be working together, not slinging mud that gums up the business of dealing with the threat.

[Lore]

The world is not going to hold hands and come together and buy a coke while singing in perfect harmony. It will take political will and action on a grand scale. There will always be forces that will opt for what they can get today rather than think about tomorrow and this is what must be overcome.

[Plantagenet]

The world is not going to hold hands and come together and buy a coke while singing in perfect harmony. It will take political will and action on a grand scale.

Don't worry. President Obama will provide the political will on a grand scale that is needed to make the Paris meeting a success.

To goal of the meeting is have many western nations make non-binding promises to cut CO2 emissions, while countries like China and India will be allowed increase their emissions until their citizens are as affluent as westerners.

I'd say that limited goal is attainable.

Nations will make all kinds of wonderfully sounding non-binding pledges. Why look at Russia---they've already pledged to cut their emissions from where they were back in the 90s to where there are today. Of course that means no additional CO2 reductions, but what the heck----thats their voluntary pledge.

[Lore]

And you would do what Plant? Got a better plan within reality to move forward?

[ennui2]

And you would do what Plant? Got a better plan within reality to move forward?

Of course not. His opiate is to just keep blaming Obama for everything down to hangnails and stubbed toes.

[Plantagenet]

... just keep blaming Obama for everything down to hangnails and stubbed toes.

What strange ideas you have ennui.

I didn't blame O for anything. I credited O for being the driving force behind the Paris UN conference and the idea of getting non-binding promises from western nations to keep global T rises below 2°C while allowing non-western nations to continue increasing their CO2 emissions.

Thats what is on the docket for Paris, so lets face reality and call it good.

Cheers!


Lets just call it good.

[ROCKMAN]

"President Obama will provide the political will on a grand scale that is needed to make the Paris meeting a success." But is that "political will" going to be as strong as his will to increase US coal exports as he's done since he won the last election? Or as strong as his allowing the US to export enough condensate to Canada that enables it to produce 60% of the "dirtiest oil on the planet" that the US imports? Or as strong as his successful efforts to expedite the completion of the southern leg of the KXL pipeline? The pipeline leg that allowed the oil sands developers to increase the price for their oil and thus making tens of millions of additional bbls economical to produce. Or as strong as offering over 100 million acres of offshore leases to BP et al? We do know that in March 2014 just days after the EPA lifted a suspension barring BP from getting new federal contracts in the wake of one of the largest oil spills in the world BP placed bids in a GOM offshore lease sale, don't we?

It will be interesting to see if any network has the guts to show a spit screen presentation of the POTUS explaining how we need to combat climate change next to the video of him (with the pipeline segments stacked behind him) as he explains how it is vital to the US economy for his administration to do whatever it can to facilitate the deliver of Canadian oil sands production to Texas refineries.

[AgentR11]

And you would do what Plant? Got a better plan within reality to move forward?

I don't know about plant, but yall always accuse the right of not having a plan; when in reality, it is simply that we won't go along with the left's redistribution priority plan.

Let me give you a right wing plan.

Repeal - income tax, gift tax, and corporate income tax; ss & medicaid taxes; end collection of any income data on citizens.
Enact: Carbon Tax. The tax gets calculated each year to cover the past years federal expenditures. Linear variable on carbon mass added to the atmosphere, no cap, no minimum.

Adjust SNAP/WIC/etc to adjust for the modest increase in taxes that the poor would experience while consuming the tiny amount of energy that they are able to buy on their teeny tiny incomes.

tada, no increase in the size of government; government drastically reduces the level of annual deficit; economy gets a modest negative signal by withdrawal of deficit spending, business and consumers both feel tax pressure to encourage them to seek lower carbon or zero carbon emission processes. Burn less carbon, pay less in taxes.

Set in the law a percentage breakpoint, where once 80% of energy is produced from less than x(very low) g carbon / kwh energy; the tax system swings to a no-exclusion, annual asset tax to make up for any change in needed tax revenue going forward, using the numbers from the 80% point as the benchmark.

Tada. productivity, investment, efficiency, profitability, all strongly, positively incentivised. EzPz burning of carbon to produce free value, strongly, negatively, incentivized.

Best of all, with a bit of modest tweaking on SNAP, you should be able to minimize the change to the current burden sharing chart.

[Plantagenet]

And you would do what Plant? Got a better plan … to move forward?

I assume you mean on climate change?

Sure….I'd go back to the Bali agreement negotiated at the UN conference in Bali in 2007. This is the treaty that was going to be ratified at Copenhagen in 2009 before Obama and the CHinese got into their little tiff and derailed the conference.

The Bali agreement was a binding agreement that required CO2 reductions from all participants.

In comparison the Paris agreement isn't binding, no longer sets CO2 target but instead sets a goal of keeping T increases under 2°C, and locks in special status for China and India and other non-western countries who are allowed to increase their CO2 production instead of reducing it.

cheers!

[Lore]

And you would do what Plant? Got a better plan … to move forward?

I assume you mean on climate change?

Sure….I'd go back to the Bali agreement negotiated at the UN conference in Bali in 2007. This is the treaty that was going to be ratified at Copenhagen in 2009 before Obama and the CHinese got into their little tiff and derailed the conference.

The Bali agreement was a binding agreement that required CO2 reductions from all participants.

In comparison the Paris agreement isn't binding, no longer sets CO2 target but instead sets a goal of keeping T increases under 2°C, and locks in special status for China and India and other non-western countries who are allowed to increase their CO2 production instead of reducing it.

cheers!

And how would you get other countries to agree to a bindiing agreement? Just saying.

[Plantagenet]

….how would you get other countries to agree to a bindiing agreement? Just saying.

The whole point of the 30 year long UN climate change treaty process has been been to get to a binding treaty to reduce carbon emissions.

The Kyoto Accords were a non-binding agreement to allow governments to "practice" meeting targets to reduce CO2 emissions. Because it wasn't binding, governments like Canada and Australia simply withdrew from the accord when they no longer wanted to meet their targets under Kyoto.

Obviously you can't effectively reduce carbon emissions if government can simply withdraw when it starts to get hard.

The premise of Kyoto was that the next agreement would be a binding agreement. Thats why the Bali conference was the culmination of 20 years of work after Kyoto. The delegates at Bali drafted up a binding agreement, and the worlds leaders assembled in Copenhagen in 2009 to sign that binding agreement.

Unfortunately Obama gave all that up when he started quarreling with the CHinese and derailed the Copenhagen meeting.

Gettting back to a binding treaty that will reduce global CO2 emissions will require having a leader who will push for a binding treaty like the one the world was on the verge of signing in 2009----. Obviously Obama isn't that person.

If the world gets lucky then maybe Hillary will push for binding reductions to global CO2 (but I doubt it). Whats more likely is that the Paris Accords will be non-binding like the Kyoto accords, and won't reduce CO2 emissions just like the Kyoto accords didn't reduce CO2 emissions. Maybe another 20-30 years from now there will be another chance for a binding treaty to reduce CO2----and hopefully another Obama type won't screw things up again.

Cheers!


Obama went to Copenhagen in 2009 and all we got was a lousy non-binding climate treaty six years later

[Lore]

And that leader would be? Just who? Since you say, Obama can't do it. And if not Hillary? Certainly not one of the other candidates looking for the job of the Presidency and deffinetly no one on the right. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. How do you force the hand of emerging nations on an issue which would, well, make them less emerging.

I believe you're just talking here with another beat up Obama moment.

Cheers.

[drwater]

Plant said:

To goal of the meeting is have many western nations make non-binding promises to cut CO2 emissions, while countries like China and India will be allowed increase their emissions until their citizens are as affluent as westerners.

This is the crux of the problem and why the UN is totally screwing this up. China, India, etc. should have no right to increase their emissions when we all know the global carbon sequestration capacity is being greatly exceeded. This approach would be a major scandal if it was applied to water pollution discharges to rivers or lakes in the U.S. or Europe.

Applying a universal gradually increasing carbon price and enforcing it with trade fees for those that don't comply is actually pretty damn magnanimous to China and India. It is the only thing that will solve the problem. The UN has proven themselves completely worthless for a real solution.

I also agree with Rock that Obama talks the talk, but does the opposite (nothing new as far as Obama is concerned in my opinion).

There have to be some adults in the room somewhere.

[Plantagenet]

How do you force the hand of emerging nations on an issue which would, well, make them less emerging.

Obviously you don't know much about energy.

There is no reason why electricity can't be generated from windmills, solar cells, and other renewable technologies that don't emit carbon, instead of the coal-and NG-fired power plants that developing countries now are building.

Emerging countries should skip reproducing the antiquated 19th century coal-fired infrastructure and skip directly to a 21st century infrastructure based on carbon-free energy sources.

[Lore]

How do you force the hand of emerging nations on an issue which would, well, make them less emerging.

Obviously you don't know much about energy.

There is no reason why electricity can't be generated from windmills, solar cells, and other renewable technologies that don't emit carbon, instead of the coal-and NG-fired power plants that developing countries now are building.

Emerging countries should skip reproducing the antiquated 19th century coal-fired infrastructure and skip directly to a 21st century infrastructure based on carbon-free energy sources.

They should and we should. Why should they do it if we won't?

[Tanada]

The world is not going to hold hands and come together and buy a coke while singing in perfect harmony. It will take political will and action on a grand scale. There will always be forces that will opt for what they can get today rather than think about tomorrow and this is what must be overcome.

That is my whole point. Climate change is an existential threat that everyone could come together on, however so long as either or both sides insist on making inflammatory and frequently derogatory remarks about the other sides views nobody will ever find the common ground to build upon to achieve whatever mitigation we can at this late date. And by insisting on using inflammatory language the 'leaders' who believe in climate change are destroying their only possible chance to do anything effective about the problem instead of trying to score political points off of their opponents.

There are a million and one things to play politics with, an existential threat to everyone is not one of them!

[AgentR11]

China, India, etc. should have no right to increase their emissions when we all know the global carbon sequestration capacity is being greatly exceeded.

Lol. "no right" and "China" in same sentence. China does care what it has a right to do or not in your eyes.
They're gonna do it anyway.