Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
It is not good for the Christian health,
To hustle the Asian brown;
For the Christian riles, and the Asian smiles,
And he weareth the Christian down.
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased;
And the epitaph drear: "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
To hustle the Asian brown;
For the Christian riles, and the Asian smiles,
And he weareth the Christian down.
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased;
And the epitaph drear: "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
what's not realized by too many is that both the U.S. and China have been doing things, taking measures. The U.S. is actually on track to meet it's prior 17% reduction commitment (from 2005 levels)... the same lock-step commitment that Harper defaulted to with his "harmonization with the U.S." pledge... one he/Harper Conservatives have completely reneged upon.
in recent weeks announcements, Germany is back on board meeting it's most aggressive 2020 renewables percentage target... as of 2012, renewable energy generated 22% of Germany’s electric power supply... meeting its own 35% renewable power target by 2020 will be a measure of the new plan and resolve of the existing German government.
except now they have no choice given just how bad the air is in its major cities.
Almost entirely because of NG gained through fracking replacing coal.
Of course, "progressives" hate fracking too.
your own linked reference: "Total new capacity, including small mines, likely to be higher"..... which, of course, speaks to my earlier reference to China decommissioning older less efficient plants for newer higher efficiency plants.
If so, please explain why the USA had to hobble its economy when China was going to cut emissions anyway??
which is not what you said:if you choose to use the label alarmist, that is certainly your perogative. Of course, asking someone who uses that label to define it... rarely gets answered - and you? I've already, multiple times, stated the label "denier" is not intended as a pejorative; rather, it's simply a statement of fact in terms of degrees of denial of GW/AGW/CC. And your use of alarmist is... intended how?
And GE and Siemens are raking in public cash at staggering rates creating a global NG network.
Good thing no wars have broken out over gas deposits or rights of way for pipelines or one might think the colour of blood is green.
Yeah I know... I'll stick with alarmist. Geez. Give your head a shake.
Please tell me you're not aware of the origins of what an alarmist is in this context.
hobble? It most certainly would prove worthwhile to see planned practical extension of the agreement before determining it's (presumed) impact.
actually, I'm not. I've asked many times... I've always either been ignored or insulted. The uncertainty I have with how it's used is in what degree of acceptance of AGW classifies someone as "an alarmist". I ask this in the context of the most scientifically knowledgeable and recognized skeptics who wholly accept warming (how could you not), who wholly accept that warming is principally being caused by man... the only point open to debate for these skeptics is a determination of just how warm it will get and what impact will occur relative to that reached warming. Now, to me, someone who reaches for the highest limits of possible warming... that is an alarmist... as is someone who reaches for the lowest limits... knowledgeable scientists are not reaching for those alarmist highest limits of possible warming (and resultant impact).
worthwhile for anyone trying to interpret just how the U.S. might presume to meet it's commitments. There are many ways to do so... seeing a practical layout of how that might be realized would provide the needed framework to meet that commitment and provide a reference for those pre-determined to suggest it will "hobble" their economy.
So your curiosity has only prompted you to ask others what an alarmist is and never prompted you to research it?
The "U.S" commitments? Can you point me to the ratified treaty? Thanks.
I thought my post might be suggestive of how I interpret some people use the word. My impression is too many people use the label alarmist without actually thinking... or knowing... what it means, even to them. Asking someone to qualify how they use the alarmst label appears to be a most confrontational ask. I did ask you once...
The "U.S" commitments? Can you point me to the ratified treaty? Thanks.
why the word games? Yes, there are 2 stages: as a signatory of the agreement, the U.S. has made commitments... at that level. Having the U.S. Congress ratify the agreement is another thing... I don't believe Obama can push that through with an executive order... do you know?