U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#161

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

neya wrote: post #124

roenxi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are some interesting graphs from arguably the most transformative economic miracle in human history [0]. The risk isn't the US doing nothing, it is India, Africa, etc, etc deciding that they seriously want a comfortable standard of living. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china?country=~CHN

> The risk isn't the US doing nothing, it is India, Africa, etc, etc deciding that they seriously want a comfortable standard of living. I can't believe that a country wanting to have a "comfortable standard of living" is seen as a "risk". Almost suggesting as if those countries don't deserve them and a comfortable standard of living should be reserved only for a select few countries. I just can't fucking believe wha…

Especially while the US sits with our thumb in our ass demanding that we do nothing at all. "Comfort for me, not for thee".

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#162

Post by abyssin » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #145

originalvichy wrote: post #3

As a European this is the main fear I have during this election. 4 more years of inaction from the government of one of the biggest polluters in the world will really bite us in the ass. Not that I’m super proud of how we are doing in my country, but it can’t get worse.

>4 more years of inaction from the government of one of the biggest polluters in the world will really bite us in the ass. But that's not the case. America is reducing its emissions greatly by shifting from coal to natural gas (which mirrors what Germany is doing, for example). Coal is ostensibly dead in US. If you look at the charts from Wikipedia [1][2], you'll see the US has cut emissions at about the same rate (o…

Next step is to reduce energy consumption. It's so obvious I wonder why it isn't talked about more. I'm not saying it's easy. We either choose to reduce energy consumption, or the consequences of climate change will force us to do it. The difference is in the first case, we have more control over it, and it might cause less human suffering.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#163

Post by gameswithgo » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #145

originalvichy wrote: post #3

As a European this is the main fear I have during this election. 4 more years of inaction from the government of one of the biggest polluters in the world will really bite us in the ass. Not that I’m super proud of how we are doing in my country, but it can’t get worse.

>4 more years of inaction from the government of one of the biggest polluters in the world will really bite us in the ass. But that's not the case. America is reducing its emissions greatly by shifting from coal to natural gas (which mirrors what Germany is doing, for example). Coal is ostensibly dead in US. If you look at the charts from Wikipedia [1][2], you'll see the US has cut emissions at about the same rate (o…

it certainly does bot require a fossil fuel base load, and thank goodness because that won’t be affordable forever

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#164

Post by pferde » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:46 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #104

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US entrepreneurism kickstarted the electric vehicle transition (thx Elon1). Batteries prices are falling. PV is already incredibly cheap and getting cheaper. Coal is becoming increasingly uncompetitive. Nuclear is making a comeback, also thanks to US entrepreneurs. Science, Capitalism and entrepreneurship will be the unstoppable force that will solve our energy crisis, if western governments let them. Africa, India a…

Capitalism and enterpreneurship is how we got here in the first place. Elon and renewables are only becoming a thing because of economic incentives from governments - positive incentives in the form of subsidies on e.g. new EVs, solar panels, etc, and negative incentives in the form of carbon taxes. Take those away and the "green" companies would have NO incentive to push their work. They'd be working with people wan…

Isn't that exactly what government incentives are for? Subsidize the thing you want to see succeed, until it no longer needs subsidizing.

Of course, that is the ideal success scenario, in the failure scenario, you subsidize the thing until it fails, or until you can no longer afford to subsidize it.

EDIT: grammar

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#165

Post by pg_bot » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:46 PM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #137

sampo wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA per capita CO2 emissions are large, but at least they have been coming down moderately fast. From 2007 to 2017, USA reduced emissions by 20%, whereas if we take Germany as an example of a country with strong "green" element in politics, Germany reduced by 8%. Apply linear extrapolation, and USA would go below Germany in 20 years. Extrapolating with exponential decay, in 40 years. https://ourworldindata.org/co2/co…

>USA per capita CO2 emissions are large, but at least they have been coming down moderately fast. From 2007 to 2017, USA reduced emissions by 20%, whereas if we take Germany as an example of a country with strong "green" element in politics, Germany reduced by 8%. Which is primarily due to Obama era regulations that Trump has done everything he can to roll back. Had the price of gas not skyrocketed and the mortgage c…

Emissions have gone down because of the fracking boom. Coal power plants are being replaced with natural gas which releases half as much carbon dioxide.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-....

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#166

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:46 PM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #135

neya wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The risk isn't the US doing nothing, it is India, Africa, etc, etc deciding that they seriously want a comfortable standard of living. I can't believe that a country wanting to have a "comfortable standard of living" is seen as a "risk". Almost suggesting as if those countries don't deserve them and a comfortable standard of living should be reserved only for a select few countries. I just can't fucking believe wha…

Don’t apply emotions to science. Ending COVID19 is a risk to global emissions, because the pandemic‘s lockdowns has reduced emissions. Risk doesn’t mean emotional judgment or anything about who deserves what.

> Ending COVID19 is a risk to global emissions, because the pandemic‘s lockdowns has reduced emissions.

Long term it isn't. Reducing emissions is going to cost a lot of money. There is less money available for that after economies shrink and governments print money to support their people. Covid helps emissions temporarily but harms the overall path.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#167

Post by justin66 » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:46 PM UTC

Sharlin wrote: post #8

arethuza wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you would be entering into a "trade war" with the United States - which most countries aren't going to be able to do.

China and the EU can, and should. "Polluter pays" should become the standard policy in international trade in numerous other ways, too.

Imposing tariffs based on pollution is already GATT-legal. AFAIK it's something countries avoid for all the other reasons why countries avoid tariffs.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#168

Post by einpoklum » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:46 PM UTC

coffeefirst wrote: post #68

eznzt wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main fear I have during this election is that Biden wins, he picks up where Obama left waging wars, and once again they flood Europe with "refugees".

You realize Obama didn’t start any wars and spent 8 years trying to close Pandora’s box?

> Obama didn’t start any wars

Obama:

* Started a military campaign in Syria.

* Supported diplomatically and militarily, and armed, Saudi Arabia in its genocidal war on Yemen.

* Supported diplomatically and militarily, and armed, Saudi Arabia in its occupation of Bahrain.

* Supported diplomatically and militarily, and armed, Israel in three military campaigns in Gaza.

* Started military intervention in Somalia.

* Started involvement in hostilities in Uganda.

Now, you could argue that only two or three of these count as "starting a war", but still.

> spent 8 years trying to close Pandora’s box?

More like 8 years keeping them open, or prying them open (e.g. vis-a-vis China).

But there's one notable exception: Iran. Even though he bears responsibility for illegal and unjustified sanctions, the JCPOA agreement was a tolerable compromise all around.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#169

Post by dalbasal » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:47 PM UTC

mola wrote: post #78

koheripbal wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest issue with the Paris Accords is that China did not commit to begin any restrictions until 2030. ...and since they are both the world's largest CO2 emitter and world's fastest growing CO2 emitter, the Accords became a corporate strategy to just move more manufacturing to China (and other non-limited countries). Frankly, I think the Paris Accords does more harm than good by giving anyone the notion that we…

You cannot hinder developing countries from the comfort of living in a develop country. The fact that China agreed to a year is amazing. If the US would have kept part of that deal then maybe we would've seen improvements. But now that the US basically proven to be untrustworthy, even towards allies, these kind of deals are just undoable anymore. This will end in tears

Ultimately, both arguments are true.

Developing nations have a claim. It's deeply unfair that wealthy nations who have emitted a lot of carbon get permission to keep emitting more as a result. But also.. if developing nations fully stake this claim by increasing their emissions or even flatlining then the game is lost.

This is the problem with thinking in absolutes. The alternative is making some concessions and moving forward regardless because of belief in the mission. Europe is already in the same per capita ballpark as china. If the US/Australia/etc had gotten themselves near this per capita level, the politics of developed/developing economies would have softened somewhat. The fairness issues aren't as sharp once emissions are similar.

Realistically, we are not politically structured (as a world) to deal with carbon reduction well. Nationalism is the dominant paradigm both structurally/politically and ideologically. It's a weak paradigm for global action.

I emphasize the politics over the economics, though obviously both intertwine. Long term, there are economic upsides as well as downsides to carbon reduction. As a blind (long) bet, I'd always bet on new energy paradigms being a good thing. The long tail upside is especially interesting. Within a functioning polity, that's something you can work. The world isn't.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#170

Post by perryizgr8 » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:47 PM UTC

astura wrote: post #85

koheripbal wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not looking good.

It looks like that because unlike most states, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania didn't start counting their mail-in votes until after in person votes. Mail in votes will almost certainly heavily skew blue and there's substantial numbers of them this year. Not saying Biden will definitely win, just we can't tell yet. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/whats-behind-trumps-leads-in...

> Mail in votes will almost certainly heavily skew blue.

Is there a good explanation for that assertion? I've seen it being said in many places but never any reason for it. Why would mail in votes skew in a particular direction?