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

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#241

Post by dvfjsdhgfv » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:25 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…

It's expressed in the wrong way, but the truth is the so-called developed countries should focus on the ways to help the developing countries in transitioning to renewable energy as quickly as possible. This is as important and urgent as finding a cure for COVID-19.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#242

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:26 PM UTC

thehappypm wrote: post #226

sampo wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CO2 per KWh is lower for natural gas than it is for coal. Unfortunately there are methane leaks in the systems, and it is quite possible that when accounting for the methane releases, natural gas has equally bad climate effect (emissions of CO2 and CH4 combined) as coal.

It's a step, though. Methane is inherently unstable and won't stick around in the atmosphere forever once we stop emitting it. CO2 gets absorbed into the ocean very slowly and with acidification as a consequence.

It's important to say explicitly what "not forever" is here. Half life of methane in the atmosphere is 9 years[0]. Then it decomposes into CO₂ and water; the latter is suspected to be a potent greenhouse gas at that altitude[1].

--

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#cite_ref-C...

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Atmospheri...

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#243

Post by randomchars » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:26 PM UTC

fbelzile wrote: post #77

xondono wrote: post #67

Good. The Paris accord is not worth the paper it’s written on. It’s non-biding, it has no enforcement, and the goals where self imposed and for some countries ridiculous. Even if it’s not for the right reasons, the US leaving might force world leaders to actually do something.

And how is it not worth it? You said it yourself. It was non-biding, no enforcement, goals where self imposed and the US government still didn't want to take part. What kind of message is that sending?

That you don't want to take part in a bullshit agreement that has no effect on anything. Why would it be better to pretend?

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#244

Post by ycombonator » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:26 PM UTC

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.

Has China signed on to this if so, have they shown verifiable reductions?

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#245

Post by hannob » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:26 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #159

FerretFred wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>coal to natural gas Fossil fuel to .. fossil fuel. Sigh.

What do you think Germany is doing? They are going from fossil-fuel-free (nuclear) -> fossil-fuel (Russian natural gas).

This is a gross misrepresentation of the situation.

Look at the numbers: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...

Yeah, there is a slight increase in natural gas over the years (with large fluctuations), while coal is in slight decline. By far the largest share of the nuclear phaseout has been replacing it with renewables.

One can discuss the pros and cons of german energy politics (of which there are both plenty), but that should start by knowing the facts.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#246

Post by victor106 » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

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.

Japan is racing to build coal plants while US is reducing

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/clim...

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#247

Post by pcr0 » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #166

dannyw wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I assume consumption and population growth have declined due to COVID19, which also greatly reduce emissions. Even after it ends, it will take years before we return to pre-pandemic levels.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#248

Post by bart_spoon » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:29 PM UTC

bamboozled wrote: post #101

TehCorwiz wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this were the 50's again we'd have an 84% marginal rate on income over $400,000. Which we would use to fund our infrastructure and energy projects.

He he he, it’s the 1950s without the good bits then.

Its the 80s/90s that the US is stuck in. The Reagan/Thatcher deregulation revolution was the inflection point.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#249

Post by Ygg2 » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:31 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #179

Ygg2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You specifically mentioned electric cars in the US, of which Tesla is the largest producer I said "So if US goes all electric car, China would follow suit, etc." I didn't say if a single company in US goes electric car, China would follow suit. I quantified it as "all/most" not "exists". > What examples do you have of green tech exported from China that has found widespread adoption in China? Not green tech specifi…

"What China makes for US they also use a version of that internally." You are implying that China would be producing the cars, or at least the primary components. But you have provided no support for this. Current production and sourcing partnerships show no evidence to support your implication. Even ICE vehicles in the US overwhelmingly have the engine and transmission built in countries other than China, with a lar…

> You are implying that China would be producing the cars, or at least the primary components.

They already are.

Just because US doesn't buy all components from China doesn't mean that China won't develop those components for other markets or its internal use.

But electric cars are at the moment a minority in China, if US went all-in on electric cars (an assuming no tariff war with China), that would kickstart mass conversion of car manufacturing process to electric.

>Even ICE vehicles in the US overwhelmingly have the engine and transmission built in countries other than China,

ICE != EV

Yeah, because perfecting ICE takes decades of investment. Compared to them EV are easy and China already knows how to make them. Hell, they have entire logistic lines worked out for electrical motors.

https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2020/01/02/ch...

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#250

Post by nraynaud » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:35 PM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #18

Sharlin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wouldn't "user pays" be more logical. I think it is quite dishonest to blame China when consumption happens in Europe or USA... All of the pollution should be transported in calculations where consumption happens.

it's the same thing, the tax increases the price for the buyer.