Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 368 posts

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#331

Post by bluGill »

giantg2 wrote: post #122
bluGill wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free trade raises the standard for everyone. Today China has those issues, but free trade is raising their living standard. As standards of living raise people find pollution is negatively affecting them and so they solve the problem locally. Of course the downside free trade allows production to move to places where there are no controls because non-local pollution both less affects any individual, and because inter…

You are right that it basically just moves the pollution to the next developing country. You are incorrect about your coal comment. You can see China spewing yellow smoke (it's an even dirtier type of coal than the two we have here). The cleaner tech only gets adopted if it's financially cheaper or has some other incentive like the government enforcing standard (which relies on the education/opinion of the people).

You didn't understand my coal comment. No surprise, it is hard to explain. Efficiency gains mean you burn less coal. The old boilers in 1900 were very inefficient. It is not very hard to build a modern boiler that is much more efficient, and thus uses less fuel. The coal might worse, but China is using far less to get the same energy out of it which means less pollution.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#332

Post by giantg2 »

bluGill wrote: post #330
DFHippie wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As standards of living raise people find pollution is negatively affecting them and so they solve the problem locally. This works if the problem is local and bothersome to the locals -- rusting drums leaking poison or heaps of trash. Carbon dioxide and methane are invisible and odorless and instantly become everyone's problem, so we can't expect this mechanism to induce people to solve the problem locally.

You are yourself the counter example that proves you are wrong. People like you do in fact care about non-local pollution. there are steps: first you need to get far enough out of poverty that you can start thinking you can accept the lower standard of living not having poison around you is acceptable. When you don't have enough to eat or in danger of freezing to death (or other weather/nature related disasters) that…

It's all about perspective. Even the poor in developed nations have a much higher standard of living than the poor in developing nations. Most people only compare their situation with the situation of others in the same country/culture. So it's tough for most people to objectively say that they are doing well and would rather spend their limited money for a more expensive version of the same item. You also have human nature, where most people live nearly at their means, or even beyond them, rather than within them.

I guess I'm basically saying there tends to exist a lot of scope creep in each individual's definition of when local and basic concern have been met.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#333

Post by goatinaboat »

freeflight wrote: post #286
goatinaboat wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The optimal strategy to combat Global Warming is to bring manufacturing back to the EU and US and regulate emissions strongly. Agreed. It is possible to simultaneously believe "we need to cut emissions" and "the Paris accord is a bad way to do it". But it seems many people think Paris is the only way to do it.

> But it seems many people think Paris is the only way to do it. The issue is rather that nobody really brings up any valid alternatives when they disagree with Paris. Saying "bring manufacturing back" is not an valid alternative, it's wishful thinking that ignores how this current situation came about, while offering zero actual actionable advise how to reverse that development and fix the problem itself. Manufactur…

Manufacturing went to China because of laxer regulations there making it more cost-effective, how are you gonna convince it to come back to the US and EU with even harsher regulations?

Easy. Tariffs on Chinese imports so its cheaper to manufacture cleanly back home.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#334

Post by mikechen233 »

a_humean wrote: post #160
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…

However, Xi Jinping very publicly announced that net zero by 2060 is now a national aim, which is basically what is needed from china on this issue: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54256826 There is a question of follow through as they are still building new coal power plants, but China is making noises that its going commit to changing. The US is not a leader on this issue any more.

All the new plants Chinese government approve to build now are super critical coal plants. These are the most efficient ones. The gov also regulated older coal plants to retrofit NOx, SOx, pm2.5 treatment equipments. China doesn't have much oil and natural gas but has a lot of coal. So for energy security at the present moment they kinda have to still use coal. They already import lots of oil for transportation and industrial use. But at least they are doing something to reduce coal impact which I think is better than nothing. The air quality issue is known to every Chinese person now, so the government has a lot pressure to improve it. The gov also have good strategies to drive solar adoption. Like if farmers to build solar panels in their farm fields they get tax breaks and they earn money from selling to the grid. And with the price of solar and electricity rate, it's a profitable business. So far it's being working. Solar installation is growing year by year. The gov also pushed to build a few extreme high voltage DC transmission line from the west to the east to transit the renewables generated in that region to the east where energy is demanded. The China National Nuclear Corporation has a mandate to research and build new nuclear technologies. It's now building a number of gen 3 nuclear reactors and they are researching gen 4. A number of electric car companies are taking off in China. Big Chinese cities are already clogged by ICE cars. To buy a car you need to take a lottery for licence plates. In these cities they have separate lottery group for new energy vehicles, which includes hybrid and pure electric vehicles. The gov is now giving equal quota for both groups or more for NEVs. So a lot of people are buying NEVs just because the lottery line is shorter. These people probably won't consider a NEVs before. But companies like Tesla and nio is making great cars too and that is driving demand as well. Some cities are also transition public utility vehicles like buses to electric. Also the high speed rail system and subway system also has major environmental benefits. HSR moved 2.35 billion people in 2019. I think thats amazing. Thats 2.36 billion trips on electric transportation, and not on cars and airplanes. So without the massive investments and foresight to build the HSR, there will be more cars clogging the environment and oil used.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#335

Post by giantg2 »

bluGill wrote: post #331
giantg2 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right that it basically just moves the pollution to the next developing country. You are incorrect about your coal comment. You can see China spewing yellow smoke (it's an even dirtier type of coal than the two we have here). The cleaner tech only gets adopted if it's financially cheaper or has some other incentive like the government enforcing standard (which relies on the education/opinion of the people).

You didn't understand my coal comment. No surprise, it is hard to explain. Efficiency gains mean you burn less coal. The old boilers in 1900 were very inefficient. It is not very hard to build a modern boiler that is much more efficient, and thus uses less fuel. The coal might worse, but China is using far less to get the same energy out of it which means less pollution.

I can see that on a per Kw basis. You would also have to factor in what the electricity production is today vs in 1900 to make an accurate comparison. Total pollution output today may still be higher. For example, you might have quadrupled the efficiency but the demand may have increased ten times or more. So sure, they adopted a newer technology than 120 years ago and is cleaner, but it's also not the latest technology nor is it even close to the cleanest. Many of their plants are currently very dirty. They do have plans to upgrade in the future. Not to mention, it's not the cleanest option out there, even at the higher efficiency. For example, natural gas is cleaner and that tech has been around for a while. Even a lot of nuclear tech is about 60 years old.

"China never had the cities full of coal smoke stacks spewing black smoke into the air like the US and Europe had 120 years ago."

Please do a search for air quality alerts and deaths in china as well as for pictures of the smog. It is every bit as bad or even worse. The tech may ne more efficient but the scale and overall output has similar effects. Yes the smoke is a yellow color and not black, that is mostly due to the soft brown coal they use in some parts of the country rather than the anthracite or even bituminous coal we used.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#336

Post by einpoklum »

freeone3000 wrote: post #238
einpoklum wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "half the country". In a recent Fox news (yes, those Fox news...) poll, they found that 72% of people were either "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about climate change. What is true that none of the presidential candidates is taking the crisis seriously: Trump denies it, Biden pays a bit of lip service to it but has done very little about it with Obama, and will probably not do much about it if elect…

Noting down your concern on a poll isn't the same as taking action - even the least action, voting for someone who is not a climate change denier, was beyond half the country. And if this sort of political action is what 73% produces? Then that figure isn't worth the poll paper it's printed on.

By that argument, both halves should have voted for the Green Party candidate, Hawkins. I guess the half-the-country you like isn't taking climate change that seriously, either, right?

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#337

Post by freeone3000 »

einpoklum wrote: post #336
freeone3000 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noting down your concern on a poll isn't the same as taking action - even the least action, voting for someone who is not a climate change denier, was beyond half the country. And if this sort of political action is what 73% produces? Then that figure isn't worth the poll paper it's printed on.

By that argument, both halves should have voted for the Green Party candidate, Hawkins. I guess the half-the-country you like isn't taking climate change that seriously, either, right?

Exactly. The poll does not dictate any action - you might as well ask people if they like puppies. Sure, most people like having an environment, but they also like sitting in an air-conditioned SUV on their trip to Wal-Mart to buy a gallon of milk. Polls like this are how you get people who are absolutely in favor of better public education, but every bond measure for the last 8 years has failed. They're useless as a policy dictating measure.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#338

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

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…

Your two liknks show per capita and total fossil fuel emissions between 2000 and 2018.

The graph in [2] is subtitled:

Since 2000, rising CO 2 emissions in China and the rest of world have eclipsed the output of the United States and Europe

The graph in [1] is subtitled:

Per person, the United States generates carbon dioxide at a far faster rate than other primary regions.

Of course a country of 1 billion people, like India or China, is going to produce more emissiosn than a country of 330 million, in total, even if each of the smaller country's citizens produces about twice as many as the citizens of every other country in the world.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#339

Post by lcall »

While it is important to be good stewards and not pollute etc, I don't think we are competent to solve climate issues as a whole, when we can't trust each other to keep our word, and especially when we have rejected the specific advice of the planet's Creator. I have put reasons I think this, and why I know some of these things, in some depth, at my simple site: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html -- for what it's worth.

(thoughtful comments appreciated with any votes)

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#340

Post by oblio »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #231
oblio wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this would have sounded absurd a few years ago, but the authoritarian Chinese regime is currently more rational than the democratic US regime. They actually know, understand, and to some degree care, that they're basically 1/5th of the world's population and if they don't get pollution under control the entire world will burn.

The CCP has absolutely zero problem suppressing its own citizens if they threaten the government’s power, I seriously doubt they care any more about the rest of the world.

I think you misunderstood my comment.

They care in the sense that: the whole world burns - China is part of the world - China will burn - their citizens will riot making 1989 look like child's play - the CCP will go up in flames, too. Cynical logic, but logic nonetheless.

They don't care in the "care bear" sense.

Post reply on HN