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

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#251

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

ceilingcorner wrote: post #218

The Paris Accord has no teeth and places the West at an economic disadvantage to China, who keeps riding its “developing nation” label to get out of any restrictions. The US is already reducing emissions and has been doing so for years. If you want to fight climate change, pressure China.

The US is a net importer of CO2 emissions if you account for trade. Goods that cause CO2 emissions in China and Europe are imported, amounting to about 7% of the US domestic total emissions in 2017 (edit: while China is a net exporter, about 14% of its emissions are for goods that leave the country). So reducing emissions only matters if they're not moved to somewhere else. [0]

Also, China emitted about half as much CO2 per capita as the US in 2018, still ofc more in total, with about 4 times as large a population than the US.[1]

Edit 2: If you calculate in the trade, the US ends up with almost 3 times the emissions per capita of China.

[0] https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-import...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#252

Post by fbelzile » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:37 PM UTC

randomchars wrote: post #243

fbelzile wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The Paris Agreement is useful in creating goals for emission targets so countries can work towards them. Sure, the goal posts can and will change, but they'll always be pointed downfield.

If the US creates an alternative to the Paris Agreement that has more teeth, there might be an opportunity cost. Until then, this is the best thing we have.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#253

Post by makomk » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:37 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #225

alehul wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A third option would be to increase demand response at the industrial and customer level. Meaning, power isn't generally expected to be 100% available in that scenario. If there isn't enough generation capacity, those that aren't willing to pay the high prices are shut off (or something along those lines). That is generally how supply/demand is supposed to work anyway I don’t think any of these solutions are viable…

This already occurred back when renewables were nothing more than the fantasies of tree-hugging hippies like my mum. Before I left the UK, the flat I lived in had two electricity rates, with the night rate being significantly cheaper then the day rate [0]. This meant the water heater and the (electric) storage heaters [1] were powered at night, when schools and offices used no power. [0] I’m not certain, but I think…

That has the advantage that the drop in power demand during the night is extremely predictable, so everyone knew that they could reliably get cheap power for heating just by shifting their demand by half a day. (Also, the UK had and still has a fairly large nuclear power fleet which generally runs full-out 24/7, and this kind of demand shifting is a good match for that.) The trouble with renewables is that a lot of the drops in supply are both unpredictable and relatively long, which makes them hardre to deal with.

Also, storage heaters are a real pain to deal with. They're inefficient and not very controllable in terms of the amount of heat they produce.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#254

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:37 PM UTC

everdrive wrote: post #211

mola wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>You cannot hinder developing countries from the comfort of living in a develop country. Yes you can. The world's problems are not really personified entities, where hypocrisy is a valid concern. China is a problem.

No, you can't. First of all, it's not China that's going to be the problem, but the rest of Asia and Africa. Secondly, if we deny them the comfort, they'll do it anyway, and we'll have to either let them or go to war.

Wouldn't it be better to instead let the developing world leapfrog fossil fuel energy generation, and go straight to renewables (and possibly nuclear)? By e.g. donating technology, IP and expertise, and otherwise incentivize them to skip the dirty tech, at no loss in QoL improvements of their citizens?

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#255

Post by perfunctory » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:37 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #95

corty wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The silver bullet is natural self-regulation. Mankind will shrink automatically after hitting a real ceiling.

The problem is that when it comes to emissions and the resulting climate change, it won't be a smooth self-correction but rather sharp and catastrophic. I believe we've already reached the point of no return and the greenhouse effect is out of control (north pole ice not recovering, permafrost melting, etc). We'll see drastic climate change happening everywhere. It'll probably have little effect on "us" in the west;…

> It'll probably have little effect on "us" in the west

I believe this is a very dangerous misconception. In our globalized interconnected world nobody will be spared. "We" might suffer a little less then other parts of the world, but effect on "us" will still be huge.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#256

Post by marcosdumay » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:37 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #200

7thaccount wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has majorly been transitioning to both natural gas AND renewables. In fact, practically the only facilities being built for the last decade have been wind and solar and in massive quantities. If you look in the generation queues of the various RTO/ISOs (organizations that manage which units run and at what level for large parts of the grid) the only thing expected to be built is even more wind and solar along…

The most economical option is it have a massive oversupply of wind and solar as their significantly less expensive than any alternative. You can model this as (cost per kWh of cheapest alternative) / (cost of rentable per kWh) = marginal oversupply you want. So, if hypothetically Solar was 2c/kWh and peaking natural gas was 6c/kWh then you would want to add more solar until 3kWh of new Solar only offset 1kWh of natur…

The oversupply is coming, it seems almost inevitable by now. But a massive oversupply requires a large fall on the prices of electricity conversion and generators maintenance.

Even then, I do really expect a category of "peak demanders" to appear soon (storage is one kind, but there are other things one can do with intermittent almost free electricity). That will help increasing the spare capacity.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#257

Post by manquer » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:38 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #161

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…

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

Irrespective of who wins, the close nature of the election has shown that significant part of the U.S. lives in a different reality which thinks exactly like that.

It is unlikely there is political capital to make significant changes to reverse the damage.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#258

Post by bserge » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

everdrive wrote: post #211

mola wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>You cannot hinder developing countries from the comfort of living in a develop country. Yes you can. The world's problems are not really personified entities, where hypocrisy is a valid concern. China is a problem.

China has a lower level of pollution per capita than many other countries, including the US.

Think about it, they have more people than the US, Canada, the EU, UK, Russia and Australia combined. That's some major need for energy, which everyone else just blames on "China".

I think they're doing pretty well in comparison.

While I'm at it, I need to mention their one child policy basically stopped hundreds of millions people from ever existing. A whole lot of pollution that never happened. Something no other country has done, and I think China should have some recognition for that.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#259

Post by makomk » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #118

toomuchtodo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need less people, fundamentally. The total fertility rate is declining across the world luckily (except a handful of countries and Africa) [1], but everyone around now is going to have a rough ride until equilibrium is reached (sometime after 2100). Can’t grow your way out of resource exhaustion (renewables excepted). [1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#country-by-country...

It's declining in Africa also. https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/demographics-of-a...

I suspect that Covid is going to run a coach and horses right through that improvement. The best ways of getting population growth down in places like Africa are education and a strong, stable economy - and it's just trashed both.

Re: U.S. Exits Paris Climate Accord

#260

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

pcr0 wrote: post #247

UncleMeat wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But slowing growth isn't enough. It needs to drop dramatically and permanently.