-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
27 May 2014, 12:34 pm
bbauska wrote:What is the plan to enforce restrictions on non-compliant nations (read: China and India et. al.)
China and India are not 'non-compliant'. There are no binding targets on them as 'developing countries'. Yes, the rules could be stricter, but of course they were watered down in negotiations. And then the USA, having helped to get them watered down, decided not to ratify the treaty, thus weakening the process.
but one could as a similar question in regard to nuclear proliferation. Israel, India, Pakistan never signed the NNPT and so the fact that they ignored it means they can't be 'enforced on' under it. North Korea 'left' the treaty. Iran is breaching it. What is the plan to enforce restrictions on them?
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
27 May 2014, 1:12 pm
Ray Jay wrote:it's amazing that 400 molecules out of 1 million can have that much difference. I'm not disagreeing -- I'm just marveling at the physics ...
1 nanogram of botulinal neurotoxin per kilogram of body mass is fatal. That's 0.000000001% (400ppm is 0.04%). The volume of CFCs emitted is tiny in comparison to the level of CO2, but it wreaked havoc on the Ozone layer and is also a greenhouse gas.
Of course, the other way of putting it is that the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 3x10^15kg (3,000 gigatonnes). Then it sounds a lot bigger.
I'm sure it is, but I ain't paying to read it. Especially as 'op ed' means 'opinion' rather than 'fact'. Maybe there's facts in it.
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
27 May 2014, 2:47 pm
China and India are not 'non-compliant'. There are no binding targets on them as 'developing countries'.
I suspect Brad is fully aware of this. It's quite obvious that he's pointing out the enormous flaw in an emissions control strategy which completely excludes the fastest growing economies in the world.
We can no doubt argue about the rights and wrongs of China getting a free pass on carbon emissions while the West has to put up with higher prices and the resulting loss in competitiveness, but ultimately it makes no kind of sense. It may well be the case that historically the Western nations have contributed a lot more to the problem, but we live in the here and now and it's not going to be possible to convince modern day voters in the West that they should have to bear all of the burden at a time when jobs are heading East at a phenomenal rate.
-
- bbauska
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 7463
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
27 May 2014, 3:36 pm
Sassenach wrote:China and India are not 'non-compliant'. There are no binding targets on them as 'developing countries'.
I suspect Brad is fully aware of this. It's quite obvious that he's pointing out the enormous flaw in an emissions control strategy which completely excludes the fastest growing economies in the world.
We can no doubt argue about the rights and wrongs of China getting a free pass on carbon emissions while the West has to put up with higher prices and the resulting loss in competitiveness, but ultimately it makes no kind of sense. It may well be the case that historically the Western nations have contributed a lot more to the problem, but we live in the here and now and it's not going to be possible to convince modern day voters in the West that they should have to bear all of the burden at a time when jobs are heading East at a phenomenal rate.
I am aware (hence the et. al.) It does not diminish the fact that some countries are allowed to spew much greater amounts of emissions than the US without repercussions. It makes me skeptical in the motive. Are "Climate Changers" trying to save the world, or only just destroy the US?
If it was important to save the world wouldn't "Climate Changers" place economic regulations on all spewers of emissions equally?
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
28 May 2014, 12:52 am
bbauska - national paranoia strikes again?
Only one country has higher total CO2 emissions than the USA, and that is China. India is less than half of the US. In per capita terms, the US is well ahead of those countries and is no2 behind Australia (and about par with Canada and Saudi Arabia.
And it is not just the US. Canada (until it withdrew), almost all of Europe (including Russia), Australia, New Zealand and Japan also had binding targets under Kyoto.
Kyoto was not imposed by environmentalists. It was agreed by politicians. It was not supposed to be the end state, but a starting point. I would certainly favour binding targets on China, India and other fast developing countries. But in the meantime it would be at the very least an act of good faith for the developed world to stick to the ones that it agreed to.
-
- freeman3
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
28 May 2014, 6:41 am
Dan, I was looking at your post on the carbon imprint of nuclear power. But it appears that the carbon footprint, while it exists, is de minimis as compared to electricity created by fossil fuels. See
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11Safety, of course, is the critical problem here and whether nuclear power can deal with the black Swan effect (that is planning for events that are rare and unpredictable). We have had three nuclear catastrophes in the past 35 years (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukashima). Can the builders of nuclear power plants come up with safety standards that deal with rare events? I am skeptical that they can plan for all contingencies. They will plan for the likely ones. That's not good enough, given the devastating consequences of a nuclear meltdown. And that is not even considering the potential takeover of a plant by terrorists.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
28 May 2014, 8:19 am
Ray
it's amazing that 400 molecules out of 1 million can have that much difference. I'm not disagreeing -- I'm just marveling at the physics
Put simply, carbon dioxide likes a certain kind of radiation and is very good at capturing it.
Chart showing the electromagnetic spectrumThe sun emits electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths. About 50 percent of the sun’s radiation is visible light; the spectrum of visible light goes from .4 microns to .7 microns (abbreviated as µm, a micron being a micro-meter or one-millionth of a meter). Radiation, including visible light, travels in waves; wavelength is the distance from the crest of one wave to the crest of the next. The visible light spectrum, which you can observe in a rainbow or a prism, goes from violet at .4 µm through blue, green, yellow, orange, to red at .7 µm.; .4 µm is a shorter wavelength, .7 µm is a longer wavelength. (Chart credit: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.5)
About 10 percent of the sun’s radiation, that radiation below the visible spectrum, is shorter-wavelength, or ultraviolet principally. The rest, about 40 percent, is above the visible spectrum, mostly longer-wavelength infrared radiation.
So the sun is constantly blasting the earth with all of this radiation across the spectrum, especially visible and infrared. The energy that makes it to the earth’s surface gets absorbed and then radiated back out. The greenhouse effect works in part because the earth is much cooler than the sun, so when the earth radiates, it tends to send out lower-energy, longer-wavelength infrared radiation.
Greenhouse gases, especially CO2 and water vapor, are very good at absorbing infrared radiation, particularly around 15 µm. Eventually, almost all of the radiation in the earth’s atmosphere gets re-radiated back out into space, but the greenhouse gases hold it in long enough to generate a greenhouse effect in the planet’s atmosphere and keep us at a toasty 15°C.
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2012/03/0 ... ublemaker/You'll note that at the time of writing of the above article CO2 was at 390 PPM.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
28 May 2014, 11:58 am
bbauska
I am aware (hence the et. al.) It does not diminish the fact that some countries are allowed to spew much greater amounts of emissions than the US without repercussions. It makes me skeptical in the motive. Are "Climate Changers" trying to save the world, or only just destroy the US?
If it was important to save the world wouldn't "Climate Changers" place economic regulations on all spewers of emissions equally?
As was pointed out today by your President, the US is not particularly well positioned to lead on the issue.
We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if so many of our political leaders deny that it is taking place.
B Obama
The easiest way to change things in the modern world is commercially. If the use of carbon in energy production is more expensive ..... then there will be less use of carbon in energy production.
There are a myriad of ways to accomplish this .... But first it comes with recognition and an admission that the effects of heavy use of carbon is detrimental to the long term health of man kind.
The US still leads the world, by a very wide margin, on sustenance of science denial. When that situation changes, and when political will to effect significant change then maybe its time to try and influence China.
However, I think China, by itself will make changes first. Because the effects of air pollution in China are making large areas very unhealthy. And because, when china decides to do something, it can effect change quickly. The country already leads the world in areas like solar energy production.
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
28 May 2014, 2:23 pm
when political will to effect significant change then maybe its time to try and influence China.
This is a stupid argument Ricky. China is directly competing with the US right now, causing millions of jobs to disappear over the Pacific. How do you expect there to be political will to combat carbon emissions when China is excluded ?
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
28 May 2014, 2:51 pm
Sassenach wrote:when political will to effect significant change then maybe its time to try and influence China.
This is a stupid argument Ricky. China is directly competing with the US right now, causing millions of jobs to disappear over the Pacific. How do you expect there to be political will to combat carbon emissions when China is excluded ?
Indeed. So how could we possibly get China to be included? Do you think having the US excluded as well (which is the case) helps or hinders that?
China is about to make changes, because of the impact of the other pollution caused by lots of coal power stations at the very least.
And of course we are helping China to increase pollution - by seeking cheaper sources, we outsource production to developing countries. The way to actually do it would be to apply tariffs to imports from countries that have high emissions, if you want to combine a means to deal with CO2 and also the flight of jobs from the developed world.
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
28 May 2014, 3:20 pm
In truth I'm not sure it's going to be possible. Kyoto is dead, we saw that in Copenhagen. Taxes and tariffs are highly unlikely to ever be the solution. Technological change is the only real answer.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
28 May 2014, 3:26 pm
danivon wrote:Sassenach wrote:when political will to effect significant change then maybe its time to try and influence China.
This is a stupid argument Ricky. China is directly competing with the US right now, causing millions of jobs to disappear over the Pacific. How do you expect there to be political will to combat carbon emissions when China is excluded ?
Indeed. So how could we possibly get China to be included? Do you think having the US excluded as well (which is the case) helps or hinders that?
The US has reduced its emissions significantly over the past couple of decades.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
28 May 2014, 3:28 pm
Sassenach wrote:In truth I'm not sure it's going to be possible. Kyoto is dead, we saw that in Copenhagen. Taxes and tariffs are highly unlikely to ever be the solution. Technological change is the only real answer.
But not in renewables, right?
I'm not sure it is the only answer. It's a large part of the solution, but there are others to come into it. Technology needs a driver - invention needs a necessity to be it's mother.
We should not simply abandon political or economic efforts because it's a bit hard and things are not going so well.
Last edited by
danivon on 28 May 2014, 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
28 May 2014, 3:28 pm
Doctor Fate wrote:The US has reduced its emissions significantly over the past couple of decades.
So has the EU.
Given that the US could easily abide by the agreements, why not actually sign up to them?
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
28 May 2014, 3:53 pm
danivon wrote:Doctor Fate wrote:The US has reduced its emissions significantly over the past couple of decades.
So has the EU.
Given that the US could easily abide by the agreements, why not actually sign up to them?
Quantify "easily" in terms of actual cost.
