posted
I’m not too familiar with U.S./China politics, but have a pretty good grasp on the climate problems and dilemmas that both the United States and China face in the upcoming Copenhagen meeting. In fact, my current research is on the influence of China’s emissions on U.S. ozone levels, and I want to learn as much as I can about China. Since the U.S. and China will be the “two gorillas in the room” at this conference, I figured a thread to talk about it all together would be helpful.
The conference is scheduled to be completed in December 18th, exactly six months from today. I don’t expect a whole lot of discussion right now, but I’ll try to include articles as I find them. As the conference approaches, I imagine we’ll have a whole lot more to talk about. A link about the meeting is included here, although I haven’t looked around it in detail yet.
quote: Yet neither country has really committed to the kinds of reductions that are needed. A House committee bill that seeks a mandatory 80 percent cut in America’s emissions by midcentury has barely begun its journey through Congress. The Chinese, meanwhile, are not even thinking about mandatory limits; they have said they will try to limit “carbon intensity” — the amount of energy emitted per unit of gross domestic product — which is another way of saying emissions will be allowed to rise.
quote: For months the United States and China, by far the world’s two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, have been warily circling each other in hopes of breaking a long impasse on global warming policy. They are, as President Obama’s chief climate negotiator puts it, “the two gorillas in the room,” and if they do not reach some sort of truce, there is no chance of forging a meaningful international treaty in Copenhagen later this year to restrict emissions. . . . Without the full participation of the United States and China, most negotiators believe that any agreement is doomed to fail. Congress and two American presidents refused to accept the Kyoto accord, which expires in 2012, because it imposed no pollution limits on China or other developing countries. The American refusal to ratify the treaty and the lack of participation by China and other developing nations have left the pact all but toothless. “China may not be the alpha and omega of the international negotiations, but it is close,” said Todd D. Stern, the top American climate negotiator at the three-day talks in Beijing. “Certainly no deal will be possible if we don’t find a way forward with China.”
I’m torn between my worry for the global climate system and my worry for the large Chinese population (and other developing nations’ populations) that want and need to develop more. I think that there needs to be some pretty serious restraints put on unchecked industrialization (New Coal Plants once per week) for China, but I don’t think that the United States can or should or will demand binding limits.
This last semester I had a dinner with Stephen Schneider, who was visiting for a Climate Change Controversies seminar here. Just that week, he had dinner with Stephen Chu, Obama’s Energy Secretary. From what Stephen told us at the dinner, Obama understands that our (human) business-as-usual trajectory leads us to very bad places and that limits of both our own emissions and the emissions of other nations in the world need to be checked, limited, and controlled. But they also cannot go into the Copenhagen meeting with their environmental guns blazing, both because the U.S. really doesn’t want (or cannot) afford to limit their emissions by any great degree and because the only way to get other countries in the world on board is by starting small and gradually ramping up.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've gotten very pessimistic about this. From what I can, absent some very dramatic, very hard to dispute examples of GCC, the best we're going to get is small reductions in carbon emissions. I don't see the ramping up happening.
The U.S. is not going to make the sacrifices for it and China definitely isn't going to. And we've got India coming along as well as the other emerging economies.
As I can see it, our best bet is going to be developing alternative energy sources that rival the economy of fossil fuel based energy. This was one of the big promises of the Obama administration that I was sad to see (understandably) kind of fall by the way side.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
If AGW was really happening, more of the its advocates would be pushing nuclear power since it's the greenest power around.
Of course, they won't do that because they're the same movement that stirred up all the panic about nukes in the first place. If it hadn't been for the environmental movement we would probably have a much larger percentage of our power coming from clean, carbon neutral nuclear. Like France does.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understood about what Stephen was telling me, the current goal of the administration is to get some sort of actual, legally binding target. It will almost certainly be a target that is very easy to achieve, probably just slightly below business-as-usual. But if there can be some agreement like that, then later on it can be amped up.
There would need to be some serious alternative energy economy to rival one coal plant per month. Something that's never been seen before. There are a few wind energy farms cropping up here in New York, and I've heard of proposals for some off the coast of Cleveland, in Lake Erie, but these will have minuscule, negligible impacts on their own. Or something that addresses major portions of U.S. transportation, like public transportation in big urban centers. I've seen some very nice public transportation systems, and if they can built in more places, they will be used more often, by more people.
But these changes would happen very slowly, if at all.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted (AND THEN EDITED BY THE WHITE WHALE TO EXPRESS HOW HE SEES THE SITUATION) by The Pixiest: If it hadn't been for the environmental movement we would probably have a much larger percentage of our power coming from nuclear and tons and tons and tons of barrels of nuclear waste that would virtually last forever and that nobody knows what to do with. Like France does.
Nuclear power looks great if you're thinking 20 or 30 years ahead, like many corporations are doing, but the farther you look into the future, the worse nuclear power looks.
[ June 18, 2009, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: The White Whale ]
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It will almost certainly be a target that is very easy to achieve, probably just slightly below business-as-usual. But if there can be some agreement like that, then later on it can be amped up.
And that would be great. I just pessimistic about it happening, especially about it being sustained over multiple iterations of our political leadership.
And I don't see China or India or most of the other emerging economies caring that much about it, especially if the US is taking only little piddly steps.
I don't think that alternative energy sources is a good bet, just that it is our best one that I can see. I think that it is unlikely but that without it we're pretty much doomed to experience significant warming in the next 150 years or so because we're not going to do much to stop it from happening.
But I'm interested to see if something comes out of Copenhagen that gives hope for a different outcome.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whale: Nuclear waste can be recycled like it is in France. The ultimate product decays in decades, not eons. You're just regurgitating the fear tactics environmentalists have been spouting for decades.
If the problem gets solved, the panic, power and contributions dry up. So they invent problems with any solution to their invented problem.
btw, it's incredibly unethical to quote what I say and change it within the quotes. Yes, you bolded your changes and that's good, but your propaganda could still be misinterpreted to be something I said. Please fix it.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Pixiest, Claiming that Global Climate Change is bunk because people don't support Nuclear just shows you aren't knowledgeable on either subject. You should be aware that many scientist and environmentalists concerned about Global Climate Change do in fact support Nuclear Power. Others are more hesitant because of the problems associated with Nuclear Power.
Nuclear energy has a role to play but it is not the panacea you suggest.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The director of the Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (CEA) at the Marcoule facility, Loic Martin-Deidier, recalls the enthusiasm for quickly launching civil and military nuclear programs. At the time, he says, "they weren't thinking 40 years ahead."
. . .
The 350-acre site is like an above-ground Yucca Mountain. Construction cranes hover above a hundred bunker-like cement blocks already filled with barrels encased in concrete. In 60 years, the cranes' job will be done, the 400-bunker facility will be full, and the entire facility will be covered with a concrete lid. What then?
The Soulaines-Dhuys site will enter a 300-year surveillance phase. After that, the plan is to observe the site until the stored waste loses its radioactivity.
The initial 300 years is just the beginning. Even moderately radioactive plutonium retains hazardous for 24,000 years. Skeptics wonder if future generations will follow the plan -- or even remember where the site is located.
quote:And the truth is that all of France, even though it gets most of its electricity from nuclear power, is still somewhat uncomfortable with it. In a poll by the European Union, only one out of five residents said they were in favor of nuclear power. One in three opposed it.
Nuclear power may be one solution to the problem of global warming, but it doesn't have a huge fan base, even in France.
Nuclear power has it's problems.
And Pixiest, I did not intend on being unethical. And really, propaganda?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right rabbit. Obviously we should keep burning coal.
I'm well aware of the growing nuclear movement amongst environmentalists. Maybe they're true believers. But far far too many play the fear card whenever nuclear comes up.
Too often environmentalists will decry *any* solution. Even wind and solar aren't immune. Wind gets accused of killing birds and congressional environmentalists recently went after a solar farm that ate up "pristine" desert.
It's not about saving the earth. The only Green in the Green movement is $$$.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whale: I know you didn't intend to be unethical, you intended to be witty. It's ok.
But once again you're playing the fear card. Your NPR story isn't about the dangers of Nuclear, it's about the Fear of nuclear. A fear that has been nurtured by environmentalists since The China Syndrome.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest, first, what made you so bitter against 'environmentalists'?
Second, that's quite a broad stroke there, "Too often, environmentalists will decry *any* solution." Sure, some do, and many don't. Many have devoted their lives to make sure that the decisions that are made regarding energy and emission solutions aren't worse than the original problem.
Third, is that not the definition of straw man? You funnel "environmentalists" into people who only care about birds and pristine desert.
Fourth, "The only Green in the Green movement is $$$" sounds a heck of a lot more like regurgitated propaganda to me.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
$1 trillion used to be staggering, now its like the US deficit for one year Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
China is actually making efforts to reduce emissions because technologies to reduce emissions also increase efficiency which China wants to ramp up to reduce their rate of oil and coal consumption etc because it is in their long term national interests to do so.
Its also in the US interests to do likewise, unfortunately you have powerful lobbies that prevent this.
IP: Logged |
posted
so if the US wants to stop global warming, what should be its immediate course of action? whats a realistic short-term solution and a feasible long-term solution?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Either you really have been here for a month, in which case how would you know, or you're someone's alt. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: i dont see an easy connection between libertarian ideology and bitterness toward environmentalism.
I have a hard time thinking of easier connections.
do you have a hard time expressing those thoughts and connections in words and sharing them with the forum?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: i dont see an easy connection between libertarian ideology and bitterness toward environmentalism.
Nearly all of the libertarians in the world have an intense dislike for environmentalism and the regulations that environmentalists want to impose on trade, business, commerce, etc. to the extent that it is nearly impossible to miss their monolithic and practically polar opposition to the statist regulation that it demands.
If you've actually managed to miss that, then, congratulations. I didn't even know it was possible.
But I guess I can fill you in on it.
DID YOU KNOW: An astoundingly large mega-super-majority of libertarians really dislike environmentalism. They also have a lot of trouble believing that anthropogenic global warming exists, despite the massive quantities of overwhelming evidence. How about you?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a rather nice post by Bill Becker (Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project) over on Climate Progress that runs through what the administration has already done with respect to climate policy. I'll summarize them here, but there's much more detail (and supporting links to follow) in the link:
EPA declares greenhouse gas emissions a threat to public health, allowing them to be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
The economic stimulus bill includes tens of billions of dollars for clean energy technologies. It is the "biggest energy bill every passed by Congress."
Ken Salazer, the Interior Secretary, created the Climate Change Response Council, which holds jurisdiction over public lands, and Salazar is moving to establish renewable energy on public lands.
The EPA and the DOT have taken steps to increase fuel efficiency by 40% between 2012 and 2016.
The G-20 "endorsed Obama’s proposal to eliminate fossil energy subsidies totaling about $300 billion annually."
Some of the fossil energy tax breaks are being reviewed and may be repealed (allowing their prices to better match their actual costs), making renewable energy look more appealing.
Obama removed the "gag and schackles from federal climate scientists."
The administration is working on increasing efficiencies of federal agencies (reduce fuel use by vehicle fleet, sustainable buildings, etc.)
The administration is working with other countries to try and make the Copenhagen meeting successful.
posted
The environment is the one area of Obama's presidency that I'm actually largely satisfied with thus far.
I think the climate change bill will pass, but I don't think it will pass until after Copenhagen. Honestly I don't see why they can't either postpone Copenhagen or hold some special session afterward. I know the world doesn't revolve around the United States, but this legislation has actual world wide implications. It might be a good idea to wait for it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fence-sitting Senators. NY Times lists (by my count) 30 solid yeses, 13 probable yeses, 24 fence sitters, 11 probable nos, and 22 solid nos. The fence sitters are primarily Democrats (although there are also several Republicans) from states with agricultural and industrial interests which likely by damaged by any climate legislation.
Also, Levitt and Dubner have been catchingheat for a chapter in their new 'Superfreakonomics' book in which they (evidently) take issue with some elements of current perception of climate science, particularly as relates to policy positions. I haven't read the excerpts or the chapter in question, but (again, evidently) they push for study of geo-engineering climate solutions. See their rebuttal here.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Levitt and Dubner, once their first book (Freakonomics) got looked at, took some heat for shoddy methodology and assertion. Which is too bad — I really liked that book.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Me too, I find the above disappointing.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Nearly all of the libertarians in the world have an intense dislike for environmentalism and the regulations that environmentalists want to impose on trade, business, commerce, etc. to the extent that it is nearly impossible to miss their monolithic and practically polar opposition to the statist regulation that it demands.
If you've actually managed to miss that, then, congratulations. I didn't even know it was possible.
But I guess I can fill you in on it.
DID YOU KNOW: An astoundingly large mega-super-majority of libertarians really dislike environmentalism. They also have a lot of trouble believing that anthropogenic global warming exists, despite the massive quantities of overwhelming evidence. How about you?
unless theyre hardline anarchist libertarians, libertarians in general believe that some government, despite its numerous undesirable qualities, is preferable to the complete absence of government. its a necessary evil of the society we live in. the goal of libertarianism to to maximize individual freedoms and property rights. the power and scope of the government is where the debate happens. thats nothing new; its classic left vs right.
those whos opinions differ from climate change proponents, libertarians included, take issue with mans alleged responsibility for the climate change and the proposed "solutions". i think you would have us believe that there are no environmentally conscious libertarians and that any proponent of the free market soulution is a planet-hating monster. i know liberals who dont march lockstep with the liberal army and who also "have a lot of trouble believing that anthropogenic global warming exists" theyre also skeptical that the course if action these "environmentalist" want to take will lead to significant reductions in global warming, especially given the cost in money and freedoms. unfortunately these liberals dont have a highly publicized blog from which to voice their opinon.
the political ideology of this country is not yet so polarized as to make meaningful progress impossible. no one should willfully or unwillfully portray the country as such.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
i havent yet read the most recent levitt and dubner book and im interested to see if the negative criticism theyre receiving is justified. freakonomics is very insightful. interestingly enough, some of its highly unpopular and criticized claims are spot on. im hopefully expecting this book be equally insightful, despite what the liberal blogs claim.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Dude, most of the objection to freakonomics was either
1. bipartisan, based on objective criteria of study, or
2. massive conservative objection to the chapter that claimed that abortion was responsible for curing endemic crime in major cities
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: i think you would have us believe that there are no environmentally conscious libertarians and that any proponent of the free market soulution is a planet-hating monster
Well, that would be you cramming words desperately into my mouth.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: i think you would have us believe that there are no environmentally conscious libertarians and that any proponent of the free market soulution is a planet-hating monster
Well, that would be you cramming words desperately into my mouth.
desperately? ha ha. whatever. you shouldnt find what i said so remarkable. judging from your posts, youre very familiar with hyperbole.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: "Despite what the liberal blogs claim?"
Dude, most of the objection to freakonomics was either
1. bipartisan, based on objective criteria of study, or
2. massive conservative objection to the chapter that claimed that abortion was responsible for curing endemic crime in major cities
i was speaking of the above referenced criticisms of superfreakonomics. specifically, nate silver of fivethirtyeight and paul krugman. show me the credentials of either to speak on global warming.
your assertions regarding the criticisms of freakonomics are somewhat true. but it was (still is) the liberals who were indignant about the claim that it was mostly young, black, impoverished girls who were having abortions which resulted in the reduction of crime, specifically violent crime, in major cities.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
correlation is not causation, the point was that it was statistically interesting and alot of evidence correlates it, but he never claimed outright that it is or should be the reason.
IP: Logged |
quote: i think you would have us believe that there are no environmentally conscious libertarians and that any proponent of the free market soulution is a planet-hating monster
Well, that would be you cramming words desperately into my mouth.
desperately? ha ha. whatever. you shouldnt find what i said so remarkable. judging from your posts, youre very familiar with hyperbole.
No, it's really more that when you analyze what I said, it's not what you 'think' I said at all.
I mean, if you want to stand by a plainly obtuse re-reading of my actual words, you're welcome to it. I don't hold out much hope that you'll do something like realize that claiming absolutes on my part (e.g. 'you must think there are no environmentally conscious libertarians') is stupid, because it means that you are strawmanning in a testable manner. You are perfectly allowed to sacrifice your own credibility.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One change I'd like to see that would help deal with inequities between developing and developed nations is to count emissions against the country where products are sold rather than the country where they are produced.
That change would fix a lot of the problem that we had with Kyoto. Developed nations could no longer reduce their emissions by moving production in a developing nation. It would also shed important light on the emission balance between the developed world and developing nations like China seeing that a great deal of China's emissions come from producing products that are ultimately purchased not by Chinese but by North Americans and Europeans.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think the climate change bill will pass, but I don't think it will pass until after Copenhagen. Honestly I don't see why they can't either postpone Copenhagen or hold some special session afterward. I know the world doesn't revolve around the United States, but this legislation has actual world wide implications. It might be a good idea to wait for it.
quote:The United States and many other major pollutant-emitting countries have concluded that it is more useful to take incremental but important steps toward a global agreement rather than to try to jam through a treaty that is either too weak to address the problem or too onerous to be ratified and enforced.
. . .
Among the chief barriers to a comprehensive deal in Copenhagen is Congress’s inability to enact climate and energy legislation that sets binding targets on greenhouse gases in the United States. Without such a commitment, other nations are loath to make their own pledges.
The chief American climate negotiator, Todd Stern, has said that he will not go beyond what Congress is willing to endorse. His deputy, Jonathan Pershing, affirmed this last week at a negotiators’ meeting in Bangkok. “We are not going to be part of an agreement we cannot meet,” Mr. Pershing said.
Instead, representatives at the Copenhagen meeting are likely to announce a number of interim steps and agree to keep talking next year.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: One change I'd like to see that would help deal with inequities between developing and developed nations is to count emissions against the country where products are sold rather than the country where they are produced.
That change would fix a lot of the problem that we had with Kyoto. Developed nations could no longer reduce their emissions by moving production in a developing nation. It would also shed important light on the emission balance between the developed world and developing nations like China seeing that a great deal of China's emissions come from producing products that are ultimately purchased not by Chinese but by North Americans and Europeans.
That's an interesting idea. If the environmental cost of production were added to the cost to purchase something, I could see that having a real effect on reducing the environmental effect.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's an interesting idea. If the environmental cost of production were added to the cost to purchase something, I could see that having a real effect on reducing the environmental effect.
]
Even more than that, it would put consumption rather that production at the heart of the international debate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: [*]The economic stimulus bill includes tens of billions of dollars for clean energy technologies. It is the "biggest energy bill every passed by Congress."
A bit of a breakdown
quote:What would a national strategy look like? The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 invests $112 billion in green technologies, and earmarks $2 billion for renewable energy research. President Obama proposes to add another $15 billion annually in renewable energy research, to be funded by the cap-and-trade system proposed in the American Clean Energy and Security Act.
Meanwhile, China is spending $221 billion of its $586 billion 2009 stimulus package on renewable energy and other clean technologies, and is poised to overtake Germany and Japan to become the world’s largest alternative energy producer. Another spur to development is a 2007 policy requiring large utilities to produce 3 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2010 and 8 percent by 2020, excluding hydroelectric (20 percent by 2020 is proposed in the Clean Energy and Security Act). China’s five-year plan that starts in 2011 will include even higher standards and subsidies to support clean energy development.
Well, I guess that's a good step. But it feels like the bar has been set so low it's rolling on the ground.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for letting this thread lag. I didn't take into account final exams. From here on out, I plan on posting the news from the conference the morning after. I'm getting my news from all over the place, but looking closely at the daily summaries put out by Earth Negotiations Bulletin (Link here to the main site). I'm going to include what I think is interesting, what seems to be big news, and the details that aren't boring.
But, the two papers that published it in the US omitted something that seems important:
quote:Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required [on climate change] until the U.S. Congress has done so.
and omit "and must" from this sentence:
quote:But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty.
posted
On Monday, the major hubbub was in regards to the "Climategate" email "scandal". Some countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) demanded an independent investigation. Others called it a "tempest in a teacup", and still others were more concerned with tracking down and punishing the hacker who actually broke the law.
And I'll just list what I found interesting:
This conferences president Connie Hedegaard notes that there are 194 parties at this conference, and calling for a "truly universal agreement."
Rajendra Pachanr, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that for global warming to be limited to 2.0 to 2.4 C, emissions need to peak no later than 2015.
Yvo de Boer (UNFCCC Executive Secretary) calls for a "start-up finance" of US$10 billion per year to help mitigation and adaptation
AOSIS (representing 43 low-lying island states) calls for a limit of 2 degree warming and CO2 leveling out to 350 ppb. If this does not happen, they will "have to consider our options"
Australia (representing the UMBRELLA group) calls for a 2 degree limit and a 50% reduction in emissions by 2050.
The EU proposes a €5-7 billion yearly start up fund, growing to €100 billion by 2020 to be used for adaptation and mitigation.
The US reiterates its new proposed commitment to emissions reductions of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and a trajectory for 42% reductions by 2030, and 83% reductions by 2050.
Russia reiterates its commitment to 20-25% reductions from 1990 levels by 2020
The EU proposes a global emission peak at 2020, and a 50% global reduction of emissions by 2050
I'm curious about what each country is willing to commit to in terms of emissions reductions, both the percent and the year, compared to what they declare here at the beginning. I'll try to include any changes that I may find. And if you see errors, I'll fix 'em. There is a lot of numbers and sources to sort through.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
