Well this is disheartening. The US left the Paris Accord.
Printable View
Well this is disheartening. The US left the Paris Accord.
A positive spin is possible.
The U.S. was seen as a block on anything more comprehensive and binding. Will there be movement now?; we'll see.
China is the leader in solar tech, that will likely continue and deepen.:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health...agreement.html
Who knows? To have a major emitter withdraw, and claim that as a victory seems a stretch
....Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Yeah... on second thought, the US is actually not out of the agreement. Unless they want to break international law.
The Paris Agreement stipulates that a member cannot get out of the agreement until after 4 years.
Good point, but I believe for now the admin has only ceased (or is planning to end) compliance with the non-binding elements of the treaty which the US has undertaken to date.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Obama not passing the pledge past congress has come to bite him in the ass, as it was not put through congress trump can pull out without consequence. It's probably the 30 billion dollarsa year Obama pledged to pay propping up other countries that made trump want to cancel it.
Ah well at least you still have china- oh. india's no better.
This accord has no teeth to punish divergeance, being part of it without the will to follow through is rather pointless beyond PR and Obama's pledge were prohibitively expensive both in payments and economic impact, so Trump refusing carrying out that follow through was basically inevitable.
Doesnt help that the effect of the Paris agreement, even at 100% adheirance, is less than optimistic.
Edit: altered the numbers as I found better info on who pays what:
https://www.greenclimate.fund/docume...c-5566ed6afd19
At least Trump is consistent in the use of "alternative facts":
http://www.motherjones.com/environme...aris-agreement
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/ec-pres...g-957196355828
Juncker is not amused.
Thank you Husar, that really cheered me up.
Macabre idea for two birds with one stone.
Calculate the megatonnage needed for a series of 200m airbursts over every target of significance in North Korea to reach the target goal. Time this to coincide with a heavy precipitation weather system that crosses the NK portion of the peninsula on a West by a little north to east by a little north direction.
1. take 2-3 degrees centigrade scale off global temperatures for 3-10 years, allowing a bridge for development of solar power.
2. removed the current regime from NK while maintaining a DMZ suitable to assure China of it's security.
Might be a touch heavy handed, but omelettes and eggs and all that. Also, skip any ski trips to Hokkaido for a bit.
The security dimension of climate change continues to be addressed.
The name might be changed on programs and projections, but the issue is still getting attention.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...igger-for-war/
The the present executive might deny climate change, but not all of the gov't has that luxury.
"When you go in with facts and data and Climate Denier stooges just go 'LOLIAMBLIND'" EPA Nominee edition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqjfEpJwrv8
Something that helps tie some of the threads together:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...dioxide-spike/
Ocean warming, drought/fire carbon spikes...it's all there.
Of course it may lose funding (or not) but it's nice to have the data for now.
Climate change accelerated.
In the North, much of what is built is built on ice and/or permafrost.
Rising temperatures on land and sea, can change the landscape very quickly.
One island is having its shores recede at 40m/year; the village of Tuktoyaktuk 100km away, is on the move inland-its former town centre is now under water.
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives...a-tuktoyaktuk/
Alaska is also effected:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2017...orth-is-coming
Infrastructure does not fair well when the ground shifts.
Pollution, it seems, kills more people worldwide than smoking or war.
Save people, improve the environment and save a ton of money; what exactly is the downside?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/pollut...aths-1.4363613
Yes there are the short/long term trade-offs. "Let the next generation deal with it" is a common sentiment; "Let me get to retirement and then build the future" is another.
Both ignore the fact, you are building the future today.
Trump administration report is unable to find any convincing alternatives to man-made Climate Change
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...limate-change/
Is Global warming really a bad thing for humanity as a whole? We are a tropical species after all. Yes, we might need to migrate, but warmer climate means wetter climate and who doesn't want a green Sahara?
I'm afraid Sahara won't survive Norwegian prices after you (as in Norwegians) migrate there. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
The equator would actually become unlivable and the population will move further north to Canada, Siberia, etc as the new temperal climates, whilst those in the middle suffer further drought and famine.
Yeah, JUST MIGRATE BILLIONS OF PEOPLE TO DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD. Flawless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
I'm sure the catastrophic net loss to food production will work itself out too.
I don't think the ecological experts agree to this. They suggest minor to no differences in equatorial regions and more land being open to agriculture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It would be a pretty difficult transition, a lot of the world's farmland being close to sea level and close to the coast or river, preserving them would be rather expensive.
We'd be better off if we still had africa's colonial breadbaskets, as they would be pretty much unaffected by a sea level rise but someone thought it would be a good idea to let them be taken over by various communists, psychopaths and communist psychopaths 50+ years ago.
What??? Can you source that or are you just making stuff up now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Could have sworn we've discussed Rhodesia before and how Mughabe screwed everything up.
To simplify; there was a pattern in the ex colonies, either the communists come into power and screw the economy up, or they get blocked by a western supported president/dictator who was invariably corrupt (and half the time turned out to be a psychopath) who proceeded to screw the economy up. It really didnt do much for what used to be a region of fairly respectable output in terms of agriculture.
Turn a breadbasket into a dustbowl with one neat trick; just add premature independance during a cold war.
As for a source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ountry/302845/
Too anticolonial in tone by my reckoning but it is quite comprehensive.
Be fair. Psychopaths and sociopaths surely, but there was and is no shortage of good old-fashioned capitalist kleptocrats to go along with the communards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
How do you judge that independence is ripe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Considering we havent really had a ripe one I wouldnt know; even India's release was marked by an immediate bloodbath.
I'd say when the lower classes have become as accustomed to the status quo of a western society as the middle class, too many times we have taken a fully westernized middle class as a sign of sustainablility only for it to collapse as the newly emancipated working class/pesantry still have a bronze age mindset and let thier rights be stripped away without a fight.
I consider those covered under the general pscho/sociopath lable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Ergo: independence is never timely?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Yes, notice how Russia had to re-colonize some southern regions when the independent country that tried to run them failed because it wasn't ready yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
It'd be hard to argue that any of the African countries given full independence in the 60s-80s were ready for independence. Lots of them only had handful of educated people capable of running departments previously run by colonial officals. Then there are the violent tribal dynamics and infighting that came out once there was real political power to struggle for.
Just look at the independence of the Belgian Congo and the 30 years of warfare there that spread into all of the neighboring countries and colonies. Places like Angola which were actually well off economically under the Portuguese turned into warzones. The tribal dynamics for all their ups and downs were upset by communist insurgents that were happy to kill off any 'feudal' lords or collaborators.
While I don't agree with apartheid or minority rule in South Africa or Rhodesia it's no wonder that Ian Smith or the Afrikaners were not willing to welcome majority rule after seeing the chaos and bloodletting to the North of them.
It would have helped if the newly independent countries had had some sort of transition period so they could have security forces in place, functioning government service and offer at least some stability instead of the free for all that ended up happening.
I honestly think that the short sighted and selfish washing of hands independence by the European powers of their colonies was a greater crime than establishing them in the first place.
Back to climate:
I do think the new progress in the "Great Green Wall" in the Sahel region is nice to see. Using tree based farming techniques with trees and crops that complement each other, allow for more undergrowth and grow more crops that don't just deplete the soil. Would be great if Africa could feed and employ its own citizens better through smarter agriculture practices.
http://www.greatgreenwall.org/great-green-wall/