There’s a huge gap between the Paris climate change goals and reality

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,980
Criminal Mexi Midget
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/31/16579844/climate-gap-unep-2017
Current pledges are about a third of what’s needed.



https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-g20-emissions/?fbclid=IwAR2lszvKWJ2zk_ufH5dDeV8I2A419s7ATA_MaT7pwMYcoB6fr3HYQShxU0I

Not A Single G-20 Country Is Close To Hitting CO2 Emission Targets
FOUND two articles on the matter, both are biased opposite of each other BUT BOTH agree we are not where we should be..
of course Vox blames trump :rolleyes:
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
China is allowed to increase pollution until 2030 under the deal. 'Rich' countries have to give $100 billion/year to 'poorer' countries to help them go green. India said they needed $2.5 trillion to meet their targets. Saudi Arabia will double emissions by 2030.

Then when 2030 comes and their emissions are worse they will ask for more money...
 

Rum_Becker

Suspended
Sep 1, 2017
158
916
Canada
China is allowed to increase pollution until 2030 under the deal. 'Rich' countries have to give $100 billion/year to 'poorer' countries to help them go green. India said they needed $2.5 trillion to meet their targets. Saudi Arabia will double emissions by 2030.

Then when 2030 comes and their emissions are worse they will ask for more money...
We should not give 1$ to other countries for climate change. Whatever we spend, we should spend in our countries to help cope with climate change.
 

PracticalMac

macrumors 68030
Jan 22, 2009
2,745
3,707
Houston, TX
We should not give 1$ to other countries for climate change. Whatever we spend, we should spend in our countries to help cope with climate change.
Would be nice if USA spends more than $1 on curbing pollution...

(I know we do spend more than $1, but US should put far more effort via various means to encourage pollution reduction)
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
We should not give 1$ to other countries for climate change. Whatever we spend, we should spend in our countries to help cope with climate change.
All while we export the technologies that make the problem worse right? I’ll never forgive the Obama administration for shoving fracking deals into every nook and cranny of international diplomacy possible.
 

Rum_Becker

Suspended
Sep 1, 2017
158
916
Canada
By $, probably.
By %, probably not.
Does it matter? I'm fine with either metric, thought the first one is more likely.
[doublepost=1543360224][/doublepost]
All while we export the technologies that make the problem worse right? I’ll never forgive the Obama administration for shoving fracking deals into every nook and cranny of international diplomacy possible.
For things that I will never forgive Obama, this is fairly low on the list.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
Fracking, as bad as it is, has helped reduce C02 emissions in the US.

The real problem is China and India, not the US. The Paris Accords weren't going to fix that.

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

"Natural gas replacing coal-fired generation and increasing generation from non-carbon sources have led to the decline in the carbon intensity of electricity generation in recent years

Two basic factors contributed to lower carbon intensiy of electricity generation (CO2/kilowatthour) since 2005—the substitution of coal-fired generation with the less-carbon-intensive and more efficient combined-cycle natural gas-fired generation and the growth in non-carbon electricity generation, especially from wind and solar.

Between 2005 and 2017, CO2 emissions declined by a cumulative 3,855 MMmt as a result of these two factors (see methodology on page 21). Of this total, 2,360 MMmt can be attributed to the shift in fossil fuels to natural gas, and 1,494 MMmt can be attributed to the increase in non-carbon generation sources.

Total electricity generation use fell slightly from 2005 to 2017, and related CO2 emissions fell by 28% over that period. From 2005 to 2017, fossil-fuel electricity generation declined by about 14%, and non-carbon electricity generation rose by 33%."
IMG_20181111_201451.jpeg
 

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,361
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
Fracking, as bad as it is, has helped reduce C02 emissions in the US.

The real problem is China and India, not the US. The Paris Accords weren't going to fix that.

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

"Natural gas replacing coal-fired generation and increasing generation from non-carbon sources have led to the decline in the carbon intensity of electricity generation in recent years

Two basic factors contributed to lower carbon intensiy of electricity generation (CO2/kilowatthour) since 2005—the substitution of coal-fired generation with the less-carbon-intensive and more efficient combined-cycle natural gas-fired generation and the growth in non-carbon electricity generation, especially from wind and solar.

Between 2005 and 2017, CO2 emissions declined by a cumulative 3,855 MMmt as a result of these two factors (see methodology on page 21). Of this total, 2,360 MMmt can be attributed to the shift in fossil fuels to natural gas, and 1,494 MMmt can be attributed to the increase in non-carbon generation sources.

Total electricity generation use fell slightly from 2005 to 2017, and related CO2 emissions fell by 28% over that period. From 2005 to 2017, fossil-fuel electricity generation declined by about 14%, and non-carbon electricity generation rose by 33%."View attachment 806998
See the table on this page:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.W_53ny10dhE

look at those countries with over 15 tonnes per capita, that's right the United States is right up there.Also keep in mind the United States started its industrial revolution in the very late eighteenth century and has been polluting the world since then.China and India on the other hand didn't begin until at the earliest the mid twentieth century and both are developing countries.Do you assume they will both stop their development at the demand of countries like the US who have exploited the earth mercilessly and now seeing the external costs of their exploitation coming home to roost are going to pull up the ladder and stop other counties developing,I think not.
By the way I wouldn't trust figures from BP on anything let alone energy statistics.
 

Rum_Becker

Suspended
Sep 1, 2017
158
916
Canada
No, because that would actually require you to take responsibility for the lions share of emissions you have produced.
This is false

Short sightedness like this is why the planet is going down the drain.
No, shortsightedness is giving money to a region to fight climate change whose population will increase from 1.1 billion to almost 5 Billion in the next 80 years. You know I would not even call it short sightedness I would call it mental retardation. This irresponsible change in demographic will cause billions to die, giving them money would make us an accomplice to the death of billions in the future.
 
Last edited:

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,361
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
No, shortsightedness is giving money to a region to fight climate change whose population will increase from 1.1 billion to almost 5 Billion in the next 80 years. You know I would not even call it short sightedness I would call it mental retardation. This irresponsible change in demographic will cause billions to die, giving them money would make us an accomplice to the death of billions in the future.
That Malthusian ideas are sprouted more than two hundred years after they were debunked is not I fear mental retardation but merely ignorance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 88Keys

Rum_Becker

Suspended
Sep 1, 2017
158
916
Canada
That Malthusian ideas are sprouted more than two hundred years after they were debunked is not I fear mental retardation but merely ignorance.
And global warming was debunked more than 200 years ago as well.

Climate change for humans is a demographic problem, until we address that issue the problem will never get better and you said so yourself.

ou assume they will both stop their development at the demand of countries like the US who have exploited the earth mercilessly and now seeing the external costs of their exploitation coming home to roost are going to pull up the ladder and stop other counties developing,I think not.
 

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,361
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
And global warming was debunked more than 200 years ago as well.

Climate change for humans is a demographic problem, until we address that issue the problem will never get better and you said so yourself.
Population growth is not a problem at the moment, the way to reduce population growth is education and economic advancement especially of women, it's not the blind stumbling and lashing out of those who have stolen the earths wealth and will hold onto it for themselves in spite of it being suicidal both for themselves and everyone else.These people are as thick as a fence post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 88Keys

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,039
16,521
The Misty Mountains
Would be nice if USA spends more than $1 on curbing pollution...

(I know we do spend more than $1, but US should put far more effort via various means to encourage pollution reduction)
The problem is that the Republicans for decades, have been drilling it into enough people’s heads that global warming is a lie to protect perceived loss of profits to address the issue. Around the world, countries have been more worried about their economies.

It has been speculated that this could be part of the great filter for industrialized species that stops them from moving forward.
 

fuchsdh

macrumors 65816
Jun 19, 2014
1,325
654
This is false



No, shortsightedness is giving money to a region to fight climate change whose population will increase from 1.1 billion to almost 5 Billion in the next 80 years. You know I would not even call it short sightedness I would call it mental retardation. This irresponsible change in demographic will cause billions to die, giving them money would make us an accomplice to the death of billions in the future.
It's kind of rich blaming the future generations who haven't been born for ruining the planet when that was done before they were born by rich countries such as ourselves who industrialized first and have produced the most damage to the planet.

If you want to reduce birthrates in developing countries and emissions, we should be poring more money into those areas to increase education and quality of life. There's no magic behind the simple calculus of why birthrates decline in postindustrial societies.

Meanwhile the US keeps pushing abstinence education and denies safe abortions even to its own citizens, which would cut the birthrate and improve the lives of millions of women around the world.

The reality is while those areas have huge percentage increases in emissions, an average westerner is many times more a drag on the environment than dozens or even hundreds of those people in the developing world. You're saying that they have no alternative to being poor. You really think they're going to be that interested in keeping to emissions targets then?

which would make you a science denier just like people who deny climate change.
The population could stop growing today and we've still face the exact same climate changes. The population globally is already leveling off. The problem is allocation of resources. We in the rich countries don't want to lower our standard of living.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peterkro

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,361
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
which would make you a science denier just like people who deny climate change.
What are you talking about? Science is not some monolithic block that agrees about everything there are different views and over time taking evidence into account a generally agreed answer is come too.As far as I can see those on the "over-population" is a problem side are either Malthusians or straight out Fascists.

The problem with anthropogenic climate change is the relatively small number of people living in "advanced" nation states who produce pollution way out of scale to their actual numbers, yes that's you in North America (Europe,Australasia and the Saudis also).Reducing energy use by the flaccid drones putting out the pollution not your average African or Chinese is the answer to the existential threat.
 

Rum_Becker

Suspended
Sep 1, 2017
158
916
Canada
It's kind of rich blaming the future generations who haven't been born for ruining the planet when that was done before they were born by rich countries such as ourselves who industrialized first and have produced the most damage to the planet.

DIdi not say that at all, they will not be to blame.


If you want to reduce birthrates in developing countries and emissions, we should be poring more money into those areas to increase education and quality of life. There's no magic behind the simple calculus of why birthrates decline in postindustrial societies.
It's not the western worlds job to impose our values on others, we should let other nations do what they wish.

The population could stop growing today and we've still face the exact same climate changes. The population globally is already leveling off. The problem is allocation of resources. We in the rich countries don't want to lower our standard of living.
It has in the western world, not in the developing world. I would not call an increase from 1.1 billion to nearly 5 billion levelling off.
[doublepost=1543417285][/doublepost]
What are you talking about?
The question is what are you talking about. It's called MAN made climate change for a reason!!! So is it real or not, because you claimed in another post that increasing the population of MANkind would not be problematic for man made climate change.

More people = more cars, more food, more A/C, and more energy, all of which will contribute to more co2.

We will never be able to reduce CO2 with a population which is rapidly growing, but if we can stabilize the population in certain regions (North America), we will be able to cope with climate change. I would suggest every region take a regional approach, if Africa wants exponential population growth, and Europe wants to open world borders, that's their choice.
 

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,361
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
DIdi not say that at all, they will not be to blame.




It's not the western worlds job to impose our values on others, we should let other nations do what they wish.



It has in the western world, not in the developing world. I would not call an increase from 1.1 billion to nearly 5 billion levelling off.
[doublepost=1543417285][/doublepost]

The question is what are you talking about. It's called MAN made climate change for a reason!!! So is it real or not, because you claimed in another post that increasing the population of MANkind would not be problematic for man made climate change.

More people = more cars, more food, more A/C, and more energy, all of which will contribute to more co2.

We will never be able to reduce CO2 with a population which is rapidly growing, but if we can stabilize the population in certain regions (North America), we will be able to cope with climate change. I would suggest every region take a regional approach, if Africa wants exponential population growth, and Europe wants to open world borders, that's their choice.
You are the problem and not the solution.
 

Rum_Becker

Suspended
Sep 1, 2017
158
916
Canada
You are the problem and not the solution.
Nope that would be you. You believe in man made climate change and then claim population is not a factor.

People like you are the problem, people who care more about virtue signaling than trying to find real solutions. Heck how can you find a solution which you don't even acknowledge the main cause, which is massive overpopulation.
 

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,361
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
Nope that would be you. You believe in man made climate change and then claim population is not a factor.

People like you are the problem, people who care more about virtue signaling than trying to find real solutions. Heck how can you find a solution which you don't even acknowledge the main cause, which is massive overpopulation.
Virtue signalling? Have you ever had an original thought or do you just parrot those who you assume are more informed than you?Let me be clear the worlds population is not the problem. The problem is those in the so-called first world who are doing the majority of the damage,that's you.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
See the table on this page:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.W_53ny10dhE

look at those countries with over 15 tonnes per capita, that's right the United States is right up there.Also keep in mind the United States started its industrial revolution in the very late eighteenth century and has been polluting the world since then.China and India on the other hand didn't begin until at the earliest the mid twentieth century and both are developing countries.Do you assume they will both stop their development at the demand of countries like the US who have exploited the earth mercilessly and now seeing the external costs of their exploitation coming home to roost are going to pull up the ladder and stop other counties developing,I think not.
By the way I wouldn't trust figures from BP on anything let alone energy statistics.
The US has been the worst polluter in history but is improving unlike other countries.

I posted data from the EIA. That's the US government. The chart was from BP.