Posted on 06/10/2017 4:43:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
One of the silliest arguments made by some Paris Accord supporters is that pulling out of the accord would weaken the U.S.' global leadership because more than 140 countries, including North Korea signed on to it. Seriously? I'd like to ask them why the United States wants to follow the lead of North Korea on any matter. Truth be told, we should always do the exact opposite of whatever North Korea is doing. In addition, this "everyone else is doing it so should we" argument reminds me of something my mother used to say, "Should you jump off the bridge simply because everyone else decides to do it? A silly idea is a silly idea, no matter how many people are willing to embrace it."
Let's get real here. The Paris Accord will not save the planet for many reasons. Notably, it takes the same old approach that historically has failed to reduce greenhouse gas emission -- aggressively replacing fossil fuels and nuclear energy with renewable energy sources. Exhibit A is Germany. By closing down nuclear power plants and increasing its reliance on wind and solar power, the greenhouse gas emissions in Germany actually increased because Germany has to rely on building more coal plants as back ups to its unreliable renewable energy. Another side effect of this process is the high energy cost German businesses and people have to bear. While the government subsidizes large businesses, German people have to pay three time more for electricity than Americans do. That's probably why many Germans can’t afford things we Americans take for granted. I used to work for a US subsidiary of a German company. Believe me that most of my German colleagues enjoy AC and ice cold beer in the US. They just can't afford this kind of quality of life in Germany.
Above all, the Paris Accord isn't a legally binding agreement. It has no teeth to enforce its emission reduction goal to any member state. Therefore, the country that generates the most carbon emissions on the planet, China, is free to set its own time table. Naturally, China pledged to begin reducing emissions by 2030. As recently as 2013, the amount of carbon dioxide China is estimated to have released is "nearly twice as much as the US and around two and a half times the European Union."
While according to China's own report it's carbon emissions have experienced zero or slightly negative growth since 2013, many believe it has more to do with China's slowing economic growth reducing the demand for coal. As a result of the downturn, China's coal plants are running at 50 percent capacity. But as Chinese President Xi continues pushing his ambitious "one belt, one road" initiative which aims to build many infrastructure projects from Asia to Europe, demand for coal and output from China's other heavily polluting industries such as steel and cement will go up.
It's true that China has built impressive renewal energy capacity in recent years, but such capacity is underutilized due to a host of reasons, including poor infrastructure that isn't up to the task of transporting renewal energy from where it is generated to where it is needed the most. Idled wind farms have become a common eye sore in China.
Did President Trump hand over the global leadership role to EU & China by pulling out of the Paris Accord? Hardly. EU & China failed to issue a much-anticipated joint statement on cooperation to fight climate change due to mistrust on both sides over a range of issues, including trade disputes.
If the rest of the world truly cared about our planet, it should follow the U.S.' example. We're the only country that has been reducing carbon emissions while growing the economy at the same time, thanks to fracking, which brought us an abundant supply of affordable energy such as oil & natural gas. The U.S.' shift from burning coal to natural gas counts for 2/3 of the emission reduction. An MIT report shows "In 2015 the economy was 15 percent larger than in 2005, but the country (US) emitted 23 percent less carbon dioxide per dollar of GDP last year compared with 10 years prior." Few people recognized that the reason the fracking revolution took place in the U.S. is not because the U.S. is lucky, but because of the free market and property rights protections that enable entrepreneurs to take risks and be as creative as they can be. Look around, the countries and regions that have the worst environment are the places that have weak or no property rights protections and centralized planning economy.
Now further technological innovation allows the U.S. to share the benefits of fracking with the rest of the world. For instance, U.S. entrepreneurs found a way to turn natural gas to its liquid form, which means it now be can transported from one continent to another by tankers rather than relying on pipelines alone. According to a Wall Street Journal report, many U.S. energy companies have converted their import terminals to export terminals and the U.S. is expected to become a net gas exporter by 2018. This has huge implications around the world from economic, environmental and geopolitical perspectives. Imagine China importing our natural gas, which could be the only thing to keep the Chinese economy growing and curtail toxic smog so Chinese people can breathe cleaner air without wearing masks. Imagine Europe importing our natural gas, which will reduce its reliance on energy piped from Russia, and in turn, strengthening Europe's defense against Russia's aggression. Imagine Russia losing its leverage and starting to behave as a more responsible member of the global community.
The Paris Accord won't do much to either reduce emissions or save our planet. With U.S. leadership, we can.
Scrubbers!......we have them.
It's all about MONEY....our money.
Climate change is BS. But there is no reason to pump soot all over where we live and breathe. We have mastered the scrubbing of coal stacks. Fairly inexpensively to boot. The Chinese could learn a thing or 2 from us.
....guess the author has figured out way to stop volcanoes ....
Ok world, give us all your Paris Accord money, and in exchange, we’ll show you how to reduce your emissions 0.3% just like draconian California has. Deal?
The fact is, America no longer has significant emissions. The emissions left are marginal at best.
The world should be flocking here to buy emission reducing engineering and technology.
American greenies should be exiled
It’s about the transfer of wealth.
They produce hotspots in the ocean. Another book had the hotspots shown in the Pacific.
Of course everyone knows that Hawaii is just one big volcano.
We’ve been making cleaner air for decades - w/o the accord and in spite of the EPA. Technology does what technology does and nobody wants to breath toxic fumes.
The other countries do not want your reduction and cooperation. They want money.
Short of taxing your state citizens beyond their ability to pay, what are you going to do? Recycle? check. Reuse? check.
More nat gas and electric buses? check. More job killing regulations? check.
All of the above are taking place all over the nation. The US ranks among the highest in environmental health.
The other countries and the UN don’t care about your efforts to clean your cities.
They want your money.
The fact that people think “gubmint” needs to fix it. When I see wiberals give up their jets, cars and lawn mowers, give me a call.
We need to ask gwobal warmers, “how will you know when the environment is fixed?”
Correction: Its not “gubmint”, its givernment.
This is essentially what the author is arguing: “We can reduce global warming more efficiently than they can reduce global warming.” This argument gives away the store because man-made global warming has yet to be proved.
We should follow China and India emissions. The elites cannot say no to that. We just say we will change say around 2030.
Oh gimme $1 billion to start.
Well duh! The southernmost large city in Germany, Munich, is still north of Seattle! Except for some small parts along the Rhine in the southwest there's not much humidity combined with hot summer temps. Of course much of the US is hot and humid in the summer, so A/C is absolutely required. For some reason the A/C requirements in Singapore and Norway aren't the same either...duh!
And ice cold beer? Is she trying to suggest Germans can't afford to own refrigerators? Decent beer isn't consumed ice cold anyway, unlike beer where the cold is needed to kill the bad flavor.
Two lousy examples for "quality of life." (How about highway speed limits?) Now, talk about the 2nd amendment and she'd have at least a shred of an argument. But guns don't consume much electricity I guess...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.