Paris Agreement would have reduced T by 0.17 degrees

Would you care to explain any reasoning behind this?

Trump was looking to and preparing for this run for decades, and was on the national stage long before Bernie. HRC's loss margin was narrow enough that I can think of many things that were large enough to take reasonable credit/blame for tipping the election.

 

We talk about Steyer so we won't talk about Mercer. Squirrel.

 

As in Robert and Rebekah, players in the Koch Network?

Dark Money by Jane Mayer | PenguinRandomHouse.com

 

Without doubt there are folks who believe that it is a human-survival issue to get atmos. CO2 down to 350 ppm quickly. Without doubt there are also folks who believe that human enterprise would do better with CO2 higher than it is now. Neither group had much effect on Paris agreement.

That was each country proposing its own non-binding goal for -CO2, and its own non-binding goal for wealth transfer via GCF. Presents a sense of non-impending disaster. Comfortable, as far as it went.

Any country abandoning its own non-binding goals means...well I don't know what it means. But many interpretations have been presented.

For US, there will not be a large increase in CO2 emissions. I simply can't see how that would happen. There will be disengagement from GCF. Apparently, US is a nation too poor to have such hobbies, even if they might improve export markets.

US ongoing -CO2 probably had an earlier aspect of war on coal (better stated as war on its non-CO2 problems), but more recently is pure (fracking) economics. So its -CO2 is and will be independent of Paris. Making GCF 'somebody else's problem' will lead to bashing by media in short term, but later will (could) just be rest of world doing development and selling stuff and making US a great late-19th & early-20th century country.

Which seems to me a small aspiration, but that is just one person's opinion. Bashing by media will continue as long as it generates clicks. Larger story is who sells what to whom.

 

players in@27. In? Different from? I cannot untie this knot. But every time that mojo invokes Steyer I am inspired to think about other-than-that-squirrel. Because candidate Clinton just always said (apparently uninspiring) things she always had said. Candidate Trump expressed much more...um...agility.

 

Nicely played Sir!

Bob Wilson

 

I suggest that y'all on other side of world ought not damage sleep cycles over this non-emergency discussion. Save it for The Comey Show

 

Bob Wilson

 

The technology exists to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, mix it with water and electricity, and make methane or a light, sweet syn-crude from it. Audi already has a couple of pilot plants using excess renewable electricity, that come close to that. They are capturing the CO2 from the exhaust of another plant; the process needs to be economically competitive. Burning the product won't reduce the CO2 levels, but our descendants might decide to convert it all to plastics or other product that locks the carbon up.

This study on the nuclear lifecycle of these fuel rods will be coming to an end soon.
Long term test of Thorium-Plutonium fuel started | PriusChat
The rods are mostly unenriched thorium, and can be used in existing plants without major renovation. Ten percent of the road is the required neutrino donator, plutonium from spent fuel rods. If successful, this could be a nice win. Thorium doesn't have the issues of uranium. We don't have to invest in new nuclear plants. The micro and modular plants have promise, but new nuclear fights an uphill battle in the US. Then we are reducing are stockpiles of spent nuclear road by recycling them back into fuel instead of just letting them accumulate somewhere.

Regulations and public fear mean it won't happen in the US though.

Do we want to keep this out of the other section?

Coal jobs were going away without the climate change boogyman. People were fighting to shut down coal plants because of the other pollution. The fly ash, mercury and other heavy metals, and the radioactive isotopes were plenty enough reason for us the switch to another fuel source. Natural gas power is cheaper and cleaner.The US shifting from coal to NG is happening without anything like a carbon tax or resolution. It is going to take government intervention, and taxpayer dollars, to save coal.

And lets just ignore all the other benefits of moving to cleaner fuels, and improving efficiency.

 

Let me spin that.

The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1.5 - 2.5% of gross world product every year.

That's about ~$1200 per US citizen ($50.7k per US capital) per year. Would you pay that amount to prolong your life by 4 years?

 

Eff the climate. I want less mercury in my fish.

 

Re: Supply side
I don't see any way for fossil fuels to meet future demand for 10-Billion population with growing energy appetite in the developing world. So there will need to be much solar, wind etc. We need to worry about supply and of course try to make sure we do not kill the planet. But with 10-billion people coming, we are on a ship already with issues for which immediate stopping of fossil fuel use may sink the ship. So it's not the easy answer some say it is..

 

GASP.
You think that simple math indicates that there might be a problem looming ???
No, not possible.
Keep on truckin'......

When people quote the numbers for the amount of oil and gas reserves and claim that proves that there won't be a problem........they NEVER also quote the daily consumption, which is a real eye opener.

 

Recent post here, somewhere, about India pushing plug in cars.

 

Plug in cars powered by electrical generation by.....? Yep. Never as green as intended.

 

Some folks actually install solar panels and get most or all of their energy from that......including an electric car.

But then you have to look at the process used to MAKE the panels, batteries and electronics.
Nothing is perfect.

 

...simple math yes we use a lot of fossil fuels.

Of course if you visit not sure about India but say Taiwan, EV's galore in the form of mini-motorcycles whatever they call those scooters

 

Sounds quite reasonable but lacks a source:

Before looking, my understanding is they crush 'sweet violets, sweeter than all the daisies, covered all over from head to toe with sweet violets' which is why they are bluish. But a better analysis would be for @Sam Spade to cite some credible source.

To the best of my knowledge, solar cells are using the same technology that made the chips in anyone's computer, cell phone, and TV. Furthermore, there are competing solar cell technologies with different price-performance characteristics. So perhaps @Sam Spade might offer something a little more specific than a Wiki search: Solar cell - Wikipedia

Bob Wilson