BREAKING: U.S. O-U-T of Paris Climate Accord

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Actually, science is theory taught as fact so you are incorrect.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Excellent.

a reply to: Aazadan

You are correct. The much safer PWR systems were built starting in the 1980s.

However, Fukushima had further design flaws that directly led to the meltdown. A nuclear plant does not operate when turned on; it operates until tuned off. That means in a system failure, outside power must be supplied to shut down the reactor. Fukushima, like most nuclear plants, has three methods to accomplish this:

1) The electric grid can supply exterior power to engage the control rods and run the cooling pumps to effect a safe shutdown. The power lines at Fukushima were damaged by the earthquake.

2) Diesel generators start up automatically if power is lost to allow a safe shutdown. In Fukushima, the fuel tanks were located below tsunami level, so the fuel was contaminated and the generators stopped soon after starting up.

3) There are 10 hours of battery power in reserve that can be used if all other methods to obtain power fail. That is not enough to allow a full safe shutdown; it is intended to be enough to allow emergency crews to restore power somehow. In Fukushima, additional generators were brought in before the 10 hours was up, but the plugs did not match up with the plant. They had to wait for permission from TEPCO corporate headquarters to change the plugs, and that put them over the 10-hour mark and caused a complete loss of cooling ability.

No one will ever know if any of these situations would have made a difference if handled differently; the earthquake damaged the control rods assembly. But what would have made a difference? I can't find specifics right now, but back when it happened I was very active in the thread. Seismic design is quantified in a nuclear plant by taking the largest known historical earthquake magnitude (usually in the last 100 years) and adding 1... if the highest magnitude found were a 7.5, for instance, the plant is designed to survive an 8.5 quake. Historic quakes were ignored in order to lower the design level for Fukushima to save money (seismic design can get very expensive).

That's the worry with China for me. If pressure to switch to non-fossil fuels is on much to allow realistic goals, it is completely possible they will feel forced to build plants that are under designed and unsafe. The two methods of production favored in Global Warming circles are solar and wind. Both are only practical in the US because of Federal subsidies that offset the cost. Hydro power requires damming rivers, which are limited. That leaves nuclear as the most economically viable option outside of US subsidies.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The two methods of production favored in Global Warming circles are solar and wind. Both are only practical in the US because of Federal subsidies that offset the cost. Hydro power requires damming rivers, which are limited. That leaves nuclear as the most economically viable option outside of US subsidies.

You forgot the one thats going to grow the fastest. Chop down your trees and burn them. Good times. Why? Because it's CARBON NEUTRAL. Makes you look good when you send in your reports to the UN, you can meet or exceed your targets, alls you have to do is denude your land of forested area! Genius eh?

What message does this send to third world countries?




Up in Flames

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: IAMTAT

This is more cronyism for the President and his 1% pals to line their pockets and make the middle class and poor, have to tighten their belts while the rich get to loosen them. This man is a joke and he is completely clueless. He wonders why the majority of Americans can't stand him. He will be a one termed President without a doubt!

You want to pretend like the 1%, the ubber rich and all the big "evil" capitalist companies didn't support the Paris Climate Agreement?

They wanted it, they're throwing a temper tantrum that they didn't get it.

So is Trump helping them or not? And the big corporations, are they actually on your side or only looking out for their own profits?

originally posted by: AlphaDraconianX
We are f#cked. I volunteer at the zoo as one of the zoo guides that informs visitors about issues with out environment and lets just say we are screwing our planet over more than many people think. Trump doesn't understand basic science. Polluting the air and sea is bad... right Donald? Everyone can agree on that simple fact yet no one does anything to help and its infuriating.

This agreement had nothing to do with pollution, you know that right?

Everyone knows pollution is bad and no one supports pollution.

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: AlphaDraconianX
We are f#cked. I volunteer at the zoo as one of the zoo guides that informs visitors about issues with out environment and lets just say we are screwing our planet over more than many people think. Trump doesn't understand basic science. Polluting the air and sea is bad... right Donald? Everyone can agree on that simple fact yet no one does anything to help and its infuriating.

This agreement had nothing to do with pollution, you know that right?

Everyone knows pollution is bad and no one supports pollution.

Thats just the thing, Obama admin put C02 on label as a pollutant, until Trump reverses that, we're all screwed. America needs to get out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Trump needs to dismantle all the harmful regulations that Obama put into place.

There's a blueprint, lets hope he follows it.
Blueprint

originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: avgguy


It's a bad decision internationally because countries have lost faith with USAs word. If USA developes a reputation of not honouring promises why make a deal in the first place.

.

You mean like the Senate actually ratifying a Treaty? Nice try at an end around Obama.......

Well I guess that countries that have lost faith can just pay for their own defense for a change and not sell their wares in the U.S.

Let's see how that will work out for them.

a reply to: ANNED

Bingo!!!!!

Feeding the UN clima change world bank and green fund, plus all their other funds and endeavors, US tax payer pays more than half for all their cost.

And people here can come out and still argue that is ok, to waste and abuse the Tax payer by international organizations, but when the government is abusing us in the US and our tax dollars domestically they cry a river of crap every year for tax season.

That tells me something very interesting, that those arguing are doing so because they either just like to argue for crap or they are just following a scripted agenda.

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: AlphaDraconianX
We are f#cked. I volunteer at the zoo as one of the zoo guides that informs visitors about issues with out environment and lets just say we are screwing our planet over more than many people think. Trump doesn't understand basic science. Polluting the air and sea is bad... right Donald? Everyone can agree on that simple fact yet no one does anything to help and its infuriating.

This agreement had nothing to do with pollution, you know that right?

Everyone knows pollution is bad and no one supports pollution.

It's really quite unbelievable to behold the complete lack of understanding of the Paris Accord coupled to the outrage about the decision to pull out. It seems outrage needs no reason, other than politics.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well. Here's the rub: the climate changed already. Now it's your chance to help poorer nations circumvent the consequences and you denied. It's not that you came up with another plan instead, it's flat out denial. Thanks for nothing then.

Who needs that sort of people in the team? Unwilling to help and unable to produce new solutions or alternatives. Screw that, move on and continue to build. Maybe he'll watch and learn.

Now, for your information, back to China:

...

Efforts to Date: China has already been working for a number of years to reduce its CO2 emissions, improve energy efficiency, expand renewable energy and develop low carbon cities. China is on track to meet or even exceed its Copenhagen climate pledge, which was to reduce its carbon intensity by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020. China is responsible for over half of the world's energy conservation efforts over the past two decades. China has also installed 40 percent of the world's newly added renewable energy power over the past five years, while the country's investment in clean and renewable energy exceeded the combined total invested by the U.S. and Europe.

Next steps: So what are the next steps for China in implementing the Paris Agreement? Here are some of the major ones:

...

Develop a priority dispatch policy for renewable power: In the September 2015 US-China agreement, China committed to adopting a clean electricity dispatch system that will prioritize power generation from renewable sources. This is critically important because, even though China now leads the world in wind and solar energy, its current electricity system still continues to give precedence to coal-fired power plants, operating these plants in order to meet minimum contracted hours, rather than operating lower-emitting renewable power plants.

Scale Up Green Buildings: China pledged in the September US-China agreement to ensure that 50 percent of all new urban buildings will meet China's green building standards by 2020. This is a critical building block for China's climate efforts, since buildings account for about one-quarter of China's energy use, and the number of new buildings is expected to triple by 2030. Meeting this target will require an enormous effort, since only 2 percent of new urban buildings were green buildings in 2012, and the previous goal was 20 percent by 2015, set by the State Council in the 2013 Green Building Action Plan. But it also represents an enormous opportunity for green building companies in the US and elsewhere to participate in this expanding market.

Clean Up Transportation: China pledged to ensure that the share of public transit in all motorized urban transport reaches 30% by 2020 - presenting the potential for more huge reductions in CO2 emissions. This will require the growing number of medium-sized cities in China to make major investments in subways, buses and other public transport. China also announced that it will finalize next-stage fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles in 2016 and implement them in 2019. This is critically important because China now has the world's second largest vehicle population after the U.S.

Continue to work to reduce highly potent short-lived climate pollutants like HFCs and black carbon. Under the U.S.-China September 2015 agreement, China has pledged to accelerate its efforts to control super greenhouse gas HFCs, including "effectively controlling HFC-23 emissions by 2020". China will also cooperate with the U.S. to reduce HFCs, which are widely used in air conditioning and refrigeration, but for which companies have already found and are continuing to develop climate-friendly replacements.

China's Ministry of Transportation has also just released a roadmap for controlling air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from shipping, one of the fastest growing sources of transport greenhouse gas emissions. Shipping is currently responsible for almost 3 percent of global CO2 emissions and over 2 percent of global black carbon emissions, the second most potent climate pollutant behind CO2.

Continue to Strengthen China's GHG Monitoring and Reporting System: The new Paris Agreement contains strong provisions for all countries to regularly report their emissions and progress made towards achieving their emission reduction targets. China will need to continue to develop and strengthen its domestic rules for monitoring and reporting GHG emissions, including finalizing the mandatory GHG reporting system for all key industrial sectors that it began last year.

Paris Climate Agreement Explained: Next Steps for China

I think your open points have been adressed quite thoroughly in this overview. There is always room for improvement and China is a freshman in many areas, but you can stop demanding the perfect deal now. We'll do fine.

This whole global warming scepticism is nothing but a straw-man argument. We're not talking about CO2 emissions only, but rather about the fallout from pollution in general and how to address the consequences of our already changing climate.
But that's just me being in this head again. Maybe you folks just couldn't spare the few bucks for the Green Climate Fund?

$3 billion over four years,

The Little-Known Fund at the Heart of the Paris Climate Agreement

WOW! That's nearly impressive. Too big to fail anyone?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Well. Here's the rub: the climate changed already. Now it's your chance to help poorer nations circumvent the consequences and you denied. It's not that you came up with another plan instead, it's flat out denial. Thanks for nothing then.

Yep, the climate changed. We used to call that "weather." Now, I'll show off my psychicuarial talents and make a prediction: in 5 years, it will have changed some more.

As for being willing to help... I will admit I haven't even looked a loan officer in the eye in probably a decade; I don't borrow money. But I do have a memory sufficient to recall the earlier days of my existence when I borrowed money for various things. I have been turned down before and, strangely enough, I never had a single loan officer come to me later and offer to make it up to me by granting my request. I have gone back to them with a different proposal and occasionally that was accepted.

Somehow in this upside-down universe in which we find ourselves, the United States is suddenly a horrible entity because they turned down a bad deal. Somehow the United States is supposed to capitulate and beg for forgiveness? No. If the other countries want the US involved, it is their place to open negotiations and put forth a plan that is acceptable. After all, the US is not the ones in need of help. Beggars can't be choosers.

Screw that, move on and continue to build. Maybe he'll watch and learn.

That's the spirit! Show us how it's going to work, and we might be willing to get on board. Your proposal on paper just isn't convincing.

Now, for your information, back to China:

I noticed reading the except that there were a lot of references to "US-China" agreements, and these references mentioned greater goals and a faster time schedule. They also didn't include $3B in payouts, did they? I'm willing to bet they didn't include crippling our economy through even more regulations enacted by countries that wouldn't be affected.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the US is doing a pretty good job on pollution overall without the Paris Accord?

This whole global warming scepticism is nothing but a straw-man argument. We're not talking about CO2 emissions only, but rather about the fallout from pollution in general and how to address the consequences of our already changing climate.

I saw one reference to CFCs, which are now a minor pollution issue (thanks to US actions). The rest were about carbon dioxide. Not a single reference to sulfur compounds. Not a peep about nitrogen compounds.

The strawman is the very idea that carbon dioxide is anything less than a needed, beneficial gas in the amounts we see or are likely to see in the foreseeable future. The strawman is that all scientists and researchers are on board with the 'carbon dioxide is evil' concept... because they're not. But the real tell-tale indicator is the use of the word 'denier' or the use of the word 'skeptic' in a bad connotation. If a scientist is not a skeptic, they are not a scientist, because science is continual skepticism.

Carbon dioxide based Global Warming is a load of bunk proposed by paid shills, financed by criminal politicians, and supported by paid researchers charged with propagandizing results for public consumption.

But that's just me being in this head again. Maybe you folks just couldn't spare the few bucks for the Green Climate Fund?

Wow, congratulations! I didn't realize $3,000,000,000.00 was only a 'few bucks' to you! How about contributing 0.001% of those few bucks to me?

Must be nice to be sooooooo wealthy!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


Yeah, that's a drop in the ocean given your military spendings. Don't take it as whataboutism, I'm thinking priorities. And things might change for the good one day, let's just hope for the best.

Carbon dioxide based Global Warming is a load of bunk proposed by paid shills, financed by criminal politicians, and supported by paid researchers charged with propagandizing results for public consumption.

Also, it's a pretty solid theory many paid shills have their issues with. Especially those from big oil and co, there's mud on both sides of the road. Way more mud on the military-industrial complex side btw. Thus you'll have both of my eyebrows raised once you start to lash out in the other direction only.

Anyway. I don't think it's wise to leave, whilst reducing this agreement to the disputed carbon dioxide issue only, but why not. You've seen enough by now and I'm not willing to list up more details. This is a masterpiece and you are obviously preoccupied with carbon dioxide instead.
Propose something entirely new and you'll probably have the EU on board with that as well, we'll take anything we can.

a reply to: jtma508

They don't know. I'm not even sure why you asked.

a reply to: marg6043

But you agree with your tax dollars going to Trump and his many weekends at the winter white house eh?

I love you Trump supporters, bwhaha. No, to sacrifice some money to protect our earth, no never. But fund Trump and his unnecessary weekend trips, pay for Melania's unnecessary security when she can just move her ass to the white house, funding the trump sons as they going around using their father's position to make deals, creating all sorts of conflicts of interests, YES YES PLEASE.


Disgusting mammals.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Yeah, that's a drop in the ocean given your military spendings.

I can't argue that, but I also think our current military budget is too high as well. We desperately need to cut back on our foreign involvement. The US military should not be used as a global police force.

That said, we have made commitments and a sudden withdrawal of military commitments in the middle of an operation can be disastrous... think ISIS... so we have little control over military spending for the moment. Hopefully Trump will oversee more mission completions and less mission initiatives so we can fix that issue, without leaving other countries high and dry.

Also, it's a pretty solid theory many paid shills have their issues with. Especially those from big oil and co, there's mud on both sides of the road.

Mud on both sides? Agreed! I don't base my opinions on a scientific matter on who says what, though. I base them on my own scientific knowledge. That's where Global Warming comes up short.

Anyway. I don't think it's wise to leave

Fair enough.

Propose something entirely new and you'll probably have the EU on board with that as well, we'll take anything we can.

I hope we do. Stopping pollution is a noble and much-needed effort. But carbon dioxide is not pollution. It's a distraction.

TheRedneck

With the White House stating that Trump believes in climate change, and that he believes human pollutants have a role in the change, I guess you folks who pulled Trump into your corner of "It's fake science!" can reluctantly let him out again. Some of you act as if the bailing out of the Paris Agreement somehow vindicated your theory that climate change and the human's role in pushing it along was a "fake" agenda to steal people's money.

a reply to: FelisOrion

Thanks I love myself too, BTW you make no sense on the rant you just posted.

What a waste.

Do You see here, Trump just cut off that Great America from world. So americans run these oil based technology about forever and pays Saudis for oil supply, but people from modern world use way better technology tomorrow and pay 1/3 compared to waste motors.
There can be a fine chinese and europeans, who make profits because they moving on, but You stagnate to scornfulness.

a reply to: SaddledMummy

Don't you see what they are doing? It's the peasants that pay. Take A place like Germany, their power prices are amongst the highest in the world thanks to all of their 'green energy'. BUT, industry has their prices subsidized back to world levels so they can remain economically competitive in energy intensive industries. Who pays for that? The Taxpayers!