It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 32
74
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You are right that analyzing the raw data probably isn't for the layman. However, still spread the word about the 97% myth. The average person can take a look at studies such as Cook's like D8Tee pointed out and see that the conclusions Cook drew were bogus. It's obvious to anyone with an open mind, the numbers don't lie. The 97% consensus is a myth, and requires no expertise to see that and it's our responsibility to spread that knowledge. I tell anyone that will listen.


Agreed on this point. That break down ya'll provided was eye-opening.




posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


It's not just social costs, it's what is now called the "triple-bottom line," i.e. accounting for all externalities from social to economic/financial to environmental. They are all interrelated at the global or even national/regional level.

It can be quite difficult to place a cost value on all externalities. What is the exact cost value of freedom? Peace of mind? An extra year of life? Ease of breathing?

In order to accurately include externalities, a cost value must first be established, in like terms to all other costs. Typically, this is estimated. Such estimates are inherently subjective, however.


I don't know what is the dividing line at which point greenhouse gas accumulation, beyond just CO2, creates a break away cycle of increased warming (through tundra melting, glacial melting, deforestation,reduction of so-called carbon sinks, etc), such that this intersecting triple-bottom line becomes substantially affected. I'm not a climatologist, are you?

I approach such situations from a more pragmatic perspective: which combination of variables will give the most benefit for the least cost? This is subjective as well, but I see no other reasonable way to approach the question.

It is obvious to me that either extreme is unacceptable. If life becomes hellish due to pollution, or if success becomes impossible due to over-regulation and over-taxation, the solution is undesirable; overall benefit is at a minimum. Ergo, the best solution is somewhere in between - a compromise. The Paris Accord was one of those extremes: a plan with a very high price tag, both in monetary and sovereignty terms, and little to no actual benefit. Even Al Gore stated recently that it was more symbolic than practical.

The problem with including more than just carbon dioxide is that each gas has different sources, different characteristics, and different solutions. There is no one-size-fits-all in chemistry. Carbon dioxide, for instance, must exist in the atmosphere for us to survive; the only question is what concentration is acceptable. Methane is not essential for life. We could live just fine if there were no methane in the atmosphere. But we also know that tectonic processes naturally release small quantities, so there is an acceptable level. Sulfur dioxide is poisonous and causes waters, whether sea water or rain water, to acidify to the point of severely harming life. It, too, is released tectonicly, but in tiny quantities. Carbon monoxide is a deadly asphysiant, with releases similar in quantity to sulfur dioxide, but unlike sulphur dioxide, it will revert to carbon dioxide naturally with no additional harm.

Each gas needs to be addressed separately and distinctly.

As to my being a climatologist, no. There are so few actual climatologists that you should consider yourself lucky if you ever meet one. Climatology is an application science which includes elements from fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, and chemistry, and is a recent introduction to academia. I am an electrical engineer who considers chemistry as a 'hobby' and has a deep interest in atomic physics. Electrical engineering is one of the most mathematically intensive of the fields, so I have no problem understanding the science.


As to your final paragraph, it seems like you are trying to again be 'splainey, and use big words for the hell of it. You see, as a former science teacher, and as a data analyst for a public outreach unit for a governmental agency, I am used to doing the opposite, converting data and science into layman's terms.

Actually, everything I mentioned is a specific aspect of greenhouse gas activity. Layman's terms are fine... I use them myself normally... but there are times when more exact statements are required. You touted your academic record (fair enough, I do the same), so I assumed you would be familiar with the terminology.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


As far as climatological modeling goes, the argument runs that the changes in the weather, desertification, increased droughts, etc, would place sufficient shocks on global agriculture to create food insecurity and offset any benefits accrued from what you are describing.

According the World Bank’s global crop yield data, US crop yields have increased almost 80% since 1980 with a considerable portion of that increase due to: CO2 fertilization, plants requiring less water due to leaf stoma shrinkage from higher CO2 levels, a slight increased global precipitation, slightly longer growing seasons due to the slight increase in global temperatures, increased arable land area in Northern latitudes due to slightly warming temperatures, etc…

World Bank Link

Where is the warming trend for the past 18 years? Where is the catastrophe? Why is CAGW still taken seriously? Why is the world still throwing $trillions down the toilet on this CAGW scam?

Man’s CO2 emissions have been a boon to the Earth’s ecology and economy and have helped save billions of humans from starvation over the years. In the process of burning fossil fuels, we’ve also created the energy necessary to drive the fastest economic expansion in human history and have managed to lift billions of people from abject poverty… Try doing that with wind turbines and solar panels…

In the process of burning all this fossil fuel, the US has actually managed to substantially DECREASE real air pollution by up to 90%:

EPA Link
If you asked the average Joe on the street what’s happened to air quality in the US since 1980, I bet 80% of the people surveyed would say air quality has worsened…

BTW, the climate models are failing, there has been no warming in the last 18 years unless you cherry pick an el nino year and thats natural variation.



Really? The increase in global agricultural output I don't think most agronomists would agree is due to your citations. It's better fertilizers, crop management, seed varietals, genetics, etc. That's what I learned. However, we are now reaching a limit of food production, but not quite yet, with the exception of aquaculture, which in many countries such as Bangladesh (another place I worked) has huge potential.

The US' air quality did NOT get better due to fossil fuels, it got better because we outsourced the majority of our industry around the time you are mentioning. We not only outsourced our industry, we outsourced our air pollution. Trust me, I lived in China, the air pollution there is epic. There are whole studies on this shift. In parallel, a lot of clean air regulations were passed from many states requiring catalytic converters to cleaner burning power plants (relatively).
edit on 5-6-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I wasn't claiming the air quality got better due to burning the fossil fuels, the desulfurization of our fuel supply, cleaner burning engines and tighter regulations all contributed, but you cannot deny that it did indeed improve. Did we decrease our fossil fuel usage in the USA? Is the pollution that you see in china C02?

The C02 fertilization effect is real. It has contributed to the increase in crop yields, that cannot be denied.


From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
NASA



Elevated [CO2] also decreases stomatal conductance in both C3 and C4 species (Ainsworth and Rogers 2007), which can result in decreased canopy water use (Leakey 2009), increased soil moisture content (Hunsaker et al 2000, Conley et al 2001, Leakey et al 2006), and potentially improved yield when water availability is low (Leakey et al 2004, Bernacchi et al 2007).


McGrath and Lobell
edit on 5-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


I don't disagree with any of that, but I like the idea of solar tied to hydrogen on a local level. I'd like the ability to store solar energy from my panels for emergencies.

I would like to see wind and solar improved for planetary exploration. We'll need solar for the moon, and wind for Mars. We certainly won't be shipping oil or coal to either location.

Solar-to-hydrogen is probably the most efficient conversion to useable energy, agreed. Typical photovoltaic cells output high currents (many amps for larger cells) at a mere 0.5 volts. That's one of the difficulties scaling photovoltaic to industrial production: transmission of electricity requires high-voltage AC not the low voltage DC produced by solar photovoltaic, and the conversion is very power-hungry.

Hydrogen production via electrolysis is itself a low-voltage, high-current DC application, so it's a perfect match. Hydrogen can replace fossil fuels in transportation, but there is one downside: an entirely new infrastructure to handle hydrogen is needed.

OK, two downsides... hydrogen likes to explode.

Solar would be the go-to for initial planetary exploration, but there is no existing infrastructure on Mars... we can design one specifically for solar power.


Does your concern about 'effects of scale' with wind not apply to wave?

Not really. Wind power affects the movement of a current of air and therefore affects all areas downwind from the turbine. Wave energy would be implemented close to the shore, so there is no real 'downwind area' to be concerned with.

Wave power is also self-limiting, because it cannot efficiently produce power for inland areas... transmission inefficiencies would be prohibitive. I suggest nuclear (or thorium?) for inland regions.


I'm also hopeful for cold fusion one day, but breakthroughs will need to be made. Breakthroughs will need a robust energy sector and open productivity.

I used to have high hopes for cold fusion, but it seems we are unable to achieve the needed breakthroughs. If that changes tomorrow, I most certainly will not complain, though.

But you're spot on that our best hope for breakthroughs lie in making it easier, not harder, to experiment. The regulations in the Paris Accord would have served to stifle experimentation and halt progress toward new solutions.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
The Chinese understand the art of the deal.

US negotiator: We want you to make the same costly change we are making.
Chinese negotiator: We won’t make the change unless you pay us first.
US negotiator: Make the change and we will pay you.
Chinese negotiator: You are the one wanting the change, pay first and we will change
US negotiator: OK, Here is the money
Chinese negotiator: Thanks, we will make change
US negotiator: When?
Chinese negotiator: We never agreed when, only to make change.
US negotiator: We need change by 2020
Chinese negotiator: That will cost extra
US negotiator: OK, Here is the money
Chinese negotiator: Thanks, we will make change 2020
2020:
US negotiator: Where is change?
Chinese negotiator: We made change
US negotiator: Nothing has changed
Chinese negotiator: We replaced old with new
US negotiator: New has same problem.
Chinese negotiator: Money was to fix old, not fix new
US negotiator: We want you to make the same costly change to new as well.
Chinese negotiator: We won’t make the change unless you pay us first.
US negotiator: Make the change and we will pay you.
Chinese negotiator: You are the one wanting the change, pay first and we will change
US negotiator: OK, Here is the money
Chinese negotiator: Thanks, we will make change



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

This is precisely the problem. Iran took us for the same ride with the nuclear deal there. The US was really just wanting A deal so they could claim they did something, and the other parties recognize this right away and take advantage of it in the negotiations.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I wasn't claiming the air quality got better due to burning the fossil fuels, the desulfurization of our fuel supply, cleaner burning engines and tighter regulations all contributed, but you cannot deny that it did indeed improve. Did we decrease our fossil fuel usage in the USA? Is the pollution that you see in china C02?

The C02 fertilization effect is real. It has contributed to the increase in crop yields, that cannot be denied.


From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
NASA



Elevated [CO2] also decreases stomatal conductance in both C3 and C4 species (Ainsworth and Rogers 2007), which can result in decreased canopy water use (Leakey 2009), increased soil moisture content (Hunsaker et al 2000, Conley et al 2001, Leakey et al 2006), and potentially improved yield when water availability is low (Leakey et al 2004, Bernacchi et al 2007).


McGrath and Lobell
so you admit it's partly regulations. The other part is mainly that we off shored our industry. This is one reason places like China now have a major pollution problem. It's partly because they are one of the industrial bases of the world, still producing parts and products for the more developed countries.
edit on 6-6-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


This is one reason places like China now have a major pollution problem. It's partly because they are one of the industrial bases of the world, still producing parts and products for the more developed countries.

True. But is that in itself not an indictment of the Paris Accord? Enforcing additional regulations on developed countries while delaying any restriction on developing nations simply moves pollution around and endangers the health of all those in the developing nations. We have one world... not one for the US/Europe, one for China, one for India, one for Africa... and in the end it does not matter where in the world pollution exists. It only matters that it exists.

Better to reduce restrictions on developed nations in return for supplying direct aid... not just or even primarily money, but technology and information... to developing nations to help them directly. That would move some of the polluting industries back into areas which are more capable of maintaining the environment and reduce pollution world-wide.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah, I mean, why wouldn't they want to do something actually meaningful and practical like that instead of us just pouring money into a slush fund?

Oh that's why.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I wasn't claiming the air quality got better due to burning the fossil fuels, the desulfurization of our fuel supply, cleaner burning engines and tighter regulations all contributed, but you cannot deny that it did indeed improve. Did we decrease our fossil fuel usage in the USA? Is the pollution that you see in china C02?

The C02 fertilization effect is real. It has contributed to the increase in crop yields, that cannot be denied.


From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
NASA



Elevated [CO2] also decreases stomatal conductance in both C3 and C4 species (Ainsworth and Rogers 2007), which can result in decreased canopy water use (Leakey 2009), increased soil moisture content (Hunsaker et al 2000, Conley et al 2001, Leakey et al 2006), and potentially improved yield when water availability is low (Leakey et al 2004, Bernacchi et al 2007).


McGrath and Lobell
so you admit it's partly regulations. The other part is mainly that we off shored our industry. This is one reason places like China now have a major pollution problem. It's partly because they are one of the industrial bases of the world, still producing parts and products for the more developed countries.


Riddle me this. If the USA did not significantly decrease it's fossil fuel usage, how did real air pollution drop 80 %? It cannot be mostly from 'offshoring industry' can it? The pollution we see in China is not C02. C02 is a colorless odorless gas. Better regulation are what I see as the driver of the air quality improvements. If you want the pollution cleaned up in China, why should the USA pay?




Clean Air Act programs have lowered levels of six common pollutants -- particles, ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide -- as well as numerous toxic pollutants.
From 1970 to 2015, aggregate national emissions of the six common pollutants alone dropped an average of 70 percent while gross domestic product grew by 246 percent. This progress reflects efforts by state, local and tribal governments; EPA; private sector companies; environmental groups and others.


Source
edit on 6-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I wasn't claiming the air quality got better due to burning the fossil fuels, the desulfurization of our fuel supply, cleaner burning engines and tighter regulations all contributed, but you cannot deny that it did indeed improve. Did we decrease our fossil fuel usage in the USA? Is the pollution that you see in china C02?

The C02 fertilization effect is real. It has contributed to the increase in crop yields, that cannot be denied.


From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
NASA



Elevated [CO2] also decreases stomatal conductance in both C3 and C4 species (Ainsworth and Rogers 2007), which can result in decreased canopy water use (Leakey 2009), increased soil moisture content (Hunsaker et al 2000, Conley et al 2001, Leakey et al 2006), and potentially improved yield when water availability is low (Leakey et al 2004, Bernacchi et al 2007).


McGrath and Lobell
so you admit it's partly regulations. The other part is mainly that we off shored our industry. This is one reason places like China now have a major pollution problem. It's partly because they are one of the industrial bases of the world, still producing parts and products for the more developed countries.


Riddle me this. If the USA did not significantly decrease it's fossil fuel usage, how did real air pollution drop 80 %? It cannot be mostly from 'offshoring industry' can it? The pollution we see in China is not C02. C02 is a colorless odorless gas. Better regulation are what I see as the driver of the air quality improvements. If you want the pollution cleaned up in China, why should the USA pay?




Clean Air Act programs have lowered levels of six common pollutants -- particles, ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide -- as well as numerous toxic pollutants.
From 1970 to 2015, aggregate national emissions of the six common pollutants alone dropped an average of 70 percent while gross domestic product grew by 246 percent. This progress reflects efforts by state, local and tribal governments; EPA; private sector companies; environmental groups and others.


Source


How dare you speak of logic and facts and...scientific charts. Don't you know we must break America, take their money and redistribute it to the world? Just shut the Hell up and allow the progress left to do their job. You worthless, ignorant livestock!



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I wasn't claiming the air quality got better due to burning the fossil fuels, the desulfurization of our fuel supply, cleaner burning engines and tighter regulations all contributed, but you cannot deny that it did indeed improve. Did we decrease our fossil fuel usage in the USA? Is the pollution that you see in china C02?

The C02 fertilization effect is real. It has contributed to the increase in crop yields, that cannot be denied.


From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
NASA



Elevated [CO2] also decreases stomatal conductance in both C3 and C4 species (Ainsworth and Rogers 2007), which can result in decreased canopy water use (Leakey 2009), increased soil moisture content (Hunsaker et al 2000, Conley et al 2001, Leakey et al 2006), and potentially improved yield when water availability is low (Leakey et al 2004, Bernacchi et al 2007).


McGrath and Lobell
so you admit it's partly regulations. The other part is mainly that we off shored our industry. This is one reason places like China now have a major pollution problem. It's partly because they are one of the industrial bases of the world, still producing parts and products for the more developed countries.


Riddle me this. If the USA did not significantly decrease it's fossil fuel usage, how did real air pollution drop 80 %? It cannot be mostly from 'offshoring industry' can it? The pollution we see in China is not C02. C02 is a colorless odorless gas. Better regulation are what I see as the driver of the air quality improvements. If you want the pollution cleaned up in China, why should the USA pay?




Clean Air Act programs have lowered levels of six common pollutants -- particles, ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide -- as well as numerous toxic pollutants.
From 1970 to 2015, aggregate national emissions of the six common pollutants alone dropped an average of 70 percent while gross domestic product grew by 246 percent. This progress reflects efforts by state, local and tribal governments; EPA; private sector companies; environmental groups and others.


Source


How dare you speak of logic and facts and...scientific charts. Don't you know we must break America, take their money and redistribute it to the world? Just shut the Hell up and allow the progress left to do their job. You worthless, ignorant livestock!
Big trouble for alarmists on the horizon, Scott Pruitt is going to set up a 'red team vs blue team' to debate the dangers of C02. Cats going to be let out of the bag and the population will come to understand they've been the victims of the largest psychological campaign ever perpetrated upon a population. I can't wait!



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
Big trouble for alarmists on the horizon, Scott Pruitt is going to set up a 'red team vs blue team' to debate the dangers of C02.

That's always good, as long as it isn't scripted.


Cats going to be let out of the bag and the population will come to understand they've been the victims of the largest psychological campaign ever perpetrated upon a population. I can't wait!

I'm pretty sure the campaign that keeps the MIC rolling has this beat. Just saying.
edit on 6-6-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


This is one reason places like China now have a major pollution problem. It's partly because they are one of the industrial bases of the world, still producing parts and products for the more developed countries.

True. But is that in itself not an indictment of the Paris Accord? Enforcing additional regulations on developed countries while delaying any restriction on developing nations simply moves pollution around and endangers the health of all those in the developing nations. We have one world... not one for the US/Europe, one for China, one for India, one for Africa... and in the end it does not matter where in the world pollution exists. It only matters that it exists.

Better to reduce restrictions on developed nations in return for supplying direct aid... not just or even primarily money, but technology and information... to developing nations to help them directly. That would move some of the polluting industries back into areas which are more capable of maintaining the environment and reduce pollution world-wide.

TheRedneck


I think you need to read the sustainable development goals, which are intersecting with the climate agreements. It covers all of this. You have to take the climate agreements in tandem with the SDGs and 2030 UN agenda.

Also, part of addressing the pollution in developing countries involves strategies ranging from actual development aid to sustainable tech transfer and financing for development.

Yes, absolutely, the whole point is we are an interconnected world, especially at economic or environmental levels. These interlocking agreements address these issues.

www.un.org...

SDG 13 interlocks with the climate change accords. www.un.org...

Without outing myself too much, I did some work regarding the SDGs.
edit on 6-6-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I wasn't claiming the air quality got better due to burning the fossil fuels, the desulfurization of our fuel supply, cleaner burning engines and tighter regulations all contributed, but you cannot deny that it did indeed improve. Did we decrease our fossil fuel usage in the USA? Is the pollution that you see in china C02?

The C02 fertilization effect is real. It has contributed to the increase in crop yields, that cannot be denied.


From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
NASA



Elevated [CO2] also decreases stomatal conductance in both C3 and C4 species (Ainsworth and Rogers 2007), which can result in decreased canopy water use (Leakey 2009), increased soil moisture content (Hunsaker et al 2000, Conley et al 2001, Leakey et al 2006), and potentially improved yield when water availability is low (Leakey et al 2004, Bernacchi et al 2007).


McGrath and Lobell
so you admit it's partly regulations. The other part is mainly that we off shored our industry. This is one reason places like China now have a major pollution problem. It's partly because they are one of the industrial bases of the world, still producing parts and products for the more developed countries.


Riddle me this. If the USA did not significantly decrease it's fossil fuel usage, how did real air pollution drop 80 %? It cannot be mostly from 'offshoring industry' can it? The pollution we see in China is not C02. C02 is a colorless odorless gas. Better regulation are what I see as the driver of the air quality improvements. If you want the pollution cleaned up in China, why should the USA pay?




Clean Air Act programs have lowered levels of six common pollutants -- particles, ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide -- as well as numerous toxic pollutants.
From 1970 to 2015, aggregate national emissions of the six common pollutants alone dropped an average of 70 percent while gross domestic product grew by 246 percent. This progress reflects efforts by state, local and tribal governments; EPA; private sector companies; environmental groups and others.


Source


At this point I feel you are just being difficult.

I already said that the reasons were two main ones, offshoring industry and clean air regulations of various types, maybe with the addition of some limited advent of sustainable energy production.

Also, CO2 is as you say not a major pollutant besides in the climate change sense.

A different argument is now addressing pollution in China. Also, you should know that much air pollution, especially greenhouse gases, does not respect natural borders. When it comes to the environment, nature does not obey temporally and geographically limited conceptions of nation states.
edit on 6-6-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I wasn't claiming the air quality got better due to burning the fossil fuels, the desulfurization of our fuel supply, cleaner burning engines and tighter regulations all contributed, but you cannot deny that it did indeed improve. Did we decrease our fossil fuel usage in the USA? Is the pollution that you see in china C02?

The C02 fertilization effect is real. It has contributed to the increase in crop yields, that cannot be denied.


From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
NASA



Elevated [CO2] also decreases stomatal conductance in both C3 and C4 species (Ainsworth and Rogers 2007), which can result in decreased canopy water use (Leakey 2009), increased soil moisture content (Hunsaker et al 2000, Conley et al 2001, Leakey et al 2006), and potentially improved yield when water availability is low (Leakey et al 2004, Bernacchi et al 2007).


McGrath and Lobell
so you admit it's partly regulations. The other part is mainly that we off shored our industry. This is one reason places like China now have a major pollution problem. It's partly because they are one of the industrial bases of the world, still producing parts and products for the more developed countries.


Riddle me this. If the USA did not significantly decrease it's fossil fuel usage, how did real air pollution drop 80 %? It cannot be mostly from 'offshoring industry' can it? The pollution we see in China is not C02. C02 is a colorless odorless gas. Better regulation are what I see as the driver of the air quality improvements. If you want the pollution cleaned up in China, why should the USA pay?




Clean Air Act programs have lowered levels of six common pollutants -- particles, ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide -- as well as numerous toxic pollutants.
From 1970 to 2015, aggregate national emissions of the six common pollutants alone dropped an average of 70 percent while gross domestic product grew by 246 percent. This progress reflects efforts by state, local and tribal governments; EPA; private sector companies; environmental groups and others.


Source


How dare you speak of logic and facts and...scientific charts. Don't you know we must break America, take their money and redistribute it to the world? Just shut the Hell up and allow the progress left to do their job. You worthless, ignorant livestock!



Except, there are all kinds of pragmatic, interlocking agreements already developing over the past 3-4 years that address other aspects of this. www.un.org...

Other goals than Goal 13 address some other related needs such as tech transfer.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


I think you need to read the sustainable development goals, which are intersecting with the climate agreements. It covers all of this. You have to take the climate agreements in tandem with the SDGs and 2030 UN agenda.

Also, part of addressing the pollution in developing countries involves strategies ranging from actual development aid to sustainable tech transfer and financing for development.

The problem with that approach is two-fold.

Firstly, it is not possible to set goals for others. Those are demands, not goals. Goals are personal, self-determined, and worthwhile, by definition.

Secondly, no one knows what technology will bring, and what will be required in order to advance it. Oftentimes a regulation designed to reduce emissions in one area will have the effect of stifling research in another. Example (from another thread): abandoning reduced sulfur because accomplishing that goal will produce a little more carbon dioxide.

Authority is a poor way to motivate people, and we need motivation. Cooperation and rewards for success will go much, much farther than financial punishment and threats, especially when the latter come from those far removed from the average person's reality.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yes and it is part of Myron Ebells Blueprint that he has given to the Trump admin to pull the plug on the UN Framework Conference on Climate Change. Exit stage left and be done with the whole damn charade.

I've posted the blueprint here.
The gig is up, I'm certain the admin plans to follow thru with their agenda.
Step one was get the US out of The Paris Agreement, and thats done.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

eta:



At this point I feel you are just being difficult.

How am I being difficult? I'm supplying facts figures and data which we are both learning from. When you ask those questions it motivates me to dig yet deeper. I was not entirely aware of the staggering gains the USA had made in air quality levels. I knew they had gotten better, but 80% better with next to no reduction in fossil fuel usage? Must be doing some good there without the help of the UN? You'll not as well on the blueprint that the regs will be changed so that C02 is no longer labelled a pollutant.




A different argument is now addressing pollution in China.
They can pay for that themselves, why should we pay? The west paying for China to clean up their problem won't work imho.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 6-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
74
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join