You are again way off the rails my friend. I have explained to you the policies that I believe will help.
The issue with China is they are currently the worst, they have the technology and reasources to be better. This statement does not mean that the US and the west also do not have the reasource and technology to be better. This not something you need to make me aware of. My job is to talk to businesses about how they can better, I go to conferences, attend webinars, meet with climate scientists, work with environmental engineers and so on.
I’m very confused to why you think that saying China is terrible makes the west great. That is the logical equivalent of me saying Brussels sprouts are terrible and you arguing that I’m saying frozen peas are delicious.
China and the US are different countries with different issues and need to be discussed separately.
Apologizing in for China’s poor behaviour for what ever reason is not helping. They are terrible, you can justify it however you like it does not change the fact that they are awful.
To stop the crisis it will take them, the US, India, Canada , Norway, so on. Literally every country to make big changes. The rich countries it is mostly over consumption issues, and the whole world is now interrelated so that want of more has lead to poorer countries doing much of the manufacturing. Taking advantage of cheap labour and low regulation, including environmental but not exclusively, safety is another one that is not the same for example. Countries like China have done it in a way that has made very few very rich with no concern for their people or their environment. This should be talked about as evil. And does not stop you or anyone else from talking about the damage the US does there is not a finite amount of bad in the world that talking about the bad of one makes the bad of another less.
No thank you, GH takes off the gloves in PMs then sends the convos to mods and ends up getting himself banned. I’d rather it just be out in the open so inevitably when he does go to the mods everyone who chimes in has the same info. Not to mention in a place where people who don’t want to read about don’t have read through 50 posts unrelated to the thread topic. I think this is a polite to them solution.
I think this is fairly solvable, I just need to find a way to explain that the US is bad for the environment because of their insatiable desire for consumption and buying products based on price and not social and environmental impact, they know better and should do better. China is bad because they are feeding this demand in a horrible way socially and environmentally, despite knowing better. The relationship is exponential more than a negative correlation one. Both need to and can do better. There is no real argument here that is just fact.
Jimmi you raise a fair point in the first paragraph. "I’m very confused to why you think that saying China is terrible makes the west great." And for whatever reason, this illogical sentiment has to be repeatedly spoken. I've started question the motives of others why they feel inclined to tell me china is bad, instead of telling me solutions to what we're facing now.
and I'm just going to call it for what it is, racism. The same people who spoke ill of the Chinese, Chinese Americans / Asians, are the same ones who are currently using the political climate to facilitate their hate. they just now have a political channel to funnel their racism. The whole I have to put down Asians, to prop myself up reeks of inferiority complex. You know these sentiments are true if you even remotely watch TI, and get a general consensus to what people type in twitch chat.
"Fuck china, free hong kong, ching chong, china numba 1" along with "biased crowd" when all western crowds are completely biased towards the home team in every TI. all these sentiments are well, racial sentiments that have only been magnified due to the current political climate, but more importantly these were the same sentiments ushered far before it became a PC issue.
I find it odd such focus is on the ills of china and not the betterment of america. let's call it out for what it is, racism.
On August 25 2019 01:07 JimmiC wrote: You are again way off the rails my friend. I have explained to you the policies that I believe will help.
The issue with China is they are currently the worst
Actually they are leaders when it comes to investing in renewable energies. It's a real issue for them, their citizens (comrades?) are about to riot because of it.
The US are the worst, their President even said it was a "Chinese hoax" while they are the biggest polluters, only behind the richest oil nations which do whatthefuckeries in the desert with their insane wealth. But anyway, leading countries misbehaving on this matter should never be an excuse for other countries to not make the efforts required. We're speaking about thousands of billions of people yet to be born.
It is not racism to say China is awful for tge environment it is just fact. They are also number 1 for solar power, this is also fact. And it is fact that what they have done in renewables has not offset tge coal and other issues. Solar also has its issues. California has cut back on it because of the enviromental concerns. We have some really large wind farms and they are mostly positive but also have issues.
There are a lot of things the chinese could do better such as not displacing millions of people who dont want to be displaced for not needed super large engineering achievements. Using the best possible environmental ly friendly engineering techniques instead of the ones that use the most concrete and so on.
My main point is actually that there is a lot to be done in all countries, who is worst does not even matter.
You're vastly overestimating China's wealth. They are numerous and having a few hundred millions of them reaching the middle class status does not mean they've solved their poverty issues. You have to understand that people who don't have their basic needs satisfied won't care a lot about global warming
Besides
My main point is actually that there is a lot to be done in all countries, who is worst does not even matter.
The issue with China is they are currently the worst
The Chinese government is terrifying, Chinese citizens understand it more than anyone. But it's common sense that they should put their priority elsewhere. We should be happy they're putting so much efforts on environmental issues, they don't have nearly as much wealth as us. On the other hand the richest countries in the world barely try.
China is not putting in tons of effort. They greenwash with the solar panels they produce.
I do agree the should combat poverty, sadly their leadership is interested in making themselves billions of dollars and their friends and family's. China is not a place that should not be copied or praised.
An environmental politics thread is probably a good idea in the same way the gun thread is a good idea.
I have yet to read through Bernie's Green New Deal but I'm looking forward to it. From the synopsis I've seen around it looks good, especially moving to renewable transport, I think thatll be a tough sell to all the Americans who own a car that isn't electric but tbh if I could sell my car to the government for money towards an electric car that'd be something I'd be excited to do.
Even just managing to implement robust public transit with renewables would be a good step to me. God knows the US needs better public transit.
I think being aggressive with these plans is a good move. It is going to be hard to get everything through anyways. Your not touching Trumps base anyway, do something that makes millennial want to vote. I have not read through the whole thing either but I agree transport is a great place to start tge US has always been about cars. It would be nice to see some regulations about planned obsolescence and single use products as well.
On August 25 2019 10:35 BerserkSword wrote: From what I understand America is full of people like me who buy cars with V8 engines, leave the computer on 24/7, and eat meat at least 3x a day
Yeah which is part of the heart of the issue. There isn't a way to make western life as we know it sustainable and things that help around the margins like consumer choice and reusables/waste reduction make us feel better and slow/reduce the impending catastrophe slightly but they miss the issue at the center which is the dominant economic system and our way of life.
It's super unfair of the "western" world to now tell china to stop polluting the environment. Sure, China is the biggest polluter with heavy industry and energy production, but we are buying the products the make for cheap so that we can have more efficient industries. The only way for change is going to be limiting our own consumerism by drastically increasing prizes for the worst offenders like meat, cars, electicity. Only if it hurts our bank accounts to eat meat every day, we will stop doing it. And then, when the western world drastically reduces consumerism, we can ask countries like China to do their part as well.
The problem is just that there is absolutely no political will for this discussion, as politicians don't want to suicide their career for necessary changes that can only be started by taking away the toys of the public. And the public will not start freely giving away their toys if they are not forced. And then there is the issue with social equality becoming worse if we just make the toys more expensive.
On August 26 2019 03:38 Broetchenholer wrote: It's super unfair of the "western" world to now tell china to stop polluting the environment. Sure, China is the biggest polluter with heavy industry and energy production, but we are buying the products the make for cheap so that we can have more efficient industries. The only way for change is going to be limiting our own consumerism by drastically increasing prizes for the worst offenders like meat, cars, electicity. Only if it hurts our bank accounts to eat meat every day, we will stop doing it. And then, when the western world drastically reduces consumerism, we can ask countries like China to do their part as well.
The problem is just that there is absolutely no political will for this discussion, as politicians don't want to suicide their career for necessary changes that can only be started by taking away the toys of the public. And the public will not start freely giving away their toys if they are not forced. And then there is the issue with social equality becoming worse if we just make the toys more expensive.
I would disagree with you to the extent that I think it is fair to pressure China to clean up their act, provided that we are holding up our end of the bargain as well.
I hear theres an upcoming presidential candidate who has some ideas
Also JimmiC good thread with a lot to talk about, but does the OP really need to be a snippet of your latest back and forth with GH?
On August 26 2019 03:38 Broetchenholer wrote: It's super unfair of the "western" world to now tell china to stop polluting the environment. Sure, China is the biggest polluter with heavy industry and energy production, but we are buying the products the make for cheap so that we can have more efficient industries. The only way for change is going to be limiting our own consumerism by drastically increasing prizes for the worst offenders like meat, cars, electicity. Only if it hurts our bank accounts to eat meat every day, we will stop doing it. And then, when the western world drastically reduces consumerism, we can ask countries like China to do their part as well.
The problem is just that there is absolutely no political will for this discussion, as politicians don't want to suicide their career for necessary changes that can only be started by taking away the toys of the public. And the public will not start freely giving away their toys if they are not forced. And then there is the issue with social equality becoming worse if we just make the toys more expensive.
I would disagree with you to the extent that I think it is fair to pressure China to clean up their act, provided that we are holding up our end of the bargain as well.
I hear theres an upcoming presidential candidate who has some ideas
Also JimmiC good thread with a lot to talk about, but does the OP really need to be a snippet of your latest back and forth with GH?
The thread has grown into something far better than I intended which was just to move a not related to SA politics thread off of it. So now that it has gone with positive way I'll update the OP and then hopefully a Mod will update the title at some point.
On August 26 2019 03:38 Broetchenholer wrote: It's super unfair of the "western" world to now tell china to stop polluting the environment. Sure, China is the biggest polluter with heavy industry and energy production, but we are buying the products the make for cheap so that we can have more efficient industries. The only way for change is going to be limiting our own consumerism by drastically increasing prizes for the worst offenders like meat, cars, electicity. Only if it hurts our bank accounts to eat meat every day, we will stop doing it. And then, when the western world drastically reduces consumerism, we can ask countries like China to do their part as well.
The problem is just that there is absolutely no political will for this discussion, as politicians don't want to suicide their career for necessary changes that can only be started by taking away the toys of the public. And the public will not start freely giving away their toys if they are not forced. And then there is the issue with social equality becoming worse if we just make the toys more expensive.
I would disagree with you to the extent that I think it is fair to pressure China to clean up their act, provided that we are holding up our end of the bargain as well.
I hear theres an upcoming presidential candidate who has some ideas
Also JimmiC good thread with a lot to talk about, but does the OP really need to be a snippet of your latest back and forth with GH?
Well, it can be expected that everybody does as much as is possible for their society and economy. But it's very unfair to go to the countries trying their best t ocatch up to our standard of living and just say that now that we fucked it up and had our 60 years of paradise, they are not allowed in. 1 billion chinese people want computers? Not gonna happen, they are not 100% emission free yet so they are not allowed to increase their energy consumption per capita. Of course it is reasonable to assume that if we are pulling our weight and help the less developed countries to do the same that they will try their best to reach a richer society in a less polluting way. But that requires our effort. We need to invest massively in development projects all over the world to make the transition feasible for countries who can not prioritize climate policies over improving living conditions. And as we are not even able to say that we need to consume less in political discourse without being laughed out of the room, there is no reason to ever talk about any other countries then our own.
On August 26 2019 03:38 Broetchenholer wrote: It's super unfair of the "western" world to now tell china to stop polluting the environment. Sure, China is the biggest polluter with heavy industry and energy production, but we are buying the products the make for cheap so that we can have more efficient industries. The only way for change is going to be limiting our own consumerism by drastically increasing prizes for the worst offenders like meat, cars, electicity. Only if it hurts our bank accounts to eat meat every day, we will stop doing it. And then, when the western world drastically reduces consumerism, we can ask countries like China to do their part as well.
The problem is just that there is absolutely no political will for this discussion, as politicians don't want to suicide their career for necessary changes that can only be started by taking away the toys of the public. And the public will not start freely giving away their toys if they are not forced. And then there is the issue with social equality becoming worse if we just make the toys more expensive.
I would disagree with you to the extent that I think it is fair to pressure China to clean up their act, provided that we are holding up our end of the bargain as well.
I hear theres an upcoming presidential candidate who has some ideas
Also JimmiC good thread with a lot to talk about, but does the OP really need to be a snippet of your latest back and forth with GH?
Well, it can be expected that everybody does as much as is possible for their society and economy. But it's very unfair to go to the countries trying their best t ocatch up to our standard of living and just say that now that we fucked it up and had our 60 years of paradise, they are not allowed in. 1 billion chinese people want computers? Not gonna happen, they are not 100% emission free yet so they are not allowed to increase their energy consumption per capita. Of course it is reasonable to assume that if we are pulling our weight and help the less developed countries to do the same that they will try their best to reach a richer society in a less polluting way. But that requires our effort. We need to invest massively in development projects all over the world to make the transition feasible for countries who can not prioritize climate policies over improving living conditions. And as we are not even able to say that we need to consume less in political discourse without being laughed out of the room, there is no reason to ever talk about any other countries then our own.
There is a whole bunch of not throwing stones from a glass house style arguments that are true. It is a little bit like Leonardo Dicaprio flying in his private jet and using his yacht while being a environmentalist. But it is also true that there are many projects being under taken in China that have very little to do with raising the standard of living of the billion and much more to do with making a very select few very rich. We should talk bad about those projects and we should not be fooled by green washing by their dictatorship government.
One of the biggest problems with the environment is that almost everyone knows things they could be doing that would be better for the environment but they are simply not willing to do them because they would be harder or less convenient. Generally people are able to justify away this behavior by the reality that they themselves are just a minuscule part of the problem. However, it is also true that if everyone who thought this way actually made those changes they are aware of it would make a huge difference.
China in someways can make bigger changes faster than most people because it can force their people to do things in ways we can not. No developed free nation could just move millions of people because it wanted to build the worlds biggest Airport for example. So if the Chinese government made some big choices to be better for the environment they could probably accomplish some pretty amazing things.
The main point of my argument is not that China needs to x, y, z, it is that every country needs to do x, y, and z. They all have pretty sound reasons on why they are not doing it, but at some point humanity is not going to be given a choice. The question is if we make those changes in time or not.
On August 26 2019 03:38 Broetchenholer wrote: It's super unfair of the "western" world to now tell china to stop polluting the environment. Sure, China is the biggest polluter with heavy industry and energy production, but we are buying the products the make for cheap so that we can have more efficient industries. The only way for change is going to be limiting our own consumerism by drastically increasing prizes for the worst offenders like meat, cars, electicity. Only if it hurts our bank accounts to eat meat every day, we will stop doing it. And then, when the western world drastically reduces consumerism, we can ask countries like China to do their part as well.
The problem is just that there is absolutely no political will for this discussion, as politicians don't want to suicide their career for necessary changes that can only be started by taking away the toys of the public. And the public will not start freely giving away their toys if they are not forced. And then there is the issue with social equality becoming worse if we just make the toys more expensive.
I would disagree with you to the extent that I think it is fair to pressure China to clean up their act, provided that we are holding up our end of the bargain as well.
I hear theres an upcoming presidential candidate who has some ideas
Also JimmiC good thread with a lot to talk about, but does the OP really need to be a snippet of your latest back and forth with GH?
Well, it can be expected that everybody does as much as is possible for their society and economy. But it's very unfair to go to the countries trying their best t ocatch up to our standard of living and just say that now that we fucked it up and had our 60 years of paradise, they are not allowed in. 1 billion chinese people want computers? Not gonna happen, they are not 100% emission free yet so they are not allowed to increase their energy consumption per capita. Of course it is reasonable to assume that if we are pulling our weight and help the less developed countries to do the same that they will try their best to reach a richer society in a less polluting way. But that requires our effort. We need to invest massively in development projects all over the world to make the transition feasible for countries who can not prioritize climate policies over improving living conditions. And as we are not even able to say that we need to consume less in political discourse without being laughed out of the room, there is no reason to ever talk about any other countries then our own.
Agreed. Doesn't make any sense to me other than the reason mentioned by saocyn. China emits far less greenhouse gas per person than Western countries did at the same stage of economic development.
On August 26 2019 03:38 Broetchenholer wrote: It's super unfair of the "western" world to now tell china to stop polluting the environment. Sure, China is the biggest polluter with heavy industry and energy production, but we are buying the products the make for cheap so that we can have more efficient industries. The only way for change is going to be limiting our own consumerism by drastically increasing prizes for the worst offenders like meat, cars, electicity. Only if it hurts our bank accounts to eat meat every day, we will stop doing it. And then, when the western world drastically reduces consumerism, we can ask countries like China to do their part as well.
The problem is just that there is absolutely no political will for this discussion, as politicians don't want to suicide their career for necessary changes that can only be started by taking away the toys of the public. And the public will not start freely giving away their toys if they are not forced. And then there is the issue with social equality becoming worse if we just make the toys more expensive.
I would disagree with you to the extent that I think it is fair to pressure China to clean up their act, provided that we are holding up our end of the bargain as well.
I hear theres an upcoming presidential candidate who has some ideas
Also JimmiC good thread with a lot to talk about, but does the OP really need to be a snippet of your latest back and forth with GH?
Well, it can be expected that everybody does as much as is possible for their society and economy. But it's very unfair to go to the countries trying their best t ocatch up to our standard of living and just say that now that we fucked it up and had our 60 years of paradise, they are not allowed in. 1 billion chinese people want computers? Not gonna happen, they are not 100% emission free yet so they are not allowed to increase their energy consumption per capita. Of course it is reasonable to assume that if we are pulling our weight and help the less developed countries to do the same that they will try their best to reach a richer society in a less polluting way. But that requires our effort. We need to invest massively in development projects all over the world to make the transition feasible for countries who can not prioritize climate policies over improving living conditions. And as we are not even able to say that we need to consume less in political discourse without being laughed out of the room, there is no reason to ever talk about any other countries then our own.
Agreed. Doesn't make any sense to me other than the reason mentioned by saocyn. China emits far less greenhouse gas per person than Western countries did at the same stage of economic development.
That just does not make sense. Of course they do technology is way different. And per capita is a terrible measure when comparing two countries of such different wealth unless your solution is just to make most people way poorer and just have a few super wealthy.
There is no racism involved, China is bad India is bad, the US is bad, Saudi Arabia is bad, Venezuala and Brazil are bad. China can get singled out because of its size and amount of people.
It is simply factual that they could do, and should do much better. And because of the amount of people they have they also have the ability to make one of the biggest impacts positively or negatively. With you theory that the US needs a socialist revolution to stop the climate crisis, you should also be calling on China to have a socialist revolution. Because they are worse.
On August 26 2019 03:38 Broetchenholer wrote: It's super unfair of the "western" world to now tell china to stop polluting the environment. Sure, China is the biggest polluter with heavy industry and energy production, but we are buying the products the make for cheap so that we can have more efficient industries. The only way for change is going to be limiting our own consumerism by drastically increasing prizes for the worst offenders like meat, cars, electicity. Only if it hurts our bank accounts to eat meat every day, we will stop doing it. And then, when the western world drastically reduces consumerism, we can ask countries like China to do their part as well.
The problem is just that there is absolutely no political will for this discussion, as politicians don't want to suicide their career for necessary changes that can only be started by taking away the toys of the public. And the public will not start freely giving away their toys if they are not forced. And then there is the issue with social equality becoming worse if we just make the toys more expensive.
I would disagree with you to the extent that I think it is fair to pressure China to clean up their act, provided that we are holding up our end of the bargain as well.
I hear theres an upcoming presidential candidate who has some ideas
Also JimmiC good thread with a lot to talk about, but does the OP really need to be a snippet of your latest back and forth with GH?
Well, it can be expected that everybody does as much as is possible for their society and economy. But it's very unfair to go to the countries trying their best t ocatch up to our standard of living and just say that now that we fucked it up and had our 60 years of paradise, they are not allowed in. 1 billion chinese people want computers? Not gonna happen, they are not 100% emission free yet so they are not allowed to increase their energy consumption per capita. Of course it is reasonable to assume that if we are pulling our weight and help the less developed countries to do the same that they will try their best to reach a richer society in a less polluting way. But that requires our effort. We need to invest massively in development projects all over the world to make the transition feasible for countries who can not prioritize climate policies over improving living conditions. And as we are not even able to say that we need to consume less in political discourse without being laughed out of the room, there is no reason to ever talk about any other countries then our own.
Agreed. Doesn't make any sense to me other than the reason mentioned by saocyn. China emits far less greenhouse gas per person than Western countries did at the same stage of economic development.
That just does not make sense. Of course they do technology is way different. And per capita is a terrible measure when comparing two countries of such different wealth unless your solution is just to make most people way poorer and just have a few super wealthy.
There is no racism involved, China is bad India is bad, the US is bad, Saudi Arabia is bad, Venezuala and Brazil are bad. China can get singled out because of its size and amount of people.
It is simply factual that they could do, and should do much better. And because of the amount of people they have they also have the ability to make one of the biggest impacts positively or negatively. With you theory that the US needs a socialist revolution to stop the climate crisis, you should also be calling on China to have a socialist revolution. Because they are worse.
You know a worse way to measure? Total without consideration for population or wealth, which is your preference.
Also, By 2020, every Chinese coal plant will be more efficient than every US coal plant so... US has far more wealth to allocate per person to reduce their carbon footprint and simply chooses not to.
China's wealth distribution is comparable or better than the US btw. I do support Chinese socialists though since you mentioned it. Capitalist influence has been growing in China and that's bad for everyone.
Vox covers why the US is the worse actor here:
To this day, it remains a central conservative argument against climate action: China is the real problem and it isn’t doing anything...
In support of this position, conservatives point to the fact that dozens of coal plants have either recently been built or are in the planning or construction phases in China. This, they say, gives the lie to the country’s promises.
It can be difficult for the average news consumer to sort out this dispute. The Chinese government is notoriously opaque, the situation is developing rapidly, and most of what reaches US media is shallow he-said, she-said coverage.
Happily, the Center for American Progress is on the case. It recently sent a team of researchers to China to investigate its energy markets, analyze regulatory and plant construction data, and interview Chinese coal miners and coal plant operators. It sought to answer a simple question: What is China doing about coal?
The result is a report — authored by Melanie Hart, Luke Bassett, and Blaine Johnson — that offers the clearest picture yet of the big picture on coal in China. And a closer look, it turns out, utterly destroys the conservative argument. Far from sitting back and coasting while the US acts, China is waging an aggressive, multi-front campaign to clean up coal before eventually phasing it out — reducing emissions from existing plants, mothballing older plants, and raising standards for new plants. Unlike the US, it is on track to exceed its Paris carbon reduction commitments.
China is acting far more intentionally and aggressively than the US — investing more, building more, testing and experimenting more. If the US remains on its current path, by 2030 China will be the uncontested technological and economic leader on climate change.
In short, while the US dithers along in a cosmically stupid dispute over whether science is real, China is tackling climate change with all guns blazing. The US, not China, is the laggard in this relationship.
That is not my preference, my preference is to look at the entire picture which includes CO2 emissions, waste management practices, government policy, so on.
You keep making this like you think I'm saying China is bad and the US is good that is not the case. China is horrible and the US is not much better. But it is better because of the wealth.
I would love it if China really becomes the technological and economic leader on climate change. That would be amazing. I have nothing against China doing well, I want everyone to do better. They would have to do a bunch of things that would make life better for all their people and the world but I doubt it. What I bet they will have though is mostly really terrible practices and then the Biggest this and the Biggest last.
I don't believe that China was truly socialist just a dictatorship marketing it as socialism. But for someone like you who does believe they are can you answer me why you keep telling me how better the Chinese are doing and how many amazing gains they are getting, but that they are going more capitalist and that's bad.
If things are getting better than isn't capitalism working?
On August 27 2019 10:09 JimmiC wrote: That is not my preference, my preference is to look at the entire picture which includes CO2 emissions, waste management practices, government policy, so on.
You keep making this like you think I'm saying China is bad and the US is good that is not the case. China is horrible and the US is not much better. But it is better because of the wealth.
It's not better though?
I would love it if China really becomes the technological and economic leader on climate change. That would be amazing. I have nothing against China doing well, I want everyone to do better.
They are on that path and the west isn't was the point?
I don't believe that China was truly socialist just a dictatorship marketing it as socialism. But for someone like you who does believe they are
No one thinks China is socialist? They are a mixed economy with aspects of central planning, public ownership (in the black unlike many western nations btw),local democratic governance, private ownership/capitalism etc... I get the impression you're not very familiar with China so when you ask:
can you answer me why you keep telling me how better the Chinese are doing and how many amazing gains they are getting, but that they are going more capitalist and that's bad.
If things are getting better than isn't capitalism working?
You do so because you are genuinely oblivious and not just being facetious. The simple answer is correlation isn't causation.
A more detailed answer would require a general understanding of the systems at play (of which I'm no expert) in China, but basically; as you and everyone is familiar with, the gridlock of US congress and arguing over whether climate change is even real is a result of the normalization of corruption through campaign finance and the revolving door of lobbyists and public office.
Without that capitalist gridlock like in the US congress, China can and has taken a vastly superior approach to climate change. First recognizing it's real, man made, and must be dealt with. Then making a deliberate and unparalleled effort to address it.
The US, is worse because despite knowing since at least the 70's they've been doing the opposite of what they needed and buying politicians to keep it that way.
EDIT: Koch's are a good example of the "well I'll die rich and before the shit hits anyway" crowd most responsible in the US for all that and it's extensively documented and no one is going to be held accountable because the corruption is just how US capitalism does business.
It is not capitalist gridlock. It democratic grid lock. I get it now, this whole time I thought it was Capitalism you were against but it is democratic systems you don't like.
The reality of why China has made so much money is the dictators at the top realized while they were much richer then their populace they could get way way richer if they used their billion people as slave labor. They also realized that with with that free labor if they had no health and safety and no care about the environment they could do it for even cheaper and make even more. That is just reality, it is not racist, it is not right wing propaganda.
It is odd that you think that the reason the west "hates" China is capitalist propaganda, but from your early answers you also seem to understand that China is a capitalist country. Why would capitalism use propaganda against itself. Your logic is flawed.
China has known about it since the 70's as well, and they had no bad infrastructure they had to deal with, they built all new, and did so with knowing what it was doing. I understand that you need to make the US the worst of the worst, but why do you not see that China is just as bad? This is as strange as thinking NK is doing a good job with their citizens because their literacy rate is 100%
On August 27 2019 22:25 JimmiC wrote: It is not capitalist gridlock. It democratic grid lock. I get it now, this whole time I thought it was Capitalism you were against but it is democratic systems you don't like.
You might be the first person, including Republicans to suggest that campaign finance isn't the source of why things like universal background checks can't get passed despite ~90% public support (this also contradicts when you yourself said that).
The rest is a random rant on China that's equally misguided.
On August 27 2019 22:25 JimmiC wrote: It is not capitalist gridlock. It democratic grid lock. I get it now, this whole time I thought it was Capitalism you were against but it is democratic systems you don't like.
You might be the first person, including Republicans to suggest that campaign finance isn't the source of why things like universal background checks can't get passed despite ~90% public support (this also contradicts when you yourself said that).
The rest is a random rant on China that's equally misguided.
Campaign finance is certainly a problem, and one that does not exist outside of democracy.
edit: as for my "rant" on China, people didn't lay down to be crushed by tanks, and millions are not protesting in Hong Kong out of fear of capitalism, or socialism, they did it because they don't want to live in a country under rule of some dictators who only care about themselves getting as rich and powerful as possible and are willing to torture and disappear people. I'm not sure where you get your alternative facts on China from TBH, because they are often the BS propaganda the government itself puts out.
Here is a bunch of interesting charts from the our world in data charts. Depending on the what the chart is about it is extremely likely that either China or the US will be on top. Both are awful.
And no it is not just about industrializing and gaining wealth, if you work your way down they have a lot of interesting charts in regards to that as well.
This is a little bit on I feel about China and the rest of the developing world.
"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation."
"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation."
You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables?
It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues.
"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation."
You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables?
Yes, there is good and bad with China, just more bad than good right now. As I pointed out I'd be excited and happy if your VOX articles prediction came true. However, given that they are still building coal and the people in charge have shown again and again they make decisions to make themselves as rich as possible, so unless their is some cloabal carbon tax that makes it cheaper for China to switch over I suspect they will continue to pollute huge and green wash with a few record breaking projects.
It seems like no matter how many times I write that both are bad and it depends on the measure you continue to think, or argue that I'm saying that China is is terrible and the US good. This is simply not what I'm saying. I really don't understand how you can read through all that and not see that China is also awful. Do you only look for a read for US is bad stuff? Read it all with an open mind and no decision already made.
I'm also super confused on why you think that China is a command capitalist country AND that there is capitalist propaganda against them. How does that work? And why are they doing it?
"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation."
You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables?
It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues.
Just responding to your edit.
Are you saying that Natural gas is worse than coal?
Yes fracking is awful and a huge black mark on my country and province. The same way I don't apologize for China's coal, I don't apologize for Fracking.
"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation."
You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables?
It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues.
Are you saying that Natural gas is worse than coal?
It might be?
The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years [3]. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions [4].
Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors [5]. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer [6]. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments [7].
"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation."
You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables?
It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues.
Are you saying that Natural gas is worse than coal?
The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years [3]. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions [4].
Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors [5]. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer [6]. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments [7].
We need to be very clear here: Natural gas is not a clean form of energy. Cleaner than coal? Sure – but that’s not saying a heck of a lot. Clean like solar or wind? Get out of here!
If some one is telling you that Natural gas is clean energy and as good as Solar or wind tell them to get out of town. If someone tells you that Coal is better than Natural gas, tell them to get out of town. Both statements are horribly inaccurate.
Look a lot of Semi's are transitioning from Diesel to Natural Gas this is a hella good thing. It will be way better when they switch from Natural gas to electricity. Sadly the amount of Batteries it requires and how we power them makes it not make sense yet.
Some people say Natural Gas is a bridge technology we should invest in until renewable's are better and priced better. I disagree it is better to invest in the future now and that will help bring the price down. BUT if some one said I am either going to buy a fleet of Diesel semi's or natural gas semi's, I'd say get the natural gas one.
edit further:
Here are some of the IEA’s conclusions on the GHG intensity of gas, compared to coal:
“Our detailed assessment of today’s lifecycle emissions of gas and coal supply finds that switching to natural gas yields significant emissions reductions in nearly all cases”; “In 2018, gas on average resulted in 33% fewer emissions than coal per unit of heat used in industry and buildings, and 50% fewer emissions than coal per unit of electricity generated”; “We estimate that up to 1.2 gigatonnes of CO2 could be abated in the short term by switching from coal to existing gas-fired plants, if relative prices and regulation are supportive”; “While there is a wide variation across different sources of coal and gas, we estimate that over 98% of gas consumed today has a lower lifecycle emissions intensity than coal when used for power or heat.”
"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation."
You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables?
It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues.
Are you saying that Natural gas is worse than coal?
It might be?
The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years [3]. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions [4].
Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors [5]. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer [6]. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments [7].
We need to be very clear here: Natural gas is not a clean form of energy. Cleaner than coal? Sure – but that’s not saying a heck of a lot. Clean like solar or wind? Get out of here!
If some one is telling you that Natural gas is clean energy and as good as Solar or wind tell them to get out of town. If someone tells you that Coal is better than Natural gas, tell them to get out of town. Both statements are horribly inaccurate.
Look a lot of Semi's are transitioning from Diesel to Natural Gas this is a hella good thing. It will be way better when they switch from Natural gas to electricity. Sadly the amount of Batteries it requires and how we power them makes it not make sense yet.
Some people say Natural Gas is a bridge technology we should invest in until renewable's are better and priced better. I disagree it is better to invest in the future now and that will help bring the price down. BUT if some one said I am either going to buy a fleet of Diesel semi's or natural gas semi's, I'd say get the natural gas one.
oi, that literally says " from its combustion" which would be a fine measurement if it magically went from the ground to being used. Leakage often isn't calculated and when it is it's almost always underestimated.
Hopefully no one listens to you/your recommendations on diesel semis (or much else frankly).
Natural gas Semi's are a bad idea and bad investment because they are " conclusively detrimental"
Also, at a methane leakage rate of 2.3 percent, many other uses of natural gas besides generating electricity are conclusively detrimental for the climate. For example, EDF found that replacing the diesel used in most trucks or the gasoline consumed by most cars with natural gas would require a leakage rate of less than 1.4 percent before there would be any immediate climate benefit.
What’s more, some scientists believe that the leakage rate could be even higher than this new estimate.
"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation."
You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables?
It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues.
Are you saying that Natural gas is worse than coal?
It might be?
The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years [3]. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions [4].
Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors [5]. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer [6]. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments [7].
We need to be very clear here: Natural gas is not a clean form of energy. Cleaner than coal? Sure – but that’s not saying a heck of a lot. Clean like solar or wind? Get out of here!
If some one is telling you that Natural gas is clean energy and as good as Solar or wind tell them to get out of town. If someone tells you that Coal is better than Natural gas, tell them to get out of town. Both statements are horribly inaccurate.
Look a lot of Semi's are transitioning from Diesel to Natural Gas this is a hella good thing. It will be way better when they switch from Natural gas to electricity. Sadly the amount of Batteries it requires and how we power them makes it not make sense yet.
Some people say Natural Gas is a bridge technology we should invest in until renewable's are better and priced better. I disagree it is better to invest in the future now and that will help bring the price down. BUT if some one said I am either going to buy a fleet of Diesel semi's or natural gas semi's, I'd say get the natural gas one.
oi, that literally says " from its combustion" which would be a fine measurement if it magically went from the ground to being used. Leakage often isn't calculated and when it is it's almost always underestimated.
Hopefully no one listens to you/your recommendations on diesel semis (or much else frankly).
Natural gas Semi's are a bad idea and bad investment because they are " conclusively detrimental"
Also, at a methane leakage rate of 2.3 percent, many other uses of natural gas besides generating electricity are conclusively detrimental for the climate. For example, EDF found that replacing the diesel used in most trucks or the gasoline consumed by most cars with natural gas would require a leakage rate of less than 1.4 percent before there would be any immediate climate benefit.
What’s more, some scientists believe that the leakage rate could be even higher than this new estimate.
The study I posted is more recent than the one you just posted about. I also agree with the conclusions of your article and at no point does it say that coal is better. I'll summarize it for you since apparently you didn't read it. It says that Methane leaks may be higher than previously realized, there is technology that can be deployed to help find the leaks and then we can repair them. Some of those technologies are not feasible but others are and more are becoming that way.
No where in that article does it suggest that we should switch to coal. Because coal tech is basically as good as it can get and natural gas can get a lot cleaner.
We should be building all renewable energy at this point. But if you really think Coal is better than natural gas you are crazy. At the very worst Natural Gas is as bad because of leaks. But leaks can be found and can be fixed. Coal is just coal and is shitty and will always be shitty. Have you seen what the coal mines in Russia are like?
And yes I have read this, and I see how the government says they must look into more renewable energy, and before you start talking about their massive dam producing hydro, you might want to look into more whether that one is really good for the planet or the Chinese people.
It is not all bad, just more bad than good, I really didn't think I would get into a "coal is better than natural gas" argument with someone who has such big climate change fears he is willing to throw the entire world into war.
"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation."
You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables?
It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues.
Are you saying that Natural gas is worse than coal?
It might be?
The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years [3]. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions [4].
Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors [5]. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer [6]. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments [7].
We need to be very clear here: Natural gas is not a clean form of energy. Cleaner than coal? Sure – but that’s not saying a heck of a lot. Clean like solar or wind? Get out of here!
If some one is telling you that Natural gas is clean energy and as good as Solar or wind tell them to get out of town. If someone tells you that Coal is better than Natural gas, tell them to get out of town. Both statements are horribly inaccurate.
Look a lot of Semi's are transitioning from Diesel to Natural Gas this is a hella good thing. It will be way better when they switch from Natural gas to electricity. Sadly the amount of Batteries it requires and how we power them makes it not make sense yet.
Some people say Natural Gas is a bridge technology we should invest in until renewable's are better and priced better. I disagree it is better to invest in the future now and that will help bring the price down. BUT if some one said I am either going to buy a fleet of Diesel semi's or natural gas semi's, I'd say get the natural gas one.
oi, that literally says " from its combustion" which would be a fine measurement if it magically went from the ground to being used. Leakage often isn't calculated and when it is it's almost always underestimated.
Hopefully no one listens to you/your recommendations on diesel semis (or much else frankly).
Natural gas Semi's are a bad idea and bad investment because they are " conclusively detrimental"
Also, at a methane leakage rate of 2.3 percent, many other uses of natural gas besides generating electricity are conclusively detrimental for the climate. For example, EDF found that replacing the diesel used in most trucks or the gasoline consumed by most cars with natural gas would require a leakage rate of less than 1.4 percent before there would be any immediate climate benefit.
What’s more, some scientists believe that the leakage rate could be even higher than this new estimate.
The study I posted is more recent than the one you just posted about.
No where in that article does it suggest that we should switch to coal. Because coal tech is basically as good as it can get and natural gas can get a lot cleaner.
We should be building all renewable energy at this point. But if you really think Coal is better than natural gas you are crazy. At the very worst Natural Gas is as bad because of leaks. But leaks can be found and can be fixed. Coal is just coal and is shitty and will always be shitty. Have you seen what the coal mines in Russia are like?
And yes I have read this, and I see how the government says they must look into more renewable energy, and before you start talking about their massive dam producing hydro, you might want to look into more whether that one is really good for the planet or the Chinese people.
It is not all bad, just more bad than good, I really didn't think I would get into a "coal is better than natural gas" argument with someone who has such big climate change fears he is willing to throw the entire world into war.
It's complicated like I suggested, but my point was China's use of coal (and significant improvement on it over US coal) is the only viable option they have to meet incredibly modest per capita requirements while modernizing/industrializing/urbanizing.
I don't think "coal is better than natural gas", which like most (all?) of the arguments you project onto me, I didn't say.
Considering how scrambled your argument has been and you're already doing the thing from the OP you took out again I think we're done.
"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation."
You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables?
It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues.
Are you saying that Natural gas is worse than coal?
It might be?
The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years [3]. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions [4].
Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors [5]. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer [6]. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments [7].
We need to be very clear here: Natural gas is not a clean form of energy. Cleaner than coal? Sure – but that’s not saying a heck of a lot. Clean like solar or wind? Get out of here!
If some one is telling you that Natural gas is clean energy and as good as Solar or wind tell them to get out of town. If someone tells you that Coal is better than Natural gas, tell them to get out of town. Both statements are horribly inaccurate.
Look a lot of Semi's are transitioning from Diesel to Natural Gas this is a hella good thing. It will be way better when they switch from Natural gas to electricity. Sadly the amount of Batteries it requires and how we power them makes it not make sense yet.
Some people say Natural Gas is a bridge technology we should invest in until renewable's are better and priced better. I disagree it is better to invest in the future now and that will help bring the price down. BUT if some one said I am either going to buy a fleet of Diesel semi's or natural gas semi's, I'd say get the natural gas one.
oi, that literally says " from its combustion" which would be a fine measurement if it magically went from the ground to being used. Leakage often isn't calculated and when it is it's almost always underestimated.
Hopefully no one listens to you/your recommendations on diesel semis (or much else frankly).
Natural gas Semi's are a bad idea and bad investment because they are " conclusively detrimental"
Also, at a methane leakage rate of 2.3 percent, many other uses of natural gas besides generating electricity are conclusively detrimental for the climate. For example, EDF found that replacing the diesel used in most trucks or the gasoline consumed by most cars with natural gas would require a leakage rate of less than 1.4 percent before there would be any immediate climate benefit.
What’s more, some scientists believe that the leakage rate could be even higher than this new estimate.
The study I posted is more recent than the one you just posted about.
No where in that article does it suggest that we should switch to coal. Because coal tech is basically as good as it can get and natural gas can get a lot cleaner.
We should be building all renewable energy at this point. But if you really think Coal is better than natural gas you are crazy. At the very worst Natural Gas is as bad because of leaks. But leaks can be found and can be fixed. Coal is just coal and is shitty and will always be shitty. Have you seen what the coal mines in Russia are like?
And yes I have read this, and I see how the government says they must look into more renewable energy, and before you start talking about their massive dam producing hydro, you might want to look into more whether that one is really good for the planet or the Chinese people.
It is not all bad, just more bad than good, I really didn't think I would get into a "coal is better than natural gas" argument with someone who has such big climate change fears he is willing to throw the entire world into war.
It's complicated like I suggested, but my point was China's use of coal (and significant improvement on it over US coal) is the only viable option they have to meet incredibly modest per capita requirements while modernizing/industrializing/urbanizing.
I don't think "coal is better than natural gas", which like most (all?) of the arguments you project onto me, I didn't say.
Considering how scrambled your argument has been and you're already doing the thing from the OP you took out again I think we're done.
I was asked to take it out, so I did. LOL no conspiracy.
Glad you are not pro-coal, odd that you think NG is worse than coal, or don't think that, who knows.
When you say China's coal is better then Americans coal are you including the entire lifecycle which means including taking where China is getting their coal from and where the Americans are?
If you do you will find out again that the US and China are both awful and instead of defending China and attacking the US practices you should be attacking both practices. Apologizing for China does no good.
"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation."
You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables?
It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues.
Are you saying that Natural gas is worse than coal?
It might be?
The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years [3]. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions [4].
Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors [5]. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer [6]. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments [7].
We need to be very clear here: Natural gas is not a clean form of energy. Cleaner than coal? Sure – but that’s not saying a heck of a lot. Clean like solar or wind? Get out of here!
If some one is telling you that Natural gas is clean energy and as good as Solar or wind tell them to get out of town. If someone tells you that Coal is better than Natural gas, tell them to get out of town. Both statements are horribly inaccurate.
Look a lot of Semi's are transitioning from Diesel to Natural Gas this is a hella good thing. It will be way better when they switch from Natural gas to electricity. Sadly the amount of Batteries it requires and how we power them makes it not make sense yet.
Some people say Natural Gas is a bridge technology we should invest in until renewable's are better and priced better. I disagree it is better to invest in the future now and that will help bring the price down. BUT if some one said I am either going to buy a fleet of Diesel semi's or natural gas semi's, I'd say get the natural gas one.
oi, that literally says " from its combustion" which would be a fine measurement if it magically went from the ground to being used. Leakage often isn't calculated and when it is it's almost always underestimated.
Hopefully no one listens to you/your recommendations on diesel semis (or much else frankly).
Natural gas Semi's are a bad idea and bad investment because they are " conclusively detrimental"
Also, at a methane leakage rate of 2.3 percent, many other uses of natural gas besides generating electricity are conclusively detrimental for the climate. For example, EDF found that replacing the diesel used in most trucks or the gasoline consumed by most cars with natural gas would require a leakage rate of less than 1.4 percent before there would be any immediate climate benefit.
What’s more, some scientists believe that the leakage rate could be even higher than this new estimate.
The study I posted is more recent than the one you just posted about.
No where in that article does it suggest that we should switch to coal. Because coal tech is basically as good as it can get and natural gas can get a lot cleaner.
We should be building all renewable energy at this point. But if you really think Coal is better than natural gas you are crazy. At the very worst Natural Gas is as bad because of leaks. But leaks can be found and can be fixed. Coal is just coal and is shitty and will always be shitty. Have you seen what the coal mines in Russia are like?
And yes I have read this, and I see how the government says they must look into more renewable energy, and before you start talking about their massive dam producing hydro, you might want to look into more whether that one is really good for the planet or the Chinese people.
It is not all bad, just more bad than good, I really didn't think I would get into a "coal is better than natural gas" argument with someone who has such big climate change fears he is willing to throw the entire world into war.
It's complicated like I suggested, but my point was China's use of coal (and significant improvement on it over US coal) is the only viable option they have to meet incredibly modest per capita requirements while modernizing/industrializing/urbanizing.
I don't think "coal is better than natural gas", which like most (all?) of the arguments you project onto me, I didn't say.
Considering how scrambled your argument has been and you're already doing the thing from the OP you took out again I think we're done.
I was asked to take it out, so I did. LOL no conspiracy.
jfc, no one said that, I was just noting it's not there. If I was implying anything, it's just that it was/is a lackluster OP
Glad you are not pro-coal, odd that you think NG is worse than coal, or don't think that, who knows.
Anyone who bothered to read my posts? Obviously not pro coal and think it's unclear and situational as to whether NG is better regarding climate change. It's better when it comes to other particulates though.
When you say China's coal is better then Americans coal are you including the entire lifecycle which means including taking where China is getting their coal from and where the Americans are?
I'm talking about how you're wrong that US coal is anywhere near the best it could be.
If you do you will find out again that the US and China are both awful and instead of defending China and attacking the US practices you should be attacking both practices. Apologizing for China does no good.
I'm only pointing out China isn't the worst despite your repeated assertion (though you seem to have backed off it at this point) it is.
Oh I get it that I said China is the worst and the US is in the top 5 of worst and it all depends on how you look it offended you?? What you want it to be US is the worst and China is number 2? That really matters? Or does it matter that they are both horrible?
China might not be the worst it might be Russia now going for the crown, not only are they awful with the fossil fuels but now this.
On August 28 2019 00:48 JimmiC wrote: Oh I get it that I said China is the worst and the US is in the top 5 of worst and it all depends on how you look it offended you?? What you want it to be US is the worst and China is number 2? That really matters? Or does it matter that they are both horrible?
There's significance/value in dismantling the hegemonic myth you started with that China was the worst. I wouldn't have bothered if it was just personally offensive (as most of your posting is) to me.
I told you several times/ways they can both be "horrible" and that any country can accurately be described as "horrible" on the environment, as none of them are sustainable.
I mean the tribes in the Amazon were/are living sustainable lives same with the Amish/some indigenous peoples in the US and elsewhere (might be a stretch because they use a lot of US/national infrastructure/secondary materials) but they don't exactly count as countries, I just don't want anyone to think I'm saying sustainable communities are impossible.
On August 28 2019 00:48 JimmiC wrote: Oh I get it that I said China is the worst and the US is in the top 5 of worst and it all depends on how you look it offended you?? What you want it to be US is the worst and China is number 2? That really matters? Or does it matter that they are both horrible?
There's significance/value in dismantling the hegemonic myth you started with that China was the worst. I wouldn't have bothered if it was just personally offensive (as most of your posting is) to me.
I told you several times/ways they can both be "horrible" and that any country can accurately be described as "horrible" on the environment, as none of them are sustainable.
I mean the tribes in the Amazon were/are living sustainable lives same with the Amish but they don't exactly count as countries, I just don't want anyone to think I'm saying sustainable communities are impossible.
It is not a myth. It is factual depending on your criteria. If you notice you can often pull out positives of what China has done and horrible things the US does from my sources. That is because both are true, but it is also very true that China is horrendous for the environment. All of that can be and is true.
I can only conclude that you skim the stuff I post looking for why its wrong instead of actually reading it. I find it frustrating that you trust and use the parts of the sources you agree with but do not trust it all. It is very strange.
And yes if we drastically reduce the population and all live like we did in the 11 century, completely give up on all technology the environment will be much much better. A lot of other things will be much much worse. I don't think it is a realistic option to have so many people die, but I wouldn't say that it won't be effective, for the environment.
On August 28 2019 00:48 JimmiC wrote: Oh I get it that I said China is the worst and the US is in the top 5 of worst and it all depends on how you look it offended you?? What you want it to be US is the worst and China is number 2? That really matters? Or does it matter that they are both horrible?
There's significance/value in dismantling the hegemonic myth you started with that China was the worst. I wouldn't have bothered if it was just personally offensive (as most of your posting is) to me.
I told you several times/ways they can both be "horrible" and that any country can accurately be described as "horrible" on the environment, as none of them are sustainable.
I mean the tribes in the Amazon were/are living sustainable lives same with the Amish but they don't exactly count as countries, I just don't want anyone to think I'm saying sustainable communities are impossible.
It is not a myth. It is factual depending on your criteria. If you notice you can often pull out positives of what China has done and horrible things the US does from my sources. That is because both are true, but it is also very true that China is horrendous for the environment. All of that can be and is true.
I can only conclude that you skim the stuff I post looking for why its wrong instead of actually reading it. I find it frustrating that you trust and use the parts of the sources you agree with but do not trust it all. It is very strange.
Bless your heart.
It's a myth.
No, I read them. Sometimes I'm not sure why I bother anymore, I don't think anyone takes them seriously at this point? Occasionally you mention something like "China is the worst" and I think it's important to dispel that widely accepted myth. Point out it's based on an extremely reductive perspective, that as others were gracious enough to point out, has racist overtones. Then ideally move on. Hard to ignore the nonsense that invariably follows (pervades the whole discussion) though. Some days I do better than others at that part.
You guys are moving in circles because you are mixing arguments about climate change with poilitical systems. I have zero idea what the dictatorship of china has to do with anything in regards to the contribution of climate change. Here are some completely unpolitical facts, as far as i believe in them. So not really facts. But i doubt they are untrue.
The US of A are the biggest polluter on the planet per capita and are currently in a process of making it way easier for companies to pollute even more. While the government of the US of A is not interested at all in solving climate change, there is a more or less slow change in the efficiency of energy production within the States due to the market realising wind energy and to some extent solar is cheaper and wanted by the population.
China is one of the biggest polluters on the planet but quite low in terms of pollution per capita, while the government is heavily invested in allowing an increased carbon footprint of it's population. Chinas government is at the same time trying to profit from pushing solutions for regenerative energies and becoming a market leader in green energy. As a result, their carbon footprint per capita and in general is going to go up in the next decades but will probably stay below that of the US if there is not a radical change of direction in climate change policy.
So, political systems and human rights aside, China is acting way better then the US on a goverment level to combat climate change. They are still a worse place to live in freely, but that does not have anything to do with any of your arguments.
On August 28 2019 01:28 Broetchenholer wrote: You guys are moving in circles because you are mixing arguments about climate change with poilitical systems. I have zero idea what the dictatorship of china has to do with anything in regards to the contribution of climate change. Here are some completely unpolitical facts, as far as i believe in them. So not really facts. But i doubt they are untrue.
The US of A are the biggest polluter on the planet per capita and are currently in a process of making it way easier for companies to pollute even more. While the government of the US of A is not interested at all in solving climate change, there is a more or less slow change in the efficiency of energy production within the States due to the market realising wind energy and to some extent solar is cheaper and wanted by the population.
China is one of the biggest polluters on the planet but quite low in terms of pollution per capita, while the government is heavily invested in allowing an increased carbon footprint of it's population. Chinas government is at the same time trying to profit from pushing solutions for regenerative energies and becoming a market leader in green energy. As a result, their carbon footprint per capita and in general is going to go up in the next decades but will probably stay below that of the US if there is not a radical change of direction in climate change policy.
So, political systems and human rights aside, China is acting way better then the US on a goverment level to combat climate change. They are still a worse place to live in freely, but that does not have anything to do with any of your arguments.
So if your only measure is carbon footprint per captia than what your are saying is true and I agree. Where I disagree is that I don't believe that is the best measure. I (and most of the environmentalist I interact with) believe that that is one of the things that matter, so does waste management (often around plastics but also a host of hazardous materials, organics and so on), water quality and so on. China is doing things like openly burning plasitcs, putting huge amount into the Ocean and so on. The west is not doing those things.
But yeah if you want to say that China is not doing bad compared to the west on a per capita basis when measuring per capita. Sure it is true.
Someone could also say that China is the worst if you are measuring and only considering total carbon footprint. This is also true.
But if you are only looking at that you are looking at only one part of the climate crisis, carbon footprint, you are not getting the whole story. It is like reading that the natural gas is as bad as the CO2 for the next 20 years because Methane is so potent. And not looking into how Co2 breaks down WAY slower so it will be a problem for the next 10,000 years and where are the places getting their coal from and what are their mining practices like. It is not untrue, it is incomplete.
On August 28 2019 00:48 JimmiC wrote: Oh I get it that I said China is the worst and the US is in the top 5 of worst and it all depends on how you look it offended you?? What you want it to be US is the worst and China is number 2? That really matters? Or does it matter that they are both horrible?
There's significance/value in dismantling the hegemonic myth you started with that China was the worst. I wouldn't have bothered if it was just personally offensive (as most of your posting is) to me.
I told you several times/ways they can both be "horrible" and that any country can accurately be described as "horrible" on the environment, as none of them are sustainable.
I mean the tribes in the Amazon were/are living sustainable lives same with the Amish but they don't exactly count as countries, I just don't want anyone to think I'm saying sustainable communities are impossible.
It is not a myth. It is factual depending on your criteria. If you notice you can often pull out positives of what China has done and horrible things the US does from my sources. That is because both are true, but it is also very true that China is horrendous for the environment. All of that can be and is true.
I can only conclude that you skim the stuff I post looking for why its wrong instead of actually reading it. I find it frustrating that you trust and use the parts of the sources you agree with but do not trust it all. It is very strange.
Bless your heart.
It's a myth.
No, I read them. Sometimes I'm not sure why I bother anymore, I don't think anyone takes them seriously at this point? Occasionally you mention something like "China is the worst" and I think it's important to dispel that widely accepted myth. Point out it's based on an extremely reductive perspective, that as others were gracious enough to point out, has racist overtones. Then ideally move on. Hard to ignore the nonsense that invariably follows (pervades the whole discussion) though. Some days I do better than others at that part.
It would be pretty sad if no one took the sources that I have shared in the OP and here not seriously. It would be fine to disagree with my opinion on them. But cherry picking what you agree about them and ignoring the rest is no different than what climate deniers do. Those sources are facts not opinions, tough luck if you disagree it does not make it any less true. Alternative facts are just lies, I'm sorry it does not matter if they are made up Chinese or american corps. Just in China those corps are also the government, in the US the corps have to pay off the government.
I mean as terrible as the US is, they have Bernie Sanders allowed to run, not being in prison, not being tortured and murdered. Sure big money interests are fighting him, but at least they are not killing him like they would in China.
According to world resources institute, America is "only" 14th worst in carbon emissions per capita, with countries like Canada and Australia beating us out.
Also, I have no problem with China, India, Brazil harming the environment to increase its people's quality of life.
They are not obligated to lag behind developed countries, many of which have become developed at the expense of today's developing countries.
They can get their chance too. As someone who's visited India and Pakistan multiple times, I can tell you that few people there care about the climate - they are more concerned with increasing their quality of life. Being in NYC and living in one of its Chinatowns for years, and talking to Chinese immigrants, I am under the impression that most in China don't care about climate either. This is obviously anecdotal but I can relate, and the proof is in the pudding when you look at those two countries.
If developed countries have a huge problem with the climate situation they can start by cutting their consumption, decreasing their quality of life, and instead start planting trees or whatever lol.
As an American myself, I don't plan on cutting my consumption unless someone gives me a good reason to. I know a lot of Americans who are the same (in fact i'd wager that if it ever really comes down to it, most Americans will not be willing to significantly cut their standard of living for the sake of climate change)
For those that strongly believe in fighting climate change through Green New Deal - like polices, good luck. I suspect you'll really need it.
Chia is doing lots of things to "safe" the Climate but for other, more immediate, reasons aside from Climate change. Two examples: General pollution? Smog in cities makes them sometimes near uninhabitable and the chinese goverment has vowed to stop this problem asap. Reforestation? The Desserts are growing and treathen to swallow cities, planting trees is the best answer to that.
Calling China "green" for these reasons is still wrong, they are basically forced to do certain things because else many parts of it will be uninhabitable very soon and even China isn't interested in resettling the whole of Bejing .
I'm staggered that some of you think "per Capita" doesn't matter, that basically means that as a Swiss i can do whatever the fuck I want for the plain reason that there are not that many of us? How does that make sense. FFS: If you don't look at per capita numbers, better don't look at all.
I highly doubt that people are willing to drastically change their lifestyles, but goverments can and should enforce certain changes. In Switzerland we banned "free" (plastic) bags in all shops, to get one you have to ask for it and pay 0.05$ (I can't think of another item, that is that cheap in any swiss shop ). The result? People use them drastically less and reusing shopping bags has become much more common in a very short amount of time. If you need one, you still can get one for basically nothing. We can do tons of small stuff like this that either doesn't bother people or even improves their life while being better for the climate than the status quo.
Complementary plastic bags are also rare these days in China(or at least in Shenzhen where I live). I'm pretty sure all the supermarkets and those branded convenient stores(7eleven and other local equivalent) charge around 50 cents ea, although some noname corner stores don't seem to care. Which is why those fabric grocery bags are common freebies at all sorts of promotional events, I guess umbrellas are just too precious! That being said, based on my years of living in the country especially post-2005 when pollution started to attract major attention domestically, the worsening air quality is what most people focus on and really care about. I think when it comes to environmental issues most regular folks here(and I dare to say basically everywhere else) care more about how it affects their daily life rather than the planet in the long term, say global warming. Major reason why China is so polluted is the presumed 'world factory' role that has been so for years, manufacturing brings pollution, and that's the bigger picture here. The only way to make drastic improvement is to shut down factories and coal stations and cars, and that's just not gonna happen, nor would any country who buys from China want it to happen. (although you might argue on terms of the recent trade war, but that's a completely different story) I don't believe anything else would be game changer. The Chinese government is putting in tons of effort to tighten environmental-related industrial regulations, mostly in power and steel businesses, plus nonstop promotion of environmental awareness to everybody who reads news and watches tv. And the way it looks there's a lot more coming. But then you might need some ability to read Chinese and willfulness to trust Chinese news to believe those statement, as I don't think that was ever reported on CNN or whatever.
On August 28 2019 11:17 BerserkSword wrote: According to world resources institute, America is "only" 14th worst in carbon emissions per capita, with countries like Canada and Australia beating us out.
Also, I have no problem with China, India, Brazil harming the environment to increase its people's quality of life.
They are not obligated to lag behind developed countries, many of which have become developed at the expense of today's developing countries.
They can get their chance too. As someone who's visited India and Pakistan multiple times, I can tell you that few people there care about the climate - they are more concerned with increasing their quality of life. Being in NYC and living in one of its Chinatowns for years, and talking to Chinese immigrants, I am under the impression that most in China don't care about climate either. This is obviously anecdotal but I can relate, and the proof is in the pudding when you look at those two countries.
If developed countries have a huge problem with the climate situation they can start by cutting their consumption, decreasing their quality of life, and instead start planting trees or whatever lol.
As an American myself, I don't plan on cutting my consumption unless someone gives me a good reason to. I know a lot of Americans who are the same (in fact i'd wager that if it ever really comes down to it, most Americans will not be willing to significantly cut their standard of living for the sake of climate change)
For those that strongly believe in fighting climate change through Green New Deal - like polices, good luck. I suspect you'll really need it.
After checking your source, the countries that "beat" the States in 2014 are:
Kuwait Brunei Qatar Belize Guyana Paraquay Oman Bahrain Zambia Palau Canada United Arab Emirates Equatorial Guinea Australia Mongolia Turkmenistan Libya Estonia
Most of the numbers for those countries seem to be quite constant, even though i have no idea why Libya, Turkmenistan, Mongolia and Zambia are that high on that list. Australia and Canada make some sense due to the weather which also explains the States numbers to some extent, which is 20t. Canadas 27 million people have a high carbon footprint of 24t and this should be solved, the next big nation on the list would be Russia with 14t and then we come to the 10t mark where most of the other g20 nations sit at or under. So yeah, America is not the worst polluter per capita, just one of the worst.
And regarding your last point of needing a good reason to cut back on consumption, don't you think the reason why it is necessary has already been given, you are just not willing to act on it? I mean, don't get me wrong, i am not currfently doing much to reduce my footprint as well but i would be willing to do it if society would start working in that direction. Nobody wants to live less luxurious as already experienced but people can be persuaded to do so if alternatives are available.
I would be the first person to sell my car and only use carsharing services if they would be well implemented and public transport would be less shitty. I would not care one bit if flights would become 3-4 times as expensive, especially the short ones. I would cry tears but i would be willing to eat less meat if it were rarer. These are the things that need to happen at some point, and who opposes them needs to explain why his right for luxury is more important then being able to habitat this planet longer then 100 years.
On August 28 2019 16:29 Velr wrote: Chia is doing lots of things to "safe" the Climate but for other, more immediate, reasons aside from Climate change. Two examples: General pollution? Smog in cities makes them sometimes near uninhabitable and the chinese goverment has vowed to stop this problem asap. Reforestation? The Desserts are growing and treathen to swallow cities, planting trees is the best answer to that.
Calling China "green" for these reasons is still wrong, they are basically forced to do certain things because else many parts of it will be uninhabitable very soon and even China isn't interested in resettling the whole of Bejing .
I'm staggered that some of you think "per Capita" doesn't matter, that basically means that as a Swiss i can do whatever the fuck I want for the plain reason that there are not that many of us? How does that make sense. FFS: If you don't look at per capita numbers, better don't look at all.
I highly doubt that people are willing to drastically change their lifestyles, but goverments can and should enforce certain changes. In Switzerland we banned "free" (plastic) bags in all shops, to get one you have to ask for it and pay 0.05$ (I can't think of another item, that is that cheap in any swiss shop ). The result? People use them drastically less and reusing shopping bags has become much more common in a very short amount of time. If you need one, you still can get one for basically nothing. We can do tons of small stuff like this that either doesn't bother people or even improves their life while being better for the climate than the status quo.
I was not saying per-capita doesn't matter, it of course does and is good for trying to compare too countries of similar wealth but really different sizes. Other things like vastness and so on if they are comparable great.
What I was saying is it is not the be all end all of comparatives. I mean this is basically true of any thing you can find a stat to say what you want. You need to look at the full picture which in this case includes per capita, per gdp and total for CO2. Then if you are talking environmental practices that contribute to the climate crisis you need to look at a whole host of things, deforestation and air quality like you mentioned, waste management (are you burning garbage(open pit) putting in the ocean, so on. Also things like water treatment.
There are ton of factors to get a full picture. Sorry if it came across as per capita does not matter, what I was trying to say is it is not all that matters. For a complete picture look to more than one measure.
The EPA/US is going backwards. The EPA says they are rolling back restrictions on methane leaks.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in its proposed rule, aims to eliminate federal requirements that oil and gas companies install technology to detect and fix methane leaks from wells, pipelines and storage facilities. It will also reopen the question of whether the E.P.A. even has the legal authority to regulate methane as a pollutant.
Erik Milito, a vice president at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing the oil and gas industry, praised the new rule, saying, “We think it’s a smarter way of targeting methane emissions.”
The US continues to actively and intentionally go backwards environmentally with more rollbacks of common sense environmental reforms. This time it's energy efficient light bulbs.
The Trump administration is rolling back requirements for new, energy-efficient lightbulbs. The Energy Department announced the move on Wednesday, withdrawing standards that were to be put in place to make commonly used bulbs more efficient.
I disagree that per capita is the only relevant measure. Think of country A that keeps emissions per capita constant but doubles in population vs country B that keeps emissions per capita constant but reduces their population by 50%.
On September 08 2019 22:29 greenturtle23 wrote: I disagree that per capita is the only relevant measure. Think of country A that keeps emissions per capita constant but doubles in population vs country B that keeps emissions per capita constant but reduces their population by 50%.
Population reduction isn't a sustainable strategy and it's probably horrific.
On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.
Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on.
Also you cant only look at carbon.
Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally.
On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.
Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on.
Also you cant only look at carbon.
Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally.
China's wealth distribution is comparable to or better than the US though. China also lifted ~half a billion people out of extreme poverty in a couple decades.
As of the end of 2018 the number of people in poverty living below the national poverty line of ¥2300 (2010PPP) per year is around 16.6 million, about 1.7% of the population[7] with hopes of totally eradicating poverty by 2020.
Between 1990 and 2005, China's progress accounted for more than three-quarters of global poverty reduction and a big factor in why the world reached the UN millennium development of dividing extreme poverty by two.
On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.
Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on.
Also you cant only look at carbon.
Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally.
China's wealth distribution is comparable to or better than the US though.
Can you back this claim up, or would you like to have a word with the forced laborers?
Since you made the edit, Wikipedia states ¥2300 is the poverty line, after quick research the cost of living on average is about ¥5000 something doesn’t add up.
On September 08 2019 22:29 greenturtle23 wrote: I disagree that per capita is the only relevant measure. Think of country A that keeps emissions per capita constant but doubles in population vs country B that keeps emissions per capita constant but reduces their population by 50%.
Population reduction isn't a sustainable strategy and it's probably horrific.
First, population growth isn't a sustainable strategy. It leads to a horrific environmental catastrophe. Population reduction can be achieved by educating women which in turn lowers birthrates below replacement level.
Regardless it doesn't matter to the example. I was simply arguing that per capita isn't the only relevant measure.
On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.
Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on.
Also you cant only look at carbon.
Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally.
China's wealth distribution is comparable to or better than the US though. China also lifted ~half a billion people out of extreme poverty in a couple decades.
As of the end of 2018 the number of people in poverty living below the national poverty line of ¥2300 (2010PPP) per year is around 16.6 million, about 1.7% of the population[7] with hopes of totally eradicating poverty by 2020.
Between 1990 and 2005, China's progress accounted for more than three-quarters of global poverty reduction and a big factor in why the world reached the UN millennium development of dividing extreme poverty by two.
And their carbon per capita increase is well over 100% in that time period. Which goes to my point that it is not a great measure unless your plan is to force your population to live in poverty.
On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.
Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on.
Also you cant only look at carbon.
Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally.
China's wealth distribution is comparable to or better than the US though.
Can you back this claim up, or would you like to have a word with the forced laborers?
On May 12 2018 05:14 Plansix wrote: [quote] It is also the largest government employer in the country, with bases in several states that make up a reasonable portion of that state’s economy. And it funds several industries making the basic equipment for the armed services. We love the war machine because it employs so many voters.
It's the largest employer in the entire world. The next closest is China’s People’s Liberation Army (with almost 1,000,000 less employees), followed closely by Walmart (~2.1m) as of 2015 anyway.
The US military-industrial complex is the largest employment agency in the world and it reflects in our political actions. Just look at what happened to 'defense' contractors when NK peace talks took a good turn.
This is why fighting the war machine is impossible. That is too many people are in that system. We need to learn from the war machine’s tactics and advocate on equal measure for other government agencies. Advocate for the SEC the same way the military advocates as the defenders of American values. The FDA needs to have such a massive budget that it advertises on the super bowl. Give Americans some context for how messed up it is that the NFL has a deal with the US army.
Something tells me it would be a little tougher to generate the type of excitement military displays do with the SEC. Maybe if we were publicly executing bankers/brokers?
We would run out of bankers real quick and then we have the French Revolution’s problem, executions are crowd pleasers. We can just go full post 2000 Brave New World where our government agencies all push for voter support. They help fund sporting events, bring back Firefly and arrest web designers who make sites with auto playing videos.
I think you underestimate the culture of wealth addiction we've cultivated in this country. We could execute several a day and it would still be a growing industry. Though I think gladiator style games would be more attractive.
"Want to have a fast paced career saving humanity by killing people? Forget the military, become a SEC Gladiator!"
But seriously, neither party has any intentions of actually addressing this mess. They are so hopelessly addicted wealth and power they make Rob Ford look like Scruff McGruff
China has more billionaires than we do.
That's true, but that's partially due to the more equitable distribution of wealth, even among billionaires.
Chinese per capita GDP in 2016 was roughly $7,000. How can you call a large cohort of billionaires in a country with a per capita GDP of $7000 "more equitable?"
The Gini coefficient, a gauge ranging between zero and one that measures income equality, increased slightly to 0.465 last year, from 0.462 in 2015, according to data released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) this week.
A reading of zero would mean everyone’s income was equal, while a reading of one would indicate that all the income was going to one person.
The United Nations considers a Gini coefficient higher than 0.4 a sign of severe income inequality.
The most recent figure for the US was 0.479. In term of cities, Hong Kong recorded an all-time high of 0.539 last year, behind only New York at 0.551.
A study from Peking University last year found that the poorest 25 per cent of mainland households owned just 1 per cent of the country’s aggregate wealth, while the richest 1 per cent owned a third of the wealth.
On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.
Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on.
Also you cant only look at carbon.
Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally.
China's wealth distribution is comparable to or better than the US though. China also lifted ~half a billion people out of extreme poverty in a couple decades.
As of the end of 2018 the number of people in poverty living below the national poverty line of ¥2300 (2010PPP) per year is around 16.6 million, about 1.7% of the population[7] with hopes of totally eradicating poverty by 2020.
Between 1990 and 2005, China's progress accounted for more than three-quarters of global poverty reduction and a big factor in why the world reached the UN millennium development of dividing extreme poverty by two.
And their carbon per capita increase is well over 100% in that time period. Which goes to my point that it is not a great measure unless your plan is to force your population to live in poverty.
Which was the most efficiently it's ever been done. Also your point that people have to live in poverty doesn't follow since they are still dramatically under US or Canada's per capita despite that massive growth and comparable income and wealth distribution (and hundreds of millions less people under the national poverty line than you suggested).
On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.
Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on.
Also you cant only look at carbon.
Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally.
GDP period is a completely useless metric for estimating how wealthy a country is, while GDP per capita is a useful metric for estimating the same thing. For example if you ask people, yourself included, which country is richer, Norway or Nigeria, you, and they, will answer Norway. Nigeria however has a higher GDP (however per capita, we're something like 30 times higher).
The notion that this somehow changes because it's 'pollution' and not 'money', because we live in countries with smaller populations that are richer (positive) and pollute (negative) more, we can choose that 'rich' is determined per capita while 'pollution' is determined by country, is ridiculous.
Saying we can't only look at carbon, that's true. The environment faces a lot of different challenges, that need different approaches. I imagine rich western countries are better at waste management than poor development countries. But we are worse in terms of consumption. period.. The countries that are the most polluting are the countries that pollute the most per capita, just like the richest countries are the countries that are richest per capita. We evaluate everything when looking at how a population lives by looking at per capita, there's no reason why co2 emissions should be different.
That there are other important elements to fighting climate change, yes. But looking at 2015 numbers, your average Indian is indeed about 1/10 as harmful, from an emissions perspective, as your average american, and thus should not bear any brunt in doing personal emissions cuttings (in fact he has to be permitted to increase his consumption to escape poverty), while the american guy, in my opinion, has a strong moral obligation to consume far less.
On September 08 2019 22:29 greenturtle23 wrote: I disagree that per capita is the only relevant measure. Think of country A that keeps emissions per capita constant but doubles in population vs country B that keeps emissions per capita constant but reduces their population by 50%.
Population reduction is indeed not a viable political solution, because the population only decreases due to war, famine or disease. (I mean, those three go along just fine, so I prolly could have said and instead of or, but whatever.) Population increase however happens during the period where a country becomes more livable. That is, if you go back to 1800 europe, or travel to the most war-torn and underdeveloped regions of africa (tbh maybe you have to go back 30 years in time then too), you find that child birth is in a sort of equilibrium with child mortality; there's a high birth rate, high mortality. Then, as society manages to find ways to keep as many children from dying, there are usually 1-2 generations where you get high birth numbers, but without the high mortality numbers. Then the population 'booms'. And then after that, it stabilizes.
This process has happened in most of the world, there are some african countries that aren't fully done, but mostly, the reason why the population is expected to increase until we get to 10-11 billion is not that people are getting so many more children, it's that people are not dying at the rates they used to die. We're getting more old people than we used to have - but estimated amount of 0-18 year olds is basically the same in 2060 as it is today. And this is why population reduction is not a viable strategy for dealing with climate change in the next 50+ years (during which time we desperately need to address it), because a one child policy doesn't cut it - you'd have to actively murder people, or at the very least, not give them food.
On September 08 2019 19:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.
Wow. No it is not. You have too look at many factors including but not exclusively gdp, gdp per capita and so on.
Also you cant only look at carbon.
Then you have to look past the number and say "what is this country doing, and is it there things they are doing we can learn from". If the answer is something like China and having nearing a billion people living at or below the poverty line and a few super wealthy. Than that country would not be doing well environmentally.
GDP period is a completely useless metric for estimating how wealthy a country is, while GDP per capita is a useful metric for estimating the same thing. For example if you ask people, yourself included, which country is richer, Norway or Nigeria, you, and they, will answer Norway. Nigeria however has a higher GDP (however per capita, we're something like 30 times higher).
The notion that this somehow changes because it's 'pollution' and not 'money', because we live in countries with smaller populations that are richer (positive) and pollute (negative) more, we can choose that 'rich' is determined per capita while 'pollution' is determined by country, is ridiculous.
Saying we can't only look at carbon, that's true. The environment faces a lot of different challenges, that need different approaches. I imagine rich western countries are better at waste management than poor development countries. But we are worse in terms of consumption. period.. The countries that are the most polluting are the countries that pollute the most per capita, just like the richest countries are the countries that are richest per capita. We evaluate everything when looking at how a population lives by looking at per capita, there's no reason why co2 emissions should be different.
That there are other important elements to fighting climate change, yes. But looking at 2015 numbers, your average Indian is indeed about 1/10 as harmful, from an emissions perspective, as your average american, and thus should not bear any brunt in doing personal emissions cuttings (in fact he has to be permitted to increase his consumption to escape poverty), while the american guy, in my opinion, has a strong moral obligation to consume far less.
The reason it is different and should be different is scaleability. The reason you break things down per captia is to get a more even measure, and I have no problem with that. But if it turns out that the only reason country a is doing better than country b is poverty, then there is nothing to learn, they are not doing a better job, and they are likely trying to raise tgere peoples standard of living which would mean doing worse for the environment.
China is a perfect example of this, their carbon per person is raising exponentially in comparison to their gains in gdp.
Carbon per capita is certainly a useful measure. But there are a bunch of other useful measures you need too look at get a full picture.
I also 100% agree that consumption and consumerism is the biggest problems. The scary news is countries like nigeris are just as bad at consuming as the west, but they dont have the infrastructure and tgeir governments are not building it. So as they gain wealth they get worse and worse, not to mention they are so populous that change is magnified.
If we purely only looked at per capita the only conclusion you could make is the key to tge climate crisis is making everyone very very poor.
The example China is setting is in their unmatched investment and commitment to improvement.
China recently stopped importing the worlds plastics and increasing environmental regulations, the US started burning ours (since we can't ship it to China)/shipping it to India and has been rolling back regulations.
Like your poverty stat, this is just something you made up
their [China's] carbon per person is raising exponentially in comparison to their gains in gdp.
That's simply not true. Back it up or take it back please?
GH turn down the anger once in a while and you will be so much easier to take. If I had said money per person would have that made the point better?
This is not shocking to anyone who follows the environment it is why environmentalists don't look to see what China or Chad, or Afganistan is doing in regards to policy. Because it is not scale-able.
This is also why we are so excited about things like neutral circular economy and EPR. If you make convenience and throw away items more expensive than people won't buy them. Like if it was the same price for a metal reusable water bottle as for a plastic throw away one people would pick the metal, and I'm not talking about making the metal one cheaper but making the one you have to throw away much more expensive. Or if a cell phone cost 2500 for a new one, but you could have it repaired and buy parts to upgrade it, people would make those choices instead of right now where they choose to just throw out the old one and buy a new one.
If the only difference is that the people can't spend as much and there for are not polluting as much, but as they are able to they are doing the same or worse that really isn't that helpful.
I mean if you want to be super callous the best thing for the environment would be everyone in the world living like the Amish or one of the various indigenous tribe's living the same way they have for 1000's of years. The consequences of such would be billions of people dying, because there wouldn't be enough food, and that is before you get into all the modern medicine. Not to mention there is no way to put the "genie" back in the bottle.
Yes, China's emissions per capita have skyrocketed the past 20 years, and their emissions per capita are at european levels now. That's obviously a problem. But Americans who still pollute twice as much per capita telling the chinese 'you guys need to pollute less' because china overtook them on the overall rankings really haven't established much useful understanding.
And I'm sorry but the conclusion is not make everyone very poor. The conclusion is the realization that Indias overall consumption is bound to increase as their wealth increases, because it's still very, very low compared to their population. And this puts further pressure on western countries to decrease emissions. Essentially, any measurement that doesn't look at per capita, as I see it, is nothing more than a way for western populations to not feel as responsible as they should feel. This isn't a crisis that's just happening on a country / executive level, it's one where the average western human either has a wholly wrong impression of how much they can sustainably consume, or one where the average western human doesn't actually care all that much.
On September 09 2019 00:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: Yes, China's emissions per capita have skyrocketed the past 20 years, and their emissions per capita are at european levels now. That's obviously a problem. But Americans who still pollute twice as much per capita telling the chinese 'you guys need to pollute less' because china overtook them on the overall rankings really haven't established much useful understanding.
And I'm sorry but the conclusion is not make everyone very poor. The conclusion is the realization that Indias overall consumption is bound to increase as their wealth increases, because it's still very, very low compared to their population. And this puts further pressure on western countries to decrease emissions. Essentially, any measurement that doesn't look at per capita, as I see it, is nothing more than a way for western populations to not feel as responsible as they should feel. This isn't a crisis that's just happening on a country / executive level, it's one where the average western human either has a wholly wrong impression of how much they can sustainably consume, or one where the average western human doesn't actually care all that much.
Your first paragraph is a strawman at least to me. I don't think the US should tell China to pollute less, they are both shitty, and both are the shittiest is different ways. They both just need to be better.
Your second paragraph is more reasonable and I agree with parts. First the Western countries do need to help these developing countries with solutions, we should be far ahead because of our wealth, and they should invest in the technologies and practices that we have because if they don't they will become a much bigger problem than us because of that large population.
Personal responsibility is also very important I agree. But I think what you are doing is no different than what you are saying these countries shouldn't be doing. You are pointing the finger, what everybody should be doing is making the changes in their life that they can to make a difference. That actually makes a huge difference. And then they should be pressuring their government to push environmental policy. And they should have rules tied to the money they give and spend in the underdeveloped countries in what rules they should spend.
I think you guys are too focused on who is worse. The point of comparing is not rank order every country. It is to see what they are doing that we could do and vice versa. That is why I said percaptia is a good measure of countries of similar wealth. Because it is very possible for the US to look at Germany and see what they are doing in comparison and then improve (US could do so drastically). Whereas Denmark looking to Chad wouldn't provide any valuable insights.
On September 09 2019 00:59 JimmiC wrote: GH turn down the anger once in a while and you will be so much easier to take. If I had said money per person would have that made the point better?
This is not shocking to anyone who follows the environment it is why environmentalists don't look to see what China or Chad, or Afganistan is doing in regards to policy. Because it is not scale-able.
This is also why we are so excited about things like neutral circular economy and EPR. If you make convenience and throw away items more expensive than people won't buy them. Like if it was the same price for a metal reusable water bottle as for a plastic throw away one people would pick the metal, and I'm not talking about making the metal one cheaper but making the one you have to throw away much more expensive. Or if a cell phone cost 2500 for a new one, but you could have it repaired and buy parts to upgrade it, people would make those choices instead of right now where they choose to just throw out the old one and buy a new one.
If the only difference is that the people can't spend as much and there for are not polluting as much, but as they are able to they are doing the same or worse that really isn't that helpful.
I mean if you want to be super callous the best thing for the environment would be everyone in the world living like the Amish or one of the various indigenous tribe's living the same way they have for 1000's of years. The consequences of such would be billions of people dying, because there wouldn't be enough food, and that is before you get into all the modern medicine. Not to mention there is no way to put the "genie" back in the bottle.
Nothing there backs up your fallacious claim that:
their [China's] carbon per person is raising exponentially in comparison to their gains in gdp.
Looking at per capita is something you do so the people inclined to point fingers can point the fingers in the right direction. Any European country seeing that 'india pollutes more than we do' and thinking that this somehow makes india more responsible for fighting climate change is really dumb, because indians actually pollute very little (in terms of emissions) and you cannot expect them to both live lives we'd consider livable without giving them the leeway to increase their consumption somewhat. China is a bit different of a case because they're what, 4x india per capita (bigger difference between china and the US, at least according to 2015 numbers), it's not fair to look at them as the same.
You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada.
On September 09 2019 01:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: Looking at per capita is something you do so the people inclined to point fingers can point the fingers in the right direction. Any European country seeing that 'india pollutes more than we do' and thinking that this somehow makes india more responsible for fighting climate change is really dumb, because indians actually pollute very little (in terms of emissions) and you cannot expect them to both live lives we'd consider livable without giving them the leeway to increase their consumption somewhat. China is a bit different of a case because they're what, 4x india per capita (bigger difference between china and the US, at least according to 2015 numbers), it's not fair to look at them as the same.
Looking at only one stat will always leave you blind to so much. I agree with you that it is a useful stat and should be included in any analysis. However, I would strongly disagree with your initial post where you said it was the ONLY stat that mattered and put it italics to emphasize how much you thought it was the only one that matter (or that is how I interpreted it).
Trying to boil down environmental impact to one stat carbon emissions per captia won't provide any value. Using it as "ah ha" moment with friends who think they are doing a great job in comparison sure, any learning's to try to make the system better, no.
On September 09 2019 01:19 JimmiC wrote: You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada.
You should have left it out because it's wrong and misleading and yes it greatly changes your supporting evidence for your point. Had it been true it would have been much stronger.
On August 25 2019 01:07 JimmiC wrote: You are again way off the rails my friend. I have explained to you the policies that I believe will help.
The issue with China is they are currently the worst...
I think you guys are too focused on who is worse.
one post later...
you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job.
This is what I'm talking about with you not maintaining coherent arguments.
Yes massively increasing green energy, increasing regulations, and other efforts are significantly contributing to them lifting themselves out of poverty more efficiently than any country in modern history. That you're trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous.
As Drone points out this really boils down to an argument from westerners that preserves their comforts and demands nations like China magically do even better than 3x more than the wealthiest country on the planet on green energy. As others suggested, I think it's racist too.
On September 09 2019 01:19 JimmiC wrote: You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada.
You should have left it out because it's wrong and misleading and yes it greatly changes your supporting evidence for your point. Had it been true it would have been much stronger.
you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job.
This is what I'm talking about with you not maintaining coherent arguments.
Yes massively increasing green energy, increasing regulations, and other efforts are significantly contributing to them lifting themselves out of poverty more efficiently than any country in modern history. That you're trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous.
As Drone points out this really boils down to an argument from westerners that preserves their comforts and demands nations like China magically do even better than 3x more than the wealthiest country on the planet on green energy. As others suggested I think it's racist too.
You have a very sunny veiw on China I don't share, and many others have pointed this out. Your massive "investment" in green energy is solar energy. They are # 1, the other top 3 is the US and India, none are shining examples. And the US would have more soloar energy but they realized the giant fields like China has made have negative impacts on this environment. That is one of the reasons they have slowed them California. China also built the worlds biggest hydro plant. environmentalists do not see this as a good thing.
I get that you are very invested in showing everyone how bad the US is, and maybe saying they are worse than China you think makes a point or something. But China is terrible and so is the US. I'd say the US is slightly better because I don't only care about CO2 emission's you do so you say they are worse. That is fine, but if you want to actually make changes for the better it won't help you at all.
Also, I have never demanded China instantly be better, but I do wish instead of trying to build the worlds biggest bridge, or the worlds biggest whatever, they would invest in the worlds cleanest factories. The worlds best waste management system, the worlds best organics composting program, and so on and so forth. Slaging China for doing bad shit does not mean the US is not doing bad shit, and vice versa.
And my argument moves around because so do your questions, and I am not treating this like a debate where I'm trying to stay on point and not "lose". I'm sharing with you information.
edit: I also think it is really funny how you often talk about Westerners and act as if you are different. I would suspect that your carbon footprint is much higher than that of the average person in Chad, but I don't see you making changes to live like that.
You think Westerns scape goat is China, your scapegoat is the capitalist class, really it is the same behavior.
On September 09 2019 01:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: Looking at per capita is something you do so the people inclined to point fingers can point the fingers in the right direction. Any European country seeing that 'india pollutes more than we do' and thinking that this somehow makes india more responsible for fighting climate change is really dumb, because indians actually pollute very little (in terms of emissions) and you cannot expect them to both live lives we'd consider livable without giving them the leeway to increase their consumption somewhat. China is a bit different of a case because they're what, 4x india per capita (bigger difference between china and the US, at least according to 2015 numbers), it's not fair to look at them as the same.
Looking at only one stat will always leave you blind to so much. I agree with you that it is a useful stat and should be included in any analysis. However, I would strongly disagree with your initial post where you said it was the ONLY stat that mattered and put it italics to emphasize how much you thought it was the only one that matter (or that is how I interpreted it).
Trying to boil down environmental impact to one stat carbon emissions per captia won't provide any value. Using it as "ah ha" moment with friends who think they are doing a great job in comparison sure, any learning's to try to make the system better, no.
The post you answered to with outrage was the following 'Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.' That is, when comparing countries. It seems like you stopped reading and started replying before you were done reading the one sentence my post consisted of. Yes, obviously, other statistics can be useful for other purposes. But when you are comparing countries with each other, you use per capita rather than the absolute number. If you are comparing the justice systems of different countries, you use incarceration per capita. If you are comparing wealth, you are looking at gdp per capita. If you are comparing employment numbers, you look at %, not the total number of unemployed or employed people - that is a useless number on its own. Clearly the same should also be true if you are looking at emissions.
If there are 200 indians for every norwegian and each norwegian pollutes 100 times more than each indian then overall india pollutes more, but clearly the norwegians deserve more blame than india does. That is an exaggerated number, but it's the very same scenario. China is not really part of that discussion, because their per capita numbers are similar to european ones.
On September 09 2019 01:19 JimmiC wrote: You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada.
You should have left it out because it's wrong and misleading and yes it greatly changes your supporting evidence for your point. Had it been true it would have been much stronger.
Already back to this...
I think you guys are too focused on who is worse.
one post later...
you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job.
This is what I'm talking about with you not maintaining coherent arguments.
Yes massively increasing green energy, increasing regulations, and other efforts are significantly contributing to them lifting themselves out of poverty more efficiently than any country in modern history. That you're trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous.
As Drone points out this really boils down to an argument from westerners that preserves their comforts and demands nations like China magically do even better than 3x more than the wealthiest country on the planet on green energy. As others suggested I think it's racist too.
You have a very sunny veiw on China
No, you just have one that has been demonstrably wrong.
And my argument moves around because so do your questions, and I am not treating this like a debate where I'm trying to stay on point and not "lose". I'm sharing with you information.
Misleading and wrong information is the point. You can't blame your incoherent arguing on my questions either lol? The time I cited from the start of this thread was just from your series of posts about me to which I never responded.
edit: I also think it is really funny how you often talk about Westerners and act as if you are different. I would suspect that your carbon footprint is much higher than that of the average person in Chad, but I don't see you making changes to live like that.
You think Westerns scape goat is China, your scapegoat is the capitalist class, really it is the same behavior.
I obviously include myself as a westerner, but I'd like to think I'm in recovery. You don't see anything I'm doing, but it's not because I'm not doing anything...
Comparing your misplaced haranguing of China to marxist/critical analysis is just shameful.
On September 09 2019 01:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: Looking at per capita is something you do so the people inclined to point fingers can point the fingers in the right direction. Any European country seeing that 'india pollutes more than we do' and thinking that this somehow makes india more responsible for fighting climate change is really dumb, because indians actually pollute very little (in terms of emissions) and you cannot expect them to both live lives we'd consider livable without giving them the leeway to increase their consumption somewhat. China is a bit different of a case because they're what, 4x india per capita (bigger difference between china and the US, at least according to 2015 numbers), it's not fair to look at them as the same.
Looking at only one stat will always leave you blind to so much. I agree with you that it is a useful stat and should be included in any analysis. However, I would strongly disagree with your initial post where you said it was the ONLY stat that mattered and put it italics to emphasize how much you thought it was the only one that matter (or that is how I interpreted it).
Trying to boil down environmental impact to one stat carbon emissions per captia won't provide any value. Using it as "ah ha" moment with friends who think they are doing a great job in comparison sure, any learning's to try to make the system better, no.
The post you answered to with outrage was the following 'Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.' That is, when comparing countries. It seems like you stopped reading and started replying before you were done reading the one sentence my post consisted of. Yes, obviously, other statistics can be useful for other purposes. But when you are comparing countries with each other, you use per capita rather than the absolute number. If you are comparing the justice systems of different countries, you use incarceration per capita. If you are comparing wealth, you are looking at gdp per capita. If you are comparing employment numbers, you look at %, not the total number of unemployed or employed people - that is a useless number on its own. Clearly the same should also be true if you are looking at emissions.
If there are 200 indians for every norwegian and each norwegian pollutes 100 times more than each indian then overall india pollutes more, but clearly the norwegians deserve more blame than india does. That is an exaggerated number, but it's the very same scenario. China is not really part of that discussion, because their per capita numbers are similar to european ones.
It depends what you are measuring. If you are comparing 2 countries total populations, it doesn't make sense to use per capita because that would be nonsensical. For limiting global emissions, it is total population times emissions per capita. Both reducing population and reducing emissions per capita are important, with emissions per capita likely being more important. Still over a billion people in India and over a billion in China is a problem. China actually took steps to address it with the one child policy.
On September 09 2019 01:35 JimmiC wrote: And the US would have more soloar energy but they realized the giant fields like China has made have negative impacts on this environment. That is one of the reasons they have slowed them California. China also built the worlds biggest hydro plant. environmentalists do not see this as a good thing.
Care to share your sources for this? It feels like something's badly wrong with these statements.
On September 09 2019 01:19 JimmiC wrote: You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada.
You should have left it out because it's wrong and misleading and yes it greatly changes your supporting evidence for your point. Had it been true it would have been much stronger.
Already back to this...
I think you guys are too focused on who is worse.
one post later...
you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job.
This is what I'm talking about with you not maintaining coherent arguments.
Yes massively increasing green energy, increasing regulations, and other efforts are significantly contributing to them lifting themselves out of poverty more efficiently than any country in modern history. That you're trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous.
As Drone points out this really boils down to an argument from westerners that preserves their comforts and demands nations like China magically do even better than 3x more than the wealthiest country on the planet on green energy. As others suggested I think it's racist too.
You have a very sunny veiw on China
No, you just have one that has been demonstrably wrong.
And my argument moves around because so do your questions, and I am not treating this like a debate where I'm trying to stay on point and not "lose". I'm sharing with you information.
Misleading and wrong information is the point. You can't blame your incoherent arguing on my questions either lol? The time I cited from the start of this thread was just from your series of posts about me to which I never responded.
edit: I also think it is really funny how you often talk about Westerners and act as if you are different. I would suspect that your carbon footprint is much higher than that of the average person in Chad, but I don't see you making changes to live like that.
You think Westerns scape goat is China, your scapegoat is the capitalist class, really it is the same behavior.
I obviously include myself as a westerner, but I'd like to think I'm in recovery. You don't see anything I'm doing, but it's not because I'm not doing anything...
Comparing your misplaced haranguing of China to marxist/critical analysis is just shameful.
I do not dislike China because they are marxist, for one reason they are not marxist. Secondly it is their disregard for the human rights for their people that make me dislike that countries leadership the most, and second is their disregard for the environment. And then when you see them making billions in destroying the environment and very little of it making it to the people it makes it even worse.
On September 09 2019 01:35 JimmiC wrote: And the US would have more soloar energy but they realized the giant fields like China has made have negative impacts on this environment. That is one of the reasons they have slowed them California. China also built the worlds biggest hydro plant. environmentalists do not see this as a good thing.
Care to share your sources for this? It feels like something's badly wrong with these statements.
There is tons. And remember I am talking about large fields not putting them on your roof. And even then it fairly toxic to make a solar panel so depending on where it was made and how responsible the manufacturer was, at where it was made, it might not actually be a win for the environment.
On September 09 2019 01:19 JimmiC wrote: You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada.
You should have left it out because it's wrong and misleading and yes it greatly changes your supporting evidence for your point. Had it been true it would have been much stronger.
Already back to this...
I think you guys are too focused on who is worse.
one post later...
you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job.
This is what I'm talking about with you not maintaining coherent arguments.
Yes massively increasing green energy, increasing regulations, and other efforts are significantly contributing to them lifting themselves out of poverty more efficiently than any country in modern history. That you're trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous.
As Drone points out this really boils down to an argument from westerners that preserves their comforts and demands nations like China magically do even better than 3x more than the wealthiest country on the planet on green energy. As others suggested I think it's racist too.
You have a very sunny veiw on China
No, you just have one that has been demonstrably wrong.
And my argument moves around because so do your questions, and I am not treating this like a debate where I'm trying to stay on point and not "lose". I'm sharing with you information.
Misleading and wrong information is the point. You can't blame your incoherent arguing on my questions either lol? The time I cited from the start of this thread was just from your series of posts about me to which I never responded.
edit: I also think it is really funny how you often talk about Westerners and act as if you are different. I would suspect that your carbon footprint is much higher than that of the average person in Chad, but I don't see you making changes to live like that.
You think Westerns scape goat is China, your scapegoat is the capitalist class, really it is the same behavior.
I obviously include myself as a westerner, but I'd like to think I'm in recovery. You don't see anything I'm doing, but it's not because I'm not doing anything...
Comparing your misplaced haranguing of China to marxist/critical analysis is just shameful.
I do not dislike China because they are marxist, for one reason they are not marxist. Secondly it is their disregard for the human rights for their people that make me dislike that countries leadership the most, and second is their disregard for the environment. And then when you see them making billions in destroying the environment and very little of it making it to the people it makes it even worse.
lmao no one was talking about whether China was marxist. I'm done.
On September 09 2019 01:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: Looking at per capita is something you do so the people inclined to point fingers can point the fingers in the right direction. Any European country seeing that 'india pollutes more than we do' and thinking that this somehow makes india more responsible for fighting climate change is really dumb, because indians actually pollute very little (in terms of emissions) and you cannot expect them to both live lives we'd consider livable without giving them the leeway to increase their consumption somewhat. China is a bit different of a case because they're what, 4x india per capita (bigger difference between china and the US, at least according to 2015 numbers), it's not fair to look at them as the same.
Looking at only one stat will always leave you blind to so much. I agree with you that it is a useful stat and should be included in any analysis. However, I would strongly disagree with your initial post where you said it was the ONLY stat that mattered and put it italics to emphasize how much you thought it was the only one that matter (or that is how I interpreted it).
Trying to boil down environmental impact to one stat carbon emissions per captia won't provide any value. Using it as "ah ha" moment with friends who think they are doing a great job in comparison sure, any learning's to try to make the system better, no.
The post you answered to with outrage was the following 'Per capita is the only relevant measurement when comparing countries.' That is, when comparing countries. It seems like you stopped reading and started replying before you were done reading the one sentence my post consisted of. Yes, obviously, other statistics can be useful for other purposes. But when you are comparing countries with each other, you use per capita rather than the absolute number. If you are comparing the justice systems of different countries, you use incarceration per capita. If you are comparing wealth, you are looking at gdp per capita. If you are comparing employment numbers, you look at %, not the total number of unemployed or employed people - that is a useless number on its own. Clearly the same should also be true if you are looking at emissions.
If there are 200 indians for every norwegian and each norwegian pollutes 100 times more than each indian then overall india pollutes more, but clearly the norwegians deserve more blame than india does. That is an exaggerated number, but it's the very same scenario. China is not really part of that discussion, because their per capita numbers are similar to european ones.
Again I think you are looking at it too simplistically, once you have the number you then to need ask why every Norwegian is polluting a 100x and what the indian's are going that is better. (I get the numbers are exaggerated just sticking with them for continuity). If you find out that the only reason is that Norwegians have more money and those Indian's that have the money are actually polluting even more because of poor waste management among other reasons then I wouldn't come to the same conclusion you did.
Now conversely if they are doing something awesome I am more than willing to look into it. I just met with a Canadian with family back in India that has a technology that "melts" plastic into water and fuel. If it works with as little emissions as was claimed my city will support them by sending all its plastic we collect and we will also provide grants.
I have no problem with any country or their people, I do have many problems with certain countries governments and the Green washing they do to trick people into thinking they are on the right path.
On September 09 2019 01:19 JimmiC wrote: You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada.
You should have left it out because it's wrong and misleading and yes it greatly changes your supporting evidence for your point. Had it been true it would have been much stronger.
Already back to this...
I think you guys are too focused on who is worse.
one post later...
you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job.
This is what I'm talking about with you not maintaining coherent arguments.
Yes massively increasing green energy, increasing regulations, and other efforts are significantly contributing to them lifting themselves out of poverty more efficiently than any country in modern history. That you're trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous.
As Drone points out this really boils down to an argument from westerners that preserves their comforts and demands nations like China magically do even better than 3x more than the wealthiest country on the planet on green energy. As others suggested I think it's racist too.
You have a very sunny veiw on China
No, you just have one that has been demonstrably wrong.
And my argument moves around because so do your questions, and I am not treating this like a debate where I'm trying to stay on point and not "lose". I'm sharing with you information.
Misleading and wrong information is the point. You can't blame your incoherent arguing on my questions either lol? The time I cited from the start of this thread was just from your series of posts about me to which I never responded.
edit: I also think it is really funny how you often talk about Westerners and act as if you are different. I would suspect that your carbon footprint is much higher than that of the average person in Chad, but I don't see you making changes to live like that.
You think Westerns scape goat is China, your scapegoat is the capitalist class, really it is the same behavior.
I obviously include myself as a westerner, but I'd like to think I'm in recovery. You don't see anything I'm doing, but it's not because I'm not doing anything...
Comparing your misplaced haranguing of China to marxist/critical analysis is just shameful.
I do not dislike China because they are marxist, for one reason they are not marxist. Secondly it is their disregard for the human rights for their people that make me dislike that countries leadership the most, and second is their disregard for the environment. And then when you see them making billions in destroying the environment and very little of it making it to the people it makes it even worse.
lmao no one was talking about whether China was marxist. I'm done.
It is the only reason why I can imagine that you constantly apologize for them when their human rights record is despicable.
And yes you have a scapegoat its the US/Capitalist class and everything wrong is their fault, it turns off your critical thinking and instead you just look for reasons that it is right.
On September 09 2019 01:19 JimmiC wrote: You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada.
You should have left it out because it's wrong and misleading and yes it greatly changes your supporting evidence for your point. Had it been true it would have been much stronger.
Already back to this...
I think you guys are too focused on who is worse.
one post later...
you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job.
This is what I'm talking about with you not maintaining coherent arguments.
Yes massively increasing green energy, increasing regulations, and other efforts are significantly contributing to them lifting themselves out of poverty more efficiently than any country in modern history. That you're trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous.
As Drone points out this really boils down to an argument from westerners that preserves their comforts and demands nations like China magically do even better than 3x more than the wealthiest country on the planet on green energy. As others suggested I think it's racist too.
You have a very sunny veiw on China
No, you just have one that has been demonstrably wrong.
And my argument moves around because so do your questions, and I am not treating this like a debate where I'm trying to stay on point and not "lose". I'm sharing with you information.
Misleading and wrong information is the point. You can't blame your incoherent arguing on my questions either lol? The time I cited from the start of this thread was just from your series of posts about me to which I never responded.
edit: I also think it is really funny how you often talk about Westerners and act as if you are different. I would suspect that your carbon footprint is much higher than that of the average person in Chad, but I don't see you making changes to live like that.
You think Westerns scape goat is China, your scapegoat is the capitalist class, really it is the same behavior.
I obviously include myself as a westerner, but I'd like to think I'm in recovery. You don't see anything I'm doing, but it's not because I'm not doing anything...
Comparing your misplaced haranguing of China to marxist/critical analysis is just shameful.
I do not dislike China because they are marxist, for one reason they are not marxist. Secondly it is their disregard for the human rights for their people that make me dislike that countries leadership the most, and second is their disregard for the environment. And then when you see them making billions in destroying the environment and very little of it making it to the people it makes it even worse.
lmao no one was talking about whether China was marxist. I'm done.
It is the only reason why I can imagine that you constantly apologize for them when their human rights record is despicable.
And yes you have a scapegoat its the US/Capitalist class and everything wrong is their fault, it turns off your critical thinking and instead you just look for reasons that it is right.
So is the US's. Worse even depending on what we're talking about.
You should avoid talking about my thinking when you're failing to demonstrate you're comprehending my posts. You responded to my post about marxist/critical analysis by saying China wasn't marxist. Clearly demonstrating you didn't understand what the post said.
Like I said, I'm done. You'll say something else comparably ridiculous and I'll ignore it.
On September 09 2019 01:19 JimmiC wrote: You could be right, I probably should have left out the word exponentially. I'm not sure if you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job. And that what is keeping their carbon down per person is not something wonderful they are doing, but that there populous has less to spend. As they get more to spend, they just get more and more wasteful, like us. But the problem is they don't have the infrastructure we have to deal with waste. Also because they are so populous each gain in GDP per captia and there for a raise in carbon (and waste) per captia is far more impactful then for example Canada.
You should have left it out because it's wrong and misleading and yes it greatly changes your supporting evidence for your point. Had it been true it would have been much stronger.
Already back to this...
I think you guys are too focused on who is worse.
one post later...
you think that changes my point that they are not doing a better job.
This is what I'm talking about with you not maintaining coherent arguments.
Yes massively increasing green energy, increasing regulations, and other efforts are significantly contributing to them lifting themselves out of poverty more efficiently than any country in modern history. That you're trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous.
As Drone points out this really boils down to an argument from westerners that preserves their comforts and demands nations like China magically do even better than 3x more than the wealthiest country on the planet on green energy. As others suggested I think it's racist too.
You have a very sunny veiw on China
No, you just have one that has been demonstrably wrong.
And my argument moves around because so do your questions, and I am not treating this like a debate where I'm trying to stay on point and not "lose". I'm sharing with you information.
Misleading and wrong information is the point. You can't blame your incoherent arguing on my questions either lol? The time I cited from the start of this thread was just from your series of posts about me to which I never responded.
edit: I also think it is really funny how you often talk about Westerners and act as if you are different. I would suspect that your carbon footprint is much higher than that of the average person in Chad, but I don't see you making changes to live like that.
You think Westerns scape goat is China, your scapegoat is the capitalist class, really it is the same behavior.
I obviously include myself as a westerner, but I'd like to think I'm in recovery. You don't see anything I'm doing, but it's not because I'm not doing anything...
Comparing your misplaced haranguing of China to marxist/critical analysis is just shameful.
I do not dislike China because they are marxist, for one reason they are not marxist. Secondly it is their disregard for the human rights for their people that make me dislike that countries leadership the most, and second is their disregard for the environment. And then when you see them making billions in destroying the environment and very little of it making it to the people it makes it even worse.
lmao no one was talking about whether China was marxist. I'm done.
It is the only reason why I can imagine that you constantly apologize for them when their human rights record is despicable.
And yes you have a scapegoat its the US/Capitalist class and everything wrong is their fault, it turns off your critical thinking and instead you just look for reasons that it is right.
So is the US's. Worse even depending on what we're talking about.
You should avoid talking about my thinking when you're failing to demonstrate you're comprehending my posts. You responded to my post about marxist/critical analysis by saying China wasn't marxist. Clearly demonstrating you didn't understand what the post said.
Like I said, I'm done. You'll say something else comparably ridiculous and I'll ignore it.
Because it is very laughable to call your analysis marxist/critical it is a mix of extreme prejudice and conspiracy theory's.
Like I said earlier I'm more than happy to do IQ tests with you and you can show everyone how brilliant you are in comparison to me or you could stop insulting me and just realize that I'm not just responding to that one post.
You are both relentless and insufferable, it would be easier to take if it wasn't mixed with extreme arrogance and an ignorance about what you discuss. I really don't think you can tell difference between one of your assumptions and a real fact.
The part that is really amusing is you keep acting like I think the US is doing a good job environmentally I don't. And if they keep breaking down what few rules they have at some point they might be worse than China, they are pretty bad right now.
As of Aug 29th the NYT reports of 84 US environmental regulations rolled back or in the process of being rolled back.
Air pollution and emissions COMPLETED
1. Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions. Environmental Protection Agency 2. Revised and partially repealed an Obama-era rule limiting methane emissions on public lands, including intentional venting and flaring from drilling operations. Interior Department 3. Loosened a Clinton-era rule designed to limit toxic emissions from major industrial polluters. E.P.A. 4. Stopped enforcing a 2015 rule that prohibited the use of hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases, in air-conditioners and refrigerators. E.P.A. 5. Repealed a requirement that state and regional authorities track tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on federal highways. Transportation Department 6. Reverted to a weaker 2009 pollution permitting program for new power plants and expansions. E.P.A. 7. Amended rules that govern how refineries monitor pollution in surrounding communities. E.P.A. 8. Directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation of the “social cost of carbon” that rulemakers used to estimate the long-term economic benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Executive Order 9. Withdrew guidance that federal agencies include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews. But several district courts have ruled that emissions must be included in such reviews. Executive Order; Council on Environmental Quality 10. Lifted a summertime ban on the use of E15, a gasoline blend made of 15 percent ethanol. (Burning gasoline with a higher concentration of ethanol in hot conditions increases smog.) E.P.A. + Show Spoiler +
IN PROCESS
11. Proposed rules to end federal requirements that oil and gas companies install technology to inspect for and fix methane leaks from wells, pipelines and storage facilities. E.P.A. 12. Proposed weakening Obama-era fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks. The proposal also challenges California’s right to set its own more stringent standards, which other states can choose to follow. E.P.A. and Transportation Department 13. Announced intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. (The process of withdrawing cannot be completed until 2020.) Executive Order 14. Proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which would have set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. In April 2019, the E.P.A. sent a replacement plan, which would let states set their own rules, to the White House for budget review. Executive Order; E.P.A. 15. Proposed eliminating Obama-era restrictions that in effect required newly built coal power plants to capture carbon dioxide emissions. E.P.A. 16. Proposed a legal justification for weakening an Obama-era rule that limited mercury emissions from coal power plants. E.P.A. 17. Proposed revisions to standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants. Executive Order; E.P.A. 18. Began review of emissions rules for power plant start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions. In April, the E.P.A. filed an order reversing a requirement that 36 states follow the emissions rule. E.P.A. 19. Proposed relaxing Obama-era requirements that companies monitor and repair methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. E.P.A. 20. Proposed changing rules aimed at cutting methane emissions from landfills. In May, 2019, a federal judge ruled against the E.P.A. for failing to enforce the existing law and gave the agency a fall deadline for finalizing state and federal rules. E.P.A. said it is reviewing the decision. E.P.A. 21. Announced a rewrite of an Obama-era rule meant to reduce air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas. E.P.A. 22. Weakened oversight of some state plans for reducing air pollution in national parks. (In Texas, the E.P.A. rejected an Obama-era plan that would have required the installation of equipment at some coal-burning power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.) E.P.A. 23. Proposed repealing leak-repair, maintenance and reporting requirements for large refrigeration and air conditioning systems containing hydrofluorocarbons. E.P.A.
Drilling and extraction
COMPLETED 24. Made significant cuts to the borders of two national monuments in Utah and recommended border and resource management changes to several more. Presidential Proclamation; Interior Department 25. Rescinded water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands. Interior Department 26. Scrapped a proposed rule that required mines to prove they could pay to clean up future pollution. E.P.A. 27. Withdrew a requirement that Gulf oil rig owners prove they could cover the costs of removing rigs once they have stopped producing. Interior Department 28. Approved construction of the Dakota Access pipeline less than a mile from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Under the Obama administration, the Army Corps of Engineers had said it would explore alternative routes. Executive Order; Army 29. Revoked an Obama-era executive order designed to preserve ocean, coastal and Great Lakes waters in favor of a policy focused on energy production and economic growth. Executive Order 30. Changed how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considers the indirect effects of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews of pipelines. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 31. Permitted the use of seismic air guns for gas and oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. The practice, which can kill marine life and disrupt fisheries, was blocked under the Obama administration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 32. Loosened offshore drilling safety regulations implemented by the Obama administration following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The revised rules include reduced testing requirements for blowout prevention systems. Interior Department
IN PROCESS 33. Completed preliminary environmental reviews to clear the way for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress; Interior Department 34. Proposed opening most of America’s coastal waters to offshore oil and gas drilling, but delayed the plan after a federal judge ruled that Mr. Trump’s reversal of an Obama-era ban on drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawlful. Interior Department 35. Lifted an Obama-era freeze on new coal leases on public lands. But, in April 2019, a judge ruled that the Interior Department could not begin selling new leases without completing an environmental review. A month later, the agency published a draft assessment that concluded restarting federal coal leasing would have little environmental impact. Executive Order; Interior Department 36. Repealed an Obama-era rule governing royalties for oil, gas and coal leases on federal lands, which replaced a 1980s rule that critics said allowed companies to underpay the federal government. A federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s repeal. The Interior Department is reviewing the decision. Interior Department 37. Proposed “streamlining” the approval process for drilling for oil and gas in national forests. Agriculture Department; Interior Department 38. Ordered review of regulations on oil and gas drilling in national parks where mineral rights are privately owned. Executive Order; Interior Department 39. Recommended shrinking three marine protected areas, or opening them to commercial fishing. Executive Order; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 40. Ordered review of regulations on offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels in the Arctic that were developed after a 2013 accident. The Interior Department said it was “considering full rescission or revision of this rule.” Executive Order; Interior Department 41. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline rejected by President Barack Obama, but a federal judge blocked the project from going forward without an adequate environmental review process. Mr. Trump later attempted to side-step the ruling by issuing a presidential permit, but the project remains tied up in court. Executive Order; State Department
Infrastructure and planning COMPLETED
42. Revoked Obama-era flood standards for federal infrastructure projects, like roads and bridges. The standards required the government to account for sea-level rise and other climate change effects. Executive Order 43. Relaxed the environmental review process for federal infrastructure projects. Executive Order 44. Revoked a directive for federal agencies to minimize impacts on water, wildlife, land and other natural resources when approving development projects. Executive Order 45. Revoked an Obama executive order promoting “climate resilience” in the northern Bering Sea region of Alaska, which withdrew local waters from oil and gas leasing and established a tribal advisory council to consult on local environmental issues. Executive Order 46. Revoked an Obama executive order that set a goal of cutting the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over 10 years. Executive Order 47. Reversed an update to the Bureau of Land Management’s public land use planning process. Congress | Read more 48. Withdrew an Obama-era order to consider climate change in managing natural resources in national parks. National Park Service 49. Restricted most Interior Department environmental studies to one year in length and a maximum of 150 pages, citing a need to reduce paperwork. Interior Department 50. Withdrew a number of Obama-era Interior Department climate change and conservation policies that the agency said could “burden the development or utilization of domestically produced energy resources.” Interior Department 51. Eliminated the use of an Obama-era planning system designed to minimize harm from oil and gas activity on sensitive landscapes, such as national parks. Interior Department 52. Eased the environmental review processes for small wireless infrastructure projects with the goal of expanding 5G wireless networks. Federal Communications Commission 53. Withdrew Obama-era policies designed to maintain or, ideally improve, natural resources affected by federal projects.
Interior Department
IN PROCESS 54. Proposed plans to streamline the environmental review process for Forest Service projects. Agriculture Department
Animals
COMPLETED
55. Opened nine million acres of Western land to oil and gas drilling by weakening habitat protections for the sage grouse, an imperiled bird with an elaborate mating dance. Interior Department 56. Overturned a ban on the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands. Interior Department 57. Overturned a ban on the hunting of predators in Alaskan wildlife refuges. Congress 58. Ended an Obama-era rule barring hunters on some Alaska public lands from using bait to lure and kill grizzly bears. National Park Service; Interior Department 59. Withdrew proposed limits on the number of endangered marine mammals and sea turtles that people who fish could unintentionally kill or injure with sword-fishing nets on the West Coast. In 2018, California issued a state rule prohibiting the use of the nets the rule was intending to regulate. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 60. Amended fishing regulations for a number of species to allow for longer seasons and higher catch rates. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 61. Rolled back a roughly 40-year-old interprentation of a policy aimed at protecting migratory birds, potentially running afoul of treaties with Canada and Mexico. Interior Department 62. Overturned a ban on using parts of migratory birds in handicrafts made by Alaskan Natives.
Interior Department
IN PROCESS
63. Proposed stripping the Endangered Species Act of key provisions. Interior Department | Read more 64. Proposed relaxing environmental protections for salmon and smelt in California’s Central Valley in order to free up water for farmers. Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more Toxic substances and safety
COMPLETED
65. Narrowed the scope of a 2016 law mandating safety assessments for potentially toxic chemicals, like dry-cleaning solvents and paint strippers. The E.P.A. will focus on direct exposure and exclude air, water and ground contamination. E.P.A. | Read more 66. Reversed an Obama-era rule that required braking system upgrades for “high hazard” trains hauling flammable liquids, like oil and ethanol. Transportation Department | Read more 67. Removed copper filter cake, an electronics manufacturing byproduct comprised of heavy metals, from the “hazardous waste” list. E.P.A. | Read more IN PROCESS 68. Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a potentially neurotoxic pesticide. In August 2018, a federal court ordered the E.P.A. to ban the pesticide, but the agency is appealing the ruling. E.P.A. | Read more 69. Announced a review of an Obama-era rule lowering coal dust limits in mines. The head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration said there were no immediate plans to change the dust limit, but the review is continuing. Labor Department | Read more Water pollution
COMPLETED
70. Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams. Congress | Read more 71. Withdrew a proposed rule aimed at reducing pollutants, including air pollution, at sewage treatment plants. E.P.A. | Read more 72. Withdrew a proposed rule requiring groundwater protections for certain uranium mines. E.P.A. | Read more 73. Weakened federal rules regulating the disposal and storage of coal ash waste from power plants. (A second phase of this rollback is still under way.) E.P.A. | Read more
IN PROCESS 74. Proposed rolling back protections for certain tributaries and wetlands that the Obama administration wanted covered by the Clean Water Act. E.P.A.; Army | Read more 75. Delayed by two years an E.P.A. rule regulating limits on toxic discharge, which can include mercury, from power plants into public waterways. E.P.A. | Read more 76. Ordered the E.P.A. to re-evaluate a section of the Clean Water Act and related guidance that allows states to reject or delay federal projects – including pipelines and other fossil fuel facilities – if they don't meet local water quality goals. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more Other
COMPLETED
77. Prohibited funding environmental and community development projects through corporate settlements of federal lawsuits. Justice Department | Read more 78. Announced intent to stop payments to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations program to help poorer countries reduce carbon emissions. Executive Order | Read more 79. Reversed restrictions on the sale of plastic water bottles in national parks desgined to cut down on litter, despite a Park Service report that the effort worked. Interior Department | Read more IN PROCESS 80. Proposed limiting the studies used by the E.P.A. for rulemaking to only those that make data publicly available. (The move was widely criticized by scientists, who said it would effectively block the agency from considering landmark research that relies on confidential health data.) E.P.A. | Read more 81. Proposed repealing an Obama-era regulation that nearly doubled the number of light bulbs subject to energy-efficiency standards set to go into effect next year. Energy Department | Read more 82. Proposed changes to the way cost-benefit analyses are conducted under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes. E.P.A. | Read more 83. Proposed withdrawing efficiency standards for residential furnaces and commercial water heaters designed to reduce energy use. Energy Department | Read more 84. Initially withdrew then delayed a proposed rule that would inform car owners about fuel-efficient replacement tires. (The Transportation Department has scheduled a new rulemaking notice for 2020.) Transportation Department | Read more
On September 09 2019 16:09 GreenHorizons wrote: As of Aug 29th the NYT reports of 84 US environmental regulations rolled back or in the process of being rolled back.
1. Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions. Environmental Protection Agency 2. Revised and partially repealed an Obama-era rule limiting methane emissions on public lands, including intentional venting and flaring from drilling operations. Interior Department 3. Loosened a Clinton-era rule designed to limit toxic emissions from major industrial polluters. E.P.A. 4. Stopped enforcing a 2015 rule that prohibited the use of hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases, in air-conditioners and refrigerators. E.P.A. 5. Repealed a requirement that state and regional authorities track tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on federal highways. Transportation Department 6. Reverted to a weaker 2009 pollution permitting program for new power plants and expansions. E.P.A. 7. Amended rules that govern how refineries monitor pollution in surrounding communities. E.P.A. 8. Directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation of the “social cost of carbon” that rulemakers used to estimate the long-term economic benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Executive Order 9. Withdrew guidance that federal agencies include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews. But several district courts have ruled that emissions must be included in such reviews. Executive Order; Council on Environmental Quality 10. Lifted a summertime ban on the use of E15, a gasoline blend made of 15 percent ethanol. (Burning gasoline with a higher concentration of ethanol in hot conditions increases smog.) E.P.A. + Show Spoiler +
IN PROCESS
11. Proposed rules to end federal requirements that oil and gas companies install technology to inspect for and fix methane leaks from wells, pipelines and storage facilities. E.P.A. 12. Proposed weakening Obama-era fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks. The proposal also challenges California’s right to set its own more stringent standards, which other states can choose to follow. E.P.A. and Transportation Department 13. Announced intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. (The process of withdrawing cannot be completed until 2020.) Executive Order 14. Proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which would have set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. In April 2019, the E.P.A. sent a replacement plan, which would let states set their own rules, to the White House for budget review. Executive Order; E.P.A. 15. Proposed eliminating Obama-era restrictions that in effect required newly built coal power plants to capture carbon dioxide emissions. E.P.A. 16. Proposed a legal justification for weakening an Obama-era rule that limited mercury emissions from coal power plants. E.P.A. 17. Proposed revisions to standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants. Executive Order; E.P.A. 18. Began review of emissions rules for power plant start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions. In April, the E.P.A. filed an order reversing a requirement that 36 states follow the emissions rule. E.P.A. 19. Proposed relaxing Obama-era requirements that companies monitor and repair methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. E.P.A. 20. Proposed changing rules aimed at cutting methane emissions from landfills. In May, 2019, a federal judge ruled against the E.P.A. for failing to enforce the existing law and gave the agency a fall deadline for finalizing state and federal rules. E.P.A. said it is reviewing the decision. E.P.A. 21. Announced a rewrite of an Obama-era rule meant to reduce air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas. E.P.A. 22. Weakened oversight of some state plans for reducing air pollution in national parks. (In Texas, the E.P.A. rejected an Obama-era plan that would have required the installation of equipment at some coal-burning power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.) E.P.A. 23. Proposed repealing leak-repair, maintenance and reporting requirements for large refrigeration and air conditioning systems containing hydrofluorocarbons. E.P.A.
Drilling and extraction
COMPLETED 24. Made significant cuts to the borders of two national monuments in Utah and recommended border and resource management changes to several more. Presidential Proclamation; Interior Department 25. Rescinded water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands. Interior Department 26. Scrapped a proposed rule that required mines to prove they could pay to clean up future pollution. E.P.A. 27. Withdrew a requirement that Gulf oil rig owners prove they could cover the costs of removing rigs once they have stopped producing. Interior Department 28. Approved construction of the Dakota Access pipeline less than a mile from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Under the Obama administration, the Army Corps of Engineers had said it would explore alternative routes. Executive Order; Army 29. Revoked an Obama-era executive order designed to preserve ocean, coastal and Great Lakes waters in favor of a policy focused on energy production and economic growth. Executive Order 30. Changed how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considers the indirect effects of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews of pipelines. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 31. Permitted the use of seismic air guns for gas and oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. The practice, which can kill marine life and disrupt fisheries, was blocked under the Obama administration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 32. Loosened offshore drilling safety regulations implemented by the Obama administration following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The revised rules include reduced testing requirements for blowout prevention systems. Interior Department
IN PROCESS 33. Completed preliminary environmental reviews to clear the way for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress; Interior Department 34. Proposed opening most of America’s coastal waters to offshore oil and gas drilling, but delayed the plan after a federal judge ruled that Mr. Trump’s reversal of an Obama-era ban on drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawlful. Interior Department 35. Lifted an Obama-era freeze on new coal leases on public lands. But, in April 2019, a judge ruled that the Interior Department could not begin selling new leases without completing an environmental review. A month later, the agency published a draft assessment that concluded restarting federal coal leasing would have little environmental impact. Executive Order; Interior Department 36. Repealed an Obama-era rule governing royalties for oil, gas and coal leases on federal lands, which replaced a 1980s rule that critics said allowed companies to underpay the federal government. A federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s repeal. The Interior Department is reviewing the decision. Interior Department 37. Proposed “streamlining” the approval process for drilling for oil and gas in national forests. Agriculture Department; Interior Department 38. Ordered review of regulations on oil and gas drilling in national parks where mineral rights are privately owned. Executive Order; Interior Department 39. Recommended shrinking three marine protected areas, or opening them to commercial fishing. Executive Order; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 40. Ordered review of regulations on offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels in the Arctic that were developed after a 2013 accident. The Interior Department said it was “considering full rescission or revision of this rule.” Executive Order; Interior Department 41. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline rejected by President Barack Obama, but a federal judge blocked the project from going forward without an adequate environmental review process. Mr. Trump later attempted to side-step the ruling by issuing a presidential permit, but the project remains tied up in court. Executive Order; State Department
Infrastructure and planning COMPLETED
42. Revoked Obama-era flood standards for federal infrastructure projects, like roads and bridges. The standards required the government to account for sea-level rise and other climate change effects. Executive Order 43. Relaxed the environmental review process for federal infrastructure projects. Executive Order 44. Revoked a directive for federal agencies to minimize impacts on water, wildlife, land and other natural resources when approving development projects. Executive Order 45. Revoked an Obama executive order promoting “climate resilience” in the northern Bering Sea region of Alaska, which withdrew local waters from oil and gas leasing and established a tribal advisory council to consult on local environmental issues. Executive Order 46. Revoked an Obama executive order that set a goal of cutting the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over 10 years. Executive Order 47. Reversed an update to the Bureau of Land Management’s public land use planning process. Congress | Read more 48. Withdrew an Obama-era order to consider climate change in managing natural resources in national parks. National Park Service 49. Restricted most Interior Department environmental studies to one year in length and a maximum of 150 pages, citing a need to reduce paperwork. Interior Department 50. Withdrew a number of Obama-era Interior Department climate change and conservation policies that the agency said could “burden the development or utilization of domestically produced energy resources.” Interior Department 51. Eliminated the use of an Obama-era planning system designed to minimize harm from oil and gas activity on sensitive landscapes, such as national parks. Interior Department 52. Eased the environmental review processes for small wireless infrastructure projects with the goal of expanding 5G wireless networks. Federal Communications Commission 53. Withdrew Obama-era policies designed to maintain or, ideally improve, natural resources affected by federal projects.
Interior Department
IN PROCESS 54. Proposed plans to streamline the environmental review process for Forest Service projects. Agriculture Department
Animals
COMPLETED
55. Opened nine million acres of Western land to oil and gas drilling by weakening habitat protections for the sage grouse, an imperiled bird with an elaborate mating dance. Interior Department 56. Overturned a ban on the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands. Interior Department 57. Overturned a ban on the hunting of predators in Alaskan wildlife refuges. Congress 58. Ended an Obama-era rule barring hunters on some Alaska public lands from using bait to lure and kill grizzly bears. National Park Service; Interior Department 59. Withdrew proposed limits on the number of endangered marine mammals and sea turtles that people who fish could unintentionally kill or injure with sword-fishing nets on the West Coast. In 2018, California issued a state rule prohibiting the use of the nets the rule was intending to regulate. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 60. Amended fishing regulations for a number of species to allow for longer seasons and higher catch rates. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 61. Rolled back a roughly 40-year-old interprentation of a policy aimed at protecting migratory birds, potentially running afoul of treaties with Canada and Mexico. Interior Department 62. Overturned a ban on using parts of migratory birds in handicrafts made by Alaskan Natives.
Interior Department
IN PROCESS
63. Proposed stripping the Endangered Species Act of key provisions. Interior Department | Read more 64. Proposed relaxing environmental protections for salmon and smelt in California’s Central Valley in order to free up water for farmers. Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more Toxic substances and safety
COMPLETED
65. Narrowed the scope of a 2016 law mandating safety assessments for potentially toxic chemicals, like dry-cleaning solvents and paint strippers. The E.P.A. will focus on direct exposure and exclude air, water and ground contamination. E.P.A. | Read more 66. Reversed an Obama-era rule that required braking system upgrades for “high hazard” trains hauling flammable liquids, like oil and ethanol. Transportation Department | Read more 67. Removed copper filter cake, an electronics manufacturing byproduct comprised of heavy metals, from the “hazardous waste” list. E.P.A. | Read more IN PROCESS 68. Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a potentially neurotoxic pesticide. In August 2018, a federal court ordered the E.P.A. to ban the pesticide, but the agency is appealing the ruling. E.P.A. | Read more 69. Announced a review of an Obama-era rule lowering coal dust limits in mines. The head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration said there were no immediate plans to change the dust limit, but the review is continuing. Labor Department | Read more Water pollution
COMPLETED
70. Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams. Congress | Read more 71. Withdrew a proposed rule aimed at reducing pollutants, including air pollution, at sewage treatment plants. E.P.A. | Read more 72. Withdrew a proposed rule requiring groundwater protections for certain uranium mines. E.P.A. | Read more 73. Weakened federal rules regulating the disposal and storage of coal ash waste from power plants. (A second phase of this rollback is still under way.) E.P.A. | Read more
IN PROCESS 74. Proposed rolling back protections for certain tributaries and wetlands that the Obama administration wanted covered by the Clean Water Act. E.P.A.; Army | Read more 75. Delayed by two years an E.P.A. rule regulating limits on toxic discharge, which can include mercury, from power plants into public waterways. E.P.A. | Read more 76. Ordered the E.P.A. to re-evaluate a section of the Clean Water Act and related guidance that allows states to reject or delay federal projects – including pipelines and other fossil fuel facilities – if they don't meet local water quality goals. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more Other
COMPLETED
77. Prohibited funding environmental and community development projects through corporate settlements of federal lawsuits. Justice Department | Read more 78. Announced intent to stop payments to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations program to help poorer countries reduce carbon emissions. Executive Order | Read more 79. Reversed restrictions on the sale of plastic water bottles in national parks desgined to cut down on litter, despite a Park Service report that the effort worked. Interior Department | Read more IN PROCESS 80. Proposed limiting the studies used by the E.P.A. for rulemaking to only those that make data publicly available. (The move was widely criticized by scientists, who said it would effectively block the agency from considering landmark research that relies on confidential health data.) E.P.A. | Read more 81. Proposed repealing an Obama-era regulation that nearly doubled the number of light bulbs subject to energy-efficiency standards set to go into effect next year. Energy Department | Read more 82. Proposed changes to the way cost-benefit analyses are conducted under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes. E.P.A. | Read more 83. Proposed withdrawing efficiency standards for residential furnaces and commercial water heaters designed to reduce energy use. Energy Department | Read more 84. Initially withdrew then delayed a proposed rule that would inform car owners about fuel-efficient replacement tires. (The Transportation Department has scheduled a new rulemaking notice for 2020.) Transportation Department | Read more
On September 09 2019 16:09 GreenHorizons wrote: As of Aug 29th the NYT reports of 84 US environmental regulations rolled back or in the process of being rolled back.
Air pollution and emissions COMPLETED
1. Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions. Environmental Protection Agency 2. Revised and partially repealed an Obama-era rule limiting methane emissions on public lands, including intentional venting and flaring from drilling operations. Interior Department 3. Loosened a Clinton-era rule designed to limit toxic emissions from major industrial polluters. E.P.A. 4. Stopped enforcing a 2015 rule that prohibited the use of hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases, in air-conditioners and refrigerators. E.P.A. 5. Repealed a requirement that state and regional authorities track tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on federal highways. Transportation Department 6. Reverted to a weaker 2009 pollution permitting program for new power plants and expansions. E.P.A. 7. Amended rules that govern how refineries monitor pollution in surrounding communities. E.P.A. 8. Directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation of the “social cost of carbon” that rulemakers used to estimate the long-term economic benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Executive Order 9. Withdrew guidance that federal agencies include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews. But several district courts have ruled that emissions must be included in such reviews. Executive Order; Council on Environmental Quality 10. Lifted a summertime ban on the use of E15, a gasoline blend made of 15 percent ethanol. (Burning gasoline with a higher concentration of ethanol in hot conditions increases smog.) E.P.A. + Show Spoiler +
IN PROCESS
11. Proposed rules to end federal requirements that oil and gas companies install technology to inspect for and fix methane leaks from wells, pipelines and storage facilities. E.P.A. 12. Proposed weakening Obama-era fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks. The proposal also challenges California’s right to set its own more stringent standards, which other states can choose to follow. E.P.A. and Transportation Department 13. Announced intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. (The process of withdrawing cannot be completed until 2020.) Executive Order 14. Proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which would have set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. In April 2019, the E.P.A. sent a replacement plan, which would let states set their own rules, to the White House for budget review. Executive Order; E.P.A. 15. Proposed eliminating Obama-era restrictions that in effect required newly built coal power plants to capture carbon dioxide emissions. E.P.A. 16. Proposed a legal justification for weakening an Obama-era rule that limited mercury emissions from coal power plants. E.P.A. 17. Proposed revisions to standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants. Executive Order; E.P.A. 18. Began review of emissions rules for power plant start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions. In April, the E.P.A. filed an order reversing a requirement that 36 states follow the emissions rule. E.P.A. 19. Proposed relaxing Obama-era requirements that companies monitor and repair methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. E.P.A. 20. Proposed changing rules aimed at cutting methane emissions from landfills. In May, 2019, a federal judge ruled against the E.P.A. for failing to enforce the existing law and gave the agency a fall deadline for finalizing state and federal rules. E.P.A. said it is reviewing the decision. E.P.A. 21. Announced a rewrite of an Obama-era rule meant to reduce air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas. E.P.A. 22. Weakened oversight of some state plans for reducing air pollution in national parks. (In Texas, the E.P.A. rejected an Obama-era plan that would have required the installation of equipment at some coal-burning power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.) E.P.A. 23. Proposed repealing leak-repair, maintenance and reporting requirements for large refrigeration and air conditioning systems containing hydrofluorocarbons. E.P.A.
Drilling and extraction
COMPLETED 24. Made significant cuts to the borders of two national monuments in Utah and recommended border and resource management changes to several more. Presidential Proclamation; Interior Department 25. Rescinded water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands. Interior Department 26. Scrapped a proposed rule that required mines to prove they could pay to clean up future pollution. E.P.A. 27. Withdrew a requirement that Gulf oil rig owners prove they could cover the costs of removing rigs once they have stopped producing. Interior Department 28. Approved construction of the Dakota Access pipeline less than a mile from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Under the Obama administration, the Army Corps of Engineers had said it would explore alternative routes. Executive Order; Army 29. Revoked an Obama-era executive order designed to preserve ocean, coastal and Great Lakes waters in favor of a policy focused on energy production and economic growth. Executive Order 30. Changed how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considers the indirect effects of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews of pipelines. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 31. Permitted the use of seismic air guns for gas and oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. The practice, which can kill marine life and disrupt fisheries, was blocked under the Obama administration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 32. Loosened offshore drilling safety regulations implemented by the Obama administration following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The revised rules include reduced testing requirements for blowout prevention systems. Interior Department
IN PROCESS 33. Completed preliminary environmental reviews to clear the way for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress; Interior Department 34. Proposed opening most of America’s coastal waters to offshore oil and gas drilling, but delayed the plan after a federal judge ruled that Mr. Trump’s reversal of an Obama-era ban on drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawlful. Interior Department 35. Lifted an Obama-era freeze on new coal leases on public lands. But, in April 2019, a judge ruled that the Interior Department could not begin selling new leases without completing an environmental review. A month later, the agency published a draft assessment that concluded restarting federal coal leasing would have little environmental impact. Executive Order; Interior Department 36. Repealed an Obama-era rule governing royalties for oil, gas and coal leases on federal lands, which replaced a 1980s rule that critics said allowed companies to underpay the federal government. A federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s repeal. The Interior Department is reviewing the decision. Interior Department 37. Proposed “streamlining” the approval process for drilling for oil and gas in national forests. Agriculture Department; Interior Department 38. Ordered review of regulations on oil and gas drilling in national parks where mineral rights are privately owned. Executive Order; Interior Department 39. Recommended shrinking three marine protected areas, or opening them to commercial fishing. Executive Order; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 40. Ordered review of regulations on offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels in the Arctic that were developed after a 2013 accident. The Interior Department said it was “considering full rescission or revision of this rule.” Executive Order; Interior Department 41. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline rejected by President Barack Obama, but a federal judge blocked the project from going forward without an adequate environmental review process. Mr. Trump later attempted to side-step the ruling by issuing a presidential permit, but the project remains tied up in court. Executive Order; State Department
Infrastructure and planning COMPLETED
42. Revoked Obama-era flood standards for federal infrastructure projects, like roads and bridges. The standards required the government to account for sea-level rise and other climate change effects. Executive Order 43. Relaxed the environmental review process for federal infrastructure projects. Executive Order 44. Revoked a directive for federal agencies to minimize impacts on water, wildlife, land and other natural resources when approving development projects. Executive Order 45. Revoked an Obama executive order promoting “climate resilience” in the northern Bering Sea region of Alaska, which withdrew local waters from oil and gas leasing and established a tribal advisory council to consult on local environmental issues. Executive Order 46. Revoked an Obama executive order that set a goal of cutting the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over 10 years. Executive Order 47. Reversed an update to the Bureau of Land Management’s public land use planning process. Congress | Read more 48. Withdrew an Obama-era order to consider climate change in managing natural resources in national parks. National Park Service 49. Restricted most Interior Department environmental studies to one year in length and a maximum of 150 pages, citing a need to reduce paperwork. Interior Department 50. Withdrew a number of Obama-era Interior Department climate change and conservation policies that the agency said could “burden the development or utilization of domestically produced energy resources.” Interior Department 51. Eliminated the use of an Obama-era planning system designed to minimize harm from oil and gas activity on sensitive landscapes, such as national parks. Interior Department 52. Eased the environmental review processes for small wireless infrastructure projects with the goal of expanding 5G wireless networks. Federal Communications Commission 53. Withdrew Obama-era policies designed to maintain or, ideally improve, natural resources affected by federal projects.
Interior Department
IN PROCESS 54. Proposed plans to streamline the environmental review process for Forest Service projects. Agriculture Department
Animals
COMPLETED
55. Opened nine million acres of Western land to oil and gas drilling by weakening habitat protections for the sage grouse, an imperiled bird with an elaborate mating dance. Interior Department 56. Overturned a ban on the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands. Interior Department 57. Overturned a ban on the hunting of predators in Alaskan wildlife refuges. Congress 58. Ended an Obama-era rule barring hunters on some Alaska public lands from using bait to lure and kill grizzly bears. National Park Service; Interior Department 59. Withdrew proposed limits on the number of endangered marine mammals and sea turtles that people who fish could unintentionally kill or injure with sword-fishing nets on the West Coast. In 2018, California issued a state rule prohibiting the use of the nets the rule was intending to regulate. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 60. Amended fishing regulations for a number of species to allow for longer seasons and higher catch rates. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 61. Rolled back a roughly 40-year-old interprentation of a policy aimed at protecting migratory birds, potentially running afoul of treaties with Canada and Mexico. Interior Department 62. Overturned a ban on using parts of migratory birds in handicrafts made by Alaskan Natives.
Interior Department
IN PROCESS
63. Proposed stripping the Endangered Species Act of key provisions. Interior Department | Read more 64. Proposed relaxing environmental protections for salmon and smelt in California’s Central Valley in order to free up water for farmers. Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more Toxic substances and safety
COMPLETED
65. Narrowed the scope of a 2016 law mandating safety assessments for potentially toxic chemicals, like dry-cleaning solvents and paint strippers. The E.P.A. will focus on direct exposure and exclude air, water and ground contamination. E.P.A. | Read more 66. Reversed an Obama-era rule that required braking system upgrades for “high hazard” trains hauling flammable liquids, like oil and ethanol. Transportation Department | Read more 67. Removed copper filter cake, an electronics manufacturing byproduct comprised of heavy metals, from the “hazardous waste” list. E.P.A. | Read more IN PROCESS 68. Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a potentially neurotoxic pesticide. In August 2018, a federal court ordered the E.P.A. to ban the pesticide, but the agency is appealing the ruling. E.P.A. | Read more 69. Announced a review of an Obama-era rule lowering coal dust limits in mines. The head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration said there were no immediate plans to change the dust limit, but the review is continuing. Labor Department | Read more Water pollution
COMPLETED
70. Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams. Congress | Read more 71. Withdrew a proposed rule aimed at reducing pollutants, including air pollution, at sewage treatment plants. E.P.A. | Read more 72. Withdrew a proposed rule requiring groundwater protections for certain uranium mines. E.P.A. | Read more 73. Weakened federal rules regulating the disposal and storage of coal ash waste from power plants. (A second phase of this rollback is still under way.) E.P.A. | Read more
IN PROCESS 74. Proposed rolling back protections for certain tributaries and wetlands that the Obama administration wanted covered by the Clean Water Act. E.P.A.; Army | Read more 75. Delayed by two years an E.P.A. rule regulating limits on toxic discharge, which can include mercury, from power plants into public waterways. E.P.A. | Read more 76. Ordered the E.P.A. to re-evaluate a section of the Clean Water Act and related guidance that allows states to reject or delay federal projects – including pipelines and other fossil fuel facilities – if they don't meet local water quality goals. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more Other
COMPLETED
77. Prohibited funding environmental and community development projects through corporate settlements of federal lawsuits. Justice Department | Read more 78. Announced intent to stop payments to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations program to help poorer countries reduce carbon emissions. Executive Order | Read more 79. Reversed restrictions on the sale of plastic water bottles in national parks desgined to cut down on litter, despite a Park Service report that the effort worked. Interior Department | Read more IN PROCESS 80. Proposed limiting the studies used by the E.P.A. for rulemaking to only those that make data publicly available. (The move was widely criticized by scientists, who said it would effectively block the agency from considering landmark research that relies on confidential health data.) E.P.A. | Read more 81. Proposed repealing an Obama-era regulation that nearly doubled the number of light bulbs subject to energy-efficiency standards set to go into effect next year. Energy Department | Read more 82. Proposed changes to the way cost-benefit analyses are conducted under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes. E.P.A. | Read more 83. Proposed withdrawing efficiency standards for residential furnaces and commercial water heaters designed to reduce energy use. Energy Department | Read more 84. Initially withdrew then delayed a proposed rule that would inform car owners about fuel-efficient replacement tires. (The Transportation Department has scheduled a new rulemaking notice for 2020.) Transportation Department | Read more
Most companies will assume they will be reinstated soon and thus not take advantage of them. Limiting their impact some at least.
I hope you are right, this Trump government and republican senate has been awful for the environment. If the environment is at all high up your priorities in voting I'm not sure how you could not vote Dem.
It is sad they only have two parties, our "green party" is making huge gains.
On September 09 2019 16:09 GreenHorizons wrote: As of Aug 29th the NYT reports of 84 US environmental regulations rolled back or in the process of being rolled back.
Air pollution and emissions COMPLETED
1. Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions. Environmental Protection Agency 2. Revised and partially repealed an Obama-era rule limiting methane emissions on public lands, including intentional venting and flaring from drilling operations. Interior Department 3. Loosened a Clinton-era rule designed to limit toxic emissions from major industrial polluters. E.P.A. 4. Stopped enforcing a 2015 rule that prohibited the use of hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases, in air-conditioners and refrigerators. E.P.A. 5. Repealed a requirement that state and regional authorities track tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on federal highways. Transportation Department 6. Reverted to a weaker 2009 pollution permitting program for new power plants and expansions. E.P.A. 7. Amended rules that govern how refineries monitor pollution in surrounding communities. E.P.A. 8. Directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation of the “social cost of carbon” that rulemakers used to estimate the long-term economic benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Executive Order 9. Withdrew guidance that federal agencies include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews. But several district courts have ruled that emissions must be included in such reviews. Executive Order; Council on Environmental Quality 10. Lifted a summertime ban on the use of E15, a gasoline blend made of 15 percent ethanol. (Burning gasoline with a higher concentration of ethanol in hot conditions increases smog.) E.P.A. + Show Spoiler +
IN PROCESS
11. Proposed rules to end federal requirements that oil and gas companies install technology to inspect for and fix methane leaks from wells, pipelines and storage facilities. E.P.A. 12. Proposed weakening Obama-era fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks. The proposal also challenges California’s right to set its own more stringent standards, which other states can choose to follow. E.P.A. and Transportation Department 13. Announced intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. (The process of withdrawing cannot be completed until 2020.) Executive Order 14. Proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which would have set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. In April 2019, the E.P.A. sent a replacement plan, which would let states set their own rules, to the White House for budget review. Executive Order; E.P.A. 15. Proposed eliminating Obama-era restrictions that in effect required newly built coal power plants to capture carbon dioxide emissions. E.P.A. 16. Proposed a legal justification for weakening an Obama-era rule that limited mercury emissions from coal power plants. E.P.A. 17. Proposed revisions to standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants. Executive Order; E.P.A. 18. Began review of emissions rules for power plant start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions. In April, the E.P.A. filed an order reversing a requirement that 36 states follow the emissions rule. E.P.A. 19. Proposed relaxing Obama-era requirements that companies monitor and repair methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. E.P.A. 20. Proposed changing rules aimed at cutting methane emissions from landfills. In May, 2019, a federal judge ruled against the E.P.A. for failing to enforce the existing law and gave the agency a fall deadline for finalizing state and federal rules. E.P.A. said it is reviewing the decision. E.P.A. 21. Announced a rewrite of an Obama-era rule meant to reduce air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas. E.P.A. 22. Weakened oversight of some state plans for reducing air pollution in national parks. (In Texas, the E.P.A. rejected an Obama-era plan that would have required the installation of equipment at some coal-burning power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.) E.P.A. 23. Proposed repealing leak-repair, maintenance and reporting requirements for large refrigeration and air conditioning systems containing hydrofluorocarbons. E.P.A.
Drilling and extraction
COMPLETED 24. Made significant cuts to the borders of two national monuments in Utah and recommended border and resource management changes to several more. Presidential Proclamation; Interior Department 25. Rescinded water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands. Interior Department 26. Scrapped a proposed rule that required mines to prove they could pay to clean up future pollution. E.P.A. 27. Withdrew a requirement that Gulf oil rig owners prove they could cover the costs of removing rigs once they have stopped producing. Interior Department 28. Approved construction of the Dakota Access pipeline less than a mile from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Under the Obama administration, the Army Corps of Engineers had said it would explore alternative routes. Executive Order; Army 29. Revoked an Obama-era executive order designed to preserve ocean, coastal and Great Lakes waters in favor of a policy focused on energy production and economic growth. Executive Order 30. Changed how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considers the indirect effects of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews of pipelines. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 31. Permitted the use of seismic air guns for gas and oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. The practice, which can kill marine life and disrupt fisheries, was blocked under the Obama administration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 32. Loosened offshore drilling safety regulations implemented by the Obama administration following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The revised rules include reduced testing requirements for blowout prevention systems. Interior Department
IN PROCESS 33. Completed preliminary environmental reviews to clear the way for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress; Interior Department 34. Proposed opening most of America’s coastal waters to offshore oil and gas drilling, but delayed the plan after a federal judge ruled that Mr. Trump’s reversal of an Obama-era ban on drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawlful. Interior Department 35. Lifted an Obama-era freeze on new coal leases on public lands. But, in April 2019, a judge ruled that the Interior Department could not begin selling new leases without completing an environmental review. A month later, the agency published a draft assessment that concluded restarting federal coal leasing would have little environmental impact. Executive Order; Interior Department 36. Repealed an Obama-era rule governing royalties for oil, gas and coal leases on federal lands, which replaced a 1980s rule that critics said allowed companies to underpay the federal government. A federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s repeal. The Interior Department is reviewing the decision. Interior Department 37. Proposed “streamlining” the approval process for drilling for oil and gas in national forests. Agriculture Department; Interior Department 38. Ordered review of regulations on oil and gas drilling in national parks where mineral rights are privately owned. Executive Order; Interior Department 39. Recommended shrinking three marine protected areas, or opening them to commercial fishing. Executive Order; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 40. Ordered review of regulations on offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels in the Arctic that were developed after a 2013 accident. The Interior Department said it was “considering full rescission or revision of this rule.” Executive Order; Interior Department 41. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline rejected by President Barack Obama, but a federal judge blocked the project from going forward without an adequate environmental review process. Mr. Trump later attempted to side-step the ruling by issuing a presidential permit, but the project remains tied up in court. Executive Order; State Department
Infrastructure and planning COMPLETED
42. Revoked Obama-era flood standards for federal infrastructure projects, like roads and bridges. The standards required the government to account for sea-level rise and other climate change effects. Executive Order 43. Relaxed the environmental review process for federal infrastructure projects. Executive Order 44. Revoked a directive for federal agencies to minimize impacts on water, wildlife, land and other natural resources when approving development projects. Executive Order 45. Revoked an Obama executive order promoting “climate resilience” in the northern Bering Sea region of Alaska, which withdrew local waters from oil and gas leasing and established a tribal advisory council to consult on local environmental issues. Executive Order 46. Revoked an Obama executive order that set a goal of cutting the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over 10 years. Executive Order 47. Reversed an update to the Bureau of Land Management’s public land use planning process. Congress | Read more 48. Withdrew an Obama-era order to consider climate change in managing natural resources in national parks. National Park Service 49. Restricted most Interior Department environmental studies to one year in length and a maximum of 150 pages, citing a need to reduce paperwork. Interior Department 50. Withdrew a number of Obama-era Interior Department climate change and conservation policies that the agency said could “burden the development or utilization of domestically produced energy resources.” Interior Department 51. Eliminated the use of an Obama-era planning system designed to minimize harm from oil and gas activity on sensitive landscapes, such as national parks. Interior Department 52. Eased the environmental review processes for small wireless infrastructure projects with the goal of expanding 5G wireless networks. Federal Communications Commission 53. Withdrew Obama-era policies designed to maintain or, ideally improve, natural resources affected by federal projects.
Interior Department
IN PROCESS 54. Proposed plans to streamline the environmental review process for Forest Service projects. Agriculture Department
Animals
COMPLETED
55. Opened nine million acres of Western land to oil and gas drilling by weakening habitat protections for the sage grouse, an imperiled bird with an elaborate mating dance. Interior Department 56. Overturned a ban on the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands. Interior Department 57. Overturned a ban on the hunting of predators in Alaskan wildlife refuges. Congress 58. Ended an Obama-era rule barring hunters on some Alaska public lands from using bait to lure and kill grizzly bears. National Park Service; Interior Department 59. Withdrew proposed limits on the number of endangered marine mammals and sea turtles that people who fish could unintentionally kill or injure with sword-fishing nets on the West Coast. In 2018, California issued a state rule prohibiting the use of the nets the rule was intending to regulate. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 60. Amended fishing regulations for a number of species to allow for longer seasons and higher catch rates. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 61. Rolled back a roughly 40-year-old interprentation of a policy aimed at protecting migratory birds, potentially running afoul of treaties with Canada and Mexico. Interior Department 62. Overturned a ban on using parts of migratory birds in handicrafts made by Alaskan Natives.
Interior Department
IN PROCESS
63. Proposed stripping the Endangered Species Act of key provisions. Interior Department | Read more 64. Proposed relaxing environmental protections for salmon and smelt in California’s Central Valley in order to free up water for farmers. Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more Toxic substances and safety
COMPLETED
65. Narrowed the scope of a 2016 law mandating safety assessments for potentially toxic chemicals, like dry-cleaning solvents and paint strippers. The E.P.A. will focus on direct exposure and exclude air, water and ground contamination. E.P.A. | Read more 66. Reversed an Obama-era rule that required braking system upgrades for “high hazard” trains hauling flammable liquids, like oil and ethanol. Transportation Department | Read more 67. Removed copper filter cake, an electronics manufacturing byproduct comprised of heavy metals, from the “hazardous waste” list. E.P.A. | Read more IN PROCESS 68. Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a potentially neurotoxic pesticide. In August 2018, a federal court ordered the E.P.A. to ban the pesticide, but the agency is appealing the ruling. E.P.A. | Read more 69. Announced a review of an Obama-era rule lowering coal dust limits in mines. The head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration said there were no immediate plans to change the dust limit, but the review is continuing. Labor Department | Read more Water pollution
COMPLETED
70. Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams. Congress | Read more 71. Withdrew a proposed rule aimed at reducing pollutants, including air pollution, at sewage treatment plants. E.P.A. | Read more 72. Withdrew a proposed rule requiring groundwater protections for certain uranium mines. E.P.A. | Read more 73. Weakened federal rules regulating the disposal and storage of coal ash waste from power plants. (A second phase of this rollback is still under way.) E.P.A. | Read more
IN PROCESS 74. Proposed rolling back protections for certain tributaries and wetlands that the Obama administration wanted covered by the Clean Water Act. E.P.A.; Army | Read more 75. Delayed by two years an E.P.A. rule regulating limits on toxic discharge, which can include mercury, from power plants into public waterways. E.P.A. | Read more 76. Ordered the E.P.A. to re-evaluate a section of the Clean Water Act and related guidance that allows states to reject or delay federal projects – including pipelines and other fossil fuel facilities – if they don't meet local water quality goals. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more Other
COMPLETED
77. Prohibited funding environmental and community development projects through corporate settlements of federal lawsuits. Justice Department | Read more 78. Announced intent to stop payments to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations program to help poorer countries reduce carbon emissions. Executive Order | Read more 79. Reversed restrictions on the sale of plastic water bottles in national parks desgined to cut down on litter, despite a Park Service report that the effort worked. Interior Department | Read more IN PROCESS 80. Proposed limiting the studies used by the E.P.A. for rulemaking to only those that make data publicly available. (The move was widely criticized by scientists, who said it would effectively block the agency from considering landmark research that relies on confidential health data.) E.P.A. | Read more 81. Proposed repealing an Obama-era regulation that nearly doubled the number of light bulbs subject to energy-efficiency standards set to go into effect next year. Energy Department | Read more 82. Proposed changes to the way cost-benefit analyses are conducted under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes. E.P.A. | Read more 83. Proposed withdrawing efficiency standards for residential furnaces and commercial water heaters designed to reduce energy use. Energy Department | Read more 84. Initially withdrew then delayed a proposed rule that would inform car owners about fuel-efficient replacement tires. (The Transportation Department has scheduled a new rulemaking notice for 2020.) Transportation Department | Read more
Most companies will assume they will be reinstated soon and thus not take advantage of them. Limiting their impact some at least.
I hope you are right, this Trump government and republican senate has been awful for the environment. If the environment is at all high up your priorities in voting I'm not sure how you could not vote Dem.
It is sad they only have two parties, our "green party" is making huge gains.
Agreed. Voted green two elections in a row here. Though even our least environmental friendly party (right wing) is almost at democrat party level. There is no party not taking the environment seriously here and the green party is still doing well. Even some valid discussions that other parties have better environmental programs than the green party.
The interesting party is the party that promotes the countryside. A lot of environment focus, keeping farming here, national parks, nice forests etc. Not a lot of talk about the global level impact of countryside living with current transport systems though.
As I said, we can hope the next elections give a democratic majority so they can re-enable them in the same way while strengthening them in the next step.
On September 09 2019 16:09 GreenHorizons wrote: As of Aug 29th the NYT reports of 84 US environmental regulations rolled back or in the process of being rolled back.
Air pollution and emissions COMPLETED
1. Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions. Environmental Protection Agency 2. Revised and partially repealed an Obama-era rule limiting methane emissions on public lands, including intentional venting and flaring from drilling operations. Interior Department 3. Loosened a Clinton-era rule designed to limit toxic emissions from major industrial polluters. E.P.A. 4. Stopped enforcing a 2015 rule that prohibited the use of hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases, in air-conditioners and refrigerators. E.P.A. 5. Repealed a requirement that state and regional authorities track tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on federal highways. Transportation Department 6. Reverted to a weaker 2009 pollution permitting program for new power plants and expansions. E.P.A. 7. Amended rules that govern how refineries monitor pollution in surrounding communities. E.P.A. 8. Directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation of the “social cost of carbon” that rulemakers used to estimate the long-term economic benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Executive Order 9. Withdrew guidance that federal agencies include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews. But several district courts have ruled that emissions must be included in such reviews. Executive Order; Council on Environmental Quality 10. Lifted a summertime ban on the use of E15, a gasoline blend made of 15 percent ethanol. (Burning gasoline with a higher concentration of ethanol in hot conditions increases smog.) E.P.A. + Show Spoiler +
IN PROCESS
11. Proposed rules to end federal requirements that oil and gas companies install technology to inspect for and fix methane leaks from wells, pipelines and storage facilities. E.P.A. 12. Proposed weakening Obama-era fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks. The proposal also challenges California’s right to set its own more stringent standards, which other states can choose to follow. E.P.A. and Transportation Department 13. Announced intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. (The process of withdrawing cannot be completed until 2020.) Executive Order 14. Proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which would have set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. In April 2019, the E.P.A. sent a replacement plan, which would let states set their own rules, to the White House for budget review. Executive Order; E.P.A. 15. Proposed eliminating Obama-era restrictions that in effect required newly built coal power plants to capture carbon dioxide emissions. E.P.A. 16. Proposed a legal justification for weakening an Obama-era rule that limited mercury emissions from coal power plants. E.P.A. 17. Proposed revisions to standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants. Executive Order; E.P.A. 18. Began review of emissions rules for power plant start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions. In April, the E.P.A. filed an order reversing a requirement that 36 states follow the emissions rule. E.P.A. 19. Proposed relaxing Obama-era requirements that companies monitor and repair methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. E.P.A. 20. Proposed changing rules aimed at cutting methane emissions from landfills. In May, 2019, a federal judge ruled against the E.P.A. for failing to enforce the existing law and gave the agency a fall deadline for finalizing state and federal rules. E.P.A. said it is reviewing the decision. E.P.A. 21. Announced a rewrite of an Obama-era rule meant to reduce air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas. E.P.A. 22. Weakened oversight of some state plans for reducing air pollution in national parks. (In Texas, the E.P.A. rejected an Obama-era plan that would have required the installation of equipment at some coal-burning power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.) E.P.A. 23. Proposed repealing leak-repair, maintenance and reporting requirements for large refrigeration and air conditioning systems containing hydrofluorocarbons. E.P.A.
Drilling and extraction
COMPLETED 24. Made significant cuts to the borders of two national monuments in Utah and recommended border and resource management changes to several more. Presidential Proclamation; Interior Department 25. Rescinded water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands. Interior Department 26. Scrapped a proposed rule that required mines to prove they could pay to clean up future pollution. E.P.A. 27. Withdrew a requirement that Gulf oil rig owners prove they could cover the costs of removing rigs once they have stopped producing. Interior Department 28. Approved construction of the Dakota Access pipeline less than a mile from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Under the Obama administration, the Army Corps of Engineers had said it would explore alternative routes. Executive Order; Army 29. Revoked an Obama-era executive order designed to preserve ocean, coastal and Great Lakes waters in favor of a policy focused on energy production and economic growth. Executive Order 30. Changed how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considers the indirect effects of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews of pipelines. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 31. Permitted the use of seismic air guns for gas and oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. The practice, which can kill marine life and disrupt fisheries, was blocked under the Obama administration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 32. Loosened offshore drilling safety regulations implemented by the Obama administration following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The revised rules include reduced testing requirements for blowout prevention systems. Interior Department
IN PROCESS 33. Completed preliminary environmental reviews to clear the way for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress; Interior Department 34. Proposed opening most of America’s coastal waters to offshore oil and gas drilling, but delayed the plan after a federal judge ruled that Mr. Trump’s reversal of an Obama-era ban on drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawlful. Interior Department 35. Lifted an Obama-era freeze on new coal leases on public lands. But, in April 2019, a judge ruled that the Interior Department could not begin selling new leases without completing an environmental review. A month later, the agency published a draft assessment that concluded restarting federal coal leasing would have little environmental impact. Executive Order; Interior Department 36. Repealed an Obama-era rule governing royalties for oil, gas and coal leases on federal lands, which replaced a 1980s rule that critics said allowed companies to underpay the federal government. A federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s repeal. The Interior Department is reviewing the decision. Interior Department 37. Proposed “streamlining” the approval process for drilling for oil and gas in national forests. Agriculture Department; Interior Department 38. Ordered review of regulations on oil and gas drilling in national parks where mineral rights are privately owned. Executive Order; Interior Department 39. Recommended shrinking three marine protected areas, or opening them to commercial fishing. Executive Order; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 40. Ordered review of regulations on offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels in the Arctic that were developed after a 2013 accident. The Interior Department said it was “considering full rescission or revision of this rule.” Executive Order; Interior Department 41. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline rejected by President Barack Obama, but a federal judge blocked the project from going forward without an adequate environmental review process. Mr. Trump later attempted to side-step the ruling by issuing a presidential permit, but the project remains tied up in court. Executive Order; State Department
Infrastructure and planning COMPLETED
42. Revoked Obama-era flood standards for federal infrastructure projects, like roads and bridges. The standards required the government to account for sea-level rise and other climate change effects. Executive Order 43. Relaxed the environmental review process for federal infrastructure projects. Executive Order 44. Revoked a directive for federal agencies to minimize impacts on water, wildlife, land and other natural resources when approving development projects. Executive Order 45. Revoked an Obama executive order promoting “climate resilience” in the northern Bering Sea region of Alaska, which withdrew local waters from oil and gas leasing and established a tribal advisory council to consult on local environmental issues. Executive Order 46. Revoked an Obama executive order that set a goal of cutting the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over 10 years. Executive Order 47. Reversed an update to the Bureau of Land Management’s public land use planning process. Congress | Read more 48. Withdrew an Obama-era order to consider climate change in managing natural resources in national parks. National Park Service 49. Restricted most Interior Department environmental studies to one year in length and a maximum of 150 pages, citing a need to reduce paperwork. Interior Department 50. Withdrew a number of Obama-era Interior Department climate change and conservation policies that the agency said could “burden the development or utilization of domestically produced energy resources.” Interior Department 51. Eliminated the use of an Obama-era planning system designed to minimize harm from oil and gas activity on sensitive landscapes, such as national parks. Interior Department 52. Eased the environmental review processes for small wireless infrastructure projects with the goal of expanding 5G wireless networks. Federal Communications Commission 53. Withdrew Obama-era policies designed to maintain or, ideally improve, natural resources affected by federal projects.
Interior Department
IN PROCESS 54. Proposed plans to streamline the environmental review process for Forest Service projects. Agriculture Department
Animals
COMPLETED
55. Opened nine million acres of Western land to oil and gas drilling by weakening habitat protections for the sage grouse, an imperiled bird with an elaborate mating dance. Interior Department 56. Overturned a ban on the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands. Interior Department 57. Overturned a ban on the hunting of predators in Alaskan wildlife refuges. Congress 58. Ended an Obama-era rule barring hunters on some Alaska public lands from using bait to lure and kill grizzly bears. National Park Service; Interior Department 59. Withdrew proposed limits on the number of endangered marine mammals and sea turtles that people who fish could unintentionally kill or injure with sword-fishing nets on the West Coast. In 2018, California issued a state rule prohibiting the use of the nets the rule was intending to regulate. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 60. Amended fishing regulations for a number of species to allow for longer seasons and higher catch rates. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 61. Rolled back a roughly 40-year-old interprentation of a policy aimed at protecting migratory birds, potentially running afoul of treaties with Canada and Mexico. Interior Department 62. Overturned a ban on using parts of migratory birds in handicrafts made by Alaskan Natives.
Interior Department
IN PROCESS
63. Proposed stripping the Endangered Species Act of key provisions. Interior Department | Read more 64. Proposed relaxing environmental protections for salmon and smelt in California’s Central Valley in order to free up water for farmers. Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more Toxic substances and safety
COMPLETED
65. Narrowed the scope of a 2016 law mandating safety assessments for potentially toxic chemicals, like dry-cleaning solvents and paint strippers. The E.P.A. will focus on direct exposure and exclude air, water and ground contamination. E.P.A. | Read more 66. Reversed an Obama-era rule that required braking system upgrades for “high hazard” trains hauling flammable liquids, like oil and ethanol. Transportation Department | Read more 67. Removed copper filter cake, an electronics manufacturing byproduct comprised of heavy metals, from the “hazardous waste” list. E.P.A. | Read more IN PROCESS 68. Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a potentially neurotoxic pesticide. In August 2018, a federal court ordered the E.P.A. to ban the pesticide, but the agency is appealing the ruling. E.P.A. | Read more 69. Announced a review of an Obama-era rule lowering coal dust limits in mines. The head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration said there were no immediate plans to change the dust limit, but the review is continuing. Labor Department | Read more Water pollution
COMPLETED
70. Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams. Congress | Read more 71. Withdrew a proposed rule aimed at reducing pollutants, including air pollution, at sewage treatment plants. E.P.A. | Read more 72. Withdrew a proposed rule requiring groundwater protections for certain uranium mines. E.P.A. | Read more 73. Weakened federal rules regulating the disposal and storage of coal ash waste from power plants. (A second phase of this rollback is still under way.) E.P.A. | Read more
IN PROCESS 74. Proposed rolling back protections for certain tributaries and wetlands that the Obama administration wanted covered by the Clean Water Act. E.P.A.; Army | Read more 75. Delayed by two years an E.P.A. rule regulating limits on toxic discharge, which can include mercury, from power plants into public waterways. E.P.A. | Read more 76. Ordered the E.P.A. to re-evaluate a section of the Clean Water Act and related guidance that allows states to reject or delay federal projects – including pipelines and other fossil fuel facilities – if they don't meet local water quality goals. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more Other
COMPLETED
77. Prohibited funding environmental and community development projects through corporate settlements of federal lawsuits. Justice Department | Read more 78. Announced intent to stop payments to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations program to help poorer countries reduce carbon emissions. Executive Order | Read more 79. Reversed restrictions on the sale of plastic water bottles in national parks desgined to cut down on litter, despite a Park Service report that the effort worked. Interior Department | Read more IN PROCESS 80. Proposed limiting the studies used by the E.P.A. for rulemaking to only those that make data publicly available. (The move was widely criticized by scientists, who said it would effectively block the agency from considering landmark research that relies on confidential health data.) E.P.A. | Read more 81. Proposed repealing an Obama-era regulation that nearly doubled the number of light bulbs subject to energy-efficiency standards set to go into effect next year. Energy Department | Read more 82. Proposed changes to the way cost-benefit analyses are conducted under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes. E.P.A. | Read more 83. Proposed withdrawing efficiency standards for residential furnaces and commercial water heaters designed to reduce energy use. Energy Department | Read more 84. Initially withdrew then delayed a proposed rule that would inform car owners about fuel-efficient replacement tires. (The Transportation Department has scheduled a new rulemaking notice for 2020.) Transportation Department | Read more
Most companies will assume they will be reinstated soon and thus not take advantage of them. Limiting their impact some at least.
I hope you are right, this Trump government and republican senate has been awful for the environment. If the environment is at all high up your priorities in voting I'm not sure how you could not vote Dem.
It is sad they only have two parties, our "green party" is making huge gains.
Agreed. Voted green two elections in a row here. Though even our least environmental friendly party (right wing) is almost at democrat party level. There is no party not taking the environment seriously here and the green party is still doing well. Even some valid discussions that other parties have better environmental programs than the green party.
The interesting party is the party that promotes the countryside. A lot of environment focus, keeping farming here, national parks, nice forests etc. Not a lot of talk about the global level impact of countryside living with current transport systems though.
As I said, we can hope the next elections give a democratic majority so they can re-enable them in the same way while strengthening them in the next step.
I will be a first time green Party voter assuming they run a candidate here, (Southern Alberta). I quite like the Green party and I think they would have more success here than people think if they could get their platform out because they promote the environment and fiscally responsible.
That being said with so many oilfield construction workers out of work, or working for much less than they are used too I think it will be almost a PC sweep. I could see Green finishing second in quite a few riding which I think would surprise a lot of people.
Yes a Democratic majority is super important, and on top of that the voters of the party making the candidates focus on the environment. No other primary can I remember the environment being so front and center, it is exciting that even the front runners are being quiet progressive in regards to the environment and not being scared to announce it.
On September 09 2019 16:09 GreenHorizons wrote: As of Aug 29th the NYT reports of 84 US environmental regulations rolled back or in the process of being rolled back.
Air pollution and emissions COMPLETED
1. Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions. Environmental Protection Agency 2. Revised and partially repealed an Obama-era rule limiting methane emissions on public lands, including intentional venting and flaring from drilling operations. Interior Department 3. Loosened a Clinton-era rule designed to limit toxic emissions from major industrial polluters. E.P.A. 4. Stopped enforcing a 2015 rule that prohibited the use of hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases, in air-conditioners and refrigerators. E.P.A. 5. Repealed a requirement that state and regional authorities track tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on federal highways. Transportation Department 6. Reverted to a weaker 2009 pollution permitting program for new power plants and expansions. E.P.A. 7. Amended rules that govern how refineries monitor pollution in surrounding communities. E.P.A. 8. Directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation of the “social cost of carbon” that rulemakers used to estimate the long-term economic benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Executive Order 9. Withdrew guidance that federal agencies include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews. But several district courts have ruled that emissions must be included in such reviews. Executive Order; Council on Environmental Quality 10. Lifted a summertime ban on the use of E15, a gasoline blend made of 15 percent ethanol. (Burning gasoline with a higher concentration of ethanol in hot conditions increases smog.) E.P.A. + Show Spoiler +
IN PROCESS
11. Proposed rules to end federal requirements that oil and gas companies install technology to inspect for and fix methane leaks from wells, pipelines and storage facilities. E.P.A. 12. Proposed weakening Obama-era fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks. The proposal also challenges California’s right to set its own more stringent standards, which other states can choose to follow. E.P.A. and Transportation Department 13. Announced intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. (The process of withdrawing cannot be completed until 2020.) Executive Order 14. Proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which would have set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. In April 2019, the E.P.A. sent a replacement plan, which would let states set their own rules, to the White House for budget review. Executive Order; E.P.A. 15. Proposed eliminating Obama-era restrictions that in effect required newly built coal power plants to capture carbon dioxide emissions. E.P.A. 16. Proposed a legal justification for weakening an Obama-era rule that limited mercury emissions from coal power plants. E.P.A. 17. Proposed revisions to standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants. Executive Order; E.P.A. 18. Began review of emissions rules for power plant start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions. In April, the E.P.A. filed an order reversing a requirement that 36 states follow the emissions rule. E.P.A. 19. Proposed relaxing Obama-era requirements that companies monitor and repair methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. E.P.A. 20. Proposed changing rules aimed at cutting methane emissions from landfills. In May, 2019, a federal judge ruled against the E.P.A. for failing to enforce the existing law and gave the agency a fall deadline for finalizing state and federal rules. E.P.A. said it is reviewing the decision. E.P.A. 21. Announced a rewrite of an Obama-era rule meant to reduce air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas. E.P.A. 22. Weakened oversight of some state plans for reducing air pollution in national parks. (In Texas, the E.P.A. rejected an Obama-era plan that would have required the installation of equipment at some coal-burning power plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.) E.P.A. 23. Proposed repealing leak-repair, maintenance and reporting requirements for large refrigeration and air conditioning systems containing hydrofluorocarbons. E.P.A.
Drilling and extraction
COMPLETED 24. Made significant cuts to the borders of two national monuments in Utah and recommended border and resource management changes to several more. Presidential Proclamation; Interior Department 25. Rescinded water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands. Interior Department 26. Scrapped a proposed rule that required mines to prove they could pay to clean up future pollution. E.P.A. 27. Withdrew a requirement that Gulf oil rig owners prove they could cover the costs of removing rigs once they have stopped producing. Interior Department 28. Approved construction of the Dakota Access pipeline less than a mile from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. Under the Obama administration, the Army Corps of Engineers had said it would explore alternative routes. Executive Order; Army 29. Revoked an Obama-era executive order designed to preserve ocean, coastal and Great Lakes waters in favor of a policy focused on energy production and economic growth. Executive Order 30. Changed how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considers the indirect effects of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews of pipelines. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 31. Permitted the use of seismic air guns for gas and oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. The practice, which can kill marine life and disrupt fisheries, was blocked under the Obama administration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 32. Loosened offshore drilling safety regulations implemented by the Obama administration following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The revised rules include reduced testing requirements for blowout prevention systems. Interior Department
IN PROCESS 33. Completed preliminary environmental reviews to clear the way for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress; Interior Department 34. Proposed opening most of America’s coastal waters to offshore oil and gas drilling, but delayed the plan after a federal judge ruled that Mr. Trump’s reversal of an Obama-era ban on drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawlful. Interior Department 35. Lifted an Obama-era freeze on new coal leases on public lands. But, in April 2019, a judge ruled that the Interior Department could not begin selling new leases without completing an environmental review. A month later, the agency published a draft assessment that concluded restarting federal coal leasing would have little environmental impact. Executive Order; Interior Department 36. Repealed an Obama-era rule governing royalties for oil, gas and coal leases on federal lands, which replaced a 1980s rule that critics said allowed companies to underpay the federal government. A federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s repeal. The Interior Department is reviewing the decision. Interior Department 37. Proposed “streamlining” the approval process for drilling for oil and gas in national forests. Agriculture Department; Interior Department 38. Ordered review of regulations on oil and gas drilling in national parks where mineral rights are privately owned. Executive Order; Interior Department 39. Recommended shrinking three marine protected areas, or opening them to commercial fishing. Executive Order; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 40. Ordered review of regulations on offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels in the Arctic that were developed after a 2013 accident. The Interior Department said it was “considering full rescission or revision of this rule.” Executive Order; Interior Department 41. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline rejected by President Barack Obama, but a federal judge blocked the project from going forward without an adequate environmental review process. Mr. Trump later attempted to side-step the ruling by issuing a presidential permit, but the project remains tied up in court. Executive Order; State Department
Infrastructure and planning COMPLETED
42. Revoked Obama-era flood standards for federal infrastructure projects, like roads and bridges. The standards required the government to account for sea-level rise and other climate change effects. Executive Order 43. Relaxed the environmental review process for federal infrastructure projects. Executive Order 44. Revoked a directive for federal agencies to minimize impacts on water, wildlife, land and other natural resources when approving development projects. Executive Order 45. Revoked an Obama executive order promoting “climate resilience” in the northern Bering Sea region of Alaska, which withdrew local waters from oil and gas leasing and established a tribal advisory council to consult on local environmental issues. Executive Order 46. Revoked an Obama executive order that set a goal of cutting the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over 10 years. Executive Order 47. Reversed an update to the Bureau of Land Management’s public land use planning process. Congress | Read more 48. Withdrew an Obama-era order to consider climate change in managing natural resources in national parks. National Park Service 49. Restricted most Interior Department environmental studies to one year in length and a maximum of 150 pages, citing a need to reduce paperwork. Interior Department 50. Withdrew a number of Obama-era Interior Department climate change and conservation policies that the agency said could “burden the development or utilization of domestically produced energy resources.” Interior Department 51. Eliminated the use of an Obama-era planning system designed to minimize harm from oil and gas activity on sensitive landscapes, such as national parks. Interior Department 52. Eased the environmental review processes for small wireless infrastructure projects with the goal of expanding 5G wireless networks. Federal Communications Commission 53. Withdrew Obama-era policies designed to maintain or, ideally improve, natural resources affected by federal projects.
Interior Department
IN PROCESS 54. Proposed plans to streamline the environmental review process for Forest Service projects. Agriculture Department
Animals
COMPLETED
55. Opened nine million acres of Western land to oil and gas drilling by weakening habitat protections for the sage grouse, an imperiled bird with an elaborate mating dance. Interior Department 56. Overturned a ban on the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands. Interior Department 57. Overturned a ban on the hunting of predators in Alaskan wildlife refuges. Congress 58. Ended an Obama-era rule barring hunters on some Alaska public lands from using bait to lure and kill grizzly bears. National Park Service; Interior Department 59. Withdrew proposed limits on the number of endangered marine mammals and sea turtles that people who fish could unintentionally kill or injure with sword-fishing nets on the West Coast. In 2018, California issued a state rule prohibiting the use of the nets the rule was intending to regulate. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 60. Amended fishing regulations for a number of species to allow for longer seasons and higher catch rates. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 61. Rolled back a roughly 40-year-old interprentation of a policy aimed at protecting migratory birds, potentially running afoul of treaties with Canada and Mexico. Interior Department 62. Overturned a ban on using parts of migratory birds in handicrafts made by Alaskan Natives.
Interior Department
IN PROCESS
63. Proposed stripping the Endangered Species Act of key provisions. Interior Department | Read more 64. Proposed relaxing environmental protections for salmon and smelt in California’s Central Valley in order to free up water for farmers. Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more Toxic substances and safety
COMPLETED
65. Narrowed the scope of a 2016 law mandating safety assessments for potentially toxic chemicals, like dry-cleaning solvents and paint strippers. The E.P.A. will focus on direct exposure and exclude air, water and ground contamination. E.P.A. | Read more 66. Reversed an Obama-era rule that required braking system upgrades for “high hazard” trains hauling flammable liquids, like oil and ethanol. Transportation Department | Read more 67. Removed copper filter cake, an electronics manufacturing byproduct comprised of heavy metals, from the “hazardous waste” list. E.P.A. | Read more IN PROCESS 68. Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a potentially neurotoxic pesticide. In August 2018, a federal court ordered the E.P.A. to ban the pesticide, but the agency is appealing the ruling. E.P.A. | Read more 69. Announced a review of an Obama-era rule lowering coal dust limits in mines. The head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration said there were no immediate plans to change the dust limit, but the review is continuing. Labor Department | Read more Water pollution
COMPLETED
70. Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams. Congress | Read more 71. Withdrew a proposed rule aimed at reducing pollutants, including air pollution, at sewage treatment plants. E.P.A. | Read more 72. Withdrew a proposed rule requiring groundwater protections for certain uranium mines. E.P.A. | Read more 73. Weakened federal rules regulating the disposal and storage of coal ash waste from power plants. (A second phase of this rollback is still under way.) E.P.A. | Read more
IN PROCESS 74. Proposed rolling back protections for certain tributaries and wetlands that the Obama administration wanted covered by the Clean Water Act. E.P.A.; Army | Read more 75. Delayed by two years an E.P.A. rule regulating limits on toxic discharge, which can include mercury, from power plants into public waterways. E.P.A. | Read more 76. Ordered the E.P.A. to re-evaluate a section of the Clean Water Act and related guidance that allows states to reject or delay federal projects – including pipelines and other fossil fuel facilities – if they don't meet local water quality goals. Executive Order; E.P.A. | Read more Other
COMPLETED
77. Prohibited funding environmental and community development projects through corporate settlements of federal lawsuits. Justice Department | Read more 78. Announced intent to stop payments to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations program to help poorer countries reduce carbon emissions. Executive Order | Read more 79. Reversed restrictions on the sale of plastic water bottles in national parks desgined to cut down on litter, despite a Park Service report that the effort worked. Interior Department | Read more IN PROCESS 80. Proposed limiting the studies used by the E.P.A. for rulemaking to only those that make data publicly available. (The move was widely criticized by scientists, who said it would effectively block the agency from considering landmark research that relies on confidential health data.) E.P.A. | Read more 81. Proposed repealing an Obama-era regulation that nearly doubled the number of light bulbs subject to energy-efficiency standards set to go into effect next year. Energy Department | Read more 82. Proposed changes to the way cost-benefit analyses are conducted under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes. E.P.A. | Read more 83. Proposed withdrawing efficiency standards for residential furnaces and commercial water heaters designed to reduce energy use. Energy Department | Read more 84. Initially withdrew then delayed a proposed rule that would inform car owners about fuel-efficient replacement tires. (The Transportation Department has scheduled a new rulemaking notice for 2020.) Transportation Department | Read more
Most companies will assume they will be reinstated soon and thus not take advantage of them. Limiting their impact some at least.
I imagine that will be the case for the ones that would take additional effort or cost to change, but not ones that are just lowering expectations. Like the CBA's for Clean Air/Water, limiting studies by the EPA, and allowing toxic pollution (mercury) to be released into public waterways. or lots of other things listed there.
If it ends up Biden v Trump there's a good chance Trump wins again and who knows how likely renewing those rules and regs will be or if/when it could happen.
I think it is a combo of the Green Washing from the Chinese government and peoples lack of faith in the others. The Chinese are making some gains and having a dictatorial government makes it possible for them to make sweeping changes fast when they decide too. Recently they have made some effort, but often it falls under the category of Green washing more than actual improvements. Take their three gorges dam. It is promoted as great because it reduced their reliance on coal, but it was a human rights and ecological disaster and only figures to get worse. I think a lot of people just look at a few basic stats and don't dig deeper into what is actually going on.
The good news is there is mounting pressure from their populous to get things done, and the results of their air, water pollution, and deforestation have caused tangible problems so long they cannot be ignored. Hopefully they continue to improve and make legitimate efforts to curb their industries profit over human and environmental issues stance.
I myself have a lot more faith in Europe than China or the states. If the republicans with Trump at the helm keep control I'd have no idea who to pick as better or worse, it will just be bad.
The size and growth of their economy along with unmatched investments in green energy has led China to be remarkably well positioned for the future according to a recent report.
“No country has put itself in a better position to become the world’s renewable energy superpower than China,” says the report, which was issued by the Global Commission on the Geopolitics of Energy Transformation – a group chaired by a former president of Iceland, Olafur Grimsson.
The commission was set up by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
So it seems to me to be a reasonable position to take based on the available information to bet on China being the unmatched renewable energy superpower in the foreseeable future.
The only issues there is being unmatched in renewable energy does not mean you are doing good things for the environment. Case in point the three gorges dam.
It is also the same that you only want to talk per capita numbers for carbon you should talk % of total energy or per capita on renewable's.
If you % of total energy consumed China still beats the US, but both are awful, so if the 3rd big renewable country in India. Europe is way ahead in those measures.
On September 12 2019 23:26 JimmiC wrote: The only issues there is being unmatched in renewable energy does not mean you are doing good things for the environment. Case in point the three gorges dam.
The Three Gorges Dam is an excellent example that should be mirrored. Minor improvements can be done but from a global perspective I fail to see a single reason it is bad.
The only negative thing I could spot in the wiki about it was: In 2010, NASA scientists calculated that shift of water mass stored by the dams would increase the length of the Earth's day by 0.06 microseconds and make the Earth slightly more round in the middle and flat on the poles.[96]
Maybe you count a few species going extinct as bad. Though when compared to the slowing of global warming the energy supply gives I see it as a net positive for amount of species.
On September 12 2019 23:26 JimmiC wrote: The only issues there is being unmatched in renewable energy does not mean you are doing good things for the environment. Case in point the three gorges dam.
The Three Gorges Dam is an excellent example that should be mirrored. Minor improvements can be done but from a global perspective I fail to see a single reason it is bad.
The only negative thing I could spot in the wiki about it was: In 2010, NASA scientists calculated that shift of water mass stored by the dams would increase the length of the Earth's day by 0.06 microseconds and make the Earth slightly more round in the middle and flat on the poles.[96]
Maybe you count a few species going extinct as bad. Though when compared to the slowing of global warming the energy supply gives I see it as a net positive for amount of species.
I'll find an article in a bit here, but I think you are missing what it did to the river, not just the water quality but all the fish species. How it changed the sediment flow and the weather patterns. The land slides and future degeneration of the area. That is before you get into the environmental cost of the building itself. All the toxins it flooded left in the cities in engrossed.
Also huge human cost, over 100 deaths building it, forced relocation of millions (not done remotely humanely), and then all of the lost artifacts and history if you care about that.
This is not something that should be copied. Biggest is not best.
On September 12 2019 23:26 JimmiC wrote: The only issues there is being unmatched in renewable energy does not mean you are doing good things for the environment. Case in point the three gorges dam.
The Three Gorges Dam is an excellent example that should be mirrored. Minor improvements can be done but from a global perspective I fail to see a single reason it is bad.
The only negative thing I could spot in the wiki about it was: In 2010, NASA scientists calculated that shift of water mass stored by the dams would increase the length of the Earth's day by 0.06 microseconds and make the Earth slightly more round in the middle and flat on the poles.[96]
Maybe you count a few species going extinct as bad. Though when compared to the slowing of global warming the energy supply gives I see it as a net positive for amount of species.
I'll find an article in a bit here, but I think you are missing what it did to the river, not just the water quality but all the fish species. How it changed the sediment flow and the weather patterns. The land slides and future degeneration of the area. That is before you get into the environmental cost of the building itself. All the toxins it flooded left in the cities in engrossed.
Also huge human cost, over 100 deaths building it, forced relocation of millions (not done remotely humanely), and then all of the lost artifacts and history if you care about that.
This is not something that should be copied. Biggest is not best.
I have now read all 4 articles and still stand by my point that dams beat the alternatives. Some of the arguments piled on are especially hollow, such as:
In 2017 nearly 2,000 state-regulated “high hazard” dams need repair. These are dams that could result in a high loss of life if they fail. While dam construction technology has advanced and dams built today have improved, it would still cost an estimated $300 billion to secure the world’s dams.
While that is the yearly investment in solar now and would cover dams for years again. Maintenance needs to be performed after decades, what other source of power is there where that isn't true?
The best arguments made for me was in the reduced carbon sinks and increased dead water areas with methane releases. I did not find a good comparison in lost carbon sinks vs reduced carbon usage for power.
In general I can agree that there are different ways to use water power. Some more damaging than others. The damage from current methods seems less than the gain though. People complain about wind power, solar has the issues with panel pollutions. Coal, oil and nuclear people know the problems of. So what is the alternative?
On September 12 2019 23:26 JimmiC wrote: The only issues there is being unmatched in renewable energy does not mean you are doing good things for the environment. Case in point the three gorges dam.
The Three Gorges Dam is an excellent example that should be mirrored. Minor improvements can be done but from a global perspective I fail to see a single reason it is bad.
The only negative thing I could spot in the wiki about it was: In 2010, NASA scientists calculated that shift of water mass stored by the dams would increase the length of the Earth's day by 0.06 microseconds and make the Earth slightly more round in the middle and flat on the poles.[96]
Maybe you count a few species going extinct as bad. Though when compared to the slowing of global warming the energy supply gives I see it as a net positive for amount of species.
I'll find an article in a bit here, but I think you are missing what it did to the river, not just the water quality but all the fish species. How it changed the sediment flow and the weather patterns. The land slides and future degeneration of the area. That is before you get into the environmental cost of the building itself. All the toxins it flooded left in the cities in engrossed.
Also huge human cost, over 100 deaths building it, forced relocation of millions (not done remotely humanely), and then all of the lost artifacts and history if you care about that.
This is not something that should be copied. Biggest is not best.
I have now read all 4 articles and still stand by my point that dams beat the alternatives. Some of the arguments piled on are especially hollow, such as:
In 2017 nearly 2,000 state-regulated “high hazard” dams need repair. These are dams that could result in a high loss of life if they fail. While dam construction technology has advanced and dams built today have improved, it would still cost an estimated $300 billion to secure the world’s dams.
While that is the yearly investment in solar now and would cover dams for years again. Maintenance needs to be performed after decades, what other source of power is there where that isn't true?
The best arguments made for me was in the reduced carbon sinks and increased dead water areas with methane releases. I did not find a good comparison in lost carbon sinks vs reduced carbon usage for power.
In general I can agree that there are different ways to use water power. Some more damaging than others. The damage from current methods seems less than the gain though. People complain about wind power, solar has the issues with panel pollutions. Coal, oil and nuclear people know the problems of. So what is the alternative?
Everything has issues no doubt. And from a purely carbon perspective this is a win. I just think China's obsession with the "biggest" is the issue. From what I have read the impact would have been a lot small if they did 10 smaller projects for example.
The biggest solar field also creates a lot of issues that solar panels on each house wouldn't (production issues not withstanding). There is also a lot of rules for producing solar panels, and solar panel recycling. In Europe with EPR the future recycling cost of the panel is built into the sale price so when the time comes you have the money to recycle/properly dispose of them.
They also built the biggest road bridge to Hong Kong, and I'm sure a bunch of other "biggest's" which do not have the environment in mind.
I think the biggest thing right now is having regulations to properly deal with the waste and the bad effects of all the options you described. For example there are Solar panels produced and recycled pretty darn well, and then there are the opposite. To see if something is good for the environment it needs full cost to the environment life-cycle accounting.
On September 12 2019 23:26 JimmiC wrote: The only issues there is being unmatched in renewable energy does not mean you are doing good things for the environment. Case in point the three gorges dam.
The Three Gorges Dam is an excellent example that should be mirrored. Minor improvements can be done but from a global perspective I fail to see a single reason it is bad.
The only negative thing I could spot in the wiki about it was: In 2010, NASA scientists calculated that shift of water mass stored by the dams would increase the length of the Earth's day by 0.06 microseconds and make the Earth slightly more round in the middle and flat on the poles.[96]
Maybe you count a few species going extinct as bad. Though when compared to the slowing of global warming the energy supply gives I see it as a net positive for amount of species.
I'll find an article in a bit here, but I think you are missing what it did to the river, not just the water quality but all the fish species. How it changed the sediment flow and the weather patterns. The land slides and future degeneration of the area. That is before you get into the environmental cost of the building itself. All the toxins it flooded left in the cities in engrossed.
Also huge human cost, over 100 deaths building it, forced relocation of millions (not done remotely humanely), and then all of the lost artifacts and history if you care about that.
This is not something that should be copied. Biggest is not best.
I have now read all 4 articles and still stand by my point that dams beat the alternatives. Some of the arguments piled on are especially hollow, such as:
In 2017 nearly 2,000 state-regulated “high hazard” dams need repair. These are dams that could result in a high loss of life if they fail. While dam construction technology has advanced and dams built today have improved, it would still cost an estimated $300 billion to secure the world’s dams.
While that is the yearly investment in solar now and would cover dams for years again. Maintenance needs to be performed after decades, what other source of power is there where that isn't true?
The best arguments made for me was in the reduced carbon sinks and increased dead water areas with methane releases. I did not find a good comparison in lost carbon sinks vs reduced carbon usage for power.
In general I can agree that there are different ways to use water power. Some more damaging than others. The damage from current methods seems less than the gain though. People complain about wind power, solar has the issues with panel pollutions. Coal, oil and nuclear people know the problems of. So what is the alternative?
Everything has issues no doubt. And from a purely carbon perspective this is a win. I just think China's obsession with the "biggest" is the issue. From what I have read the impact would have been a lot small if they did 10 smaller projects for example.
The biggest solar field also creates a lot of issues that solar panels on each house wouldn't (production issues not withstanding). There is also a lot of rules for producing solar panels, and solar panel recycling. In Europe with EPR the future recycling cost of the panel is built into the sale price so when the time comes you have the money to recycle/properly dispose of them.
They also built the biggest road bridge to Hong Kong, and I'm sure a bunch of other "biggest's" which do not have the environment in mind.
I think the biggest thing right now is having regulations to properly deal with the waste and the bad effects of all the options you described. For example there are Solar panels produced and recycled pretty darn well, and then there are the opposite. To see if something is good for the environment it needs full cost to the environment life-cycle accounting.
Based on our different values you would probably like to use a method such as EPS for Life Cycle Assessments while I would favour something like GWP that focuses more on the current problems. The overall point I agree with, if you don't know the impacts you can't compare different solutions to the problem.
China is doing a lot of the biggest projects, same as the US used to do during the cold war and the middle east is doing now as well. I guess in 50 years it will be Africa or India doing them instead.
On September 12 2019 23:26 JimmiC wrote: The only issues there is being unmatched in renewable energy does not mean you are doing good things for the environment. Case in point the three gorges dam.
The Three Gorges Dam is an excellent example that should be mirrored. Minor improvements can be done but from a global perspective I fail to see a single reason it is bad.
The only negative thing I could spot in the wiki about it was: In 2010, NASA scientists calculated that shift of water mass stored by the dams would increase the length of the Earth's day by 0.06 microseconds and make the Earth slightly more round in the middle and flat on the poles.[96]
Maybe you count a few species going extinct as bad. Though when compared to the slowing of global warming the energy supply gives I see it as a net positive for amount of species.
I'll find an article in a bit here, but I think you are missing what it did to the river, not just the water quality but all the fish species. How it changed the sediment flow and the weather patterns. The land slides and future degeneration of the area. That is before you get into the environmental cost of the building itself. All the toxins it flooded left in the cities in engrossed.
Also huge human cost, over 100 deaths building it, forced relocation of millions (not done remotely humanely), and then all of the lost artifacts and history if you care about that.
This is not something that should be copied. Biggest is not best.
I have now read all 4 articles and still stand by my point that dams beat the alternatives. Some of the arguments piled on are especially hollow, such as:
In 2017 nearly 2,000 state-regulated “high hazard” dams need repair. These are dams that could result in a high loss of life if they fail. While dam construction technology has advanced and dams built today have improved, it would still cost an estimated $300 billion to secure the world’s dams.
While that is the yearly investment in solar now and would cover dams for years again. Maintenance needs to be performed after decades, what other source of power is there where that isn't true?
The best arguments made for me was in the reduced carbon sinks and increased dead water areas with methane releases. I did not find a good comparison in lost carbon sinks vs reduced carbon usage for power.
In general I can agree that there are different ways to use water power. Some more damaging than others. The damage from current methods seems less than the gain though. People complain about wind power, solar has the issues with panel pollutions. Coal, oil and nuclear people know the problems of. So what is the alternative?
Agreed. I didn't really see an argument for why the dam was an example of something terrible relative to the other options. So damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Obviously dams aren't without consequences and no one would argue as much. More, smaller dams, would take more concrete and money to create and maintain for example.
That is sort of the Rub with most things when it comes to environmentalism, you need to dig deep to see actual costs, and everything that is effected and weigh the pros and cons. TBH I wish you would look at things around the world with balance. I probably would have built a bunch of smaller hydro to effect less people and generate the same or power. It would also create more redundancy and less of a chance of a catastrophic event.
Here is a interesting research project about whether or not they should make more damns.
On September 14 2019 02:56 JimmiC wrote: That is sort of the Rub with most things when it comes to environmentalism, you need to dig deep to see actual costs, and everything that is effected and weigh the pros and cons. TBH I wish you would look at things around the world with balance. I probably would have built a bunch of smaller hydro to effect less people and generate the same or power. It would also create more redundancy and less of a chance of a catastrophic event.
Here is a interesting research project about whether or not they should make more damns.
With 16 giant generators, it could generate 62.4 billion kilowatt‐hours of electricity annually, which could provide for the consumption of 5.8 million U.S. households. Although the dam would prevent the burning of 28 million tons of coal, equivalent to 80 million tons of CO2 emissions, over 80,000 people and countless animals and plants would lose their homes forever.
This seems like a much better dam overall to build. Though the risk with earthquakes seems to be increased a bit. Do I understand it correctly that it is the ground setting and you get through that in the first decades?
Reading the article the primary motivation of the three gorges is flood control and electricity is how they managed to finance it.
Don't see what is so controversial about a targetted tax to finance the project. They could instead have raised taxes 0.1% to achieve the same result? Or to borrow massive amounts of money with interest rates that would have made it more expensive. That one part of a country finances a mega project they don't directly benefit from isn't something strange. Their projects come if needed, it is one of the advantages of a large state if you can afford projects. The richer regions benefited a lot from the resources in the region that now gets some economy pushed back in projects, seems mostly fair.
Also interesting from that article that the three gorges dam has almost paid for its construction and relocation of people already in electricity sold. Though much further away if it directly caused the big earthquake. Once a big flood comes and the dam stops it, it has paid for itself many times over.
The table comparing renewable sources feels so lack-lustre after the work on the rest of it. No mention of the life cycle. A dam lasts a bit longer than most solar cells or wind plants. I assume most of the negatives are negated when you rebuild it at the same spot as well, making it more sustainable the longer you use it.
This case is designed for both graduate and undergraduate students taking the Energy Justice class taught by professor Tony Reames. However, due to the nature and contents of the case, it can also be used in courses related to environmental justice, social evaluations, and the Chinese policy.
Would be interesting if there was one more targetted on the purely environmental side than the law angle. Though it does cover it as well.
On September 14 2019 02:56 JimmiC wrote: That is sort of the Rub with most things when it comes to environmentalism, you need to dig deep to see actual costs, and everything that is effected and weigh the pros and cons. TBH I wish you would look at things around the world with balance. I probably would have built a bunch of smaller hydro to effect less people and generate the same or power. It would also create more redundancy and less of a chance of a catastrophic event.
Here is a interesting research project about whether or not they should make more damns.
With 16 giant generators, it could generate 62.4 billion kilowatt‐hours of electricity annually, which could provide for the consumption of 5.8 million U.S. households. Although the dam would prevent the burning of 28 million tons of coal, equivalent to 80 million tons of CO2 emissions, over 80,000 people and countless animals and plants would lose their homes forever.
This seems like a much better dam overall to build. Though the risk with earthquakes seems to be increased a bit. Do I understand it correctly that it is the ground setting and you get through that in the first decades?
Reading the article the primary motivation of the three gorges is flood control and electricity is how they managed to finance it.
Don't see what is so controversial about a targetted tax to finance the project. They could instead have raised taxes 0.1% to achieve the same result? Or to borrow massive amounts of money with interest rates that would have made it more expensive. That one part of a country finances a mega project they don't directly benefit from isn't something strange. Their projects come if needed, it is one of the advantages of a large state if you can afford projects. The richer regions benefited a lot from the resources in the region that now gets some economy pushed back in projects, seems mostly fair.
Also interesting from that article that the three gorges dam has almost paid for its construction and relocation of people already in electricity sold. Though much further away if it directly caused the big earthquake. Once a big flood comes and the dam stops it, it has paid for itself many times over.
The table comparing renewable sources feels so lack-lustre after the work on the rest of it. No mention of the life cycle. A dam lasts a bit longer than most solar cells or wind plants. I assume most of the negatives are negated when you rebuild it at the same spot as well, making it more sustainable the longer you use it.
This case is designed for both graduate and undergraduate students taking the Energy Justice class taught by professor Tony Reames. However, due to the nature and contents of the case, it can also be used in courses related to environmental justice, social evaluations, and the Chinese policy.
Would be interesting if there was one more targetted on the purely environmental side than the law angle. Though it does cover it as well.
Yes I enjoyed it as well. That was my impression on the earth quakes as well, but that is not my area of expertise so I can't be sure.
I would be very interested in reading a purely environmental report that included full life cycle analysis.
As you mention this will have a longer time period, but I'm not sure on the maintenance costs and how that would cost compared to replacing solar panels or what is needed for wind and so on.
I'm also very interested in what various people think on human side. I think you and GH might have different opinions.
But if this was proposed in the US and lets say the best spot was on the Missouri and would cause the forced relocation of the St Louis greater area and towns around there. Everyone would have forced relocation to Montana where they would all get a 2 bedroom apartment and a job at the new factories they would build their. Montana gets picked because of its low population density and lets say it is close to the raw materials needed at the new factories.
ow would you feel about the government making this decision and forcing this on well over a million people? Also all the history and so on lost and now under water. It is obviously more complicated, and there were things like members of the government getting better jobs and better spots to move too, so I'm guessing in the states it would be the wealthy that would have move options.
On September 14 2019 02:56 JimmiC wrote: That is sort of the Rub with most things when it comes to environmentalism, you need to dig deep to see actual costs, and everything that is effected and weigh the pros and cons. TBH I wish you would look at things around the world with balance. I probably would have built a bunch of smaller hydro to effect less people and generate the same or power. It would also create more redundancy and less of a chance of a catastrophic event.
Here is a interesting research project about whether or not they should make more damns.
With 16 giant generators, it could generate 62.4 billion kilowatt‐hours of electricity annually, which could provide for the consumption of 5.8 million U.S. households. Although the dam would prevent the burning of 28 million tons of coal, equivalent to 80 million tons of CO2 emissions, over 80,000 people and countless animals and plants would lose their homes forever.
This seems like a much better dam overall to build. Though the risk with earthquakes seems to be increased a bit. Do I understand it correctly that it is the ground setting and you get through that in the first decades?
Reading the article the primary motivation of the three gorges is flood control and electricity is how they managed to finance it.
Don't see what is so controversial about a targetted tax to finance the project. They could instead have raised taxes 0.1% to achieve the same result? Or to borrow massive amounts of money with interest rates that would have made it more expensive. That one part of a country finances a mega project they don't directly benefit from isn't something strange. Their projects come if needed, it is one of the advantages of a large state if you can afford projects. The richer regions benefited a lot from the resources in the region that now gets some economy pushed back in projects, seems mostly fair.
Also interesting from that article that the three gorges dam has almost paid for its construction and relocation of people already in electricity sold. Though much further away if it directly caused the big earthquake. Once a big flood comes and the dam stops it, it has paid for itself many times over.
The table comparing renewable sources feels so lack-lustre after the work on the rest of it. No mention of the life cycle. A dam lasts a bit longer than most solar cells or wind plants. I assume most of the negatives are negated when you rebuild it at the same spot as well, making it more sustainable the longer you use it.
This case is designed for both graduate and undergraduate students taking the Energy Justice class taught by professor Tony Reames. However, due to the nature and contents of the case, it can also be used in courses related to environmental justice, social evaluations, and the Chinese policy.
Would be interesting if there was one more targetted on the purely environmental side than the law angle. Though it does cover it as well.
Yes I enjoyed it as well. That was my impression on the earth quakes as well, but that is not my area of expertise so I can't be sure.
I would be very interested in reading a purely environmental report that included full life cycle analysis.
As you mention this will have a longer time period, but I'm not sure on the maintenance costs and how that would cost compared to replacing solar panels or what is needed for wind and so on.
I'm also very interested in what various people think on human side. I think you and GH might have different opinions.
But if this was proposed in the US and lets say the best spot was on the Missouri and would cause the forced relocation of the St Louis greater area and towns around there. Everyone would have forced relocation to Montana where they would all get a 2 bedroom apartment and a job at the new factories they would build their. Montana gets picked because of its low population density and lets say it is close to the raw materials needed at the new factories.
ow would you feel about the government making this decision and forcing this on well over a million people? Also all the history and so on lost and now under water. It is obviously more complicated, and there were things like members of the government getting better jobs and better spots to move too, so I'm guessing in the states it would be the wealthy that would have move options.
But overall would you support such a program?
I don't care where I live. So I would support it even if I lived in the area. The details would matter regarding if I was happy with it or not short term. Long term I can move on if I don't like it.
The history I do care about, in the US there is minimal history compared to China so it has that going for it as well. Though I am willing to lose historic sites if there is a reason for it. ISIS just blowing things up just to remove history annoys me a lot. A dam that will power a large region for generations is something I can accept though.
On September 14 2019 02:56 JimmiC wrote: That is sort of the Rub with most things when it comes to environmentalism, you need to dig deep to see actual costs, and everything that is effected and weigh the pros and cons. TBH I wish you would look at things around the world with balance. I probably would have built a bunch of smaller hydro to effect less people and generate the same or power. It would also create more redundancy and less of a chance of a catastrophic event.
Here is a interesting research project about whether or not they should make more damns.
With 16 giant generators, it could generate 62.4 billion kilowatt‐hours of electricity annually, which could provide for the consumption of 5.8 million U.S. households. Although the dam would prevent the burning of 28 million tons of coal, equivalent to 80 million tons of CO2 emissions, over 80,000 people and countless animals and plants would lose their homes forever.
This seems like a much better dam overall to build. Though the risk with earthquakes seems to be increased a bit. Do I understand it correctly that it is the ground setting and you get through that in the first decades?
Reading the article the primary motivation of the three gorges is flood control and electricity is how they managed to finance it.
Don't see what is so controversial about a targetted tax to finance the project. They could instead have raised taxes 0.1% to achieve the same result? Or to borrow massive amounts of money with interest rates that would have made it more expensive. That one part of a country finances a mega project they don't directly benefit from isn't something strange. Their projects come if needed, it is one of the advantages of a large state if you can afford projects. The richer regions benefited a lot from the resources in the region that now gets some economy pushed back in projects, seems mostly fair.
Also interesting from that article that the three gorges dam has almost paid for its construction and relocation of people already in electricity sold. Though much further away if it directly caused the big earthquake. Once a big flood comes and the dam stops it, it has paid for itself many times over.
The table comparing renewable sources feels so lack-lustre after the work on the rest of it. No mention of the life cycle. A dam lasts a bit longer than most solar cells or wind plants. I assume most of the negatives are negated when you rebuild it at the same spot as well, making it more sustainable the longer you use it.
This case is designed for both graduate and undergraduate students taking the Energy Justice class taught by professor Tony Reames. However, due to the nature and contents of the case, it can also be used in courses related to environmental justice, social evaluations, and the Chinese policy.
Would be interesting if there was one more targetted on the purely environmental side than the law angle. Though it does cover it as well.
Yes I enjoyed it as well. That was my impression on the earth quakes as well, but that is not my area of expertise so I can't be sure.
I would be very interested in reading a purely environmental report that included full life cycle analysis.
As you mention this will have a longer time period, but I'm not sure on the maintenance costs and how that would cost compared to replacing solar panels or what is needed for wind and so on.
I'm also very interested in what various people think on human side. I think you and GH might have different opinions.
But if this was proposed in the US and lets say the best spot was on the Missouri and would cause the forced relocation of the St Louis greater area and towns around there. Everyone would have forced relocation to Montana where they would all get a 2 bedroom apartment and a job at the new factories they would build their. Montana gets picked because of its low population density and lets say it is close to the raw materials needed at the new factories.
ow would you feel about the government making this decision and forcing this on well over a million people? Also all the history and so on lost and now under water. It is obviously more complicated, and there were things like members of the government getting better jobs and better spots to move too, so I'm guessing in the states it would be the wealthy that would have move options.
But overall would you support such a program?
I don't care where I live. So I would support it even if I lived in the area. The details would matter regarding if I was happy with it or not short term. Long term I can move on if I don't like it.
The history I do care about, in the US there is minimal history compared to China so it has that going for it as well. Though I am willing to lose historic sites if there is a reason for it. ISIS just blowing things up just to remove history annoys me a lot. A dam that will power a large region for generations is something I can accept though.
While I think you are being logical and reasonable, it is my feeling that most people would not be when told they will have to relocate. So it would take the military/police to get everyone out of there. It is kind of hard to think about over here because people have property rights and so on, but I think it would be a huge deal for a lot of people being forced to move somewhere completely different. And I agree that ISIS just destroying shit because it does not agree with their religion or whatever their justification is, is awful.
On September 15 2019 00:38 JimmiC wrote: I'm aware, and did you think it was a good thing?
It's a "thing", with good and bad attributes. Reducing dependence on carbon based energy is a good thing, harming marginalized people to do it is bad, for example.
On September 15 2019 00:38 JimmiC wrote: I'm aware, and did you think it was a good thing?
It's a "thing", with good and bad attributes. Reducing dependence on carbon based energy is a good thing, harming marginalized people to do it is bad, for example.
Exactly, that is what makes the question of whether or not you would support the US doing it an interesting question. Because it is not easy.
The US continues to go backwards environmentally with more roll backs of regulations intended to keep drinking water safe (it's not safe in over 3000 jurisdictions in the US anyway).
The Trump administration on Thursday announced repeal of an Obama-era regulation that had expanded pollution protections for waterways such as wetlands and shallow streams, but that farmers, miners and manufacturers decried as overreach.
Environmental groups have said the Obama rule was necessary to protect drinking water sources at risk from agri-business and industry.
Earthjustice and other environmental groups on Thursday warned that the Trump administration repeal will threaten drinking water and weaken safeguards that help reduce flooding and filter out pollution from streams and wetlands.
On September 09 2019 00:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: Yes, China's emissions per capita have skyrocketed the past 20 years, and their emissions per capita are at european levels now. That's obviously a problem. But Americans who still pollute twice as much per capita telling the chinese 'you guys need to pollute less' because china overtook them on the overall rankings really haven't established much useful understanding.
And I'm sorry but the conclusion is not make everyone very poor. The conclusion is the realization that Indias overall consumption is bound to increase as their wealth increases, because it's still very, very low compared to their population. And this puts further pressure on western countries to decrease emissions. Essentially, any measurement that doesn't look at per capita, as I see it, is nothing more than a way for western populations to not feel as responsible as they should feel. This isn't a crisis that's just happening on a country / executive level, it's one where the average western human either has a wholly wrong impression of how much they can sustainably consume, or one where the average western human doesn't actually care all that much.
Well looking at the numbers in Wikipedia, China reduced their Fossil CO2 emissions pair capita (8.49) from 2013 to 7.7 in 2017. While US reduced theirs (19.9 in 2013) to 15.7 in 2017. Both Countries are on the right track, but I would like to see US, Canada and Australia reduce more of their emmisions per capita if possible, also oil rich and high GDP per capita countries are the biggest polluters. Actually I think the biggest problem for rising C02 emmisions right now is the trade war. As both US and China hurt their economy (and the rest of the world with them), they will encourage the people to spend and consume increasing C02 emmisions. China was on the right track spending a lot of money on renewable energy, also was going to dramatically reduce it's reliance on coal, but I don't think that is the case anymore from what i've read. Because to reduce the impact on the economy from the trade war they will encourage their people to consume more, also delay their reduction on coal reliance.
Found and interesting video today, sorry if this is out of place compared to what argument is taking place in the last 5-6 posts, and it's in or should I say a bit about Australia.
But the fact that they managed to simulate in 1973 with their piss-poor computers what's happening now kinda amazed me. Thought it would be interesting to share.
This site has some very cool interactive maps where you can look at american beliefs on certain questions in regards to American's. You can look at it on a nation level, by state and even down to each county with a bunch of different questions. Thanks Yale!
With the recent upheaval in Bolivia I was doing some reading and I was interested to find out that despite Morales being a socialist and claiming to respect mother earth his policy didn't match his words.
Evo Morales has regularly spoken at international climate conferences, where he has argued for greater respect for "Mother Earth".
However, he has not always been successful in balancing that intention with economic development.
One of the most contentious issues of his presidency involved plans for the construction of a major road through the Amazon, which indigenous groups argued would open their territory up to illegal logging and land grabs.
Large-scale protests led to violent clashes and forced the government to backtrack in 2011. The project later got the go-ahead in 2017, with Mr Morales dismissing international concern as a form of "colonial environmentalism". More recently, in 2019, Evo Morales faced protests over fires, which raged in protected eastern areas of the country.
Demonstrators called for him to revoke a decree that authorised "controlled burning" to help farmers create bigger plots for crops.
He appears to be no better than Bolsonaro when it comes to this, hopefully who ever is the next leader, or if Morales retakes it he follows through on his pledge to protect the environment.
On November 13 2019 06:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How did your reading did not inform you that Evo Morales has resigned as president of Bolivia and fled to Mexico under asylum?
How did your reading of "next leader", "or if Morales retakes it" let you think I was not aware of the above? Not to mention my first words about the political upheaval.
If you are going to be a dick about someones reading comprehension, you may want to, you know, read what they wrote.
You aren't fooling anybody. Who talks about some proposed environmental policy of a country when the President himself has fled the country? It is clear that you had no idea that Evo Morales has left the country entirely. It is clear that you thought that Evo Morales was still President of Bolivia. He's not going to retake the presidency.
He might have written abour Eva Morales under some sort of "situation" previously. However the situation had changed to resigning and leaving the country. It simply makes no sense to talk about hoping someone will implement some minor policy when he has fled the country and claimed asylum in another country. It is quite literally a coup.
Dude this is really showing the power of confirmation bias. If you go back starting at the bottom of page 43 on the south american politics thread we discuss Morales leaving, for like 3 pages lol. The reason I said if he retakes is because his last tweet says he will be back more energized. Not to mention I have no idea how I would get to the part of the article I quoted without knowing since that whole article is about it, I stumbled across the environmental part while reading about the political part. The reason I thought it was interesting is much has been made about Brazil's lack of environmental protection under there government (and it should be) but nothing about Bolivia.
So unless you think I posted this post and then took my time machine back a couple of days to discuss what you think I'm unaware of just to prove you wrong. It might be time to realize that you in fact are the one with poor reading comprehension and all you are accomplishing by continuing to double down on you being a dick to me is make yourself look more and more foolish.
And while it is sort of entertaining considering how much glee you take in being an ass to people, its starting to turn the corner to sad, so please stop.
It'll be as if JFK just got assassinated, and the next day you writing hoping that JFK will implement his promised economical policy. it would be obvious that you haven't heard the news. Evo Morales is now a political non-entity in Bolivia. He has no power. I'll leave it at that.
On November 13 2019 23:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote: It'll be as if JFK just got assassinated, and the next day you writing hoping that JFK will implement his promised economical policy. it would be obvious that you haven't heard the news. Evo Morales is now a political non-entity in Bolivia. He has no power. I'll leave it at that.
He is not dead, he is in Mexico, he has said he is going to return and there has been no word on if he will be allowed to run in the next elections. It is very clear you don't know what is going on. And how you can still think I don't, when I taked about it for 2 days before this post is beyond me. But for shits lets even go through my post:
On November 13 2019 04:33 JimmiC wrote: With the recent upheaval in Bolivia I was doing some reading and I was interested to find out that despite Morales being a socialist and claiming to respect mother earth his policy didn't match his words.
Evo Morales has regularly spoken at international climate conferences, where he has argued for greater respect for "Mother Earth".
However, he has not always been successful in balancing that intention with economic development.
One of the most contentious issues of his presidency involved plans for the construction of a major road through the Amazon, which indigenous groups argued would open their territory up to illegal logging and land grabs.
Large-scale protests led to violent clashes and forced the government to backtrack in 2011. The project later got the go-ahead in 2017, with Mr Morales dismissing international concern as a form of "colonial environmentalism". More recently, in 2019, Evo Morales faced protests over fires, which raged in protected eastern areas of the country.
Demonstrators called for him to revoke a decree that authorised "controlled burning" to help farmers create bigger plots for crops.
He appears to be no better than Bolsonaro when it comes to this, hopefully who ever is the next leader, or if Morales retakes it he follows through on his pledge to protect the environment.
With the recent upheaval in Bolivia I was doing some reading and I was interested to find out that despite Morales being a socialist and claiming to respect mother earth his policy didn't match his words.
So here I talk about the upheaval and say I'm reading about it, and post an article that talks all about it. Somehow you still claim I don't know.
He appears to be no better than Bolsonaro when it comes to this, hopefully who ever is the next leader, or if Morales retakes it he follows through on his pledge to protect the environment.
Here I say whoever is the next leader, this indicates I know Morales is not the leader. Next I say if Morales RETAKES, that again means he is not the current leader.
It was dumb enough for you to claim after my post what you did, but that you are choosing to die on the hill is just embarrassing. The unintentional comedy of you claiming I have no reading comprehension, when you totally miss the OBVIOUS mark is pure gold, so I'll let it slide.
On August 27 2019 10:09 JimmiC wrote: That is not my preference, my preference is to look at the entire picture which includes CO2 emissions, waste management practices, government policy, so on.
You keep making this like you think I'm saying China is bad and the US is good that is not the case. China is horrible and the US is not much better. But it is better because of the wealth.
I would love it if China really becomes the technological and economic leader on climate change. That would be amazing. I have nothing against China doing well, I want everyone to do better. They would have to do a bunch of things that would make life better for all their people and the world but I doubt it. What I bet they will have though is mostly really terrible practices and then the Biggest this and the Biggest last.
I don't believe that China was truly socialist just a dictatorship marketing it as socialism. But for someone like you who does believe they are can you answer me why you keep telling me how better the Chinese are doing and how many amazing gains they are getting, but that they are going more capitalist and that's bad.
If things are getting better than isn't capitalism working?
You keep making this like you think I'm saying China is bad and the US is good that is not the case. China is horrible and the US is not much better. But it is better because of the wealth.
No the usa is actually worse like gh already said.
I don't think it is worth it anymore for countries to bend themselves over to reduce co2 emissions. They should try reduce but not at all cost. The thing is,the point of no return has been passed a long time ago,probably somewhere in the 70,s of previous century. Even if we would stop all emissions today,all of them,then the world will still continue to heat up for a very long time. It actually is to late to do something meaningfull lol so we might as well keep racing forward in the hope technology will come with better answers. There also is a more or less direct relation between GDP and co2 emissions. Which makes sense since 99% of our wealth is build on co2. Machines that do the work for us and which increase our productivity,They all run on co2. Our whole society runs on co2 emissions. If we reduce emissions with 50% then we reduce our wealth production with 50%. How many americans are actually willing to make that sacrifice? Almost none of them.
So while it is absolutely horrible,and I do agree that something should have been done before we got to this point,it now actually is to late to do something. You seem to have better knowledge about this subject Jimmic,so i would like to ask:do you actually think that we could still turn it all around? And if so what do you think would be needed to turn it all around?
On August 27 2019 10:09 JimmiC wrote: That is not my preference, my preference is to look at the entire picture which includes CO2 emissions, waste management practices, government policy, so on.
You keep making this like you think I'm saying China is bad and the US is good that is not the case. China is horrible and the US is not much better. But it is better because of the wealth.
I would love it if China really becomes the technological and economic leader on climate change. That would be amazing. I have nothing against China doing well, I want everyone to do better. They would have to do a bunch of things that would make life better for all their people and the world but I doubt it. What I bet they will have though is mostly really terrible practices and then the Biggest this and the Biggest last.
I don't believe that China was truly socialist just a dictatorship marketing it as socialism. But for someone like you who does believe they are can you answer me why you keep telling me how better the Chinese are doing and how many amazing gains they are getting, but that they are going more capitalist and that's bad.
If things are getting better than isn't capitalism working?
You keep making this like you think I'm saying China is bad and the US is good that is not the case. China is horrible and the US is not much better. But it is better because of the wealth.
No the usa is actually worse like gh already said.
I don't think it is worth it anymore for countries to bend themselves over to reduce co2 emissions. They should try reduce but not at all cost. The thing is,the point of no return has been passed a long time ago,probably somewhere in the 70,s of previous century. Even if we would stop all emissions today,all of them,then the world will still continue to heat up for a very long time. It actually is to late to do something meaningfull lol so we might as well keep racing forward in the hope technology will come with better answers. There also is a more or less direct relation between GDP and co2 emissions. Which makes sense since 99% of our wealth is build on co2. Machines that do the work for us and which increase our productivity,They all run on co2. Our whole society runs on co2 emissions. If we reduce emissions with 50% then we reduce our wealth production with 50%. How many americans are actually willing to make that sacrifice? Almost none of them.
So while it is absolutely horrible,and I do agree that something should have been done before we got to this point,it now actually is to late to do something. You seem to have better knowledge about this subject Jimmic,so i would like to ask:do you actually think that we could still turn it all around? And if so what do you think would be needed to turn it all around?
From everything I read it is still possible to turn it around, but that time is fast approaching where we cannot. I'll try to find something later to quote but from what I remember they said it would take the same effort and money (counting for inflation) that it took to get to the moon and the Manhattan project.
But as you said people are not willing to sacrifice and the downside of democracy is people have that choice.
My issue with China's environmental policies goes much deeper than just Co2, many of the industries that left "the west" for their and others was due to the regulations around the environment, and labor. You often hear about the cheaper labor but not a lot of people write about how much cheaper because instead of properly dealing with the dye's and plastics they just can dump them into the water or openly burn them. Now I don't completely blame them because they have more need for the money, and really I blame us more because we care more about the cheaper goods than we do about saving the planet. But this is the reason why you can read that that the US is is worse for Carbon by different measures but then if your travel to parts of China and India and so on the air is almost unbreathable at times. It is because we outlawed the practice of open burning long ago. And that is before you get into water treatment and solid waste management.
The reason I wish China would do better is because they have a central planning and control. If they really wanted to better environmentally they could, but they would rather make record breaking things (airports, damn's, bridges, solar farms and so on) than fix many of their environmental problems. Half of you don't hear of because the Chinese government senors there media, hell they censor the internet. They are also not remotely socialist, they have raised the standard of living for many, but that has all been trickle down while they make the few ultra rich. And on top of that they have huge human rights abuses going on daily, that again we rarely hear about because of the censorship. There is a reason that HK is protesting so furiously.
Between China, the US and India China is the least concerning to me. They are the only one of the three not led by right-wing neofascists and actually demonstrating real progress when it comes to confronting the scale of the problem ecological collapse presents.
Id say they are lead by closer to fascists than the US, they already have the dictatorship and are catching up and soon to pass on wealth disparity. Last I checked socialism didnt involve creating a few billionaires and giving scraps to the masses. And outside of their propaganda they are not solving any ecological problems. Hell they wont even stop eating sharkfin soup, which is only the chinese rich since the poor cant afford it. Which is again odd that China with a "socialist" dictatorship has a rich and poor...
I think I read somewhere that all of the US government bldgs are to be net neutral by 2030 or 2050 some place a while back. You also have most large corpos changing to pure renewable energy for their data centers and HQs. Hell, even here in Chicago there are a lot of solar going up. Still most of the fuel and energy is from fossil fuel, but people are slowly but surely changing. It just won't happen quick enough for some people's taste.
And I agree with pmh to a certain extent. Whereas we can no longer turn back the damage, we can still push forward with technological advancements and hope we can invent something that will help mitigate major damage in the future. There is no way to completely stop or undo what is already done. It is done. So instead of bitching and moaning about it, we need to find a way to carefully, safely, but with all haste possible, transition to clean, renewable energy.
Also, we need to get the salt and microplastics out of the ocean because our fresh water supply is quickly dwindling. Water wars are more of an immediate threat than rising flood waters.
On November 14 2019 12:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think I read somewhere that all of the US government bldgs are to be net neutral by 2030 or 2050 some place a while back. You also have most large corpos changing to pure renewable energy for their data centers and HQs. Hell, even here in Chicago there are a lot of solar going up. Still most of the fuel and energy is from fossil fuel, but people are slowly but surely changing. It just won't happen quick enough for some people's taste.
And I agree with pmh to a certain extent. Whereas we can no longer turn back the damage, we can still push forward with technological advancements and hope we can invent something that will help mitigate major damage in the future. There is no way to completely stop or undo what is already done. It is done. So instead of bitching and moaning about it, we need to find a way to carefully, safely, but with all haste possible, transition to clean, renewable energy.
Also, we need to get the salt and microplastics out of the ocean because our fresh water supply is quickly dwindling. Water wars are more of an immediate threat than rising flood waters.
Your first point has been pointed out as largely meaningless as they've had almost no measurable impact once you account for the pollution we send elsewhere.
phm is right that a certain amount of damage has already been done and even if we reduced our carbon from energy to practically 0 it's still going to get worse before it gets better. The technological aspect of his point is fantasy. The reason we aren't much further in sustainable tech is that truly sustainable localized systems aren't nearly as profitable for the people in power and the capitalist systems like we see in the US cater almost exclusively to their interests. That's how China blew past the US in solar development.
Your last point is mostly right and why the billionaires are already buying up reservoirs and water systems so they'll own both the water and it's delivery systems.
EDIT: To be clear, the people building green energy data centers and HQ's, buying reservoirs, etc... are planning on ecological and infrastructure collapse then you and your descendants dying or exploiting the desperation for profit (and good PR). Not making an effort to curb climate collapse.
The big 2 reasons china makes so many solar panels is they dont have regulations on proper disposal of the waste and chemical and than the European manufactures have EPR which means they have to build in extra costs to account for proper disposal.
TLDR if you want to help the environment by purchasing a solar panel, do it from a European manufacturer, its worth the extra money.
JimmiC is right that the main cause for slow adaptation of renewable energy are the regulations in place. How much hell was raised when the EPA rolled back nuclear waste disposal regs? China doesn't have that problem because no one is talking back to them and getting them to do it in a responsible manner. They might have moire solar production than the US, but I would want to see the stats from deaths and illnesses caused by them not giving a damn about the human cost.
The pollution we send elsewhere is only a problem because where we send it, they don't have the means to dispose of it. The waste we ship out of country could be handled here by immigrant and poor workers, but americans think themselves too good for that kind of labor. So we ship it to another country where they're glad for the work and opportunity to feed themselves/family.
The last point, GH, is a non sequitor in the sense that if climate change does as much damage as you fear, that profit and anything else becomes utterly meaningless. They want to try and fix the world as much as possible because in the end, their bottom line depends on consumers. So you can gloom and doom it but I don't see a realistic proposal that people can rally behind coming from you or anyone else who is afraid of climate collapse.
On November 14 2019 13:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: JimmiC is right that the main cause for slow adaptation of renewable energy are the regulations in place. How much hell was raised when the EPA rolled back nuclear waste disposal regs? China doesn't have that problem because no one is talking back to them and getting them to do it in a responsible manner. They might have moire solar production than the US, but I would want to see the stats from deaths and illnesses caused by them not giving a damn about the human cost.
The pollution we send elsewhere is only a problem because where we send it, they don't have the means to dispose of it. The waste we ship out of country could be handled here by immigrant and poor workers, but americans think themselves too good for that kind of labor. So we ship it to another country where they're glad for the work and opportunity to feed themselves/family.
The last point, GH, is a non sequitor in the sense that if climate change does as much damage as you fear, that profit and anything else becomes utterly meaningless. They want to try and fix the world as much as possible because in the end, their bottom line depends on consumers. So you can gloom and doom it but I don't see a realistic proposal that people can rally behind coming from you or anyone else who is afraid of climate collapse.
Those are full blown Republican talking points. Reagan took the solar panels off the white house which was a symbolic example of the doubling down on oil dependence and sending people like yourself half way around the world to kill brown people to secure it for the last 40 years and they are determined to do it for another 40.
You're last bit doesn't make any sense to me, particularly when what you linked is saying the exact opposite. A popular intellectual went to speak for a crowd of rich guys about the future of tech and they weren't interested in talking about saving the ecosystem, they were talking about how to protect their shit from desperate poor people.
On November 14 2019 13:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: JimmiC is right that the main cause for slow adaptation of renewable energy are the regulations in place. How much hell was raised when the EPA rolled back nuclear waste disposal regs? China doesn't have that problem because no one is talking back to them and getting them to do it in a responsible manner. They might have moire solar production than the US, but I would want to see the stats from deaths and illnesses caused by them not giving a damn about the human cost.
The pollution we send elsewhere is only a problem because where we send it, they don't have the means to dispose of it. The waste we ship out of country could be handled here by immigrant and poor workers, but americans think themselves too good for that kind of labor. So we ship it to another country where they're glad for the work and opportunity to feed themselves/family.
The last point, GH, is a non sequitor in the sense that if climate change does as much damage as you fear, that profit and anything else becomes utterly meaningless. They want to try and fix the world as much as possible because in the end, their bottom line depends on consumers. So you can gloom and doom it but I don't see a realistic proposal that people can rally behind coming from you or anyone else who is afraid of climate collapse.
Those are full blown Republican talking points. Reagan took the solar panels off the white house which was a symbolic example of the doubling down on oil dependence and sending people like yourself half way around the world to kill brown people to secure it for the last 40 years and they are determined to do it for another 40.
You're last bit doesn't make any sense to me, particularly when what you linked is saying the exact opposite. A popular intellectual went to speak for a crowd of rich guys about the future of tech and they weren't interested in talking about saving the ecosystem, they were talking about how to protect their shit from desperate poor people.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting(Green space growth) to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.(Indian,because of Reclamation farmland)
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry,in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country(1.4billion) in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.) so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God.
On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote: sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting(Green space growth) to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.(Indian,because of Reclamation farmland)
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry,in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country(1.4billion) in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.) so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God.
Im not accusing China, im pointing out fact. And as you mention China is not the only one doing it, they just are the one most talked about because they are the biggest and have the most economic power. You are also right that they are at a different stage than the West, the hope is that rather than follow the mistakes they would learn from them and do something different.
The point that really frustrates me is that the "need" to do this to feed their people. I call bullshit, not now, now they have a lot of billionaires, how about instead of making the relative few rich off the environment and backs of the poor through cheap labor they spread some of that wealth around? How about instead of vanity projects that are also terrible for the environment, such as the worlds largest bridge, they build proper waste management systems. This is why I get so frustrated when people on the left fall all over themselves to talk about the greatness of China, they are not socialists, have not been for decades. They are a command capitalist economy who cares more about wealth and power for the few than betterment of all their people. They are basically all that is wrong with the west with the added awfulness of being way behind in environmental rules and have all the awful human rights abuses of dictatorships.
China can and should do better.
Edit: I should add China is not alone in the can and should do better department. Almost every country can and should do better, but the ones with more wealth have no excuse not to be, and the developing countries need to look to the mistakes that countries further along made and not repeat them. It is a global problem that will take a global solution.
On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote: sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting(Green space growth) to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.(Indian,because of Reclamation farmland)
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry,in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country(1.4billion) in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.) so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God.
Must be frustrating to have westerners using eastern countries as dumpsters and calling it "recycling" while simultaneously complaining that those countries aren't disposing of it properly (which was why/how the capitalists are making their living often smuggling in contaminated trash for profit).
On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote: sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting(Green space growth) to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.(Indian,because of Reclamation farmland)
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry,in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country(1.4billion) in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.) so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God.
Must be frustrating to have westerners using eastern countries as dumpsters and calling it "recycling" while simultaneously complaining that those countries aren't disposing of it properly (which was why/how the capitalists are making their living often smuggling in contaminated trash for profit).
Name one fucking instance we said they're not doing enough. Name one fucking instance that we called it recycling.
We said that China doesn't have as strict as regulatory laws as the US and EU in regards to where and how they dump their waste. We never said they had none whatsoever. We also said that we send it over to the countries who agreed to take it but it has become abundantly clear that those countries don't have the means to dispose of it properly, so it is a zero sum game.
A lot of nations jumped ahead of their western counterparts once they adopted the tech and improved it to make their lives better. Rail is best in China and Japan and the EU. The amount of co2 reduction is better in China and Japan and the EU to some degrees. We've acknowledged that.
When you get to the point where you understand the carbon footprint involved with creating, using, disposing, and recycling any material, you'll understand what while it may seem like a lot is being done, not much really is.
On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote: sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting(Green space growth) to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.(Indian,because of Reclamation farmland)
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry,in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country(1.4billion) in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.) so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God.
Must be frustrating to have westerners using eastern countries as dumpsters and calling it "recycling" while simultaneously complaining that those countries aren't disposing of it properly (which was why/how the capitalists are making their living often smuggling in contaminated trash for profit).
Name one fucking instance we said they're not doing enough. Name one fucking instance that we called it recycling.
We said that China doesn't have as strict as regulatory laws as the US and EU in regards to where and how they dump their waste. We never said they had none whatsoever. We also said that we send it over to the countries who agreed to take it but it has become abundantly clear that those countries don't have the means to dispose of it properly, so it is a zero sum game.
A lot of nations jumped ahead of their western counterparts once they adopted the tech and improved it to make their lives better. Rail is best in China and Japan and the EU. The amount of co2 reduction is better in China and Japan and the EU to some degrees. We've acknowledged that.
When you get to the point where you understand the carbon footprint involved with creating, using, disposing, and recycling any material, you'll understand what while it may seem like a lot is being done, not much really is.
He is not completely wrong on the recycling as trash thing, communities in NA want high diversion numbers so they put more and more into their recycling and to keep costs down for end users many of the "MRFs"( Material recycling Facilities, but really should be called commingled separating facilities since no actual recycling happens at these) used a practice called "salting" where they would add a certain % of trash to the bails so it would still meet the standards that China set. Where he gets confused is capitalism's roll. Capitalism is why China accepted it like that. They could get more product, make more money, get their few richer by accepting shittier and shittier bales. Then capitalism is also why they chose to just take the high value pieces and burn the rest, again for more profit.
As usual socialism was no where to be found in China.
The bad part in the west was partly capitalism if the MRF was a private entity which is common especially in the states and they wanted to turn a profit. But this was also common practice in Publicly owned MRFs. The reason was not profit but rather more warm and fuzzy's from bigger recycling numbers (often this is called wishcycling where people put things into recycling that can't actually be recycled because they wish it could, big problem with the industry) and more happy voters from keeping the costs down to them. When Chinese sword came out and China decided to make the requirements of the bales from really dirty to 100% clean the west was in trouble. The industry had been for lack of better word lying about the performance of the programs, saying we diverted x% when we knew a lot of that was not actual recycling, and that recycling was way cheaper than it actually is, since China was not recycling the materials like they said they were (but we knew they were not, we just like the price and out of sight out of mind) and were just burning it.
China realizing that the cost to their environment and cost of fixing the problems all this garbage was making was not worth the money that they were getting for taking it. Also the commodity values of more valuable plastic and OCC tanked. So it might also be capitalism, is some strange way that is forcing people to look at the actual problems with consumption instead of pretending like it isn't an issue and they can recycle it all.
On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote: sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting(Green space growth) to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.(Indian,because of Reclamation farmland)
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry,in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country(1.4billion) in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.) so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God.
Must be frustrating to have westerners using eastern countries as dumpsters and calling it "recycling" while simultaneously complaining that those countries aren't disposing of it properly (which was why/how the capitalists are making their living often smuggling in contaminated trash for profit).
Name one fucking instance we said they're not doing enough. Name one fucking instance that we called it recycling.
We said that China doesn't have as strict as regulatory laws as the US and EU in regards to where and how they dump their waste. We never said they had none whatsoever. We also said that we send it over to the countries who agreed to take it but it has become abundantly clear that those countries don't have the means to dispose of it properly, so it is a zero sum game.
A lot of nations jumped ahead of their western counterparts once they adopted the tech and improved it to make their lives better. Rail is best in China and Japan and the EU. The amount of co2 reduction is better in China and Japan and the EU to some degrees. We've acknowledged that.
When you get to the point where you understand the carbon footprint involved with creating, using, disposing, and recycling any material, you'll understand what while it may seem like a lot is being done, not much really is.
It's not personal man, you can relax. Just to flesh out the situation your posting seems to reflect you're unfamiliar with a bit...
US plastic recycling is a sham for example. A large portion of the stuff people are putting in their recycling bins is literally just making them feel better about doing nothing (worse than nothing really).
The Guardian showed that it's just being dumped into other poor countries, landfills, burned, and stockpiled (basically becoming unpoliced landfills).
(citation summary) A Guardian investigation reveals that cities around the country are no longer recycling many types of plastic dropped into recycling bins. Instead, they are being landfilled, burned or stockpiled. From Los Angeles to Florida to the Arizona desert, officials say, vast quantities of plastic are now no better than garbage.
“All these years I have been feeling like I’m doing something responsible,” said Pai, clearly dumbstruck as she walked away with a full bag. “The truth hurts.”
Analysis of US export records shows that the equivalent of 19,000 shipping containers of plastic recycling per month, once exported abroad, is now stranded at home. This is enough plastic to fill 250 Olympic swimming pools each month.
The China ban revealed an uncomfortable truth about plastic recycling, Skye said: much of this plastic was never possible to recycle at all.
“[China] would just pull out the items that were actually recyclable and burn or throw away the rest,” he said. “China has subsidized the recycling industry for many years in a way that distorted our views.”
On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote: sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting(Green space growth) to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.(Indian,because of Reclamation farmland)
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry,in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country(1.4billion) in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.) so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God.
Must be frustrating to have westerners using eastern countries as dumpsters and calling it "recycling" while simultaneously complaining that those countries aren't disposing of it properly (which was why/how the capitalists are making their living often smuggling in contaminated trash for profit).
Name one fucking instance we said they're not doing enough. Name one fucking instance that we called it recycling.
We said that China doesn't have as strict as regulatory laws as the US and EU in regards to where and how they dump their waste. We never said they had none whatsoever. We also said that we send it over to the countries who agreed to take it but it has become abundantly clear that those countries don't have the means to dispose of it properly, so it is a zero sum game.
A lot of nations jumped ahead of their western counterparts once they adopted the tech and improved it to make their lives better. Rail is best in China and Japan and the EU. The amount of co2 reduction is better in China and Japan and the EU to some degrees. We've acknowledged that.
When you get to the point where you understand the carbon footprint involved with creating, using, disposing, and recycling any material, you'll understand what while it may seem like a lot is being done, not much really is.
He is not completely wrong on the recycling as trash thing, communities in NA want high diversion numbers so they put more and more into their recycling and to keep costs down for end users many of the "MRFs"( Material recycling Facilities, but really should be called commingled separating facilities since no actual recycling happens at these) used a practice called "salting" where they would add a certain % of trash to the bails so it would still meet the standards that China set. Where he gets confused is capitalism's roll. Capitalism is why China accepted it like that. They could get more product, make more money, get their few richer by accepting shittier and shittier bales. Then capitalism is also why they chose to just take the high value pieces and burn the rest, again for more profit.
As usual socialism was no where to be found in China.
The bad part in the west was partly capitalism if the MRF was a private entity which is common especially in the states and they wanted to turn a profit. But this was also common practice in Publicly owned MRFs. The reason was not profit but rather more warm and fuzzy's from bigger recycling numbers (often this is called wishcycling where people put things into recycling that can't actually be recycled because they wish it could, big problem with the industry) and more happy voters from keeping the costs down to them. When Chinese sword came out and China decided to make the requirements of the bales from really dirty to 100% clean the west was in trouble. The industry had been for lack of better word lying about the performance of the programs, saying we diverted x% when we knew a lot of that was not actual recycling, and that recycling was way cheaper than it actually is, since China was not recycling the materials like they said they were (but we knew they were not, we just like the price and out of sight out of mind) and were just burning it.
China realizing that the cost to their environment and cost of fixing the problems all this garbage was making was not worth the money that they were getting for taking it. Also the commodity values of more valuable plastic and OCC tanked. So it might also be capitalism, is some strange way that is forcing people to look at the actual problems with consumption instead of pretending like it isn't an issue and they can recycle it all.
I remember you talking about this in the US pol thread a long while back. And I understand everything you mentioned here. What you're talking about is why we have paper straws. There was a pesticide being developed that ate plastics over time but I haven't read or seen anything about it. But to your point, the capitalism of shipping to poorer countries and leaving it up to them to figure out what to do with it is what I was saying; they don't know how to properly dispose of it. They do exactly what you said. Now that there is gaining outcry for everyone to actually do something to stop the practice and attempt some kind of waste management/mitigation, things are looking bad for developed nations because we didn't invest in the means to actually do something about it. Now the costs are too high and people don't want to take the leap. So they find other smaller, achievable goals and that placates the people for the time being.
On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote: sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting(Green space growth) to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.(Indian,because of Reclamation farmland)
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry,in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country(1.4billion) in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.) so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God.
Must be frustrating to have westerners using eastern countries as dumpsters and calling it "recycling" while simultaneously complaining that those countries aren't disposing of it properly (which was why/how the capitalists are making their living often smuggling in contaminated trash for profit).
Name one fucking instance we said they're not doing enough. Name one fucking instance that we called it recycling.
We said that China doesn't have as strict as regulatory laws as the US and EU in regards to where and how they dump their waste. We never said they had none whatsoever. We also said that we send it over to the countries who agreed to take it but it has become abundantly clear that those countries don't have the means to dispose of it properly, so it is a zero sum game.
A lot of nations jumped ahead of their western counterparts once they adopted the tech and improved it to make their lives better. Rail is best in China and Japan and the EU. The amount of co2 reduction is better in China and Japan and the EU to some degrees. We've acknowledged that.
When you get to the point where you understand the carbon footprint involved with creating, using, disposing, and recycling any material, you'll understand what while it may seem like a lot is being done, not much really is.
He is not completely wrong on the recycling as trash thing, communities in NA want high diversion numbers so they put more and more into their recycling and to keep costs down for end users many of the "MRFs"( Material recycling Facilities, but really should be called commingled separating facilities since no actual recycling happens at these) used a practice called "salting" where they would add a certain % of trash to the bails so it would still meet the standards that China set. Where he gets confused is capitalism's roll. Capitalism is why China accepted it like that. They could get more product, make more money, get their few richer by accepting shittier and shittier bales. Then capitalism is also why they chose to just take the high value pieces and burn the rest, again for more profit.
As usual socialism was no where to be found in China.
The bad part in the west was partly capitalism if the MRF was a private entity which is common especially in the states and they wanted to turn a profit. But this was also common practice in Publicly owned MRFs. The reason was not profit but rather more warm and fuzzy's from bigger recycling numbers (often this is called wishcycling where people put things into recycling that can't actually be recycled because they wish it could, big problem with the industry) and more happy voters from keeping the costs down to them. When Chinese sword came out and China decided to make the requirements of the bales from really dirty to 100% clean the west was in trouble. The industry had been for lack of better word lying about the performance of the programs, saying we diverted x% when we knew a lot of that was not actual recycling, and that recycling was way cheaper than it actually is, since China was not recycling the materials like they said they were (but we knew they were not, we just like the price and out of sight out of mind) and were just burning it.
China realizing that the cost to their environment and cost of fixing the problems all this garbage was making was not worth the money that they were getting for taking it. Also the commodity values of more valuable plastic and OCC tanked. So it might also be capitalism, is some strange way that is forcing people to look at the actual problems with consumption instead of pretending like it isn't an issue and they can recycle it all.
I remember you talking about this in the US pol thread a long while back. And I understand everything you mentioned here. What you're talking about is why we have paper straws. There was a pesticide being developed that ate plastics over time but I haven't read or seen anything about it. But to your point, the capitalism of shipping to poorer countries and leaving it up to them to figure out what to do with it is what I was saying; they don't know how to properly dispose of it. They do exactly what you said. Now that there is gaining outcry for everyone to actually do something to stop the practice and attempt some kind of waste management/mitigation, things are looking bad for developed nations because we didn't invest in the means to actually do something about it. Now the costs are too high and people don't want to take the leap. So they find other smaller, achievable goals and that placates the people for the time being.
Sadly all over the world the bolded part of what you wrote is going on. "Green" people are scared to tell the whole truth on costs and so on because they think people won't do it and then the quality slips to make it work at that price down to a point where it might even be doing more harm than good. And money driven people do just enough Green stuff to keep them selling what they want to make a profit. China and US are just two sides of the same coin when it comes to this relationship. The only difference is the Americans who are getting rich off of it are arms length from the government, though "donating" tons to the parties, and in China the ones getting filthy rich off of it are the people in the government or their family.
In the US they keep the masses at bay and happy by giving them a fairly high standard of living with some fear and repression. In China they do it by increasing the standard of living slightly and overt fear and repression.
I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books.
On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books.
If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now!
On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books.
Probably be more effective sending billionaires up there and dropping them off until we're out of billionaires.
On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books.
If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now!
That's why I said to towards the sun or some distant location. Doesn't have to be confined to LEO or anywhere close. Besides, space is vast. As long as we have the trajectory aimed away from the earth outwards, we should be fine. If we do start to trash space because of LEO debris or we start burying stuff on the moon (which sounds...stupid) then we'll have a problem.
Or we can do what GH suggests and send everyone that is making this possible to space and die here with the planet.
On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books.
If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now!
That's why I said to towards the sun or some distant location. Doesn't have to be confined to LEO or anywhere close. Besides, space is vast. As long as we have the trajectory aimed away from the earth outwards, we should be fine. If we do start to trash space because of LEO debris or we start burying stuff on the moon (which sounds...stupid) then we'll have a problem.
Or we can do what GH suggests and send everyone that is making this possible to space and die here with the planet.
The strangest part of his plan is the second most billionaires to the US is from China, only 100 back now, less than 30 if they take over Hong Kong. And they might even have more next year based on the rate they are gaining them. I always thought socialism involved workers owning the means of production which seems to make having billionaires an impossibility... In China workers have less rights, Businesses have less regulation and the owners are getting richer at a faster pace.
Killing all the rich might sound like a good idea to some(pretty awful to me, I'm not a big fan of killing anyone or generalizing on groups of people, billionacide or whatever it would be called sounds terrible to me.), but much like when a tyrant gets taken down, the next person usually just becomes another tyrant or even worse.
It would probably be a much more successful route to find a way to make all the regulations global, it would up the cost of everything, but I don't think that is a bad thing. And to those that say that impossible, maybe, but so is rounding up and killing all the billionaires AND it has a lot better chance of success.
On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books.
If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now!
That's why I said to towards the sun or some distant location. Doesn't have to be confined to LEO or anywhere close. Besides, space is vast. As long as we have the trajectory aimed away from the earth outwards, we should be fine. If we do start to trash space because of LEO debris or we start burying stuff on the moon (which sounds...stupid) then we'll have a problem.
Or we can do what GH suggests and send everyone that is making this possible to space and die here with the planet.
You're right, using SpaceX to throw garbage into space is totally not absurdly foolish.
On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books.
If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now!
That's why I said to towards the sun or some distant location. Doesn't have to be confined to LEO or anywhere close. Besides, space is vast. As long as we have the trajectory aimed away from the earth outwards, we should be fine. If we do start to trash space because of LEO debris or we start burying stuff on the moon (which sounds...stupid) then we'll have a problem.
Or we can do what GH suggests and send everyone that is making this possible to space and die here with the planet.
You're right, using SpaceX to throw garbage into space is totally not absurdly foolish.
When you have the biggest incinerator in the galaxy...not really. It's all a matter of how much we can send, how often, and how cost effective it is. We're running out of places to dump our shit, so might as well think outside the box a bit. Unless you'd prefer eating with your hands or using wooden utensils like it's 1500.
On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books.
If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now!
That's why I said to towards the sun or some distant location. Doesn't have to be confined to LEO or anywhere close. Besides, space is vast. As long as we have the trajectory aimed away from the earth outwards, we should be fine. If we do start to trash space because of LEO debris or we start burying stuff on the moon (which sounds...stupid) then we'll have a problem.
Or we can do what GH suggests and send everyone that is making this possible to space and die here with the planet.
You're right, using SpaceX to throw garbage into space is totally not absurdly foolish.
When you have the biggest incinerator in the galaxy...not really. It's all a matter of how much we can send, how often, and how cost effective it is. We're running out of places to dump our shit, so might as well think outside the box a bit. Unless you'd prefer eating with your hands or using wooden utensils like it's 1500.
I honestly thought you were joking, I don't think I should indulge this any more. It's not the biggest incinerator in the galaxy either...
On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books.
If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now!
That's why I said to towards the sun or some distant location. Doesn't have to be confined to LEO or anywhere close. Besides, space is vast. As long as we have the trajectory aimed away from the earth outwards, we should be fine. If we do start to trash space because of LEO debris or we start burying stuff on the moon (which sounds...stupid) then we'll have a problem.
Or we can do what GH suggests and send everyone that is making this possible to space and die here with the planet.
You're right, using SpaceX to throw garbage into space is totally not absurdly foolish.
When you have the biggest incinerator in the galaxy...not really. It's all a matter of how much we can send, how often, and how cost effective it is. We're running out of places to dump our shit, so might as well think outside the box a bit. Unless you'd prefer eating with your hands or using wooden utensils like it's 1500.
Well I think Metal utensils work fine. As for fast food I think some sort of deposit system on reusable ones or people bringing their own would probably work. However all the single use plastic talk whether its bags or straws really misses the mark. The much bigger issue is the packaging on everything and general consumption.
For the garbage to space I could see it be considered for super dangerous hazardous waste like nuclear, people still really are not sure on how to properly handle it and decommission a old site. Start there and then as you said depending on costs other things but for now it is so wildly expensive it would not be considered. And with most recycling logistics is really your enemy, there is often a place that handles the material well, but you have to take into account the dollar cost and also the cost to the environment by getting it there. My guess is a rocket launch is pretty awful for the environment but I have back up for that. Quite often in my line of business we find a material that is recyclable in a large center, like carpet underlay for example but when we math it all out either the money, or the carbon cost of transporting is too high to justify doing it. Or our amount while large to us, is small on the real scale. We are trying to up the cost of landfilling material to make the equation make sense more often, but that is not popular and does not move the needle as fast as we would like either.
In countries where people have choice some of these things are much harder then in say China where the government can just force the change, and if people disagree they just jail or "reeducate them". The big issue there is rarely in human history have we had dictators that actually make decisions based on what is good for the people. So we have the slow changing democracies where most people choose what is best for themselves in the short term and use the excuse of they are just one person and can't make a big difference. Or we have the dictatorship where that person is making the decision for millions (or billion in China's case) but they are making what is best for them also. I think I would place my money on the democracies outperforming the dictatorships in the long term. But either way it is a massive hill to climb.
On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books.
If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now!
That's why I said to towards the sun or some distant location. Doesn't have to be confined to LEO or anywhere close. Besides, space is vast. As long as we have the trajectory aimed away from the earth outwards, we should be fine. If we do start to trash space because of LEO debris or we start burying stuff on the moon (which sounds...stupid) then we'll have a problem.
Or we can do what GH suggests and send everyone that is making this possible to space and die here with the planet.
You're right, using SpaceX to throw garbage into space is totally not absurdly foolish.
When you have the biggest incinerator in the galaxy...not really. It's all a matter of how much we can send, how often, and how cost effective it is. We're running out of places to dump our shit, so might as well think outside the box a bit. Unless you'd prefer eating with your hands or using wooden utensils like it's 1500.
Well I think Metal utensils work fine. As for fast food I think some sort of deposit system on reusable ones or people bringing their own would probably work. However all the single use plastic talk whether its bags or straws really misses the mark. The much bigger issue is the packaging on everything and general consumption.
For the garbage to space I could see it be considered for super dangerous hazardous waste like nuclear, people still really are not sure on how to properly handle it and decommission a old site. Start there and then as you said depending on costs other things but for now it is so wildly expensive it would not be considered. And with most recycling logistics is really your enemy, there is often a place that handles the material well, but you have to take into account the dollar cost and also the cost to the environment by getting it there. My guess is a rocket launch is pretty awful for the environment but I have back up for that. Quite often in my line of business we find a material that is recyclable in a large center, like carpet underlay for example but when we math it all out either the money, or the carbon cost of transporting is too high to justify doing it. Or our amount while large to us, is small on the real scale. We are trying to up the cost of landfilling material to make the equation make sense more often, but that is not popular and does not move the needle as fast as we would like either.
In countries where people have choice some of these things are much harder then in say China where the government can just force the change, and if people disagree they just jail or "reeducate them". The big issue there is rarely in human history have we had dictators that actually make decisions based on what is good for the people. So we have the slow changing democracies where most people choose what is best for themselves in the short term and use the excuse of they are just one person and can't make a big difference. Or we have the dictatorship where that person is making the decision for millions (or billion in China's case) but they are making what is best for them also. I think I would place my money on the democracies outperforming the dictatorships in the long term. But either way it is a massive hill to climb.
That's been my entire point. The carbon footprint is too large to think that anything radical is going to make a difference over a slow and measured response. The space thing was just an idea to show that with the technology we have available, that shouldn't be ruled out. The bringing your own supplies to fast food restaurants to eat has health code violations written all over it so I don't see that happening unless they do hard plastic everything and force recycle them/reuse and sterilize the hell out of it. They do it in restaurants but we're talking a massive scale in fast food where it's just easier to dispose of it after consumption than storing, cleaning (where's that water coming from?), and making sure it's all sterile for people to use.
As to the part about China and other countries forcing change, I agree with that paragraph. But I don't see it working in some democracies because of intentional undereducated populations voting against their best interests. So we'll need a mix of forcing change (paris climate accord along with penalties for nations that don't meet it) as well as voters voting what is the most pressing change that needs to be tackled immediately. It's a balancing act.
On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books.
If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now!
That's why I said to towards the sun or some distant location. Doesn't have to be confined to LEO or anywhere close. Besides, space is vast. As long as we have the trajectory aimed away from the earth outwards, we should be fine. If we do start to trash space because of LEO debris or we start burying stuff on the moon (which sounds...stupid) then we'll have a problem.
Or we can do what GH suggests and send everyone that is making this possible to space and die here with the planet.
You're right, using SpaceX to throw garbage into space is totally not absurdly foolish.
When you have the biggest incinerator in the galaxy...not really. It's all a matter of how much we can send, how often, and how cost effective it is. We're running out of places to dump our shit, so might as well think outside the box a bit. Unless you'd prefer eating with your hands or using wooden utensils like it's 1500.
Well I think Metal utensils work fine. As for fast food I think some sort of deposit system on reusable ones or people bringing their own would probably work. However all the single use plastic talk whether its bags or straws really misses the mark. The much bigger issue is the packaging on everything and general consumption.
For the garbage to space I could see it be considered for super dangerous hazardous waste like nuclear, people still really are not sure on how to properly handle it and decommission a old site. Start there and then as you said depending on costs other things but for now it is so wildly expensive it would not be considered. And with most recycling logistics is really your enemy, there is often a place that handles the material well, but you have to take into account the dollar cost and also the cost to the environment by getting it there. My guess is a rocket launch is pretty awful for the environment but I have back up for that. Quite often in my line of business we find a material that is recyclable in a large center, like carpet underlay for example but when we math it all out either the money, or the carbon cost of transporting is too high to justify doing it. Or our amount while large to us, is small on the real scale. We are trying to up the cost of landfilling material to make the equation make sense more often, but that is not popular and does not move the needle as fast as we would like either.
In countries where people have choice some of these things are much harder then in say China where the government can just force the change, and if people disagree they just jail or "reeducate them". The big issue there is rarely in human history have we had dictators that actually make decisions based on what is good for the people. So we have the slow changing democracies where most people choose what is best for themselves in the short term and use the excuse of they are just one person and can't make a big difference. Or we have the dictatorship where that person is making the decision for millions (or billion in China's case) but they are making what is best for them also. I think I would place my money on the democracies outperforming the dictatorships in the long term. But either way it is a massive hill to climb.
That's been my entire point. The carbon footprint is too large to think that anything radical is going to make a difference over a slow and measured response. The space thing was just an idea to show that with the technology we have available, that shouldn't be ruled out. The bringing your own supplies to fast food restaurants to eat has health code violations written all over it so I don't see that happening unless they do hard plastic everything and force recycle them/reuse and sterilize the hell out of it. They do it in restaurants but we're talking a massive scale in fast food where it's just easier to dispose of it after consumption than storing, cleaning (where's that water coming from?), and making sure it's all sterile for people to use.
As to the part about China and other countries forcing change, I agree with that paragraph. But I don't see it working in some democracies because of intentional undereducated populations voting against their best interests. So we'll need a mix of forcing change (paris climate accord along with penalties for nations that don't meet it) as well as voters voting what is the most pressing change that needs to be tackled immediately. It's a balancing act.
Im fairly sure if it is your fork that you use it would be ok from a health code stand point. The thing is people want it to be easy, starbucks has been giving discounts for people who bring their own mugs for years now but almost no one takes advantage of it.
What some green festivals do is you pay a deposit once on cutlery/plates/cups so on and then you can drop them off at any of the food places dirty and get new clean ones with your food, and then at the end you can jsut get your deposit back on your last drop off of the weekend. It works pretty well but you also have a lot of people who are green minded going and there is tons of social pressure to not throw them out or complain about the system and so on. Bringing that environment to the masses would be a huge challenge.
On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote: sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting(Green space growth) to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.(Indian,because of Reclamation farmland)
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry,in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country(1.4billion) in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.) so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God.
Im not accusing China, im pointing out fact. And as you mention China is not the only one doing it, they just are the one most talked about because they are the biggest and have the most economic power. You are also right that they are at a different stage than the West, the hope is that rather than follow the mistakes they would learn from them and do something different.
The point that really frustrates me is that the "need" to do this to feed their people. I call bullshit, not now, now they have a lot of billionaires, how about instead of making the relative few rich off the environment and backs of the poor through cheap labor they spread some of that wealth around? How about instead of vanity projects that are also terrible for the environment, such as the worlds largest bridge, they build proper waste management systems. This is why I get so frustrated when people on the left fall all over themselves to talk about the greatness of China, they are not socialists, have not been for decades. They are a command capitalist economy who cares more about wealth and power for the few than betterment of all their people. They are basically all that is wrong with the west with the added awfulness of being way behind in environmental rules and have all the awful human rights abuses of dictatorships.
China can and should do better.
Edit: I should add China is not alone in the can and should do better department. Almost every country can and should do better, but the ones with more wealth have no excuse not to be, and the developing countries need to look to the mistakes that countries further along made and not repeat them. It is a global problem that will take a global solution.
I think most of what you said is completely correct.
However, I still want to explain in more detail why it is difficult for China to do better.
First of all, I think most people overestimate the authority of China's central government. In fact, in the history of China as a whole, China's domestic politics is often the entanglement between the central government and local governments. Therefore, after China's reform and opening up, the central government chose to centralize the local finances to the central government in Beijing, so as to improve the ability to control local governments. In fact, even in recent years, local governments and the central government have had a lot of contradictions.
There are two main reasons for that. But I want to talk about the political system in China actually operates. Although China has different political parties, in fact all political parties are also ruling parties. Although many people think that the Chinese Communist Party has absolute control, it is necessary to explain that scientists,writers, judges, lawyers and high Technical talents(democratic parties), and other social backbones, often belong to other parties. For example, the Chinese teacher group, the Jiu San Society (a democratic party)has a very large influence.
China’s political system can be divided into the (Communist Party as the main body) the multi-party Coalition government, the political consultation system (including many non-partisan people, businessmen, film workers, etc.), as well as the people’s congress (which is elected by local residents). (From the community to the city, to the provinces, and finally to the country).
So even from the outside world, Chinese politics seems to be very stable, such as a piece of iron. I think the main reason is that in Chinese culture, there is a tradition of maintaining the authority of the central government to ensure the credibility of the government. Usually,the fierce quarrel in the West often does not appear in the Supreme Council (National People's Congress). In fact, some previous meetings(before NPC) often have very intense quarrels. Therefore, the things presented in the Supreme Council are not actuallyselective, because these policies must be approved by the academic community, the political circles, and the private sector. Otherwise, the meaningless policies will make people lose confidence in the government.
However, there is a counterexample: the Three Gorges Project. This hydropower project has been widely criticized in China, especially in the scientific community, intellectuals (such as teachers, lawyers, the scientific community, etc.). However, the central government still hopes to vigorously promote this project, and there have been many differences in the Chinese Communist Party. At the National People's Congress, the overwhelming majority of people abstained from voting. The rest of the people also had a lot of negative votes, but the project still passed with a slight advantage. (A very interesting thing is that the ironic article about that appeared in many national-level exams in China,in order to against the Three Gorges Hydropower Project.
This policy has led to a city with a long history(maybe more than 1000years) of being submerged under water, and a large number of residents have been displaced (fortunately, that place is not far from my hometown.So I experienced this incident personally and heard a lot of different opinions. Most local residents are very satisfied with the government subsidies because it is a huge fortune. People in other surrounding areas, although envious of huge subsidies, also criticized the government's policy is not good.).
However, it is hard to believe that the groups supporting the Three Gorges water conservancy project are mainly the industrial groups and most ordinary people.
Because the background of the Three Gorges Project is the lack of large-scale power in China, even though I have settled in Shanghai at the time, schools and residential areas still have more than once(Half a day or more)a week of power outages.
The people are eager to use inexhaustible power. The Three Gorges Project and the subsequent corresponding projects have made China gradually get rid of the lack of power, and now the government is vigorously managing illegal thermal power plants. (pollution exceeds the corresponding standard)
Can the Chinese government do better on this matter? The reality is often cruel and ruthless. They can't at all.
There was no technology to develop solar energy or wind power. Even today, it is unable to meet the huge power needs. China's own nuclear power technology can't support the country's power, and because of the technological blockade of advanced western countries and the Chernobyl accident, all walks of life in China are very cautious about nuclear power development. Thermal power generation has no resources to respond (because China's shortage of oil, most coal-fired power plants use coal, and China's coal often contains too much sulfide, not good coal).
We are returning to the topic just now. We talked about China having a lot of billionaires, but China is a country with an area comparable to that of Europe and a population comparable to all developed countries.
Billionaires are often from the advanced science industry, the real estate industry, and the Internet industry. The places where these rich people were are developed areas of China, such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen.These places have been well managed. For example, the Suzhou River in Shanghai was heavily polluted, but it has now reached a state of non-polluting.
However, in other parts of China with a large population, because of the geographical conditions and education level (and customs), those billionaires are not willing to invest because China has no inheritance tax. Government officials have to do this based on their promotion and the lives of local people. They have better condition than before. Of course, there are many legal restrictions today, but they also limit their development. However, many poor areas prefer to confront the government to reach the government to issue cash, and are not willing to use the government's infrastructure to work (yes, most people do not have formal jobs, PS. Extremely poor areas). Think about it, how much money the Chinese government has invested in building infrastructure and hope to drive development in remote areas. They have the best roads in the world, the best high-speed rail, the most complete power, the most advanced Internet, and even they can use 4G to play mobile games in the mountains (China has more than half of the world's 4G base stations).
Most areas are not purely for economic reasons. Because in addition to the development of basic industries, they have nothing to develop, no relative education, medical care.
In addition, the Chinese government does hope that these billionaires can help underdeveloped regions, even the Chinese government and state-controlled enterprises have invested huge amounts of money.
But just as Hong Kong is for mainland China. These merchants who tend to be Western capitalism are the guarantee of the vitality of the Chinese market and the interface of opening up to the outside world, because almost all Western advanced countries (including South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, India, etc.) refuse to conduct business or activity with companies with official Chinese background. (Of course they are completely correct.)
These rich people are also the main members of the Chinese political consultation system. In other words, the outside world often thinks that the Communist Party’s own Chinese politics,but infcat China politics is actually the overall politics of all industries. The central government does have considerable authority, but it also means that they can't interfere with the market all the time. If the central government can't stay out of the way(Maintain absolute neutrality and silence)in the vast majority of things, in most cases, the authority of the central government will be greatly Impact.
In addition, the absolute authority of the central government usually means that the central government is constantly making compromises to all walks of life.
So they can't do anything about these rich people, because everything in the rich is legal. This is also why many people in China are very supportive of President Xi Jinping. China's rural population of more than 500 million people is a staunch supporter of the Communist Party, and (more than half of the 800 million urban population )ordinary workers are staunch supporters too. There is only one reason. The Chinese Communist Party is the only group that is willing to use the Constitution to protect them and even fight for their interests.
By this way, the Communist Party of China has absolute leadership over Chinese politics. But CCP is also a huge organization, and it is equally difficult to achieve unity on most things.(Because they come from different places, from different industries.)
Elites often want to gain higher status and rights in the state system. And Chinese government officials are very special. On the one hand, they are elected by the parliament. On the one hand, because candidates must have corresponding political achievements, there are often only several candidates.
In China, the most important contradiction that needs to be resolved is the mutual restraint between the government, business, academia and the three elite groups.
So sometimes I feel that it is ridiculous to claim that some senior Chinese officials have earned huge amounts of wealth. Because Chinese government officials are often the top elites in China, they may be able to earn more if they don't become government officials. This is related to Chinese culture because officials need to be accountable to the government and the people. So many people have difficulty understanding why trump can become the president of the United States. He has not even had a good experience in managing a city. In China, a provincial-level senior official has more experience and better political performance than the prime minister or president of any member state of the European Union. The EU officials, in my opinion, are totally incapable of doing any effective measures against the EU.In contrast to officials of the Chinese central government, they are extremely lacking in management experience in a multi-ethnic, multicultural mixed region.
So this is why the Chinese government and government officials have been criticized for a long time, but China is getting better and better in such criticism.
Therefore, in China, many problems are often not economic or political issues. In the end, they are almost all caused by social problems and their own culture(and Geographical environmental factors).
I think this is a kind of sorrow, because the Chinese are used to this situation and are keen on it. But what is confusing is that it is difficult to prove that there is something wrong with this, except that the feat of individual heroism cannot be accomplished.
But in general, whether China can do it or why. China should do better and must do better. But for the Chinese, perhaps they are more eager to be under the same conditions as the Western countries, rather than treating China as a whole, and letting a Chinese only gain half of the pollution rights of Westerners.
addition:It's not that the rich in China don't want to contribute to the society, but they prefer to invest money in combating desertification, improving basic education in poor areas, improving the utilization rate of urban resources (such as urban transportation system), and more efficient and intelligent garbage collection and treatment system.
Because it's easy to feel frustrated to improve the economic level of remote areas. And often do not get any effect and return. For businessmen, this is an unacceptable waste.
Therefore, it has to be funded by the government, but the government can only invest in infrastructure construction and education funds (few high-level teacher groups are willing to enter remote areas, including the central and western regions which are not local central cities).
On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote: sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting(Green space growth) to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.(Indian,because of Reclamation farmland)
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry,in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country(1.4billion) in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.) so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God.
Im not accusing China, im pointing out fact. And as you mention China is not the only one doing it, they just are the one most talked about because they are the biggest and have the most economic power. You are also right that they are at a different stage than the West, the hope is that rather than follow the mistakes they would learn from them and do something different.
The point that really frustrates me is that the "need" to do this to feed their people. I call bullshit, not now, now they have a lot of billionaires, how about instead of making the relative few rich off the environment and backs of the poor through cheap labor they spread some of that wealth around? How about instead of vanity projects that are also terrible for the environment, such as the worlds largest bridge, they build proper waste management systems. This is why I get so frustrated when people on the left fall all over themselves to talk about the greatness of China, they are not socialists, have not been for decades. They are a command capitalist economy who cares more about wealth and power for the few than betterment of all their people. They are basically all that is wrong with the west with the added awfulness of being way behind in environmental rules and have all the awful human rights abuses of dictatorships.
China can and should do better.
Edit: I should add China is not alone in the can and should do better department. Almost every country can and should do better, but the ones with more wealth have no excuse not to be, and the developing countries need to look to the mistakes that countries further along made and not repeat them. It is a global problem that will take a global solution.
I think most of what you said is completely correct.
However, I still want to explain in more detail why it is difficult for China to do better.
First of all, I think most people overestimate the authority of China's central government. In fact, in the history of China as a whole, China's domestic politics is often the entanglement between the central government and local governments. Therefore, after China's reform and opening up, the central government chose to centralize the local finances to the central government in Beijing, so as to improve the ability to control local governments. In fact, even in recent years, local governments and the central government have had a lot of contradictions.
There are two main reasons for that. But I want to talk about the political system in China actually operates. Although China has different political parties, in fact all political parties are also ruling parties. Although many people think that the Chinese Communist Party has absolute control, it is necessary to explain that scientists,writers, judges, lawyers and high Technical talents(democratic parties), and other social backbones, often belong to other parties. For example, the Chinese teacher group, the Jiu San Society (a democratic party)has a very large influence.
China’s political system can be divided into the (Communist Party as the main body) the multi-party Coalition government, the political consultation system (including many non-partisan people, businessmen, film workers, etc.), as well as the people’s congress (which is elected by local residents). (From the community to the city, to the provinces, and finally to the country).
So even from the outside world, Chinese politics seems to be very stable, such as a piece of iron. I think the main reason is that in Chinese culture, there is a tradition of maintaining the authority of the central government to ensure the credibility of the government. Usually,the fierce quarrel in the West often does not appear in the Supreme Council (National People's Congress). In fact, some previous meetings(before NPC) often have very intense quarrels. Therefore, the things presented in the Supreme Council are not actuallyselective, because these policies must be approved by the academic community, the political circles, and the private sector. Otherwise, the meaningless policies will make people lose confidence in the government.
However, there is a counterexample: the Three Gorges Project. This hydropower project has been widely criticized in China, especially in the scientific community, intellectuals (such as teachers, lawyers, the scientific community, etc.). However, the central government still hopes to vigorously promote this project, and there have been many differences in the Chinese Communist Party. At the National People's Congress, the overwhelming majority of people abstained from voting. The rest of the people also had a lot of negative votes, but the project still passed with a slight advantage. (A very interesting thing is that the ironic article about that appeared in many national-level exams in China,in order to against the Three Gorges Hydropower Project.
This policy has led to a city with a long history(maybe more than 1000years) of being submerged under water, and a large number of residents have been displaced (fortunately, that place is not far from my hometown.So I experienced this incident personally and heard a lot of different opinions. Most local residents are very satisfied with the government subsidies because it is a huge fortune. People in other surrounding areas, although envious of huge subsidies, also criticized the government's policy is not good.).
However, it is hard to believe that the groups supporting the Three Gorges water conservancy project are mainly the industrial groups and most ordinary people.
Because the background of the Three Gorges Project is the lack of large-scale power in China, even though I have settled in Shanghai at the time, schools and residential areas still have more than once(Half a day or more)a week of power outages.
The people are eager to use inexhaustible power. The Three Gorges Project and the subsequent corresponding projects have made China gradually get rid of the lack of power, and now the government is vigorously managing illegal thermal power plants. (pollution exceeds the corresponding standard)
Can the Chinese government do better on this matter? The reality is often cruel and ruthless. They can't at all.
There was no technology to develop solar energy or wind power. Even today, it is unable to meet the huge power needs. China's own nuclear power technology can't support the country's power, and because of the technological blockade of advanced western countries and the Chernobyl accident, all walks of life in China are very cautious about nuclear power development. Thermal power generation has no resources to respond (because China's shortage of oil, most coal-fired power plants use coal, and China's coal often contains too much sulfide, not good coal).
We are returning to the topic just now. We talked about China having a lot of billionaires, but China is a country with an area comparable to that of Europe and a population comparable to all developed countries.
Billionaires are often from the advanced science industry, the real estate industry, and the Internet industry. The places where these rich people were are developed areas of China, such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen.These places have been well managed. For example, the Suzhou River in Shanghai was heavily polluted, but it has now reached a state of non-polluting.
However, in other parts of China with a large population, because of the geographical conditions and education level (and customs), those billionaires are not willing to invest because China has no inheritance tax. Government officials have to do this based on their promotion and the lives of local people. They have better condition than before. Of course, there are many legal restrictions today, but they also limit their development. However, many poor areas prefer to confront the government to reach the government to issue cash, and are not willing to use the government's infrastructure to work (yes, most people do not have formal jobs, PS. Extremely poor areas). Think about it, how much money the Chinese government has invested in building infrastructure and hope to drive development in remote areas. They have the best roads in the world, the best high-speed rail, the most complete power, the most advanced Internet, and even they can use 4G to play mobile games in the mountains (China has more than half of the world's 4G base stations).
Most areas are not purely for economic reasons. Because in addition to the development of basic industries, they have nothing to develop, no relative education, medical care.
In addition, the Chinese government does hope that these billionaires can help underdeveloped regions, even the Chinese government and state-controlled enterprises have invested huge amounts of money.
But just as Hong Kong is for mainland China. These merchants who tend to be Western capitalism are the guarantee of the vitality of the Chinese market and the interface of opening up to the outside world, because almost all Western advanced countries (including South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, India, etc.) refuse to conduct business or activity with companies with official Chinese background. (Of course they are completely correct.)
These rich people are also the main members of the Chinese political consultation system. In other words, the outside world often thinks that the Communist Party’s own Chinese politics,but infcat China politics is actually the overall politics of all industries. The central government does have considerable authority, but it also means that they can't interfere with the market all the time. If the central government can't stay out of the way(Maintain absolute neutrality and silence)in the vast majority of things, in most cases, the authority of the central government will be greatly Impact.
In addition, the absolute authority of the central government usually means that the central government is constantly making compromises to all walks of life.
So they can't do anything about these rich people, because everything in the rich is legal. This is also why many people in China are very supportive of President Xi Jinping. China's rural population of more than 500 million people is a staunch supporter of the Communist Party, and (more than half of the 800 million urban population )ordinary workers are staunch supporters too. There is only one reason. The Chinese Communist Party is the only group that is willing to use the Constitution to protect them and even fight for their interests.
By this way, the Communist Party of China has absolute leadership over Chinese politics. But CCP is also a huge organization, and it is equally difficult to achieve unity on most things.(Because they come from different places, from different industries.)
Elites often want to gain higher status and rights in the state system. And Chinese government officials are very special. On the one hand, they are elected by the parliament. On the one hand, because candidates must have corresponding political achievements, there are often only several candidates.
In China, the most important contradiction that needs to be resolved is the mutual restraint between the government, business, academia and the three elite groups.
So sometimes I feel that it is ridiculous to claim that some senior Chinese officials have earned huge amounts of wealth. Because Chinese government officials are often the top elites in China, they may be able to earn more if they don't become government officials. This is related to Chinese culture because officials need to be accountable to the government and the people. So many people have difficulty understanding why trump can become the president of the United States. He has not even had a good experience in managing a city. In China, a provincial-level senior official has more experience and better political performance than the prime minister or president of any member state of the European Union. The EU officials, in my opinion, are totally incapable of doing any effective measures against the EU.In contrast to officials of the Chinese central government, they are extremely lacking in management experience in a multi-ethnic, multicultural mixed region.
So this is why the Chinese government and government officials have been criticized for a long time, but China is getting better and better in such criticism.
Therefore, in China, many problems are often not economic or political issues. In the end, they are almost all caused by social problems and their own culture(and Geographical environmental factors).
I think this is a kind of sorrow, because the Chinese are used to this situation and are keen on it. But what is confusing is that it is difficult to prove that there is something wrong with this, except that the feat of individual heroism cannot be accomplished.
But in general, whether China can do it or why. China should do better and must do better. But for the Chinese, perhaps they are more eager to be under the same conditions as the Western countries, rather than treating China as a whole, and letting a Chinese only gain half of the pollution rights of Westerners.
addition:It's not that the rich in China don't want to contribute to the society, but they prefer to invest money in combating desertification, improving basic education in poor areas, improving the utilization rate of urban resources (such as urban transportation system), and more efficient and intelligent garbage collection and treatment system.
Because it's easy to feel frustrated to improve the economic level of remote areas. And often do not get any effect and return. For businessmen, this is an unacceptable waste.
Therefore, it has to be funded by the government, but the government can only invest in infrastructure construction and education funds (few high-level teacher groups are willing to enter remote areas, including the central and western regions which are not local central cities).
Wow thank you very much for taking the time to go into such detail, I learned lots. I know quite a few people who taught english their one for 5 years but they didnt even go into this level of detail and a few who emigrated but their info could be out of date. I saw that Shanghai instituted a waste separation system (4 bins ill post the article below when I find it again) so I do see progress, but much like tge rest of the world it is not fast enough, and from your explanations on the political situation I see there are more challenges than I knew about.
While you are here if you could, would you give your take on the reeducation centers for the Muslims? I have a decent amount but many of the reporters have trouble getting people to comment as they have loved ones at them now or back from them.
This is pretty exciting if they can do what they claim they can do. Basically this company (backed by bill gates) has found a way to use mirrors and AI to reflect sunlight and generate extreme heat above 1000 Celsius. This is incredibly important because it means for teh first time many industrial processes, like making cement, steel glass, and so on can be made with out CO2. Cement production alone makes 7% of the global CO2 emissions.
If they can do what they claim the can this is a true game changer and great news for the environment.
Any time a market/industry is about to be disrupted, the people with the most to lose will find a way. I fully expect some kind of story about the people behind it to come to light (child molester or whatever) and it doesn't even have to be real. They will just want the technology to not take a big bit of their bottom line. You can look at how they did buses and rail in the US cities with cars.
I hope this does take off and something wonderful comes of it. I think we need something like this to move forward and start pushing the technological envelope even further for our species to survive long term.
On November 20 2019 01:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Any time a market/industry is about to be disrupted, the people with the most to lose will find a way. I fully expect some kind of story about the people behind it to come to light (child molester or whatever) and it doesn't even have to be real. They will just want the technology to not take a big bit of their bottom line. You can look at how they did buses and rail in the US cities with cars.
I hope this does take off and something wonderful comes of it. I think we need something like this to move forward and start pushing the technological envelope even further for our species to survive long term.
It wouldn't be the first time, but until it happens might as well be hopeful! Old bill Gates will be hard to push around. Just have to hope the tests turn out well and it is safe, with that level of heat safety will always be the biggest concern.
On November 20 2019 01:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Any time a market/industry is about to be disrupted, the people with the most to lose will find a way. I fully expect some kind of story about the people behind it to come to light (child molester or whatever) and it doesn't even have to be real. They will just want the technology to not take a big bit of their bottom line. You can look at how they did buses and rail in the US cities with cars.
I hope this does take off and something wonderful comes of it. I think we need something like this to move forward and start pushing the technological envelope even further for our species to survive long term.
It wouldn't be the first time, but until it happens might as well be hopeful! Old bill Gates will be hard to push around. Just have to hope the tests turn out well and it is safe, with that level of heat safety will always be the biggest concern.
Agreed. I want it to succeed and we know we need something like this to shake things up. If this takes off, I could see a lot of 'new' tech being revealed suddenly.
I know that a lot of foundries are using electricity for heat. Wouldn't a similar technique be possible for most heat requiring industries? Thus allowing those solar cells to be far away from the plant and have transmission losses but also allow them to power any plant and not be a loss if a single plant closes down?
Though maybe it will be cheaper and a few industries can't use electric heating. I don't understand the technology well enough to know.
Secondly, wouldn't it only heat during the day? A lot of heat intensive industries run 24/7, 300+ days a year since the equipment and re-heating is too expensive to have it just standing there during night.
Yeah I feel like that isn't as huge as you're making it out to be. We can already heat stuff with solar. PV produces electricity, electricity heats the thing. The question is whether they get enough efficiency from cutting out the middleman that it justifies the extra complexity introduced by needing a giant pile of mirrors around the thing you need to heat.
I mean it's still very impressive, and if the efficiency stacks up or it's more scaleable etc etc it could be great. But I don't think it enables anything fundamental that wasn't possible before.
You guys could be right, but from the little extra reading I did it would take a lot of solar panels to generate the power in the form of electricity, though possible, and this is why countries like china who do have mass solar are still building coal power plants because of how much cement production they have.
That they are announcing the tech is good news, but it is still a long way from actually doing what they say it can do, and as you both mentioned there will be things it just cant do.
Like JimmiC said, it comes down to how effective it can be. If it can produce the heat to reach melting points of certain metals and store that energy somewhere overnight that it can be used continuously, then it is a big deal for sure. If it can take even 25% off of fossil fuels, then I see it as a win no matter the efficiency of the invention. This new tech will need to be producing a lot of ROI for the industry to adopt it or even consider it, so this should be revisited in about 5 years.
Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy.
The vilification of nuclear power may go down in history as the biggest own goal the environmental left has ever managed. The day chernobyl died is the day the climate catastrophe was locked in. Every major nuclear disaster since has probably added half a degree worth of nimbyism.
That said, as a strong supporter of nuclear power, it's possible it's too late. The lead time on new plants is extremely long - we need to be approaching net zero by the time a plant commissioned today would even be in operation. I know there are a lot of new reactor technologies around, but renewables and storage are already quite close in terms of cost/kW, are developing much more rapidly, and don't carry the same baggage.
There's no question that if we had gone nuclear even 15 years ago we wouldn't be in this situation, but since we didn't, I think the core of the solution is now elsewhere.
On November 21 2019 06:32 Erasme wrote: Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy.
meh, nuclear energy production is not a panacea.
I'm glad to see the USA and Germany go with the less expensive power generation options. Where I used to live had the lowest electricity and heating prices in North America. The people and industry benefited accordingly. It was great. For many decades Ontario was Canada's "land of opportunity". That ended when they stopped generating electricity via coal and went all nuclear. Prices skyrocketed. It screwed both industry and the people. I moved a couple hours down the road to a place where electricity prices are super low and the people and industry benefits accordingly.
I'd like to see Ontario do what Germany is doing and go back to coal.
I come from a family of economic migrants. As is my family's tradition I voted with my feet and left Ontario, Canada and went to a place with better opportunities.
Its pretty hilarious listening to Canadians talk about how the decisions they make could either destroy or rescue the global environment. Nothing Canada does matters much. Even assuming the environmental doomsayers are correct its the USA, India, and China that matters.
Its going to be interesting to see Canada try to compete with the USA now that Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord and repealed all the laws that were intended to have the USA abide by the rules in the Paris Accord.
I think Canada is going to get crushed. Ontario has been getting crushed for 10 years. Canada has one legit hope and that is Trudeau's promise to plant 2 billion trees. Trudeau's environmental projection specialists can start predicting its ok to ignore CO2 emission limits because in 30 years all these new trees will soak up all the carbon, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and whatever else these environmentalists can dream up, LOL.
On August 28 2019 21:09 Broetchenholer wrote: Australia and Canada make some sense due to the weather which also explains the States numbers to some extent, which is 20t. Canadas 27 million people have a high carbon footprint of 24t and this should be solved, the next big nation on the list would be Russia with 14t and then we come to the 10t mark where most of the other g20 nations sit at or under. So yeah, America is not the worst polluter per capita, just one of the worst.
You are calling into question someone else's #. However, at least 1 # you have is not correct. Canada has a population of ~ 37 million.
I don't think "solving" Canada means much. Again, this is even assuming the environmental doomsayers are correct.
it's a question of perspective. If you are a 30+ year old guy and you live in a rich western country and you don't have children and you don't care about what happens to humanity or the planet after you die/people who are less fortunate with where they live during your lifetime, ignoring climate is rational. If any of those don't apply to you, then even fairly moderate projections from IPCC should worry you a lot.
On November 21 2019 07:25 Belisarius wrote: The vilification of nuclear power may go down in history as the biggest own goal the environmental left has ever managed. The day chernobyl died is the day the climate catastrophe was locked in. Every major nuclear disaster since has probably added half a degree worth of nimbyism.
That said, as a strong supporter of nuclear power, it's possible it's too late. The lead time on new plants is extremely long - we need to be approaching net zero by the time a plant commissioned today would even be in operation. I know there are a lot of new reactor technologies around, but renewables and storage are already quite close in terms of cost/kW, are developing much more rapidly, and don't carry the same baggage.
There's no question that if we had gone nuclear even 15 years ago we wouldn't be in this situation, but since we didn't, I think the core of the solution is now elsewhere.
I've read various things about disposing of the nuclear waste, some says it is relatively easy and than other stuff says we actually have no idea what to do with it and are just storing it in ways that may also not be that safe. Nuclear may be just trading one problem for another.
That being said if the nuclear creates a problem further down the line it might be the best way to go for now until we can come up with better alternatives. The problem with so much money being involved in science is it hard to tell what is the truth and what is bought and paid for by various industries.
The US is trying to implement a new anti-science "transparency" rule which would invalidate massive amounts of research in the eyes of the government .
Sometimes a bad piece of legislation doesn’t die, it just returns in another form—call it a zombie bill. In this case, the zombie is a bill that morphed into a proposed rule that would upend how the federal government uses science in its decisionmaking. It would allow the US Environmental Protection Agency to pick and choose what science it uses to write legislation on air, water, and toxic pollution that affects human health and the environment.
Republicans tried to pass this type of legislation from 2014 to 2017, with titles such as the Secret Science Reform Act, followed the next year by the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act. The idea, which on the surface seems like a good one, was to force the EPA to use only research that is publicly accessible, reproducible, and independently verified.
Critics, including much of the US scientific community, complained it would throw out nearly all epidemiological studies in which patients give consent to use their medical information but not their names, to protect their privacy. That would mean limiting studies on the effects of air pollution on lung disease or toxic chemicals’ effects on Parkinson’s disease and cancer, for example. Scientists also argued that some data, by its nature, can never be reproduced. That would include, for example, the collected particles spewed out by erupting volcanoes, or oil-stained creatures from the Deepwater Horizon spill, or tissue samples taken from soldiers exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.
On nuclear, the nuclear industry has been pushing for less oversight, and it’s working.
Fewer mock commando raids to test nuclear power plants’ defenses against terrorist attacks. Fewer, smaller government inspections for plant safety issues. Less notice to the public and to state governors when problems arise.
They’re part of the money-saving rollbacks sought by the country’s nuclear industry under President Trump and already approved or pending approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, largely with little input from the general public.
The nuclear power industry says the safety culture in the U.S. nuclear industry — 40 years after a partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania — is “exceptional” and merits the easing of government inspections.
Opponents say the changes are bringing the administration’s business-friendly, rule-cutting mission to an industry — nuclear reactors — in which the stakes are too high to cut corners.
While many of the regulatory rollbacks happening at other agencies under the current administration may be concerning, “there aren’t many that come with the existential risks of a nuclear reactor having a malfunction,” said Geoff Fettus, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council on nuclear issues.
On November 21 2019 07:25 Belisarius wrote: The vilification of nuclear power may go down in history as the biggest own goal the environmental left has ever managed. The day chernobyl died is the day the climate catastrophe was locked in. Every major nuclear disaster since has probably added half a degree worth of nimbyism.
That said, as a strong supporter of nuclear power, it's possible it's too late. The lead time on new plants is extremely long - we need to be approaching net zero by the time a plant commissioned today would even be in operation. I know there are a lot of new reactor technologies around, but renewables and storage are already quite close in terms of cost/kW, are developing much more rapidly, and don't carry the same baggage.
There's no question that if we had gone nuclear even 15 years ago we wouldn't be in this situation, but since we didn't, I think the core of the solution is now elsewhere.
I've read various things about disposing of the nuclear waste, some says it is relatively easy and than other stuff says we actually have no idea what to do with it and are just storing it in ways that may also not be that safe. Nuclear may be just trading one problem for another.
That being said if the nuclear creates a problem further down the line it might be the best way to go for now until we can come up with better alternatives. The problem with so much money being involved in science is it hard to tell what is the truth and what is bought and paid for by various industries.
Nuclear waste is only "dangerous" in movies. You can dig a hole and it won't move an inch. It's not going to "infect" anything. Nuclear power is the most eco friendly energy we have by far. I am deeply angry at merkel and at the direction germany took post fukushima as it enabled france's own idiots to try to close as many nuclear plants as possible. Also, it works, as seen in France.
On November 21 2019 07:25 Belisarius wrote: The vilification of nuclear power may go down in history as the biggest own goal the environmental left has ever managed. The day chernobyl died is the day the climate catastrophe was locked in. Every major nuclear disaster since has probably added half a degree worth of nimbyism.
That said, as a strong supporter of nuclear power, it's possible it's too late. The lead time on new plants is extremely long - we need to be approaching net zero by the time a plant commissioned today would even be in operation. I know there are a lot of new reactor technologies around, but renewables and storage are already quite close in terms of cost/kW, are developing much more rapidly, and don't carry the same baggage.
There's no question that if we had gone nuclear even 15 years ago we wouldn't be in this situation, but since we didn't, I think the core of the solution is now elsewhere.
I've read various things about disposing of the nuclear waste, some says it is relatively easy and than other stuff says we actually have no idea what to do with it and are just storing it in ways that may also not be that safe. Nuclear may be just trading one problem for another.
That being said if the nuclear creates a problem further down the line it might be the best way to go for now until we can come up with better alternatives. The problem with so much money being involved in science is it hard to tell what is the truth and what is bought and paid for by various industries.
Nuclear waste is only "dangerous" in movies. You can dig a hole and it won't move an inch. It's not going to "infect" anything. Nuclear power is the most eco friendly energy we have by far. I am deeply angry at merkel and at the direction germany took post fukushima as it enabled france's own idiots to try to close as many nuclear plants as possible. Also, it works, as seen in France.
On November 21 2019 07:25 Belisarius wrote: The vilification of nuclear power may go down in history as the biggest own goal the environmental left has ever managed. The day chernobyl died is the day the climate catastrophe was locked in. Every major nuclear disaster since has probably added half a degree worth of nimbyism.
That said, as a strong supporter of nuclear power, it's possible it's too late. The lead time on new plants is extremely long - we need to be approaching net zero by the time a plant commissioned today would even be in operation. I know there are a lot of new reactor technologies around, but renewables and storage are already quite close in terms of cost/kW, are developing much more rapidly, and don't carry the same baggage.
There's no question that if we had gone nuclear even 15 years ago we wouldn't be in this situation, but since we didn't, I think the core of the solution is now elsewhere.
I've read various things about disposing of the nuclear waste, some says it is relatively easy and than other stuff says we actually have no idea what to do with it and are just storing it in ways that may also not be that safe. Nuclear may be just trading one problem for another.
That being said if the nuclear creates a problem further down the line it might be the best way to go for now until we can come up with better alternatives. The problem with so much money being involved in science is it hard to tell what is the truth and what is bought and paid for by various industries.
Nuclear waste is only "dangerous" in movies. You can dig a hole and it won't move an inch. It's not going to "infect" anything. Nuclear power is the most eco friendly energy we have by far. I am deeply angry at merkel and at the direction germany took post fukushima as it enabled france's own idiots to try to close as many nuclear plants as possible. Also, it works, as seen in France.
Can you site that? It is not what I have read.
Which part ? 90% of nuclear waste can be disposed in a shallow grave where it will not have any impact until the radiation wears off. 10% is considered "high level waste" (which is mostly the fuel used). Of those 10%, 96% is uranium, 1% is plutonium and 3% is the actual waste, as the uranium and plutonium are reprocessed and recycled into new fuel. The rest has to be buried deeper where it can stay indefinitly, with no impact on the ecosystem, until we can remove it. Sites for that waste in France have to be built with a removal option. I will agree that it's a short/middle term solution. However it is clearly better than shutting down nuclear plants, opening more coal plants and building 200k solar panels or w/e. Weve had the solution for decades but fearmongering and private interests fucked us congrats source + Show Spoiler +
On November 21 2019 06:32 Erasme wrote: Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy.
meh, nuclear energy production is not a panacea.
I'm glad to see the USA and Germany go with the less expensive power generation options. Where I used to live had the lowest electricity and heating prices in North America. The people and industry benefited accordingly. It was great. For many decades Ontario was Canada's "land of opportunity". That ended when they stopped generating electricity via coal and went all nuclear. Prices skyrocketed. It screwed both industry and the people. I moved a couple hours down the road to a place where electricity prices are super low and the people and industry benefits accordingly.
I'd like to see Ontario do what Germany is doing and go back to coal.
I come from a family of economic migrants. As is my family's tradition I voted with my feet and left Ontario, Canada and went to a place with better opportunities.
Its pretty hilarious listening to Canadians talk about how the decisions they make could either destroy or rescue the global environment. Nothing Canada does matters much. Even assuming the environmental doomsayers are correct its the USA, India, and China that matters.
Its going to be interesting to see Canada try to compete with the USA now that Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord and repealed all the laws that were intended to have the USA abide by the rules in the Paris Accord.
I think Canada is going to get crushed. Ontario has been getting crushed for 10 years. Canada has one legit hope and that is Trudeau's promise to plant 2 billion trees. Trudeau's environmental projection specialists can start predicting its ok to ignore CO2 emission limits because in 30 years all these new trees will soak up all the carbon, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and whatever else these environmentalists can dream up, LOL.
On August 28 2019 21:09 Broetchenholer wrote: Australia and Canada make some sense due to the weather which also explains the States numbers to some extent, which is 20t. Canadas 27 million people have a high carbon footprint of 24t and this should be solved, the next big nation on the list would be Russia with 14t and then we come to the 10t mark where most of the other g20 nations sit at or under. So yeah, America is not the worst polluter per capita, just one of the worst.
You are calling into question someone else's #. However, at least 1 # you have is not correct. Canada has a population of ~ 37 million.
I don't think "solving" Canada means much. Again, this is even assuming the environmental doomsayers are correct.
First, what makes you think that coal is cheaper than nuclear ? Unless you're literally sitting on a coal mine, then nuclear is cheaper than coal at every step of the way. And that is counting the disposing of nuclear waste. source + Show Spoiler +
On November 21 2019 07:25 Belisarius wrote: The vilification of nuclear power may go down in history as the biggest own goal the environmental left has ever managed. The day chernobyl died is the day the climate catastrophe was locked in. Every major nuclear disaster since has probably added half a degree worth of nimbyism.
That said, as a strong supporter of nuclear power, it's possible it's too late. The lead time on new plants is extremely long - we need to be approaching net zero by the time a plant commissioned today would even be in operation. I know there are a lot of new reactor technologies around, but renewables and storage are already quite close in terms of cost/kW, are developing much more rapidly, and don't carry the same baggage.
There's no question that if we had gone nuclear even 15 years ago we wouldn't be in this situation, but since we didn't, I think the core of the solution is now elsewhere.
I've read various things about disposing of the nuclear waste, some says it is relatively easy and than other stuff says we actually have no idea what to do with it and are just storing it in ways that may also not be that safe. Nuclear may be just trading one problem for another.
That being said if the nuclear creates a problem further down the line it might be the best way to go for now until we can come up with better alternatives. The problem with so much money being involved in science is it hard to tell what is the truth and what is bought and paid for by various industries.
I'm not saying we wouldn't have problems in a hypothetical world where every coal plant has been a nuclear reactor for 30 years. We'd have lots. There would have been several more significant incidents and a lot of "minor" ones. There would be tons of issues with safety standards in developing countries, there would be accidents transporting waste to stable locations, several "stable" locations would have turned out not to be. Venezuela would be even more crazy if there were half a dozen reactors there right now.
But those problems are different to the one we have now, and the one we have now is so spectacularly large that it changes everything. We could re-run Chernobyl and Fukushima ten times over without even coming close to the amount of land and population that we will lose to rising seas and ecological collapse in the next century. The bar was, in my mind, as low as it could go and we still chose not to jump it.
The real environmental issue is the transmission of and the storage of Energy. If we had an efficient way to store and transmit energy over distances we could crack into volcanos for reactors or have Orbital solar panels that are worlds more efficient then ground solar and don't have the same day/night issue that's causing duck curves.
I'd say it's the transportation of anything, period. Having to move goods and people long distances requires a large amount of energy to be used. EV is the best way to go for that issue currently, but we're still left with your issue, that is the transmission of energy. While energy is never lost, we're not being the most efficient with the use of it.
There has been discussion about co2 per gdp/capita vs co2/capita. The usa is more efficient with co2 when it comes to producing gdp/capita then china which then could be used as an argument to claim that china is worse since it does create less wealth/capita with the co2 they use. But imo this is a very unfair way to look at it,china is still under development and should not be compared to fully developed countrys which are more efficient (for now). Also,if there would be a co2 budget for every citizen in the world then who cares how china is using that budget, As long as they are below the budget they can spend it however they like. Its their loss and their decision,not ours. And If there was a co2 budget/capita (which I think would be the most fair way to approach it) then china sits way lower then usa. That they do create less wealth with their budget is kinda irrelevant,unless the usa would open up their borders and let in everyone who would want to so that everyone could benefit from their more efficient use of co2.
On November 22 2019 00:52 pmh wrote: Thx for response @jimmy.
There has been discussion about co2 per gdp/capita vs co2/capita. The usa is more efficient with co2 when it comes to producing gdp/capita then china which then could be used as an argument to claim that china is worse since it does create less wealth/capita with the co2 they use. But imo this is a very unfair way to look at it,china is still under development and should not be compared to fully developed countrys which are more efficient (for now). Also,if there would be a co2 budget for every citizen in the world then who cares how china is using that budget, As long as they are below the budget they can spend it however they like. Its their loss and their decision,not ours. And If there was a co2 budget/capita (which I think would be the most fair way to approach it) then china sits way lower then usa. That they do create less wealth with their budget is kinda irrelevant,unless the usa would open up their borders and let in everyone who would want to so that everyone could benefit from their more efficient use of co2.
I don't disagree with what you say here. My main point is that both countries are bad who is worse is really irrelevant. If you rank USA is the worst or China as the worst I could see arguments for both. Way back when this started it was that China was actually really good and USA was the worst of the worst by far, and that was what I had a problem with.
On November 21 2019 06:32 Erasme wrote: Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy.
Good news that Merkel pledged Germany to be coal free with in the decade, finaland as well.
On November 21 2019 06:32 Erasme wrote: Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy.
Good news that Merkel pledged Germany to be coal free with in the decade, finaland as well.
On November 21 2019 06:32 Erasme wrote: Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy.
Good news that Merkel pledged Germany to be coal free with in the decade, finaland as well.
Rofl thinking you can hold merkel to any promises about energy xd Why are they still opening new plants then ? France has actually pledged to close every single coal plants by 2022. And its only realisable thanks to nuclear power. Germany has no way of being independant from coal because they have no reliable back up plans. Once again i'd like to remind everyone that Germany has been, for the last 30years, literally doubling the emission of co2 per capita than France. can europe stop following goddamn germany its not a model for anything except failure
I don't know anything about German Politics but is it not stupid to make these pledges if it is not obtainable or is it common to make them and not follow through? Do people just forget or is it common practice to over promise and not deliver at all?
On November 23 2019 02:25 JimmiC wrote: I don't know anything about German Politics but is it not stupid to make these pledges if it is not obtainable or is it common to make them and not follow through? Do people just forget or is it common practice to over promise and not deliver at all?
I don't know anything about German politics either but I would assume it is similar to most in that doing a good try is enough to get a pass. Would get called out by opponents if totally unrealistic. I don't think it reaches US level of outright lying being accepted but can't be sure.
Well in the kind of good news about the environment (which is all to rare this day) A CBC pod cast on the 1987 Montreal Protocol. Which was basically a global move away from CFC's which were widely used in Air conditioners and refrigerators. At the time we only knew that they were damaging our Ozone layer (which is now healing) but what we now know is that they were also super powerful greenhouse gases, up to 1000 times green house gases.
The talk about how good we have become at modeling global warming and how the paris goals would already be unobtainable if we had not stopped.
While this is good news it is sad that well the world pulled together then we can't pull together now for an even greater challenge. I wonder how much the mass distrust in science that exists now is at fault for this? It was also and easier change in that it didn't impact everyone's every day life as much.
There is an article but if you want to do the listen it is under 8 mins long and link is at the top of the article.
German politicians (basically all apart from the greens) care more About 20 coal Workers losing their jobs than 400 renewable Energy Workers. Biomass got destroyed in 2012, wind got destroyed in 2018 and PV will likely be capped next year.
(arbitrary numbers in the first line by me and capitalisation by Edge browser)
Germany also failed their part of a deal that would massively increase the transport of goods by rail instead of on the street. Friggin Italy held up their side of the deal. Italy and Switzerland are now actually starting to push for an alternate route thru France. Its totally incapable to get any large scale project done, be it an Airport, a Trainstation, their army or some friggin traintracks thru mostly easy terrain.
On December 19 2019 18:47 Velr wrote: Germany also failed their part of a deal that would massively increase the transport of goods by rail instead of on the street. Friggin Italy Held up their side of the deal. Italy and Switzerland are now actually going for an alternate route thru France. Its totally incapable to get any large scale project done, be it an Airport, a Trainstation, their army or some friggin traintracks thru mostly easy terrain.
True that. It's Deutsche Bahn. What did you expect? It combines everything that Germany is not. It is NEVER in time. Half the shit isn't working (to have a working AC in a train in summer is a miracle). Sometimes trains are more crowded than in China or India simply because of some miscalculation.
To the building projects like S21 and Berlin airport: There is just to much politics involved and it is all done public. If it was done by a private contractor we wouldn't have any of the problems, because 1. the cost would have been calculated correctly and not some politic number and 2. all contractors could have been chosen by quality and not who is the cheapeast, which often enough means you have to do some work twice cause it wasn't done right
What about calling the non existant Airport in Berlin, the non existant and unneeded Train station in Stuttgard, the horrible state of your Military and the non existant railroads failures of the German state is "hyperbolic"? What was the last succsesfull large scale project Germany actually got done (ideally whiteout of tons of drama and cost explosions around it)?
On December 19 2019 20:24 Velr wrote: What about calling the non existant Airport in Berlin, the non existant and unneeded Train station in Stuttgard, the horrible state of your Military and the non existant railroads failures of the German state is "hyperbolic"?
I'm not sure about the airport, but I wouldn't call the train station in Stuttgart unneeded. It was completely outdated and not fullfilling it's purpose anymore. And it was supposed to be the symbol of a new era of train travelling. Now it is a symbol of the clusterfk that is the Bahn, politics, inland travel and waste of tax money.
On December 19 2019 20:24 Velr wrote: What was the last succsesfull large scale project Germany actually got done (ideally whiteout of tons of drama and cost explosions around it)?
Comparing any overcrowded Train Service to the implied Indian extremes is hyperbolic.
The Train Station in Stuttgart is of the utmost necessity, though mistakes during the planning Phase more or less render it unable to cope with forseeable increase in demand (iirc). at the Moment there is no Long distance Train connecting the Airport, which is insane and stupid. That should've been rectified by the S21 Project.
As a Berliner I'll reseve my praise for the aiport cause I have None.
I guess the only mammoth Projects seeing relatively timely finishes are Pipelines?
Apart from that the switch from low calorific to high calorific natural gas grids is going rather smoothly at the Moment.
As for Stuttgard, the issue is that you build a Trainstation that even with the knowledge we have now, is not fit for the job. The issues during planning, building and so, which are many, are just the cherry on top. This project would be a failure even if it had the smoothest construction phase you can imagine.
I don't know if building a new concert hall counts as "big Project". But yeah, aside from the miracoulous price increase and all these issues, it actually turned out pretty nice.
On December 19 2019 20:24 Velr wrote: What about calling the non existant Airport in Berlin, the non existant and unneeded Train station in Stuttgard, the horrible state of your Military and the non existant railroads failures of the German state is "hyperbolic"?
I'm not sure about the airport, but I wouldn't call the train station in Stuttgart unneeded. It was completely outdated and not fullfilling it's purpose anymore. And it was supposed to be the symbol of a new era of train travelling. Now it is a symbol of the clusterfk that is the Bahn, politics, inland travel and waste of tax money.
On December 19 2019 20:24 Velr wrote: What was the last succsesfull large scale project Germany actually got done (ideally whiteout of tons of drama and cost explosions around it)?
Filharmonie in Hamburg I guess
The one that one of residents showed to me as example of "colossal waste of money" ??? Many germans do not consider that project a success. Estimated cost: 76mln final 866 mln.
On December 19 2019 20:24 Velr wrote: What about calling the non existant Airport in Berlin, the non existant and unneeded Train station in Stuttgard, the horrible state of your Military and the non existant railroads failures of the German state is "hyperbolic"?
I'm not sure about the airport, but I wouldn't call the train station in Stuttgart unneeded. It was completely outdated and not fullfilling it's purpose anymore. And it was supposed to be the symbol of a new era of train travelling. Now it is a symbol of the clusterfk that is the Bahn, politics, inland travel and waste of tax money.
On December 19 2019 20:24 Velr wrote: What was the last succsesfull large scale project Germany actually got done (ideally whiteout of tons of drama and cost explosions around it)?
Filharmonie in Hamburg I guess
The one that one of residents showed to me as example of "colossal waste of money" ??? Many germans do not consider that project a success. Estimated cost: 76mln final 866 mln.
On November 21 2019 06:32 Erasme wrote: Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy.
Good news that Merkel pledged Germany to be coal free with in the decade, finaland as well.
Rofl thinking you can hold merkel to any promises about energy xd Why are they still opening new plants then ? France has actually pledged to close every single coal plants by 2022. And its only realisable thanks to nuclear power. Germany has no way of being independant from coal because they have no reliable back up plans. Once again i'd like to remind everyone that Germany has been, for the last 30years, literally doubling the emission of co2 per capita than France. can europe stop following goddamn germany its not a model for anything except failure
Would that make the Öko-Bewegung the worst climate criminals in the world? Thats pretty funny.
On November 21 2019 06:32 Erasme wrote: Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy.
Good news that Merkel pledged Germany to be coal free with in the decade, finaland as well.
Rofl thinking you can hold merkel to any promises about energy xd Why are they still opening new plants then ? France has actually pledged to close every single coal plants by 2022. And its only realisable thanks to nuclear power. Germany has no way of being independant from coal because they have no reliable back up plans. Once again i'd like to remind everyone that Germany has been, for the last 30years, literally doubling the emission of co2 per capita than France. can europe stop following goddamn germany its not a model for anything except failure
Would that make the Öko-Bewegung the worst climate criminals in the world? Thats pretty funny.
The coal plant is actually owned by a Finish firm and it is much cleaner and more effective than any before. But it's still stupid to build more coal plants, I agree. Fact is we need more energy every year and nothing is good enough:
Wind? Looks stupid, not efficient, kills birds Nuclear? But what if it explodes? And where to put the waste? Coal? Go away with that dirty shit Tide? But what about all the fish and sealife? Solar? Not enough sun and space to put it in Germany
On November 21 2019 06:32 Erasme wrote: Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy.
Good news that Merkel pledged Germany to be coal free with in the decade, finaland as well.
Rofl thinking you can hold merkel to any promises about energy xd Why are they still opening new plants then ? France has actually pledged to close every single coal plants by 2022. And its only realisable thanks to nuclear power. Germany has no way of being independant from coal because they have no reliable back up plans. Once again i'd like to remind everyone that Germany has been, for the last 30years, literally doubling the emission of co2 per capita than France. can europe stop following goddamn germany its not a model for anything except failure
Would that make the Öko-Bewegung the worst climate criminals in the world? Thats pretty funny.
Thats absolute nonsense.
Of course it was a bit of an overstatement or a joke, but if the environmentalists pushed the government to close nuclear plants and that in turn caused the country to open coalplants that made it double the CO2 emissions - isn't it fair, then, to call the environmentalists climate criminals?
The Swedish power company Vattenfall sold a coal plant in Germany in 2016, Jänschwalde. It alone emits almost as much co2 as Sweden.
I think you're heavily mistaken in your attribution of responsibility. It is not the fault of activists that not enough is done to successfully transition from fossil fuels to basically entirely renewables.
On December 20 2019 20:44 Artisreal wrote: I think you're heavily mistaken in your attribution of responsibility. It is not the fault of activists that not enough is done to successfully transition from fossil fuels to basically entirely renewables.
Who's fault is it that we simply dont have that technology? That is, for the time being, a pie in sky solution. Its the activists fault that you abandoned an acceptable but far from perfect solution for a disastrous worst case scenario.
On December 20 2019 20:44 Artisreal wrote: I think you're heavily mistaken in your attribution of responsibility. It is not the fault of activists that not enough is done to successfully transition from fossil fuels to basically entirely renewables.
Who's fault is it that we simply dont have that technology? That is, for the time being, a pie in sky solution. Its the activists fault that you abandoned an acceptable but far from perfect solution for a disastrous worst case scenario.
It's always easy to blame others... If it were acceptable, they wouldn't have looked for other solutions. Also Datteln 4 was build in 2007 and planned long before that. It's not some recent idea
As for the technology. Activists are pretty much the sole reason for technological advancements in this sector, just because available solutions weren't good enough and they push for better, cleaner ways and more than anything push governments to enforce cleaner solutions
On November 21 2019 06:32 Erasme wrote: Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy.
Good news that Merkel pledged Germany to be coal free with in the decade, finaland as well.
Rofl thinking you can hold merkel to any promises about energy xd Why are they still opening new plants then ? France has actually pledged to close every single coal plants by 2022. And its only realisable thanks to nuclear power. Germany has no way of being independant from coal because they have no reliable back up plans. Once again i'd like to remind everyone that Germany has been, for the last 30years, literally doubling the emission of co2 per capita than France. can europe stop following goddamn germany its not a model for anything except failure
First of all, I have to agree that just because Merkel says or promises something, it does not mean that it will actually happen. Apart from that, the rest is inaccurate or simply omits the actual state of affairs: - Building new coal power plants means very little if they never start working. a) There is a long list of newly built gas power plants that work way below capacity or not at all. The same fate may very well await the new coal power plants. + Show Spoiler +
b) I can only find information about 3 new possible coal power plants as of right now. 2 of them are merely planned and have no construction approval as of yet. Construction on the last one is on hold + Show Spoiler +
c) For comparison, there is a long list of new natural gas power plants planned or in construction. This at the very least suggests the possibility of moving away from coal + Show Spoiler +
- As far as backups for coal power plants are concerned. I cannot be arsed to calculate the exact numbers (not like that's even possible with complete accuracy), but there are several things to keep in mind: a) see a) and c) above. Also remember that North Stream 2 is expected to enter operation very soon. b) there is always the (rather contraproductive) possibility of importing more energy from neighbouring countries. - France is a rather bad example since its CO2 emissions per capita are among the lowest in Europe and certainly way below average in the EU. + Show Spoiler +
- While Germany still ranks among the top of CO2 emission per capita in the EU, it has still reduced them from 11.62 tons/capita to 8.89 in the past 30 years. Not to mention that these numbers are simply incomparably lower than other 1st world countries like the US, Australia, Canada, and even Japan.
On December 20 2019 19:45 Harris1st wrote: ... Solar? Not enough sun and space to put it in Germany
"Not enough sun" is at least theoretically never an issue. Less sunshine simply means more space and storage required. Space certainly isn't an issue in Germany either. The only relevant factor is the cost. Going 100% solar would be prohibitively expensive in Germany. What the optimal percentage is, depends on way too many factors to condense in a few sentences. Anyway, solar is certainly not the one and only solution for German energy needs. However, space is not even close to being considered a limiting factor by any stretch of the imagination. + Show Spoiler +
On November 21 2019 06:32 Erasme wrote: Frances co2 emissions per capita is at 4.57metric tons as of 2014, probably went down a bit. The main reason for it is the nuclear energy. Germany is at 8.89 and rising because they're busy opening 2 coal plants for each nuclear plant they close. The invention already exists. Its called nuclear energy.
Good news that Merkel pledged Germany to be coal free with in the decade, finaland as well.
Rofl thinking you can hold merkel to any promises about energy xd Why are they still opening new plants then ? France has actually pledged to close every single coal plants by 2022. And its only realisable thanks to nuclear power. Germany has no way of being independant from coal because they have no reliable back up plans. Once again i'd like to remind everyone that Germany has been, for the last 30years, literally doubling the emission of co2 per capita than France. can europe stop following goddamn germany its not a model for anything except failure
Would that make the Öko-Bewegung the worst climate criminals in the world? Thats pretty funny.
Thats absolute nonsense.
Of course it was a bit of an overstatement or a joke, but if the environmentalists pushed the government to close nuclear plants and that in turn caused the country to open coalplants that made it double the CO2 emissions - isn't it fair, then, to call the environmentalists climate criminals?
The Swedish power company Vattenfall sold a coal plant in Germany in 2016, Jänschwalde. It alone emits almost as much co2 as Sweden.
Not really sure where that "open coal plants" comes from or rather how it is relevant at all. See further up in my post. I am even more confused about the "double CO2 emissions", considering that German CO2 emissions have been slowly but steadily going down for 30 years now. + Show Spoiler +
And while Jänschwalde certainly is a heavy polluter in any sense of the word it has to be noted that: - it has by far the highest CO2 emissions of any coal plant in Germany (24 mio tons/year; 2nd place - 16.8 mio tons/yea; 3rd place 10.2 mio tons/year) + Show Spoiler +
- in 2017 Jänschwalde contributed ~24 mio CO2 tons compared to Sweden's 52.7 => 45.5% of Sweden's output (hardly "almost as much" I'd say) + Show Spoiler +
- by the end of 2018 1/3 of Jänschwalde's capacity has been allocated to reserves - effectively meaning that 1/3 has been turned off. By 2022 this third is supposed to be removed from reserves as well. Without having the actual numbers for 2019 yet, it can only be estimated how much the CO2 emissions have been reduced, but assuming that turning off 1/3 of the generators results in about 1/3 less emissions should be fair enough. This would result in Jänschwalde producing ~16 mio tons CO2/year compared to Swedens 50+ mio tons/year or about 30% of what Sweden produces. + Show Spoiler +
Environmentalists pushed for the closing of nuclear power plants. this has led to a very high dependens on coal plants which in turn makes germany a very bad polluter. If the optimistic perspective for the future that you present is that some planned coal plants arent going to open and some go on a reduced production (jänschwalde that I took as an example would still emit more than three times as much co2 as the entire Swedish electricity production while not creating a fraction of the electricity needed in the country if it only goes on 30% capacity). That to me looks lika a disaster however you present it. Even if somehow the depency on coal is reduced (i think that is a pie in the sky) the damage has already been done.
On December 21 2019 17:25 Elroi wrote: Environmentalists pushed for the closing of nuclear power plants. this has led to a very high dependens on coal plants which in turn makes germany a very bad polluter. If the optimistic perspective for the future that you present is that some planned coal plants arent going to open and some go on a reduced production (jänschwalde that I took as an example would still emit more than three times as much co2 as the entire Swedish electricity production while not creating a fraction of the electricity needed in the country if it only goes on 30% capacity). That to me looks lika a disaster however you present it. Even if somehow the depency on coal is reduced (i think that is a pie in the sky) the damage has already been done.
Partly true. There was a time around the Fukushima catastrophe in 2012 when power generated by coal went up. Meaning an incident on the other side of the globe was responsible for the shutdown of nuclear power plants. Not activists. Coal power production also varies a bit from year to year but if you look at the numbers, the trend is a clearly downward one. So one could argue that your statement is objectively false. The gist of what you're saying though is true, that due to the Atomausstieg there is more coal in the grid mix than needed with nuclear.
Source is the German Environmental Agency. Building new nuclear power plants is a false hope though, imo, because once they are built in 20 years, we're fucked anyhow.
Comparing Sweden to Germany power gerneration wise is akin to liking the heat demand of a hot country to a cold one. Doesn't make much sense due to vastly different predispositions - doesn't excuse the pollution or diminish the need for improvement either.
Also very interesting to discuss is heat generation, which in Germany is mainly focused on fossil fuels. Like, 90% and above. I've spoken to many home owners recently and many of them use a heat pump for household heat. But power it with conventional power, which doesn't make much sense. So still lots to do here.
Based on DNA sequencing it is predicted that fewer than 12,000 of our species survived the previous glaciation. Thank goodness that China and other emitters have boosted the maximum CO2 levels for the brief interglacial period we are presently enjoying -- the next glaciation should be much less severe and more survivable.
On December 22 2019 11:36 tankgirl wrote: Based on DNA sequencing it is predicted that fewer than 12,000 of our species survived the previous glaciation. Thank goodness that China and other emitters have boosted the maximum CO2 levels for the brief interglacial period we are presently enjoying -- the next glaciation should be much less severe and more survivable. + Show Spoiler +
Thank you based China/US/India, you are saving the world by destroying the climate as much as possible
Pretty interesting story about amazons employee's demanding Amazon have a climate change plan and amazons attempt to block it. It appears they may have got some traction but much more to be done.
A rare good news story involving the environment and giant investment funds.
Blackrock the biggest in the world will be requiring the businesses they invest in to report on various environmental measures and how they will meet the requirements of the Paris accord. This is just a letter and action will matter much more but it is great news that sustainability is a major factor in investing going forward.
If anyone is passionate about the environment and wants something done call your federal representative about this proposed legislation. https://www.tomudall.senate.gov/news/press-releases/udall-lowenthal-release-outline-of-legislation-to-tackle-plastic-waste-pollution-crisis . The ones that were passed like the save our seas, are better than nothing I suppose such as the "save our seas" but they really are just a drop in a bucket when you think about what those dollar figures mean. The Udall and Lowenthal bill starts to introduce EPR and a bunch of other important steps to getting things under control. Federally a lot of politicians are not that up to date because traditionally waste among others was always handled at the municipal level and occasionally at the state.
For those of you that are pro business it is also a good thing for the regs to be federal. A lot of the businesses I deal with up here are mad that the rules are different province by province and even city by city. It makes it expensive and difficult to administer. The one message I constantly get is make it universal and make it even for everyone so it is a even playing field.
On January 25 2020 00:42 JimmiC wrote: While 8 states have banned single use plastic bags, many other states have made it impossible for municipalities to ban bags.
My country banned plastic bags and I can't say it's an improvement. People used their plastic shopping bags to wrap house trash and then drop it to the local container. Now people buy this "rehusable" plastic bags for shopping; they are a lot more resource intensive to produce, you need to use them close to 100 times to reach the same footprint as the old disposable bags and most bags never see that use. Paper bags suck and are not rehusable more than a few times before they get holes.
Moreover, on poor areas mostly, now that plastic bags are not free and easily available, littering has increased a lot.
On January 25 2020 00:42 JimmiC wrote: While 8 states have banned single use plastic bags, many other states have made it impossible for municipalities to ban bags.
My country banned plastic bags and I can't say it's an improvement. People used their plastic shopping bags to wrap house trash and then drop it to the local container. Now people buy this "rehusable" plastic bags for shopping; they are a lot more resource intensive to produce, you need to use them close to 100 times to reach the same footprint as the old disposable bags and most bags never see that use. Paper bags suck and are not rehusable more than a few times before they get holes.
Moreover, on poor areas mostly, now that plastic bags are not free and easily available, littering has increased a lot.
It is a double edged sword, I'm in the midst of trying to draw up policy around it right now. To me I think a charge is what works best and limiting the thinness of the bags. Because as you say as long as they are not ripped they can provide a second and even 3rd use. There is also many reasons that Paper bags for example are as bad or worse than plastic.
With charging for bags (even the nominal 5 cents) can show up to a 90% reduction, which I think shows both it is effective, and there was way to many plastic given out. Many stores are also donating that charge to green charities which is kind of a win win.
All these single use items need to be carefully thought about because there was reasons for bringing them in when they were first introduced.
Blanket bans and blanket protections are not going to help. If you are going to go the Ban route you should specify what type of reusable bags are allowed because as you mention some of them take more uses than they realistically can preform for to become a carbon positive over the single use.
A big issue with the single use is people put them in their "blue bins" and while the material when source separated is recyclable, when they are sent to MRF's (material recovery Facilities) they just gum up the machines, shred into tiny pieces and contaminate other commodities. There is a lot of talk in the industry of changing the message from "Don't put them into the blue bins they are not recyclable" to "They are recyclable, but damage MRF's please take them to public drop-offs or retail sponsored recyclable programs"
The recycling industry for a long time just wanted to get as much possible and didn't care about the quality of the materials because they thought if it was complicated people just wouldn't do it. What they are realizing is this created a lot of mixed messaging, missinformation and no unity between different areas. The industry and associations are working hard to be better.
I guess this is a long way of saying, blanket rules to not allow municipalities to regulate ban's is a over reaction to an over reaction. Plastic bags can be really good, they have a low carbon foot print, they can keep food waste down because they are strong and immune to weather (lots of problems with paper ripping in rain and high humidity). But there was a excessive amount given out at a low quality that did not allow for reuse. They also are super light (which is good for logistics) which means they can blow far and end up in waterways. So regulate the use, the thickness and the cost. Don't flat out ban and also don't ban regulation.
Interestingly enough the Retail Council of Canada(RCC) supports mandatory charges and thicknesses. Once they are "forced" to charge it levels out the playing field and they can gain marketing advantages by promoting green initiatives with a level playing field. No regulation lead to a race to the bottom in quality and giving out way to many. What the RCC hates is every city or province having different rules. Because then just trying to comply becomes a huge burden. They have told us they prefer the charge, but would settle for any rule that was uniform across the country.
its an educational measure. If people wouldn't throw their waste anywhere they like, there'd be no need for a plastic bag ban. But unfortunately they end up everywhere, ocean, landscape, street, thus we need to help people in that way to behave correctly.
On January 25 2020 00:42 JimmiC wrote: While 8 states have banned single use plastic bags, many other states have made it impossible for municipalities to ban bags.
My country banned plastic bags and I can't say it's an improvement. People used their plastic shopping bags to wrap house trash and then drop it to the local container. Now people buy this "rehusable" plastic bags for shopping; they are a lot more resource intensive to produce, you need to use them close to 100 times to reach the same footprint as the old disposable bags and most bags never see that use. Paper bags suck and are not rehusable more than a few times before they get holes.
Moreover, on poor areas mostly, now that plastic bags are not free and easily available, littering has increased a lot.
It is a double edged sword, I'm in the midst of trying to draw up policy around it right now. To me I think a charge is what works best and limiting the thinness of the bags. Because as you say as long as they are not ripped they can provide a second and even 3rd use. There is also many reasons that Paper bags for example are as bad or worse than plastic.
With charging for bags (even the nominal 5 cents) can show up to a 90% reduction, which I think shows both it is effective, and there was way to many plastic given out. Many stores are also donating that charge to green charities which is kind of a win win.
All these single use items need to be carefully thought about because there was reasons for bringing them in when they were first introduced.
Blanket bans and blanket protections are not going to help. If you are going to go the Ban route you should specify what type of reusable bags are allowed because as you mention some of them take more uses than they realistically can preform for to become a carbon positive over the single use.
A big issue with the single use is people put them in their "blue bins" and while the material when source separated is recyclable, when they are sent to MRF's (material recovery Facilities) they just gum up the machines, shred into tiny pieces and contaminate other commodities. There is a lot of talk in the industry of changing the message from "Don't put them into the blue bins they are not recyclable" to "They are recyclable, but damage MRF's please take them to public drop-offs or retail sponsored recyclable programs"
The recycling industry for a long time just wanted to get as much possible and didn't care about the quality of the materials because they thought if it was complicated people just wouldn't do it. What they are realizing is this created a lot of mixed messaging, missinformation and no unity between different areas. The industry and associations are working hard to be better.
I guess this is a long way of saying, blanket rules to not allow municipalities to regulate ban's is a over reaction to an over reaction. Plastic bags can be really good, they have a low carbon foot print, they can keep food waste down because they are strong and immune to weather (lots of problems with paper ripping in rain and high humidity). But there was a excessive amount given out at a low quality that did not allow for reuse. They also are super light (which is good for logistics) which means they can blow far and end up in waterways. So regulate the use, the thickness and the cost. Don't flat out ban and also don't ban regulation.
Interestingly enough the Retail Council of Canada(RCC) supports mandatory charges and thicknesses. Once they are "forced" to charge it levels out the playing field and they can gain marketing advantages by promoting green initiatives with a level playing field. No regulation lead to a race to the bottom in quality and giving out way to many. What the RCC hates is every city or province having different rules. Because then just trying to comply becomes a huge burden. They have told us they prefer the charge, but would settle for any rule that was uniform across the country.
If you could ask for a few at the cashier, instead of having them pushing them on you, it would go a long measure. I store food on the bridge regularly and after a few years I still miss those damn readily available bags. I would use them for shopping, then for my food, and then for trash.
I think it's important to point out that trash is more of a distribution than production issue. I read somewhere a small hole (relatively) in the dessert could hold all human trash for the next few hundred years; problem is garbage going other places mostly.
On January 25 2020 00:42 JimmiC wrote: While 8 states have banned single use plastic bags, many other states have made it impossible for municipalities to ban bags.
My country banned plastic bags and I can't say it's an improvement. People used their plastic shopping bags to wrap house trash and then drop it to the local container. Now people buy this "rehusable" plastic bags for shopping; they are a lot more resource intensive to produce, you need to use them close to 100 times to reach the same footprint as the old disposable bags and most bags never see that use. Paper bags suck and are not rehusable more than a few times before they get holes.
Moreover, on poor areas mostly, now that plastic bags are not free and easily available, littering has increased a lot.
It is a double edged sword, I'm in the midst of trying to draw up policy around it right now. To me I think a charge is what works best and limiting the thinness of the bags. Because as you say as long as they are not ripped they can provide a second and even 3rd use. There is also many reasons that Paper bags for example are as bad or worse than plastic.
With charging for bags (even the nominal 5 cents) can show up to a 90% reduction, which I think shows both it is effective, and there was way to many plastic given out. Many stores are also donating that charge to green charities which is kind of a win win.
All these single use items need to be carefully thought about because there was reasons for bringing them in when they were first introduced.
Blanket bans and blanket protections are not going to help. If you are going to go the Ban route you should specify what type of reusable bags are allowed because as you mention some of them take more uses than they realistically can preform for to become a carbon positive over the single use.
A big issue with the single use is people put them in their "blue bins" and while the material when source separated is recyclable, when they are sent to MRF's (material recovery Facilities) they just gum up the machines, shred into tiny pieces and contaminate other commodities. There is a lot of talk in the industry of changing the message from "Don't put them into the blue bins they are not recyclable" to "They are recyclable, but damage MRF's please take them to public drop-offs or retail sponsored recyclable programs"
The recycling industry for a long time just wanted to get as much possible and didn't care about the quality of the materials because they thought if it was complicated people just wouldn't do it. What they are realizing is this created a lot of mixed messaging, missinformation and no unity between different areas. The industry and associations are working hard to be better.
I guess this is a long way of saying, blanket rules to not allow municipalities to regulate ban's is a over reaction to an over reaction. Plastic bags can be really good, they have a low carbon foot print, they can keep food waste down because they are strong and immune to weather (lots of problems with paper ripping in rain and high humidity). But there was a excessive amount given out at a low quality that did not allow for reuse. They also are super light (which is good for logistics) which means they can blow far and end up in waterways. So regulate the use, the thickness and the cost. Don't flat out ban and also don't ban regulation.
Interestingly enough the Retail Council of Canada(RCC) supports mandatory charges and thicknesses. Once they are "forced" to charge it levels out the playing field and they can gain marketing advantages by promoting green initiatives with a level playing field. No regulation lead to a race to the bottom in quality and giving out way to many. What the RCC hates is every city or province having different rules. Because then just trying to comply becomes a huge burden. They have told us they prefer the charge, but would settle for any rule that was uniform across the country.
If you could ask for a few at the cashier, instead of having them pushing them on you, it would go a long measure. I store food on the bridge regularly and after a few years I still miss those damn readily available bags. I would use them for shopping, then for my food, and then for trash.
I think it's important to point out that trash is more of a distribution than production issue. I read somewhere a relatively small hole (relatively) in the dessert could hold all human trash for the next few hundred years; problem is garbage going other places mostly.
Yes, as Artisreal points out the issue is not people who use them correctly as you are describing but rather those that do not.
With proper waste management, things like glass (which is really just sand) and even plastic are not a problem in a landfill if properly managed. There are some life cycling exercises that people have done that show that in fact depending on logistics and the process used to recycle it is likely to be a net positive to put them in the landfill. So if there was a glass recycling plant within 200 miles (made up distance just as a example) it is worth it, but if you have to truck it all across the country than it is not.
The real issues for landfills are the organics and fibers (paper and cardboard), the fibers are easy to recycle and sort and there is a big savings on tree's. Then with both organics and fibers, in a landfill they do not break down naturally because of the compression and like of oxygen creating Methane and other harmful gasses and leachate. Before I got into the industry I thought throwing away a apple was not a big deal but a glass jar must always be recycled, turns out it is almost always bad for the apple, and sometimes better with the glass jar.
They are all pretty complex questions and logistics tends to be a big factor on whether or not the recycling is a net benefit to the environment or not. This is why in the waste hierarchy Avoid, Reduce and Reuse are higher than recycle but we often get focused on the recycling end because we feel good when we drop something in a blue bin or at a recycling depot.
Bonus of things is there is a lot of passionate educated people working on making all those systems better and trying to provide good information about what is best with much less green washing. Though like everything in this day and age it is hard to get good info and hard to trust it.
Relative to their size, leaf-blowers are among the most polluting machines ever invented. 1/3 of their fuel is released into the air unburned, as an aerosol; and the amount of pollutants released from running one for 30 minutes is equivalent to that of an F-150 driving from Texas to Alaska.
Leafblowers blow disintegrated brake dust, vulcanized rubber, and animal feces back into the air, but nobody really seems to care.
Relative to their size, leaf-blowers are among the most polluting machines ever invented. 1/3 of their fuel is released into the air unburned, as an aerosol; and the amount of pollutants released from running one for 30 minutes is equivalent to that of an F-150 driving from Texas to Alaska.
Leafblowers blow disintegrated brake dust, vulcanized rubber, and animal feces back into the air, but nobody really seems to care
Soooo, what do you suggest there is to be done in addition to what's already happening. AFAIK there's a lot of blowback against these machines already.
Relative to their size, leaf-blowers are among the most polluting machines ever invented. 1/3 of their fuel is released into the air unburned, as an aerosol; and the amount of pollutants released from running one for 30 minutes is equivalent to that of an F-150 driving from Texas to Alaska.
Leafblowers blow disintegrated brake dust, vulcanized rubber, and animal feces back into the air, but nobody really seems to care
Soooo, what do you suggest there is to be done in addition to what's already happening. AFAIK there's a lot of blowback against these machines already.
It's also incredibly lazy, I mean it's one thing if you're 75 years old, but adults using them to clean their parking or their lawn when it's not even faster than taking a broom or a rake is sad to see.
Relative to their size, leaf-blowers are among the most polluting machines ever invented. 1/3 of their fuel is released into the air unburned, as an aerosol; and the amount of pollutants released from running one for 30 minutes is equivalent to that of an F-150 driving from Texas to Alaska.
Leafblowers blow disintegrated brake dust, vulcanized rubber, and animal feces back into the air, but nobody really seems to care
Soooo, what do you suggest there is to be done in addition to what's already happening. AFAIK there's a lot of blowback against these machines already.
What perfect word choice, well played even if not intended!
Relative to their size, leaf-blowers are among the most polluting machines ever invented. 1/3 of their fuel is released into the air unburned, as an aerosol; and the amount of pollutants released from running one for 30 minutes is equivalent to that of an F-150 driving from Texas to Alaska.
Leafblowers blow disintegrated brake dust, vulcanized rubber, and animal feces back into the air, but nobody really seems to care
Soooo, what do you suggest there is to be done in addition to what's already happening. AFAIK there's a lot of blowback against these machines already.
"blowback" I see what u did there.
They could follow the lead of Hawaii by banning gas powered blowers outright, fining people stiffly for breaking the sound level ordinance, or the government could offer financial incentives to landscaping companies to switch from gas to electric powered blowers like they did with Tesla's electric car rebates. Company's will change when they are financially motivated to do so or the government requires it of them. https://igin.com/print-article-1622-print.html
The state of Hawaii recently passed a law which bans all gasoline-powered leaf blowers and restricts electric leaf blower use in residential areas to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
In addition to the restrictions, the new regulations also state that noise levels generated by the leaf blowers cannot exceed 70 decibels beyond boundaries of the property being cleaned. Leaf blowing operations are also prohibited from blowing debris onto adjacent property.
The law doesn’t apply to other power equipment, such as string trimmers and lawnmowers. Violators will be fined $50 for first violation and up to $500 for repeat violations.
On January 29 2020 22:03 Artisreal wrote: I wish countries were as proactive in implementing climate change mitigation strategies as they are with virus containment.
I don't.
It seems like a massive waste of resources, which could be used for better things, to me.
Some not at all surprising but still disappointing that the trouble recycling plastic was known in the 70’s. These misinformation campaigns are so destructive because real changes that could have been made(and now slowly are) could have been implemented long long ago at this point. Also many single use options would have never been allowed.
Brazil has experienced a lot of rain forest deforestation since Bolsonarno took over, but at least for now he has deployed the army in an attempt to stop, or slow it. Hopefully it works as this is something that impacts the entire world.
Came across this cool company Rubicon.com they use machine learning and the newest technology to save municipalities money and make them more sustainable by increasing efficiency and using the garbage trucks to "see" other problem like pot holes. They are attempting to make cities proactive and better environmentally all while saving them money. Pretty cool stuff.
Also this was posted on the US pol thread but there is a evangelical environmental network, pretty cool because generally Christians fall on the "right" side of center which is often the side against environmentalism. These people a christian and care about the planets long term health.
The Donald takes aim at one of the older environmental.laws in the US. One that was put in by Nixon to give residents a say in the pipelines highways and chemical plants to in their neighborhoods. If you are for the planet do not vote trump.
A cool pilot from starbucks on using reusable cups. Single use coffee cups create Tonnes of waste so anything that can help is a good thing. Hopefully the pilot will be a success.
Man this is so bad but also just so gross. There is so much sewage getting dumped into the south China sea by Chinese vessels that it is visible from space.