On the Insidiousness of "We have 12 Years to Save the Planet." - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15030523
Many educated people think it is a hoax too.


I disagree. I would agree that many educated people believe that there will be nothing material done about it so there is no reason to react. But they know the science is sound.

This is probably helped along by proponents of AGW theory buying beach houses and flying around in private jets, while lecturing everyone else not to do such things. Obviously, they don't believe it themselves.


Of course they believe it. And they realize that the problem is not in their private jets but much larger than that. But they still don't care. Consumption by the wealthy has always been considered "earned" rather than wasteful. Besides. Who hasn't considered the fabled "last man on earth" scenario.

I agree also that it is pretty hard to consider draconian actions here when China makes us a tiny part of the problem. In fact, unless China is brought to full compliance with first world standards, I could make a good case for actions that reduce their output of pollution. For example, bans on imports, imposed carbon taxes on imports, or just actions to slam their economy into working. I completely agree that treating China as a third world or developing country is beyond absurd.

I am not completely opposed to some of Trump's moves on China. He has handled it terribly but I believe it is necessary to change the playing field before it is too late.
#15030528
Drlee wrote:I agree also that it is pretty hard to consider draconian actions here when China makes us a tiny part of the problem. In fact, unless China is brought to full compliance with first world standards, I could make a good case for actions that reduce their output of pollution. For example, bans on imports, imposed carbon taxes on imports, or just actions to slam their economy into working. I completely agree that treating China as a third world or developing country is beyond absurd.

The USA, or other highly developed countries, aren't a "tiny part". Combine the USA, EU, Japan and Canada, and you're practically at the emissions of China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _emissions . And in practical terms, it's easier to cut those developed countries' emissions in half without causing mass poverty than it is China's.

However, you're right that less consumption in "the West", which could partly be achieved with import taxes (especially linked to 'emission content') would be a significant way of cutting China's emissions.
#15030541
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:The USA, or other highly developed countries, aren't a "tiny part". Combine the USA, EU, Japan and Canada, and you're practically at the emissions of China:


You most certainly cannot combine the EU with the US. The US emission per capita are twice as high has those of the EU or China. The US is the problem, not China.

More importantly, while both the EU and China are committed to reducing emissions, the US is determined to develop fossil fuel resources no matter how much additional emissions it generates.

US emissions have always been underestimated. In particular, methane emissions from fracking are going to be a huge problem. Trump knows this, that's why he wants to remove regulations requiring fracking companies to monitor methane emissions.

is shale gas a major driver of recent increase in global atmospheric methane?

Abstract
Back to top
Methane has been rising rapidly in the atmosphere over the past decade, contributing to global climate change. Unlike the late 20th century when the rise in atmospheric methane was accompanied by an enrichment in the heavier carbon stable isotope (13C) of methane, methane in recent years has become more depleted in 13C. This depletion has been widely interpreted as indicating a primarily biogenic source for the increased methane. Here we show that part of the change may instead be associated with emissions from shale-gas and shale-oil development. Previous studies have not explicitly considered shale gas, even though most of the increase in natural gas production globally over the past decade is from shale gas. The methane in shale gas is somewhat depleted in 13C relative to conventional natural gas. Correcting earlier analyses for this difference, we conclude that shale-gas production in North America over the past decade may have contributed more than half of all of the increased emissions from fossil fuels globally and approximately one-third of the total increased emissions from all sources globally over the past decade.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

I wonder if she would like to share the ‘facts’ re[…]

For instance, anti-pronography is generally a rel[…]

Hitler was Sun of God

to punish humanity for its sins. What sins? Hum[…]

The 8values Quiz

They do say that the Closest Match is a work in p[…]