China, U.S. agree to limit greenhouse gases

[Roma_Victrix]

source

A small snippet from the article:

China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, pledged in the far-reaching agreement to cap its rapidly growing carbon emissions by 2030, or earlier if possible. It also set a daunting goal of increasing the share of non-fossil fuels to 20 percent of the country’s energy mix by 2030.

Obama announced a target to cut U.S. emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, the first time the president has set a goal beyond the existing 17 percent target by 2020.

The two countries together account for about 40 percent of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions, and their commitments are likely to energize talks underway to set new post-2020 targets when climate negotiators meet in Paris in December of next year.

Well, I'd say this is good news for the people of this planet who live near an ocean or a sea, considering the melting of the arctic and antarctic ice causing rising sea levels. Of course, if you deny the vast majority of scientists and their findings that global warming is real and for the most part man-made, then look elsewhere. Nothing to see here.

It is true, the earth has gone through many phases of heating and cooling; look at the recent Little Ice Age from about 1350 to about 1850. Yet aside from the height of both the Roman Empire and simultaneous Chinese Han dynasty when there was a significant increase of methane introduced into the atmosphere (due to their respective pre-modern nascent industrial works), at no other time in human history has man-made greenhouse gases (in this case carbon dioxide) been such a factor in warming the planet.

In this post-industrial age, it's good to see the world's two biggest economic powers and offenders in greenhouse gas emissions finally setting a goal. What do you think? Is it realistic? Are we just fooling ourselves? Or are alternative energy sources truly viable for replacing a huge swath of the coal and oil industries? Hopefully this conversation won't even be relevant in about a hundred years, when improvements in technology allow for some universal and much cheaper energy source. One thing is for certain: the coal and oil industries won't go quietly. Best case scenario: they make a gradual transformation into companies peddling a different energy source.

Although it's hard to get Americans excited about this, I'm sure there are millions in China who are getting pretty fed up with their present smoggy living conditions. For instance, here's Beijing with and without the smog:

[hellheaven1987]

Words are words, what we need is action; the air pollution in China actually is an international issue since many pollution spread beyond Chinese border and reach as far as west coast of US - unless China does something to stop that, or I would not be surprise international community would declare an extermination campaign against PRC for their crime against humanity through environmental pollution.

[snuggans]

Obama can announce whatever he wants but the senate republicans are actually prioritizing undoing his environmental rules when they take power in January. basically they criticize bail-outs and the "too big to fail" concept for corporations but hypocritically believe certain corporations are at least big enough that they should be less burdened by environmental laws.

*winks at Koch*

[Caligula's_Horse]

I wouldn't get my hopes up. By 2030? When all the leaders involved have been replaced four times?

Basically, its not going to happen. It probably never will, to be honest; ever hear of the prisoner's dilemma?
Each nation has a choice, screw over its economy and only receive benefits if almost everyone else also screws their own economies, or not screw over its economy and still receive the benefits if everyone else screws theirs.
So essentially, each individual nation has no rational incentive to stop their greenhouse emissions. Therefore, very few of them will.

If I were a politician, I wouldn't be pushing for greenhouse gas reduction, I'd be pushing for climate change damage control. Of course, realism usually doesn't fly as well as (often blind) optimism in a political campaign, which is probably why a politician with my views wouldn't get elected.

[Roma_Victrix]

Words are words, what we need is action; the air pollution in China actually is an international issue since many pollution spread beyond Chinese border and reach as far as west coast of US - unless China does something to stop that, or I would not be surprise international community would declare an extermination campaign against PRC for their crime against humanity through environmental pollution.

Is this some sort of fantasy of yours? There are many possible scenarios to consider; nuclear assault on or carpet-bombing genocide of Chinese cities isn't one of them.

[Raubritter]

Why do you show a picture of smock when its about greenhouse gases? Smock is an chinese issue, not an US issue. This problem was taking care of since rivers catched fire and italian indians cried on TV. From now on the EPA is just about harrasing people, cause they have nothing better to do.

[hellheaven1987]

Is this some sort of fantasy of yours?

I really hope that is my fantasy, although it becomes more and more clear that serious cross-border environmental pollutions may become the chief reason of war against PRC (for example, the acid rain in west coast of US today actually is the result of air pollution in China). Unfortunately the pollution in China is largely because of its huge population, and I would not be surprised if someone try to solve the problem through a genocide campaign against PRC civilians - with perhaps even a strong support from international community. Afterall, it is either everyone dies with lung cancer or small sacrifice by wipe up 1/5 of human population, you pick one.

The alternation is of course if PRC civilians maintain a live style with minimum environmental impact, although I don't see that happens now nor do I believe they would do that in future.

[Aanker]

Well. 2030, 2025? I wouldn't get my hopes up. Right now both nations are in the right circumstances to sign some sort of agreement like this but ten years down the road, or twenty? If China follows the same pattern as other Asian nations then they could be in the same situation as Japan, and the drive to reduce greenhouse emissions could by then be sidelined by the urgency of restoring growth in the economy.

[Roma_Victrix]

Why do you show a picture of smock when its about greenhouse gases? Smock is an chinese issue, not an US issue. This problem was taking care of since rivers catched fire and italian indians cried on TV. From now on the EPA is just about harrasing people, cause they have nothing better to do.

So who are people to believe? You? Or their lying eyes?

For starters, smog is not a unique Chinese issue. It is a global issue and a problem for many cities around the world. For instance, take a look at Los Angeles, a heavy commuter city:



Secondly, how are you unable to connect smog with greenhouse gases? Smog, a mixture of atmospheric pollutants with smoke, is literally the cause of internal combustion engines from vehicles like cars, trucks, etc. and burned coal from the smoke stacks of our coal power plants and factories. Guess what comes out the tailpipe of your car and into the atmosphere whenever you drive? CO2, which is the leading greenhouse gas. Your post is so ignorant I don't know where to begin.

Your adoration for anarcho-Libertarian philosophy and paranoid views about the EPA does not excuse you from observing basic facts.

Afterall, it is either everyone dies with lung cancer or small sacrifice by wipe up 1/5 of human population, you pick one.

At first I thought you were just being cute or hyperbolic, but now it appears you're actually trying to be serious. The ironic thing about your idiotic solution, though, is that it completely ignores the near apocalyptic atmospheric consequences of initiating a nuclear war, let alone the collapse of the worldwide economy due to the loss of its greatest manufacturing base, and a huge death toll in famine and starvation for destroying one of the world's greatest sources of food. Since the PRC is a nuclear power, it's also suicide, because of mutually assured destruction. Yeah, real great idea you've got there.

I think the more sensible approach would be to convince the Chinese that it's in their own best interest to limit greenhouse gas emissions. You know, something Barack Obama is doing at the moment.

[conon394]

Your adoration for anarcho-Libertarian philosophy and paranoid views about the EPA does not excuse you from observing basic facts.

Be fair maybe he has been addled by using his hoarded DDT and Asbestos supplies.

[Raubritter]

A big amount of that Smog in Los Angeles comes over from China and even India. The air is much cleaner than it was 20 years ago. Some people even lived in that city for years before knowing, that there are mountains out there.

and burned coal from the smoke stacks of our coal power plants and factories.

You know what DeSOX means? "Our" smoke stacks from the factories and power plants, that so dangerous looking white smoke that comes out of them, that is nothing more than Co2 and aqueous vapor. They don't pump sulfur into the air, they collect the sulfur and sell it, creating ressources the capitalist way.

conon394
Be fair maybe he has been addled by using his hoarded DDT and Asbestos supplies.

Why are you even talking? What do you even know about DDT? Feel good about yourself while poor people die on malaria. You....

[Roma_Victrix]

A big amount of that Smog in Los Angeles comes over from China and even India. The air is much cleaner than it was 20 years ago. Some people even lived in that city for years before knowing, that there are mountains out there.

While China is a contributor to that, it is by no means a contributor to the smog in cities like New York City, along the Atlantic Ocean, not the Pacific Ocean. For instance, a view of NYC from the World Trade Center back in 1988, while China was just beginning to build up its modern industrial base:

You know what DeSOX means? "Our" smoke stacks from the factories and power plants, that so dangerous looking white smoke that comes out of them, that is nothing more than Co2 and aqueous vapor. They don't pump sulfur into the air, they collect the sulfur and sell it, creating ressources the capitalist way.

While I applaud the ongoing development of DeNOx and DeSOx additives and CO2 removal technology, it is not yet universally applied. That's the whole thing about the importance of climate change legislation: companies that operate these plants usually drag their feet when it comes to adopting these. Having proper regulations in place ensures that they do. I know that the idea of imposing such standard regulations makes your Libertarian head explode, but one has to be reasonable when considering the gravity of the consequences for our environment and hence our civilization that is dependent on it.

If you don't like regulations, just think on the things that food companies got away with before the establishment of the Food And Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States.

[Raubritter]

CO2 removal technology,

There is no reason anymore with anyone who uses a phrase like that.

[Roma_Victrix]

You totaly fell of the wagon. There is no reason anymore with anyone who uses a phrase like that.

Are you serious?

DeNOx, DeSOx, and CO2 Removal Technology for Power Plant

From that article:

OVERVIEW: Flue gas generated when fossil fuels like coal are burned in
thermal power plants contains constituents that are potential causes of global
warming and acid rain. Moreover, it affects the environment of not only the
home country where it was discharged but also the whole world at large.
Babcock-Hitachi K.K. is developing technology for reducing NOx generated
when coal is burned in thermal power plants to the minimum possible level
as well as developing technology for efficiently removing the generated NOx,
SOx, and so on. Furthermore, in regard to CO2, we are continuing to develop
CO2 removal technology that can be applied at coal-fired power plants.
Exploiting these flue-gas treatment technologies, we will continue to build
on our already substantial accomplishments and, in cooperation with Hitachi
Group companies outside Japan as well as in Japan, we will contribute
significantly to environmental preservation through licensing of our
technology and exporting our products.

If you want to keep arguing about this, be my guest.

[conon394]

Why are you even talking? What do you even know about DDT? Feel good about yourself while poor people die on malaria. You....

Umm I am rather well aware of the issues and in fact so are the EPA and CDC which is why they support the careful and controlled - but limited - use of DDT in places with endemic Malaria for spot, or in house control of mosquitoes. But at the same time oppose the previous indiscriminate use of DDT. Nor would I criticize -as many do - the use of it in WW2 - the demand was immediate and there was no time for a 40 year studies to understand long term effects. But when that data does exist the EPA is not harassing anyone in moving to a more nuanced use of a chemical that has both some very good uses and a lot of very nasty potential long term effects.

For Example:

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/3/3/97-0305_article

See I have no doubt that the public health benefit in poor countries with managed systems for spraying in house that DDT is the the most cost effect option and should be used to reduce malaria deaths. Of course the more expensive options should be rotated in occasionally to reduce immunity development. But banning widespread general usage given the long term effects is also clearly based in science and needs to happen.

[Himster]

We should be investing in domed cities and air-filtration systems. And also cities with hydrolic legs, so when the glaciers inevitably melt we can move inland and prepare for the inevitable long war for the Earth's dwindling resources that will be fought primarily by sentient cities on said hydrolic legs.
As Ozymandias we shall be, our crumbled monuments shall declare "look upon our works, ye mighty, and despair." But all about shall be ashes and dust. Like a Persian king with a signet ring, we shall know but to no avail: "Even this shall pass away."

[Roma_Victrix]

Damn, Himster, that was entertaining. You should seriously get paid to write this stuff. Ever consider writing science fiction?

Sadly, what might not be science fiction at all is a future war over lack of resources. However, I think high-rise farming in the cities might do a lot to stave off starvation and other serious economic problems such as crop failure due to pesticides or bad weather. Of course, the weather is directly affected by global warming, all the more reason to adopt these new emission standards.

[conon394]

Damn, Himster, that was entertaining. You should seriously get paid to write this stuff. Ever consider writing science fiction?

Sadly, what might not be science fiction at all is a future war over lack of resources. However, I think high-rise farming in the cities might do a lot to stave off starvation and other serious economic problems such as crop failure due to pesticides or bad weather. Of course, the weather is directly affected by global warming, all the more reason to adopt these new emission standards.

I have to I am rather skeptical of the potential of high-rise farming I suppose it can buffer from bad weather but very much not pesticide usage. My wife as flipped between Human an Plant genetics for over 25 years and one the interesting I have learned is that even the best greenhouses run at top facilities USDA, Iowa State are constantly fighting a rather expensive battle to control pests. So would an urban green house on a vast scale and is the local water and sewage company ready for that run off?

Even if you do manage to hermetically seal the place (at what expense?) who is going to pollinate crops that need it? No bugs means hired employees and that costs more. Also year round production implies year round lighting that is a power load

I can find a lot of articles like this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.VGNulsloD0E

But a lot hard numbers at best I seeing for now something that might compete with expensive fruits and vegetables but not basic grains and such.

[Roma_Victrix]

I have to I am rather skeptical of the potential of high-rise farming I suppose it can buffer from bad weather but very much not pesticide usage. My wife as flipped between Human an Plant genetics for over 25 years and one the interesting I have learned is that even the best greenhouses run at top facilities USDA, Iowa State are constantly fighting a rather expensive battle to control pests. So would an urban green house on a vast scale and is the local water and sewage company ready for that run off?

Even if you do manage to hermetically seal the place (at what expense?) who is going to pollinate crops that need it? No bugs means hired employees and that costs more. Also year round production implies year round lighting that is a power load

I can find a lot of articles like this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.VGNulsloD0E

But a lot hard numbers at best I seeing for now something that might compete with expensive fruits and vegetables but not basic grains and such.

I was under the impression that in vertical farming the animal waste itself, including methane, would somehow help in covering some of the energy cost (i.e. renewable energy), but I may be wrong about that.

To be honest, I don't think vertical farming will replace traditional agriculture altogether. That's a drastic statement. I do believe, however, that the two will complement each other in the future as near equals, with vertical farming ensuring that when crop failures and natural disasters do strike, we at least have food stocks and production to tie us over.

That's the last I'll say on that, since it's a wee bit off topic from the OP.

[Sphere]

The liberal Green conspiracy has the Chinese government in their pocket now?

How deep does this thing go?