Trump

[Freyadiin]

The Paris Accord was useless. Even if EVERYONE that signed on to it did EVERYTHING they promised, it would only make around a .3 degree difference by 2100.

 

Also, US CO2 emissions have remained relatively flat since around 2005. Can't say the same for China/India.

 

The fact is, the climate changes. We can't stop it, we can't change it. It IS going to happen. We can either adapt, or, we can die. Those are the choices.

The aim of the agreement is to limit global warming to 2 degrees C, or even better, 1.5. Naturally it won't be perfect but it's far better than nothing. Lots of countries are taking it seriously.

 

Yes, US CO2 emissions were decreasing since 2005, but that won't remain true for much longer under Trump. He's loosened regulations intended to limit the use of fossil fuels, and worse yet, is encouraging further investment into them. Since you brought up China and India, it should be noted that they are still developing countries, so their previously rising carbon emissions were to be expected. As a result of the Paris accords though, they've been putting in the work to stop this. In 2017, India's solar prices undercut those of fossil fuels (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels), and India is still continuing in this department, building some of the largest solar parks on the planet (https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-india-solar-20180319-story.html). China is also leading on this front and in 2016 alone their solar power capacity more than doubled (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-solar-idUSKBN15J0G7). I'd hardly call the agreement useless.

 

Considering climate change is largely caused by us, we can and should stop it.

[steve40]

Don't worry. The geomagnetic poles will flip long before climate change fully hits us.

[HeyYou]

 

The Paris Accord was useless. Even if EVERYONE that signed on to it did EVERYTHING they promised, it would only make around a .3 degree difference by 2100.

 

Also, US CO2 emissions have remained relatively flat since around 2005. Can't say the same for China/India.

 

The fact is, the climate changes. We can't stop it, we can't change it. It IS going to happen. We can either adapt, or, we can die. Those are the choices.

The aim of the agreement is to limit global warming to 2 degrees C, or even better, 1.5. Naturally it won't be perfect but it's far better than nothing. Lots of countries are taking it seriously.

 

Yes, US CO2 emissions were decreasing since 2005, but that won't remain true for much longer under Trump. He's loosened regulations intended to limit the use of fossil fuels, and worse yet, is encouraging further investment into them. Since you brought up China and India, it should be noted that they are still developing countries, so their previously rising carbon emissions were to be expected. As a result of the Paris accords though, they've been putting in the work to stop this. In 2017, India's solar prices undercut those of fossil fuels (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels), and India is still continuing in this department, building some of the largest solar parks on the planet (https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-india-solar-20180319-story.html). China is also leading on this front and in 2016 alone their solar power capacity more than doubled (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-solar-idUSKBN15J0G7). I'd hardly call the agreement useless.

 

Considering climate change is largely caused by us, we can and should stop it.

 

China has a LONG way to go if they want to emit less carbon than the US. I would also point out, that in 2005, and later..... republicans still were in power in DC. Sure, trump is rolling back some of Obamas initiatives, but, that doesn't necessarily imply that co2 emissions are not going to skyrocket.... I don't think your crystal ball is good enough to predict that. (nor is mine....) Transportation is the biggest producer of co2 here in the states..... and fuel economy requirements have kept going up. I don't see that changing.

 

Wanna make a serious dent in that? Get rid of the ethanol mandate for gasoline. EVERY vehicle INSTANTLY starts getting 10-15% better gas mileage. A boatload of land that is now producing corn, will go back to being meadows, and forests. Food will become cheaper, as feed prices will also go down. Emissions will be less, because farmers AREN'T using their equipment to farm that land. Of course, the farm lobby will NEVER let that happen......

 

The Paris accord was just a global scheme for redistribution of wealth. The US would be sending money to third-world nations, so they could 'catch up' to the rest of the world. China doesn't need the money, their economy is doing better than ours. India isn't doing so bad either. Quite frankly, I see it as a waste of my tax money. Sending money to other countries when OUR infrastructure is in such sad shape, strikes me as outright foolish. Lets get our OWN house in order before we start worrying about the neighbors.

 

Besides, it really doesn't matter what we do, the climate IS going to change. Even if humans weren't around at all, the climate would STILL change. As I said, we can adapt, or, we can die. Those are the choices.

 

Don't worry. The geomagnetic poles will flip long before climate change fully hits us.

That's going to play merry hell with my compass...... :) Not sure how much of an impact it will really have though. Most modern aircraft, (and cars, for that matter) use GPS for navigation, which really shouldn't be affected at all. Some recalibration will be required though..... (for the compass to be accurate. :) )

[steve40]

 

 

 

The Paris Accord was useless. Even if EVERYONE that signed on to it did EVERYTHING they promised, it would only make around a .3 degree difference by 2100.

 

Also, US CO2 emissions have remained relatively flat since around 2005. Can't say the same for China/India.

 

The fact is, the climate changes. We can't stop it, we can't change it. It IS going to happen. We can either adapt, or, we can die. Those are the choices.

The aim of the agreement is to limit global warming to 2 degrees C, or even better, 1.5. Naturally it won't be perfect but it's far better than nothing. Lots of countries are taking it seriously.

 

Yes, US CO2 emissions were decreasing since 2005, but that won't remain true for much longer under Trump. He's loosened regulations intended to limit the use of fossil fuels, and worse yet, is encouraging further investment into them. Since you brought up China and India, it should be noted that they are still developing countries, so their previously rising carbon emissions were to be expected. As a result of the Paris accords though, they've been putting in the work to stop this. In 2017, India's solar prices undercut those of fossil fuels (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels), and India is still continuing in this department, building some of the largest solar parks on the planet (https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-india-solar-20180319-story.html). China is also leading on this front and in 2016 alone their solar power capacity more than doubled (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-solar-idUSKBN15J0G7). I'd hardly call the agreement useless.

 

Considering climate change is largely caused by us, we can and should stop it.

 

China has a LONG way to go if they want to emit less carbon than the US. I would also point out, that in 2005, and later..... republicans still were in power in DC. Sure, trump is rolling back some of Obamas initiatives, but, that doesn't necessarily imply that co2 emissions are not going to skyrocket.... I don't think your crystal ball is good enough to predict that. (nor is mine....) Transportation is the biggest producer of co2 here in the states..... and fuel economy requirements have kept going up. I don't see that changing.

 

Wanna make a serious dent in that? Get rid of the ethanol mandate for gasoline. EVERY vehicle INSTANTLY starts getting 10-15% better gas mileage. A boatload of land that is now producing corn, will go back to being meadows, and forests. Food will become cheaper, as feed prices will also go down. Emissions will be less, because farmers AREN'T using their equipment to farm that land. Of course, the farm lobby will NEVER let that happen......

 

The Paris accord was just a global scheme for redistribution of wealth. The US would be sending money to third-world nations, so they could 'catch up' to the rest of the world. China doesn't need the money, their economy is doing better than ours. India isn't doing so bad either. Quite frankly, I see it as a waste of my tax money. Sending money to other countries when OUR infrastructure is in such sad shape, strikes me as outright foolish. Lets get our OWN house in order before we start worrying about the neighbors.

 

Besides, it really doesn't matter what we do, the climate IS going to change. Even if humans weren't around at all, the climate would STILL change. As I said, we can adapt, or, we can die. Those are the choices.

 

 

 

Don't worry. The geomagnetic poles will flip long before climate change fully hits us.

That's going to play merry hell with my compass...... :smile: Not sure how much of an impact it will really have though. Most modern aircraft, (and cars, for that matter) use GPS for navigation, which really shouldn't be affected at all. Some recalibration will be required though..... (for the compass to be accurate. :smile: )

 

It will, the GPS won't be able to lock on to any satellites because the trajectory calculations will be all screwed up.

[Freyadiin]

Besides, it really doesn't matter what we do, the climate IS going to change. Even if humans weren't around at all, the climate would STILL change. As I said, we can adapt, or, we can die. Those are the choices.

Well yeah, the climate changes due to natural forces too, but nothing like what we're getting due to anthropogenic forces. You're right though. We need to adapt and switch to clean, renewable energy before we all die.

[steve40]

We need global warming to ward off the next ice age, but either of these events may be an interesting solution to the problem of global overpopulation.

[HeyYou]

 

Besides, it really doesn't matter what we do, the climate IS going to change. Even if humans weren't around at all, the climate would STILL change. As I said, we can adapt, or, we can die. Those are the choices.

Well yeah, the climate changes due to natural forces too, but nothing like what we're getting due to anthropogenic forces. You're right though. We need to adapt and switch to clean, renewable energy before we all die.

 

There are some other interesting projects in the wings as well. "Carbon Capture" tech has been progressing right along. Pulls CO2 out of the air, and makes fuel. An interesting process. I think Canada has one being built on an industrial scale.

[Freyadiin]

There are some other interesting projects in the wings as well. "Carbon Capture" tech has been progressing right along. Pulls CO2 out of the air, and makes fuel. An interesting process. I think Canada has one being built on an industrial scale.

I hadn't heard of this tech before, this is interesting indeed! However, I doubt that this alone could balance out the CO2 being released by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

Scientists have also proposed releasing aerosols into the atmosphere that would have the effect of dimming the sun and therefore slowing the rate of global warming (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d), however this only buys us more time to address the cause of it.

[HeyYou]

 

There are some other interesting projects in the wings as well. "Carbon Capture" tech has been progressing right along. Pulls CO2 out of the air, and makes fuel. An interesting process. I think Canada has one being built on an industrial scale.

I hadn't heard of this tech before, this is interesting indeed! However, I doubt that this alone could balance out the CO2 being released by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

Scientists have also proposed releasing aerosols into the atmosphere that would have the effect of dimming the sun and therefore slowing the rate of global warming (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d), however this only buys us more time to address the cause of it.

 

Personally, I think adding something to the atmosphere to counteract something else we are adding to the atmosphere wouldn't be the best plan....... Too easy to screw it up, and we end up with a MUCH colder climate than intended.

 

It's like the asian lady bugs they introduced here, in order to control the aphid population. They were only supposed to be around for a few years, and then die out. (not their native environment, and all that.) Of course, it didn't happen that way........ So, now we have lady bugs that bite......

 

If the folks in the southern hemisphere would STOP clear-cutting rainforest at a tremendous rate, it wouldn't hurt us either. But, in the pursuit of money, 'environmental responsibility' takes a distant second place. Just ask Union Carbide. :)

 

CO2 to Fuel.

[steve40]

 

 

There are some other interesting projects in the wings as well. "Carbon Capture" tech has been progressing right along. Pulls CO2 out of the air, and makes fuel. An interesting process. I think Canada has one being built on an industrial scale.

I hadn't heard of this tech before, this is interesting indeed! However, I doubt that this alone could balance out the CO2 being released by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

Scientists have also proposed releasing aerosols into the atmosphere that would have the effect of dimming the sun and therefore slowing the rate of global warming (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d), however this only buys us more time to address the cause of it.

 

Personally, I think adding something to the atmosphere to counteract something else we are adding to the atmosphere wouldn't be the best plan....... Too easy to screw it up, and we end up with a MUCH colder climate than intended.

 

It's like the asian lady bugs they introduced here, in order to control the aphid population. They were only supposed to be around for a few years, and then die out. (not their native environment, and all that.) Of course, it didn't happen that way........ So, now we have lady bugs that bite......

 

If the folks in the southern hemisphere would STOP clear-cutting rainforest at a tremendous rate, it wouldn't hurt us either. But, in the pursuit of money, 'environmental responsibility' takes a distant second place. Just ask Union Carbide. :smile:

 

CO2 to Fuel.

 

 

Don't forget the cane toads they introduced in Australia to control the cane beetle. Or myxomatosis to kill rabbits. It worked great at first, but the surviving rabbits were resistant to the disease, so they led to a new generation of disease-resistant rabbits. So... they tried to solve this by...introducing another disease (calicivirus). Look at what happened in New Zealand, the rabbits developed resistance and reached plague numbers again.