Things to Know About China in the Paris Climate Agreemen(americanprogress.org)
americanprogress.org
Things to Know About China in the Paris Climate Agreemen
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2017/02/09/414850/3-things-americans-should-know-about-china-in-the-paris-climate-agreement/
9 comments
I don't understand this comment at all.
Is it attempt to say that - despite your view that we should be concerned that the CAP was founded by John Podesta - what they are saying is correct?
Because it appears the article entirely agrees with your point?
Is it attempt to say that - despite your view that we should be concerned that the CAP was founded by John Podesta - what they are saying is correct?
Because it appears the article entirely agrees with your point?
> Founder: John Podesta
> Uhuh.
> As someone who lives in
> ... world's center for
> hydropower ... you never see
> a Tesla ... skeptical of US
> commitment to clean energy
Checkout Skippy's email.
That is also meant to mean something, but I have no idea what.
Uhuh.
So if the US did withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, which is what the article is warning against, would you become more or less sceptical about US commitment to clean energy?
So if the US did withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, which is what the article is warning against, would you become more or less sceptical about US commitment to clean energy?
1 thing that US propagandists consistently fail to mention about China's emissions is that, per capita, they are less than half of those of the United States. If you mention that, they accuse you of "whataboutism" as if comparing the total emissions of Austin, TX and Los Angeles is a reasonable and totally not intentionally deceptive thing to do.
It's biased to refer to a system that expects countries with far less per capita emissions to reduce at the same rate as countries with two or three times their rates as "bifurcated." "Bifurcated" could just as easily refer to the rate of the reduction, or to the per capita targets of that reduction. The system can't help but be bifurcated when dealing with polluters as bad as the United States.
It's a paranoid work of art to both make China out to be a threat because it could pollute too much, and also a threat because it could develop green technology and apply it too quickly, in the same document.
It's biased to refer to a system that expects countries with far less per capita emissions to reduce at the same rate as countries with two or three times their rates as "bifurcated." "Bifurcated" could just as easily refer to the rate of the reduction, or to the per capita targets of that reduction. The system can't help but be bifurcated when dealing with polluters as bad as the United States.
It's a paranoid work of art to both make China out to be a threat because it could pollute too much, and also a threat because it could develop green technology and apply it too quickly, in the same document.
Good point. In the US, per capita carbon emmissions also vary wildly by state. http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/
China is also the manufacturer on behalf of a lot of other countries, so their statistical carbon output isn't really "theirs".
One thing Chinese should know about the United States in the Paris Climate Agreement: many people in the U.S., including elected officials and influential folks don't actually believe global warming is a thing.
I know it may sound far fetched for a country that hosts the most renown universities in the world but it is what it is.
I know it may sound far fetched for a country that hosts the most renown universities in the world but it is what it is.
Do they really though? I am from the UK and I see it on the news, read it in the newspapers that some elected official comes out with (what I am assuming is the party line) "Climate change is unknown, the science is undecided, humans have no part to play in the change in climate"....
But surely, they don't "believe" it. They must be somewhat educated to get elected to office. Surely they see the evidence of 97 scientists saying "yes" and 3 saying "no" who all have ties to big oil.
There is no debate about it any more, the scientific is as close to unanimous on the answer as it is possible to get.
How can they possibly deny it? Is it purely political? Is it bribes - sorry lobbying - money that blinds them? Is it religion? Is it just ignorance. I just cannot get my head round it.
There is no other comparable country with the same view that I am aware.
But surely, they don't "believe" it. They must be somewhat educated to get elected to office. Surely they see the evidence of 97 scientists saying "yes" and 3 saying "no" who all have ties to big oil.
There is no debate about it any more, the scientific is as close to unanimous on the answer as it is possible to get.
How can they possibly deny it? Is it purely political? Is it bribes - sorry lobbying - money that blinds them? Is it religion? Is it just ignorance. I just cannot get my head round it.
There is no other comparable country with the same view that I am aware.
There are many flavors of "climate denial" in the states, some of which are (relatively) sober and reasonable.
1) "The climate is not warming" — obviously false, unless you believe in dramatic conspiracy theories and falsification of evidence on a grand scale.
2) "The models are wrong" — this is on slightly stronger footing, since at least it's not attacking empirical evidence, but rather is discounting the extrapolations one can make from a highly simplified model of forcings and feedback effects.
3) "Warming is not chiefly caused by human activity, and thus we should not restrain our economy to stop it" — given the timing of recent warming this seems to go against the evidence, but there is also no counterfactual case against which to do real science. Once you get into the causal domain, things get muddier, leaving room for interpretation.
4) "Warming is happening, humans are causing it, but energy technology improvements + mitigation efforts will mean that ROI on carbon cutting measures today will be negative" — this is the most sophisticated argument I believe, and the hardest to refute. It comes down to how willing one is to roll the dice on the chance for catastrophic "runaway warming" in exchange for better quality of life today.
One reason I believe you see these arguments emerge chiefly in the US is the fact that most global warming reduction schemes seem, by necessity, to involve international cooperation and the ceding of national sovereignty to some minor degree. Many Americans find this idea to be an absolute non-starter, generally disliking things with a whiff of globalism about them.
What's the solution? Man, if I knew I wouldn't be sitting here commenting on a web forum...
1) "The climate is not warming" — obviously false, unless you believe in dramatic conspiracy theories and falsification of evidence on a grand scale.
2) "The models are wrong" — this is on slightly stronger footing, since at least it's not attacking empirical evidence, but rather is discounting the extrapolations one can make from a highly simplified model of forcings and feedback effects.
3) "Warming is not chiefly caused by human activity, and thus we should not restrain our economy to stop it" — given the timing of recent warming this seems to go against the evidence, but there is also no counterfactual case against which to do real science. Once you get into the causal domain, things get muddier, leaving room for interpretation.
4) "Warming is happening, humans are causing it, but energy technology improvements + mitigation efforts will mean that ROI on carbon cutting measures today will be negative" — this is the most sophisticated argument I believe, and the hardest to refute. It comes down to how willing one is to roll the dice on the chance for catastrophic "runaway warming" in exchange for better quality of life today.
One reason I believe you see these arguments emerge chiefly in the US is the fact that most global warming reduction schemes seem, by necessity, to involve international cooperation and the ceding of national sovereignty to some minor degree. Many Americans find this idea to be an absolute non-starter, generally disliking things with a whiff of globalism about them.
What's the solution? Man, if I knew I wouldn't be sitting here commenting on a web forum...
I've read that the 97% statistic isn't accurate, for example:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-...
Personally, my perception is that it is much, much, much warmer now than when I was a child 40 years ago, and I can't think of anyone I've ever talked to on the subject that disagrees.
And yet:
https://globalclimate.ucr.edu/resources.html#q3
Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 2 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (PDF)).
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-...
Personally, my perception is that it is much, much, much warmer now than when I was a child 40 years ago, and I can't think of anyone I've ever talked to on the subject that disagrees.
And yet:
https://globalclimate.ucr.edu/resources.html#q3
Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 2 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (PDF)).
Because the temperature change is accelerating, the increase is concentrated towards the end of the period. But much more importantly, an increase of the global average temperature by X°C does not mean that it is more or less exactly X°C warmer everywhere every time. Changes are concentrated in time and space.
I could also imagine quite well that the perception gets distorted. One may be much less likely to notice a change from 24°C plus or minus 1°C in summer than to notice that there is less time with snow because the temperature that used to be just below freezing point got pushed just slightly above it.
Especially in places where the temperature used to hover just around freezing point for a long time, even a pretty small increase in temperature might easily shorten the perceived duration of winter as indicated by snow lying around by weeks.
I also wonder whether growing up on itself makes a difference. Time speeds up as we grow older and a meter of snow looks certainly very different to me today than it look to me when I was a small child.
I could also imagine quite well that the perception gets distorted. One may be much less likely to notice a change from 24°C plus or minus 1°C in summer than to notice that there is less time with snow because the temperature that used to be just below freezing point got pushed just slightly above it.
Especially in places where the temperature used to hover just around freezing point for a long time, even a pretty small increase in temperature might easily shorten the perceived duration of winter as indicated by snow lying around by weeks.
I also wonder whether growing up on itself makes a difference. Time speeds up as we grow older and a meter of snow looks certainly very different to me today than it look to me when I was a small child.
...and yet all ice on the planet is melting irreversibly. Permafrost is slumping and dumping CO2-bearing silt into watersheds in quantities unseen in human history. Siberia has melted, the first time since the Mastodon roamed the plains. Flooding and drought are oscillating outside all recorded norms.
We can probably stop philosophizing about 'when I was young' etc.
We can probably stop philosophizing about 'when I was young' etc.
Look at religious people. Among them are a lot of educated people and scientist, even if proportionally less than in the general population. Humans have quite some capacity to hold conflicting ideas without to much worries, just don't think too much about it.
What politicians believe is irrelevant. They are salesmen paid to hold one opinion or the other. Do other intelligent and educated conservatives deny climate change? Yes. Look up the smart idiot effect.
Where do the other 97 scientist get their money? Are you sure their ties are neutral?
> folks don't actually believe global warming
To be nit picky, the belief is no longer in global warming, but climate change. Those who promoted global warming got their predictions terribly wrong, and that's why we refer to it as climate change today. They got it right this time I'm sure.
To be nit picky, the belief is no longer in global warming, but climate change. Those who promoted global warming got their predictions terribly wrong, and that's why we refer to it as climate change today. They got it right this time I'm sure.
To be clear, both are correct. The earth is warming, and the climate is changing.
In some places that change results in a wetter (and perhaps cooler) climate, so climate change is easier to talk about. But I guess here we all understand the difference between local and global effects, and between climate and weather, right?
In some places that change results in a wetter (and perhaps cooler) climate, so climate change is easier to talk about. But I guess here we all understand the difference between local and global effects, and between climate and weather, right?
> The earth is warming
Right, but only 0.74ºC in the last 100 years, which may very well be a normal variance. So original projections were wrong, and they had to change the claim being made.
Right, but only 0.74ºC in the last 100 years, which may very well be a normal variance. So original projections were wrong, and they had to change the claim being made.
What original predictions? All the old ones I've seen show exactly what seems to be happening: an accelerating warming.
The majority of the 0.74C is in the second half of that 100 years, just like one would expect.
The majority of the 0.74C is in the second half of that 100 years, just like one would expect.
Just plug your ears. Close your eyes. And repeat the holy chant, "America is #1". While our rivers run thick with coal sludge, our water is full of lead, and we ravage our environment.
That's what they do in China (of course replacing "America #1" with "China #1"), it's been quite successful so far.
So successful that people have to wear smog masks in the cities.
From what I understand, the Chinese know they have a problem. They are not denying climate change, they are not burying their head in the sand and are actively talking about and planning for the future and the changes required.
I am fairly sure no high ranking official is blaming it as a "US hoax"
I am fairly sure no high ranking official is blaming it as a "US hoax"
The article says that China isn't trying to 'ravage their environment` - quite the opposite. In fact, that's the whole thrust of the article.
They've already ravaged it, no need in trying further.
> Just plug your ears. Close your eyes. And repeat the holy chant, "America is #1". While our rivers run thick with coal sludge, our water is full of lead, and we ravage our environment.
Without any touch of irony.
Without any touch of irony.
edgy stuff
"That commitment requires China to build and install 800 gigawatts to 1,000 gigawatts of new wind, solar, NUCLEAR, and other renewable energy generation facilities by 2030"
Nuclear green and renewable? But Ok, this sentence you can understand in another way but not together with:
"China has committed to build a renewables-only system that is equivalent to the entire U.S. electricity system by 2030. This nonfossil fuel target is the deepest hook in China’s Paris commitments. It is already creating massive demand for new clean energy technologies"
All talking about green, renewable energy and specifically in the context of the 1000 GW from before, what INCLUDES nuclear.
And even though I prefer (proper) nuclear plants over coal, I think you can't really put wind and solar energy together with nucleaer in the same bag and label it as green and renewable. So the article is either intentionally missleading, or dumb.
Nuclear green and renewable? But Ok, this sentence you can understand in another way but not together with:
"China has committed to build a renewables-only system that is equivalent to the entire U.S. electricity system by 2030. This nonfossil fuel target is the deepest hook in China’s Paris commitments. It is already creating massive demand for new clean energy technologies"
All talking about green, renewable energy and specifically in the context of the 1000 GW from before, what INCLUDES nuclear.
And even though I prefer (proper) nuclear plants over coal, I think you can't really put wind and solar energy together with nucleaer in the same bag and label it as green and renewable. So the article is either intentionally missleading, or dumb.
Renewable? Sure, you can't. But just green energy? Any article that does not put nuclear in the green bag is misleading.
>Renewable? Sure, you can't.
This silly if it runs out in a million years you can't call it renewable is just that, silly.
As long as it lasts a 100 years it's renewable. If we don't have solar etc up and running by then we never will.
This silly if it runs out in a million years you can't call it renewable is just that, silly.
As long as it lasts a 100 years it's renewable. If we don't have solar etc up and running by then we never will.
I was going to add that the present estimates of available nuclear fuel suggests we're pretty good for the next thousand years[0], but I didn't want to start an argument over the meaning of the term "renewable energy source", which would detract from the general point that nuclear is a viable and eco-friendly replacement for fossil fuels.
[0] - https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml
[0] - https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml
"As long as it lasts a 100 years it's renewable."
Not really, a good option for now, yes, but not renewable, so nothing sustainable in the long run.
Which is why I disagree to put it together with solar and wind, because as long as the sun shines, there will be energy.
So yes:
" If we don't have solar etc up and running by then we never will"
Nuclear as transition and backup, but not propagate it as green and awesome. And with progress on medicine, many people on earth now can hope to live 100 more years. (or even 1000 years)
Not really, a good option for now, yes, but not renewable, so nothing sustainable in the long run.
Which is why I disagree to put it together with solar and wind, because as long as the sun shines, there will be energy.
So yes:
" If we don't have solar etc up and running by then we never will"
Nuclear as transition and backup, but not propagate it as green and awesome. And with progress on medicine, many people on earth now can hope to live 100 more years. (or even 1000 years)
But it is both green and awesome. It's just isn't "renewable". Good for transition period, and should be enough to last until we finally crack fusion.
So fusion in 20 years?
I don't get it, why not just use the big fusion reactor right out there? There are plenty of deserts out there and enough storage technologies avaiable, which does not need a breakthrough. Improvements, yes, but renewable technology is allready good as it is.
I don't get it, why not just use the big fusion reactor right out there? There are plenty of deserts out there and enough storage technologies avaiable, which does not need a breakthrough. Improvements, yes, but renewable technology is allready good as it is.
Because the big fusion reactor is very, very far from us, and our technological civilization uses a lot of power. Renewables tend to suck on the energy-per-square-meter metric, and we need the land for other things (like agriculture).
Also, the question should be reversed. Is irrational fear of nuclear energy a good reason to abandon it and instead pave over the Sahara desert?
Also, the question should be reversed. Is irrational fear of nuclear energy a good reason to abandon it and instead pave over the Sahara desert?
Renewables tend to suck on the energy-per-square-meter metric
There are many reasonable criticisms of renewables, but this isn't one. For example the largest aggregate solar deployments are rooftop solar in cities. Wind and geothermal are both much smaller than non-renewable sources.
There are many reasonable criticisms of renewables, but this isn't one. For example the largest aggregate solar deployments are rooftop solar in cities. Wind and geothermal are both much smaller than non-renewable sources.
Rooftop solars are good at replacing some of the use of residents - especially the wealthy ones that have houses. That doesn't cover urban areas, where people live in blocks of flats; that doesn't cover skyscrapers, which have important efficiency benefits. And most importantly, that doesn't cover industrial use of energy.
Land use for power sources is still an important metric.
Land use for power sources is still an important metric.
There are many, many urban and industrial rooftop installations.
https://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sein.d...
I dont think it is that much space. Plus last time I checked, not so much space in the desert was used by agriculture.
And given what happened allready, I don't see what is irrational fear about it, when there is a safe alternative.
I dont think it is that much space. Plus last time I checked, not so much space in the desert was used by agriculture.
And given what happened allready, I don't see what is irrational fear about it, when there is a safe alternative.
A technology, where you don't know yet, what to do with the highly toxic waste products and where you have a large area contaminated for a long time in case something goes really wrong, does not really qualify as "green energy" in my opinion.
Still better than coal, yes. But not green.
Especially not, if you consider this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accident...
Still better than coal, yes. But not green.
Especially not, if you consider this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accident...
The RationalWiki page on nuclear waste disposal is surprisingly informative (and non-snarky, by RW standards): http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste
As for the list of 'nuclear accidents', given all but one of the accidents listed have a fatality count of 0, I'm not sure what it is that alarms you. To be fair, the WHO projects a total of ~4000 deaths to occur as a result of Chernobyl (increased rate of cancer, using the linear no-threshold hypothesis).
For Fukushima, the number seems likely to be either 'small' or 'none' based on WHO projections, although two TEPCO workers died at the time of the incident (they drowned, I believe) and a significantly larger number were killed as a result of the (perhaps overly cautious) evacuation of the surrounding populated areas.
As for the list of 'nuclear accidents', given all but one of the accidents listed have a fatality count of 0, I'm not sure what it is that alarms you. To be fair, the WHO projects a total of ~4000 deaths to occur as a result of Chernobyl (increased rate of cancer, using the linear no-threshold hypothesis).
For Fukushima, the number seems likely to be either 'small' or 'none' based on WHO projections, although two TEPCO workers died at the time of the incident (they drowned, I believe) and a significantly larger number were killed as a result of the (perhaps overly cautious) evacuation of the surrounding populated areas.
So would you like to move to fukoshima then? I heard, houses are cheap ...
So what I am saying is, it is not about the immediate death rate, it is about radiation. Cancer and so on ... it might not kill you, but can cripple you. The children born after chernobyl in my area, exposed to the toxic rain, had much more birth diseases.
If a windturbine falls down, you remove the debris, if there is a meltdown you have to evacuate for a long time?
See the difference?
So again, I am not saying nuclear power should be banned. The alternatives are simply not ready yet. But labeling it as green is bs.
So what I am saying is, it is not about the immediate death rate, it is about radiation. Cancer and so on ... it might not kill you, but can cripple you. The children born after chernobyl in my area, exposed to the toxic rain, had much more birth diseases.
If a windturbine falls down, you remove the debris, if there is a meltdown you have to evacuate for a long time?
See the difference?
So again, I am not saying nuclear power should be banned. The alternatives are simply not ready yet. But labeling it as green is bs.
Yeah, and when hydropower suffers catastrophic failures, you have thousands of people killed instantly, and many more displaced from the areas affectes. Long-term, nuclear probably beats solar on lower mortality out of simply counting accidents people have when installing PVs on the roof.
People are afraid of radiation. That makes nuclear energy seem much more dangerous than it really is.
As for Fukushima, from what I read, radiation-reduced deaths and health issues will probably never be greater than the deaths and injuries caused by unnecessary evacuations of some of the areas there...
People are afraid of radiation. That makes nuclear energy seem much more dangerous than it really is.
As for Fukushima, from what I read, radiation-reduced deaths and health issues will probably never be greater than the deaths and injuries caused by unnecessary evacuations of some of the areas there...
Yes I understand the difference between a windturbine falling down and a nuclear meltdown.
Those WHO projections, for both Chernobyl and Fukushima, include deaths from future cases of cancer. In Fukushima's case, the WHO specifically examined the effect that the increased radiation exposure would have on children. From their 2015 update:
"Given the exposure to radioactive iodine during the early phase of the emergency, WHO specifically assessed the risk of thyroid cancer. The greatest risk was found among girls exposed as infants (i.e. < 1 year old) in the most affected area in the Fukushima prefecture. Even if those levels of risk might not be clinically detectable, WHO anticipated that the thyroid ultrasound screening programme being conducted in Fukushima prefecture was likely to lead to an increase in the incidence of thyroid diseases due to earlier detection of non-symptomatic cases.
There have been recent reports about thyroid cancer cases being diagnosed among children exposed to low doses of radioactive iodine as a result of the Fukushima accident. These reports should be interpreted with caution. A large excess of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure, such as occurred after the Chernobyl accident, can be discounted because the estimated thyroid doses due to the Fukushima accident were substantially lower than in Chernobyl. Nevertheless, the highly-sensitive thyroid screening of those under 18 years old at the time of the accident is expected to detect a large number of thyroid cysts and solid nodules, including a number of thyroid cancers that would not have been detected without such intensive screening. Similar or even slightly higher rates of cysts and nodules were found in prefectures not affected by the nuclear accident. The substantial number of cases that have already been observed in the Fukushima Health Management Survey have been considered likely due to the sensitivity of the screening rather than to radiation exposure."
2015 update: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fuk...
2013 report: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_ris...
Those WHO projections, for both Chernobyl and Fukushima, include deaths from future cases of cancer. In Fukushima's case, the WHO specifically examined the effect that the increased radiation exposure would have on children. From their 2015 update:
"Given the exposure to radioactive iodine during the early phase of the emergency, WHO specifically assessed the risk of thyroid cancer. The greatest risk was found among girls exposed as infants (i.e. < 1 year old) in the most affected area in the Fukushima prefecture. Even if those levels of risk might not be clinically detectable, WHO anticipated that the thyroid ultrasound screening programme being conducted in Fukushima prefecture was likely to lead to an increase in the incidence of thyroid diseases due to earlier detection of non-symptomatic cases.
There have been recent reports about thyroid cancer cases being diagnosed among children exposed to low doses of radioactive iodine as a result of the Fukushima accident. These reports should be interpreted with caution. A large excess of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure, such as occurred after the Chernobyl accident, can be discounted because the estimated thyroid doses due to the Fukushima accident were substantially lower than in Chernobyl. Nevertheless, the highly-sensitive thyroid screening of those under 18 years old at the time of the accident is expected to detect a large number of thyroid cysts and solid nodules, including a number of thyroid cancers that would not have been detected without such intensive screening. Similar or even slightly higher rates of cysts and nodules were found in prefectures not affected by the nuclear accident. The substantial number of cases that have already been observed in the Fukushima Health Management Survey have been considered likely due to the sensitivity of the screening rather than to radiation exposure."
2015 update: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fuk...
2013 report: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/fukushima_ris...
The metric here seems to be "better than Chernobyl". There is no accounting for the abandoned land which is likely to be needed to be left for hundreds of years.
The link says that "no solution is in use today" for the waste management problem and that it "can't go on forever" but on the upside it "may not be an intractable problem". That sure sounds safe and sustainable to me!
There are "no solutions in use today" partly because it really isn't that big of a problem now. Compared to all the other toxic industrial waste we generate, nuclear waste is minuscule in quantity and manageable. The worry is not about it killing you, or me, or our children, or our children's children. It's a worry about the waste killing someone 5000 years from now, after civilization already collapsed twice and humans are living in caves again.
So because we argue against nuclear waste, means we like other toxic waste?
And the worry is exactly that there will be no more humans in 5000 years, because someone in charge might decide Who cares, makes careless decisions, and in the end more groundwater gets contaminated and though not immeaditely killing everyone, but damaging the genes so to produce more retards, leading us in a nice downward spiral.
And the worry is exactly that there will be no more humans in 5000 years, because someone in charge might decide Who cares, makes careless decisions, and in the end more groundwater gets contaminated and though not immeaditely killing everyone, but damaging the genes so to produce more retards, leading us in a nice downward spiral.
So Nuclear has it's own challenges but it's low carbon compared to coal, and oil
(Yes, there's a huge stack of CO2 emitted during concrete production)
(Yes, there's a huge stack of CO2 emitted during concrete production)
I hate to say it but the Chinese Regime actually looks more fit to govern than Trumps administration...now some might take that as a blow against democracy, but I'd rather think of it as "With great freedom comes great responsibility"
Democracy didn't fail, America did...
I read your comment to my Chinese friends in the office. They are still laughing at what you wrote.
I wonder if they'd still feel like laughing if their family depended on the State Bureau of Letters and Calls [1] for the defence of their basic human rights.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39137293
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39137293
What do they find funny about it?
Glad I made them smile ;)
[deleted]
Edgy.
There is not a single Chinese "regime" - the space of contestation of politics is simply different than in the US. There's an enormous amount of sometimes extremely emotionally intense conflict within the CCP.
The merit of democracy is not that it's the most efficient in governance. It's the self-correction in the face of disaster.
It didn't fail because America isn't a static thing. Every four years YOU can change it. If you hate the candidates, then run yourself.
Hum no. Clean energy is precisely less efficient. If it truly was more efficient everyone would be using it. It has a potential to be, but it isn't there yet.
That's a good point.
The lack of complete efficiency, while keeping it sustainable, is a driving force behind a lot of the innovation in the energy sector.
If climate denial in the United States results in them ceding energy innovation to China, then ultimately those parties in China who are building the efficiency gains will gain the most from it. They won't just be manufacturers of the end products anymore. Their companies will potentially dominate the market for various technology as efficiency further improves.
The lack of complete efficiency, while keeping it sustainable, is a driving force behind a lot of the innovation in the energy sector.
If climate denial in the United States results in them ceding energy innovation to China, then ultimately those parties in China who are building the efficiency gains will gain the most from it. They won't just be manufacturers of the end products anymore. Their companies will potentially dominate the market for various technology as efficiency further improves.
[deleted]
spangry(1)
Uhuh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress
Founder: John Podesta
Uhuh.
As someone who lives in China, in what must be the world's center for hydropower (the south-east Himlayan region), where a huge number of people get around on e-bikes and you never see a Tesla, I remain skeptical of US commitment to clean energy. So should you.
China makes most of everything for everyone, including solar panels. Residential energy consumption per-capita is rising but still far beneath western levels. Industrial consumption frequently has a significant export component and thus that pollution is essentially outsourced... any direct comparison is therefore flawed.