Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond  (Read 219769 times)

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1250 on: September 01, 2017, 08:50:46 PM »
Re-reading Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty First Century". Basically the global economy is dominated by US resident Transnational Corporations that are predominantly owned by US rich people. Those same people also own significant chunks of foreign domiciled TNCs. So we are still dependent on the US rich to accept that real action is required on climate change, the other countries just aren't really that independent. A depressing thought ....

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1251 on: September 01, 2017, 10:22:48 PM »
Re-reading Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty First Century". Basically the global economy is dominated by US resident Transnational Corporations that are predominantly owned by US rich people. Those same people also own significant chunks of foreign domiciled TNCs. So we are still dependent on the US rich to accept that real action is required on climate change, the other countries just aren't really that independent. A depressing thought ....

Keep your eye on fossil fuel and renewable energy stocks.  The rich have started moving their capital to RE.  Coal stocks have already crashed and oil's knees are trembling.

Look at the stock prices for Tesla.  Money thinks that's where the market is going.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1252 on: September 02, 2017, 01:44:02 AM »
Keep your eye on fossil fuel and renewable energy stocks.  The rich have started moving their capital to RE.  Coal stocks have already crashed and oil's knees are trembling.
Look at the stock prices for Tesla.  Money thinks that's where the market is going.

The problem is that the rich will tend to resist any changes that will endanger their wealth, so anything that may retard economic growth (such as significant emission reductions, carbon prices) will be resisted. The "market" wont do it without a tail-wind from government policy. Those governments are controlled by the very people who will lose the most wealth from such policies and can protect themselves the most in the short term from climate change.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1253 on: September 02, 2017, 03:32:42 AM »
Let's break "the rich" into two categories. 

1) People who own stocks as an investment and seek the best returns
2) People whose net worth is firmly bound to a particular fossil fuel investment.  Someone who owns a coal mine, or oil tankers, gasoline distribution companies, ....

People in the first class either pay careful attention to market trends or have people who do the watching.  This group, if they are sentient, probably unloaded most of their coal stock long ago and many have probably started moving money from oil to other investments.

People in the second class are many fewer and a number of them have children who will tell their children "Once upon a time your granddaddy used to be a very wealthy man".

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1254 on: September 02, 2017, 05:28:38 AM »
1) Will not accept any reduction in GDP growth that will affect their returns/reduce their capital. If we want to reduce emissions by 5%+ per year that is what will be required.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1255 on: September 02, 2017, 05:42:20 AM »
1) Will not accept any reduction in GDP growth that will affect their returns/reduce their capital. If we want to reduce emissions by 5%+ per year that is what will be required.

a)  Keep mining coal, pumping gas and oil.  GDP growth not boosted.

b)  Build a massive amount of new wind, solar and storage.  Lots of economic activity and increases in GDP.

Is that how it works?

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1256 on: September 02, 2017, 05:54:23 AM »
Bob, I think we fundamentally disagree on either 1) the pace of emission reductions required and/or 2) the speed at which renewables can replace fossil fuel use.

If we keep GDP growth at 3% (the general assumption underlying stock market valuations), then the rate of decarbonization will have to be 3% plus the required reduction in emissions.

Efficiency may just about offset the 3% growth if driven really hard (has been about 1% historically) so the rest will be up to renewables. I see annualized emission reductions in the region of 6-10% in the rich countries being required, starting now. If renewables can't grow out that fast, then the only other option is degrowth.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1257 on: September 02, 2017, 07:05:23 AM »
If we keep GDP growth at 3% (the general assumption underlying stock market valuations), then the rate of decarbonization will have to be 3% plus the required reduction in emissions.

GDP and energy use may not be as connected as you assume.  I'm too tired to look it up now but one of us needs to bring some data to the table.

Another thing that we need to pay attention to is the difference between primary and used electricity.  As we change 1% of our electricity generation from fossil fuel to renewables we're really lowering fossil fuel use (primary energy) by a bit more than 2%.  Over half of the fossil fuel energy we use never serves a useful purpose but turns into waste heat.  A coal plant may be only 40% efficient.  Replace a kWh of coal-electricity with solar or wind and you'll cut not one but 2.5 'units' of CO2.

As we move to EVs and power them with wind/solar we'll see a big drop in CO2.  ICEVs waste about 80% of the energy that goes into their tank.  And there's a lot of CO2 emitted on the way to the gas tank.  Refineries burn a lot of oil, coal and NG as process fuel.  So even more CO2.

We'll need to generate a fifth or less renewable energy compared to the fossil fuel we were using for cars and light trucks.

-----
Degrowth.  Other than efficiency what did you have in mind?  I can't think of another non-violent way to create degrowth.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1258 on: September 02, 2017, 09:02:14 AM »
Found this online.  Pretty clear that Europe decoupled energy and GDP some decades back.




oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1541
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1259 on: September 02, 2017, 11:45:45 AM »
Found this online.  Pretty clear that Europe decoupled energy and GDP some decades back.
Energy is not emissions. And G7 is not the world (don't forget export of manufacturing and emissions with it to China). I believe there is still a positive relation between GDP and emissions, although on a downward path. Recession years reduce emissions more than economic boom years (if such still exist).
I agree with rboyd that the rate of reduction is not fast enough, OTOH I can't see voluntary degrowth happening.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1260 on: September 02, 2017, 06:39:05 PM »
Energy is not emissions. And G7 is not the world (don't forget export of manufacturing and emissions with it to China).

The G7 is not the world, but the issue is whether you can decouple growth and emissions.  We see that happening in your second graph where global GDP growth is continuing at ~3% while global CO2 emission growth is has sunk to about 0.

I agree with rboyd that the rate of reduction is not fast enough, OTOH I can't see voluntary degrowth happening.

There's no doubt that the rate of reduction is not fast enough.  Using the Global GDP/CO2 graph, 6% in 6 years doesn't look so good, but let's try to think this through...


About 60% global energy from fossil fuels.  Looking at the problem through the primary energy/energy service lens we're currently getting a bit more than 50% of our energy services from renewables and a bit less than of our energy services from fossil fuels.  We need to replace that ~50% FF 'actually used' stuff.  We do not need to replace 'waste heat'.

(In case some are not familiar with primary/energy services I'll add the US 2016 energy use graphic in a separate comment.)

What's our target date?  The IPCC says 2050.  Some people way we've got a bit longer.  Some people say it's got to be sooner.  Some people say that it's already too late.  I'm not an expert so I'll go with the majority opinion which I think is the IPCC and then I'll roll that data closer - "just in case".

2050
50% reduction in 33 years =  1.5% per year.  Speed things up by 50%.

2040
50% reduction in 23 years = 2.2% per year.  Roughly doubling what we are have been doing and that doesn't seem like it will be hard.

Without going into detail about why, I think we'll be at or above 3% five years from now.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1261 on: September 02, 2017, 07:02:09 PM »
Here's how primary energy (energy from coal, oil, natural gas, solar/wind farms, hydro plants, etc.) was used in the US in 2016.  On the left are inputs (primary energy) and on the far right shows how much of that primary energy turns into something we want (energy services = 30.8%) and how much goes in the garbage can (rejected energy = 66.4%).



A coal plant might be 40% efficient in terms of turing coal energy into electricity.  Put 100 kWh of coal energy into a coal plant and the coal plant will give you 40 kWh of usable energy.  And send 60 kWh up the smokestack and cooling tower.

Our job is to find a clean way to generate that 40 kWh with renewable technology (wind, solar, etc.).  There's no reason to replace something that we don't use, the other 60 kWh.

Gasoline powered cars are about 20% efficient.  Pour 100 kWh of energy into your gas tank, 20 kWh moves you down the road, 80% is wasted heat.  Your car needs a dedicated cooling system in order to move all that heat away from the engine so it won't melt.

There's even more wasted primary energy when it comes to transportation.  We use energy to drill for oil, to pump it out of the ground, to refine the oil into fuel, and to transport/distribute. 

My take?  Things aren't as bleak as one would think if they looked at needing to replace high amounts (60%+) of primary energy.  The job is a lot more manageable job of replacing the energy we actually use that we currently get  (<30%) from fossil fuels.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2017, 10:23:27 PM by Bob Wallace »

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1262 on: September 02, 2017, 11:33:00 PM »
My general assumptions:

The G7 + rest of EU + Aus/NZ are at a much less energy intensive stage of development, which also tends to exhibit lower growth rates (1-2%/year) - so we would expect the combination of efficiency+renewables usage to be reducing/stabilizing emissions. There has been a big chunk of coal to gas switching in the G7 in the past years that may be overstating the emissions reductions when measured in CO2 only.

            - G7+ plus rest of EU + Aus/NZ: falling emissions in the next 5-10 years, -3% per year maybe?

China has been through the most energy intensive stage of development, but is still growing very fast (6%/year). Could stabilize emissions, but would be quite incredible if it started to significantly reduce emissions with that rate of economic growth.

            - China: slightly rising/flat/slightly falling emissions in the next 5-10 years, 0%?

India is the biggest variable (along with perhaps Indonesia), as it is in the most energy intensive stage of development with fast growth and a population size about the same as China. They are currently still set to increase emissions, even with significant investments in renewables. Their share of global emissions is increasing, so growth in their emissions will have a bigger impact going forward.

            - India: rising emissions in the next 5-10 years, +2% per year would be miraculous

South America is not a big impact, especially with Brazil utilizing such large amounts of biofuels.

            - South America: not much impact

I assume that Africa will remain the same, extremely poor. Given the rapidly expanding population of Africa, if that continent starts on the industrialization path there will be a huge issue in just trying to stabilize emissions.

            - Africa: a real wildcard for emissions, %??

If we use the CO2e benchmark, even harder to see a global reduction in emissions as CH4 rises with natural gas usage and CH4 and N2O rise with increased agriculture.

So, at the global level maybe a 1-2% per year reduction in emissions in the next 5-10 years - I think that that is easily the best case optimistic scenario. In 2017 emissions look like they will be going up. In 10 years we will be 25ppm+ higher CO2 and 35ppm+ higher CO2e, if the natural sources and sinks stay the same (a big assumption).

« Last Edit: September 02, 2017, 11:46:06 PM by rboyd »

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1263 on: September 02, 2017, 11:42:14 PM »
China's CO2 emissions based on energy used started to slow about 2007 and have flattened since 2013. 

There is a very simple solution to methane emissions from natural gas use.

Stop the leaks.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1264 on: September 02, 2017, 11:50:28 PM »
On methane, they are not stopping the leaks. Trump actually canned the relatively feeble Obama rules aimed at reducing such leaks. In the crony capitalism of Russia and China, probably even less probability of stopping the leaks. Money will grease the hands of the people monitoring the emissions, or the business will simply capture the regulatory authority (as it has in the US and Canada).

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1265 on: September 03, 2017, 01:52:02 AM »
On methane, they are not stopping the leaks. Trump actually canned the relatively feeble Obama rules aimed at reducing such leaks. In the crony capitalism of Russia and China, probably even less probability of stopping the leaks. Money will grease the hands of the people monitoring the emissions, or the business will simply capture the regulatory authority (as it has in the US and Canada).

We know that Trump will set us back in our GHG fight.  That's a given.

But because Trump might block methane leakage does not mean that leaks cannot be stopped.

For now we'll have to do things at the state level, at least in the states that are not governed by the far right.  And when we get Democrats (and rational Republicans) back in control we'll can start the job of cleaning up the Trump mess.

Progress very seldom is made in a series of steps moving directly to the goal.  There are times when we wander off the right path and when we walk backwards.  What we need to focus on right now is getting the House and hopefully the Senate out of the hands of the far right.  Do that and we can lower the amount of damage Trump does for the next two years.

In the meantime natural gas, with its leaks, is letting us get coal plants closed down which is the first priority.  And as we add solar and wind less natural gas will be consumed.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12736
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1266 on: September 03, 2017, 04:53:46 PM »
It would be nice if citizens would treat climate change policy makers like professionals, so the people could sue them for malpractice:

Yong-Xiang Zhang, Qing-Chen Chao, Qiu-Hong Zheng & Lei Huang (31 August 2017), "The withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and its impact on global climate change governance", Advances in Climate Change Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2017.08.005

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927817300849

Abstract: "The global community has prepared for the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement since Donald Trump was elected as the president of the U.S. However, Trump’s formal declaration of withdrawal still caused worldwide reaction. Trump will use the withdrawal to build his political reputation and to renegotiate the Paris Agreement despite its negative effects on the political credibility, international relationships, and potential long-term economic growth of the U.S. In general, the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement will not change the development of low-carbon technologies and the transformation trend of the global climate governance regime. However, the long-term goals and international cooperation on climate change will be affected by budget cuts in American climate change research and the cancelation of donations from the multilateral environmental fund of the U.S. If the Paris Agreement is renegotiated, the common but differentiated principle of responsibility of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will be challenged again. Nevertheless, climate change governance remains a main theme of sustainable future development. Instead of national governments, local governments and non-governmental organizations will develop strategies for technical innovation and emphasize pragmatic cooperation, thus expanding their roles in climate change governance. The capacity building on climate change research and public awareness should be enhanced as a long-term objective of global climate change governance."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12736
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1267 on: September 06, 2017, 10:59:49 PM »
Mother Nature may not care what mankind does, or does not do, w.r.t. fighting climate change.  However, if mankind wants to reduce its own future suffering, per the linked open access reference, we need to learn that: "… risk perception drives how people will behave and manage any future climate risk, future climate policies to target the Paris Agreement should take this premise into account and may subsequently avoid procrastination and policy failure."

María Máñez Costa, Cheney Shreve & María Carmona (5 September 2017), "How to shape climate risk policies after the Paris agreement? The importance of perceptions as a driver for climate risk management", Earth's Future, DOI: 10.1002/2017EF000597

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000597/abstract?utm_content=buffercb110&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "Risk perception research has played an influential role in supporting risk management and risk communication policy. Risk perception studies are popular across a range of disciplines in the social and natural sciences for a wide range of hazard types. Their results have helped to articulate the complex individual, relational, structural, and environmental factors influencing people's behavior. Connections between individual and collective behaviors and norms impacting global climate change, and consequently, local disaster risk, however, are infrequently included in disaster risk management. This paper presents results from two diverse and complementary European risk perception studies examining both natural and anthropogenic hazards. Research gaps and recommendations for developing more comprehensive risk management strategies are presented."

Extract: "With this paper we show that climate risk perception analysis is the first step in understanding how local cultures identify and manage climate risks and how risk cultures work. Assuming that risk perception drives how people will behave and manage any future climate risk, future climate policies to target the Paris Agreement should take this premise into account and may subsequently avoid procrastination and policy failure."

Edit: Wall Street learned long ago the importance of manipulation public perceptions, and it is high time that climate change risk managers learn the same lesson.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9035
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1268 on: September 08, 2017, 01:05:24 AM »
Mars [company] counters Trump's climate stance with $1bn sustainability plan
Confectionery firm also launches M&Ms renewable energy campaign as part of a growing corporate backlash against the US’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate deal
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/mars-counters-trumps-climate-stance-with-1bn-sustainability-plan
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12736
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1269 on: September 09, 2017, 07:11:38 PM »
The linked references reasons the questions of 'what is doable?' and 'what is worth doing?', w.r.t. fighting climate change:

Paul C Stern and Kimberly S Wolske (2017), "Limiting climate change: what's most worth doing?", Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 9, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8467

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8467/meta?utm_content=bufferb8003&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "Wynes and Nicholas (2017 Environ. Res. Lett. 12 074024) claim that some of the most important actions individuals can take to mitigate climate change have been overlooked, particularly in educational messages for adolescents, and estimate the potential impact of some of these, including having fewer children and living car free. These estimates raise questions that deserve serious analysis, but they are based only on the technical potential of the actions and do not consider the plasticity of the behaviors and the feasibility of policies to support them. The actions identified as having the greatest potential are lifestyle changes that accrue benefits over a lifetime or longer, so are not realistic alternatives to actions that can be enacted immediately. But presenting lifestyle choices and the relative impacts of different actions as discussion starters for adolescents could be promising, especially if the discussions highlight issues of behavioral plasticity, policy plasticity, and time scale. Research has identified design principles for interventions to achieve the strongest emissions reductions at time scales up to the decadal. Design principles for achieving longer-lasting changes deserve careful analytic attention, as well as a stronger focus in adolescent textbooks and messages to the general population. Both adolescents and researchers would do well to think carefully about what could promote the generational changes needed to reach a climate change target such as 'well below 2 °C'."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12736
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1270 on: September 13, 2017, 04:28:45 PM »
The linked reference takes a historical perspective w.r.t. to the Paris agreed target of staying 'well below 2C'.  It indicates that as we are already over 1C we are currently in an amber condition, and clearly Paris makes it clear that we should be aiming not to exceed 1.5C by too much.

Rik Leemans & Pier Vellinga (2017), "The scientific motivation of the internationally agreed ‘well below 2 °C’ climate protection target: a historical perspective", Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Volumes 26–27, June 2017, Pages 134–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.07.010

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343517301835

Abstract: "The UNFCCC parties in their last 2015-meeting in Paris agreed to hold the increase in the global average temperature well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. However, how this target came about is rarely substantiated in the scientific literature. We review and document the history of this target and the rapidly emerging scientific evidence to support it. The target was initially proposed after evaluating observed ranges of climate variation over the last 1000 and 1 000 000 years by an US economist, Nordhaus, in 1975. His conclusion was supported in 1980 by paleo-ecologists, who, on basis of the recolonizing vegetation after the retreat of the ice-sheets after the last glaciation, calculated that tree species could cope with a 2 °C temperature increase per century. A more elaborated target including tolerable rates of temperature and sea-level change was presented by Vellinga and Swart at the Second World Climate Conference in 1990. The target was illustrated by means of a traffic light: 1 °C global temperature rise meets an orange light, 2 °C meets red. These notions led first to the 1989 Noordwijk Ministerial Declaration and later to the UNFCCC's 1992 objective to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Although the scientific evidence was limited, the European environment ministers in 1996 endorsed the 2 °C target politically, after which it surfaced again in UNFCCC's 2009 Copenhagen summit.

The ‘well below 2 °C’ target was scientifically further analysed in 2000 and motivated as part of the IPCC's third assessment report in its synthesis chapter, which assessed dangerous climate change. The resulting ‘burning ember’ diagram indicated that beyond 2 °C warming adaptation possibilities rapidly deteriorated and vulnerabilities increased, especially for unique ecosystems and extreme events. The evidence that emerged since this assessment report, on observed climate-change impacts show that vulnerabilities nowadays likely are larger. Recently, accelerated and higher levels of sea-level rise and more frequent extreme events are reported. All these insights were likely considered in the wording (i.e. ‘well below 2 °C’) of the 2015 Paris Agreement."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12736
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1271 on: September 14, 2017, 07:22:09 PM »
Beck & Mahony (2017) question the role of science & the IPCC in monitoring/regulating the Paris Agreement:

Beck, S. & Mahony, M. (2017), "The IPCC and the politics of anticipation", Nat. Clim. Change 7, 311–313

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n5/full/nclimate3264.html

See also:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n9/full/nclimate3379.html

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1272 on: September 15, 2017, 04:40:37 AM »
Good that the UN IPCC process is being opened up to more critical analysis about the way in which extremely important assumptions are hidden within the scenarios used to support the pathways. Taking major decisions out of the public domain rather than openly analyzing the alternatives (e.g. rapid emission reductions vs. future BECCS).


Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9035
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1273 on: September 17, 2017, 12:25:43 AM »
No, we won't!  Yes, we will! 

BREAKING: Trump administration officials say that the U.S. will not pull out of the Paris Agreement, and have offered to re-engage in the international deal to fight climate change, according to the European Union’s top energy official.
UPDATE: However the White House press secretary is now denying these reports https://twitter.com/presssec/status/909168166751883266

U.S.
Trump Administration Won’t Withdraw from Paris Climate Deal, EU Official Says
U.S. has stated it will ‘not renegotiate the Paris accord’ but will review its terms
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-wont-withdraw-from-paris-climate-deal-1505593922?tesla=y&mod=e2fb

(If you can't open the WSJ article, try going through Facebook to see it:)
https://www.facebook.com/marchforscience/posts/424857411241912
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1274 on: September 17, 2017, 01:46:27 AM »
Trump won the election as a white supremacist, anti-science, a-hole.  And governed that way for a bit over six months.  And his ratings tanked.

It looks like he might be considering governing for awhile as a liberal Democrat and see if that works better for him.

I suppose it might be a good thing, but he's stocked his administration with a bunch of right wing extremist know-nothings.  And I suspect he's too lazy to pick some new people to replace them.  Most likely he's just going to rattle around a few more months until criminal charges are brought against him or he simply implodes and returns to Margo a Largo to eat KFC and chocolate cake for the rest of his life.

 

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9035
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1275 on: September 17, 2017, 03:35:09 AM »
The turnover in the new administration is pretty shocking -- the image shows just the departures from inside the White House. (Credit:  Rachel Maddow, MSNBC). I imagine the increasing pressure from his remaining WH folks could well drive him to seek relief from the Democrats, who are happy to craft agreements, particularly agreements antithetical to Republicans. ;D

Of course, he could say the complete opposite an hour later, but still....
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1276 on: September 17, 2017, 04:52:26 AM »
It's even worse when you take into account the number of positions which were never filled.  A few hundred critical positions have yet to be filled and (IIRC) over 1,000 positions in the administration are vacant.  Cabinet secretaries don't have the people working directly under them that they need to manage their departments. 

Apparently things are so bad that Trump can't find people willing to work in his administration.  He just appointed his personal assistant to head up the communications department and she has no background that would qualify her to even be a second or third level assistant in that apartment. 

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9035
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1277 on: September 17, 2017, 03:29:06 PM »
And it doesn't include all the federal judges, state department officials, EPA employees, etc. etc. who were let go and have not been replaced.


But, even weirder:
This is so strange. Paris agreement is completely voluntary, with voluntary commitments. Trump Admin could change the "terms" themselves.
https://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/909265371529695232

#UPDATE US says it will withdraw from Paris accord without more favorable terms
https://twitter.com/afp/status/909245095748046848
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1278 on: September 17, 2017, 08:02:08 PM »
And it doesn't include all the federal judges, state department officials, EPA employees, etc. etc. who were let go and have not been replaced.


But, even weirder:
This is so strange. Paris agreement is completely voluntary, with voluntary commitments. Trump Admin could change the "terms" themselves.
https://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/909265371529695232

#UPDATE US says it will withdraw from Paris accord without more favorable terms
https://twitter.com/afp/status/909245095748046848

Trump is an incredibly ignorant person.  And he surrounds himself with people who, in general, will not correct his misstatements and point our facts he should know because if they push on him too much he will have someone fire them.  (In spite of his "You're fired!" TV punchline Trump does not have the courage to fire people himself.  He has other people tell employees that they've been terminated.)

We're going to come out of his reign a very damaged country when it comes to environmental regulation and the condition of the EPA.  The best we can hope for is that no anti-environmental laws get passed by Congress.  If so, the next sane president can counterman Trump's decrees and put some experts in the EPA on day one tasked with finding new quality employees and moving the Trump leftovers to desks in remote places where they will be able to do no harm.

Luckily wind and solar are advanced enough that installations should stay strong. 

I just took a look at the EIA monthly report last night.  During the 12 months ending in June, 2016 we generated  46.4 TWh with solar.  For the same 12 month period ending in June, 2017 we generated 68.1 TWh with solar.  That's a 21.7 TWh (47%) increase in a single year.  It will mean that solar is likely to produce 3% of our energy services (used, not wasted) in 2017

Wind produced 31.6 TWh more in the 12 months ending in June of this year than in the previous year, a 14.8% increase.

 

logicmanPatrick

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
    • The Chatter Box
Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1279 on: September 17, 2017, 10:25:33 PM »
Press regulator censures Mail on Sunday for global warming claims

Mail on Sunday criticised by Ipso for article claiming global warming data had been exaggerated to win Paris climate change agreement

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/17/press-regulator-censures-mail-on-sunday-for-global-warming-claims
A small step in the right direction.
si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes