Could be Trump?

[Al Swearegen]

It's one more nail in his coffin. He won't be re-elected, should he last the whole first term (which I seriously doubt).

I honestly think he will be too old to go 4 years after his first BUT if he does, I am not so sure he will not get re-elected. I think you have to lot at things sensibly and logically. He was elected on a series of promises and platforms. This was one of them and he stuck to his word. Trump voters are 96% sure that they would vote for him again if given the choice. That means a lot and nothing at all. It means a lot in that at this point the people that voted for him like what he is and what he is doing DESPITE the forces against him and how polarised the American voting people are. But it also does not mean anything given that he is only 4 months in a 48 month term.

If he does what he said he will do and does not deviate then he stands a great chance to keep essentially all of his voting base. HOWEVER, IF he does something against his promises or slows down on promoting the values he has run on OR is conviction of something or whatever THEN maybe. Also IF at the end of 4 years he has done extremely well, despite the unpopularity of his policies in some quarters, then he may pick up Democrat voters if they say "I do not like the man and many of his policies BUT the effect on the country of his Presidency has proven to be good"

Of course, between now and then is too long and anything could happen and maybe the country stumbles economically or he breaks trust or promises will his base or is discovered to be a Russian Spy or whatever.

I kind of think that if he does not run again, the party will lose a lot of the base and popularity as he was a Populist and I think his ideas were not traditional. I think that in this respect it would be hard to have a person emulate his stances and imitate him.

[Al Swearegen]

Out of interest, how much were they looking to reduce the temperature and over what period of time and how binding were the agreements? Does anyone know?

Had the impression it was about reducing greenhouse gasses, not necessarily temperatures, but Wikipedia says temperatures:

Aims
The aim of the convention is described in Article 2, "enhancing the implementation" of the UNFCCC through:[8]
"(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."
Countries furthermore aim to reach "global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible". The agreement has been described as an incentive for and driver of fossil fuel divestment.[9][10]

how binding were the agreements?

Understand there are no penalties noted as such. Though the media hype about Trumps declaration to withdraw may be only that, hype. The US has entered into an agreement which effectively takes a presidential term to get out. Trump will have to be elected to a second term to actually make that happen, or his successor would have to uphold his declaration.

Article 28 of the agreement enables parties to withdraw from the agreement after sending withdrawal notifications to the depositary three years after the agreement goes into force in that country, and the withdrawal is effective one year after the depositary is notified.

On 1 June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the agreement.[75] In accordance with Article 28, as the agreement entered into force in the United States on 4 November 2016, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date for the United States cannot be earlier than 4 November 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

...Reducing emissions, which in turn reduces the greenhouse gasses which effect the temperature.

So far a total of 180 mayors from different cities have joined in and voiced that they will NOT withdraw from the agreement since his announcement to withdraw...more are expressing that they will follow.

Leaders are taking things into their own hands at a state level...and other countries have been echoing the 2020 date.

https://medium.com/@ClimateMayors/climate-mayors-commit-to-adopt-honor-and-uphold-paris-climate-agreement-goals-ba566e260097

http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

Reduce it by how much? 1/20th of a degree Celsius?
It is not enforceable?
Is China or India going to reduce their CO emissions and how much ver the next few years?

I do not know but I have heard some interesting things and I think MOST people do not know. I think that this arrangement is not completely meritless. Reducing pollution and fostering co-operation in other countries and such is all positive.

I do think that acting like Armageddon is coming and the world is lost because he is not saving 1/20th of a degree or whatever is a bit much. It seems relatively negligible but it does not mean that stepping away from the agreement was the best idea either.

My take is that sometimes showing solidarity over a cause is good. Sometimes fostering equitable agreements is good. Sometimes making yourself approachable is good. The end result may not be either here or there BUT the process in which this was achieved may be good.

This is a horrible analogy but it is like a group of kids getting together to play a game of something and working out and announcing who is on who's side and the game they are going to play and what the rules are, making them up on the fly. Now if one kid says "I am not playing because I do not like that game", it is a rejection of not only the game but also of being a part of working together supportively.

[Jack]

...Reducing emissions, which in turn reduces the greenhouse gasses which effect the temperature.

Though it does seem strange that temperature is the value being used. It's probably more difficult to know exactly what are the calculations of emissions to produce a temperature change, or even to calculate the emissions, while it's not difficult to know the calculations of coal and oil consumed by a nation. While it makes sense, these things are connected, it still strikes as odd to discuss temperature goals, and the pledges of countries to reduce their emissions by certain percentages, when it would be more realistic and concrete to say a decrease of x percentage in non-renewable resource usage.

[Jack]

Is China or India going to reduce their CO emissions and how much ver the next few years?

China will likely come out looking very good, and it's largely coincidental. They already have their own goals, and the Paris agreement will only serve to gain them worldwide notice for their efforts. Discussed china's nuclear power initiatives some time back in the ghost city thread.

In the past China's main source of power has been fossil fuels, but now turning to nuclear power. 70% of China's nuclear power plants have been built in the last ten years, they have 36 reactors in production, are reported to have another 20 under construction, and more planned to start construction with a goal of doubling current capacity by 2020.

[Jack]

I think MOST people do not know.

This is a valid point, and my reason for making the point of calculations for temperatures and emissions. Goals of destinations are great, but what do they mean in terms of getting there? The US has made a pledge to reduce greenhouse emissions by 26% by 2020; that's a big goal for four yeas, and it's meaningless because I don't understand how greenhouse emissions are calculated. However do know there are more things than natural resource use which cause these emissions so a quarter decrease of usage will not produce that result. How much less coal, oil and natural gas usage is required; how many nuclear power plants, dams, solar and wind farms are required to replace that energy? These are concrete calculation people outside of the EPA can actually understand, and thus makes them more likely to be done.

[Fun With Matches]

Deforestation doesn't help. I remember in Geology we were told that even if everybody suddenly stopped giving out emissions, it would still take 50 years for the Earth to recuperate. I don't know how true this is.

A goal temperature seems an odd thing to me too, how would they know the temperature would go down? It would have to be a massive, global effort to reverse the temperature.

[Icequeen]

...Reducing emissions, which in turn reduces the greenhouse gasses which effect the temperature.

Though it does seem strange that temperature is the value being used. It's probably more difficult to know exactly what are the calculations of emissions to produce a temperature change, or even to calculate the emissions, while it's not difficult to know the calculations of coal and oil consumed by a nation. While it makes sense, these things are connected, it still strikes as odd to discuss temperature goals, and the pledges of countries to reduce their emissions by certain percentages, when it would be more realistic and concrete to say a decrease of x percentage in non-renewable resource usage.

Why Pittsburgh was one of the first to say no.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/stunning-photos-of-pittsburghs-air-pollution-in-the-1940s?utm_term=.leLK3l7LZ#.nrw25bQM9

Most of those pictures where taken in the DAY TIME.

Then in 1948 there were the deaths in Donora...which is just down river from me.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103359330

[Jack]

Why Pittsburgh was one of the first to say no.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/stunning-photos-of-pittsburghs-air-pollution-in-the-1940s?utm_term=.leLK3l7LZ#.nrw25bQM9

Most of those pictures where taken in the DAY TIME.

Then in 1948 there were the deaths in Donora...which is just down river from me.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103359330

Yes, and the US as a whole has history of legislation, initiatives, agreements between power suppliers and the government, and clear trends of improvement toward goals in improving air quality.

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends#sonat
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/carbon-monoxide-trends
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/lead-trends
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/nitrogen-dioxide-trends
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/ozone-trends

World pledges aren't needed to show these goals already exist and are being achieved in the US. These achievements make the Paris agreement such a non-issue. Think Obama did a great thing in this, but failed completely in making it so vulnerable by not bringing it before congress. It's nothing more than a show of solidarity, so announcing a withdrawal is harmful to US world solidarity, not the environment, and that's why people are really upset.

[Icequeen]

Solidarity is the least of it to me.

What I don't agree with is the attitude that it doesn't matter, or isn't occurring, or that "god will take care of it"...and his persistent efforts to do away with the legislation measures that do already exist to protect what we've managed to clean up in the last 30 years.

Put more effort into cleaner forms of energy, encourage growth and investment in new technology...I don't care if Trump thinks windmills are "ugly and ruin the scenery"...they work...and they don't belch smoke.

If anyone wants to see the wonders that strip mining, coal, and fracking have brought to us I would invite them to live next to it for awhile...and please...drink the water.





 

[odeon]

It's one more nail in his coffin. He won't be re-elected, should he last the whole first term (which I seriously doubt).

I honestly think he will be too old to go 4 years after his first BUT if he does, I am not so sure he will not get re-elected. I think you have to lot at things sensibly and logically. He was elected on a series of promises and platforms. This was one of them and he stuck to his word. Trump voters are 96% sure that they would vote for him again if given the choice. That means a lot and nothing at all. It means a lot in that at this point the people that voted for him like what he is and what he is doing DESPITE the forces against him and how polarised the American voting people are. But it also does not mean anything given that he is only 4 months in a 48 month term.

If he does what he said he will do and does not deviate then he stands a great chance to keep essentially all of his voting base. HOWEVER, IF he does something against his promises or slows down on promoting the values he has run on OR is conviction of something or whatever THEN maybe. Also IF at the end of 4 years he has done extremely well, despite the unpopularity of his policies in some quarters, then he may pick up Democrat voters if they say "I do not like the man and many of his policies BUT the effect on the country of his Presidency has proven to be good"

Of course, between now and then is too long and anything could happen and maybe the country stumbles economically or he breaks trust or promises will his base or is discovered to be a Russian Spy or whatever.

I kind of think that if he does not run again, the party will lose a lot of the base and popularity as he was a Populist and I think his ideas were not traditional. I think that in this respect it would be hard to have a person emulate his stances and imitate him.

You should apply for a job within his administration. He needs more people like you.

[Al Swearegen]

Why Pittsburgh was one of the first to say no.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/stunning-photos-of-pittsburghs-air-pollution-in-the-1940s?utm_term=.leLK3l7LZ#.nrw25bQM9

Most of those pictures where taken in the DAY TIME.

Then in 1948 there were the deaths in Donora...which is just down river from me.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103359330

Yes, and the US as a whole has history of legislation, initiatives, agreements between power suppliers and the government, and clear trends of improvement toward goals in improving air quality.

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends#sonat
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/carbon-monoxide-trends
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/lead-trends
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/nitrogen-dioxide-trends
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/ozone-trends

World pledges aren't needed to show these goals already exist and are being achieved in the US. These achievements make the Paris agreement such a non-issue. Think Obama did a great thing in this, but failed completely in making it so vulnerable by not bringing it before congress. It's nothing more than a show of solidarity, so announcing a withdrawal is harmful to US world solidarity, not the environment, and that's why people are really upset.

Yes, I agree.

I have tried to bring this up before. There seems to be a bit of a grab bag at the moment. Environmental protection sounds like a great thing and everyone can understand at a base level, that if you defecate or urinate into your drinking water supply, you will get sick. If you breathe in smoke all day every day, you will get sick....and so on.

So making claims around these things is hardly contentious. Those that object are not arguing in good faith. So releasing toxins into the air or into the water and not disposing of it will, is a problem and is pollution and needs to be regulated from people who know it is bad but seek to do it anyway.

Finding alternative fuel supplies is not a BAD idea. The problem is two-fold. The efficiency of such energy sources (both to generate energy and the delivery of the energy) and cost to do so. (I will not include the effect the wind farms have on birds). Some will say that the ability to generate as much energy as needed or the need to pay more is offset by the cost to do so. This IS an argument but there are two sides to that one.

So that is pollution and using traditional vs alternative forms of energy. Then you start getting into areas that ARE much more contentious. Areas where understanding is limited and any modelling tends to do poorly and where knowledge is developing. Climate change. Man does have an effect on the planet AND the planet changes - sometimes quite drastically - naturally. Not every change in climate is influenced by man and not every change in climate natural.

It ought to be an obvious point and as obvious as the point I made earlier about drinking water. I made it a while ago and started all the shit that proclaimed me a climate change denier. Clearly, only an idiot would think such a position was true. This is part of the Climate Change Summits and whatever is people lump everything in, reasonable, unreasonable, known, unknown, facts, guesses, things that relate to each other and things that do not, and present it together. Question any aspect of it and you are (like I was) labelled a Climate Change denier. Not adhering to the belief that the planet is doomed and that every change is due to humans and that we have the power to stop the planet's climate from doing as it has been doing for billions of years, is NOT seen as a difference of opinion but as a heretic rejecting a fundamental doctrine (one that is a lot more faith than the believers would like to admit).

Man does affect the climate and I think that there is definitely a need for monitoring and exposing companies and individuals that pollute and damage their environment. I do think that What man does on planet Earth is not inconsequential and can affect people for generations after (automatically think of Chernobyl and China's want to go nuclear). I think that the development of alternative forms of energy and making developments to and maintenance of existing and future delivery of energy is great. Education is not a bad thing either.

What is a bad idea is ideological demagoguery and toothless or unfairly weighted agreements or being dishonest about things known or unknown.

[odeon]

Heh. Clearly only an idiot would post the above.

[Jack]

Solidarity is the least of it to me.

What I don't agree with is the attitude that it doesn't matter, or isn't occurring, or that "god will take care of it"...and his persistent efforts to do away with the legislation measures that do already exist to protect what we've managed to clean up in the last 30 years.

Put more effort into cleaner forms of energy, encourage growth and investment in new technology...I don't care if Trump thinks windmills are "ugly and ruin the scenery"...they work...and they don't belch smoke.

If anyone wants to see the wonders that strip mining, coal, and fracking have brought to us I would invite them to live next to it for awhile...and please...drink the water.

I see. Misunderstood then. That's what the climate mayors are doing by creating an association, making a stand in the name of solidarity. It has value and was worth pointing out.

[Jack]

The efficiency of such energy sources (both to generate energy and the delivery of the energy)

It's true wind and solar aren't considered great solutions due to intermittent output. There aren't enough rivers to dam. This is why the switch from coal to natural gas can be attributed for the bulk of recent improvements in the US. While natural gas produces greenhouse gasses, it's only about half the rate of coal, so it's considered to be a 'clean' source of energy here. Not the best solution, but that's what's being done.

[Icequeen]

Not even your biggest power plants run at 100% efficiency, and the costs aren't as bad as they used to be as with any newer technology...they are going down as they become more popular.

Windpower...available anywhere basically (although better in higher elevation areas),  no fuel costs or emissions, and the land is still usable for farming, development, etc...and they have found that if migratory patterns are taken into account before construction the dangers to birds is just about eliminated.

As of 2013, Pennsylvania ranks 16th in the nation for wind energy generation. The state has enough wind farms to produce 750 megawatts (MW) of electricity – enough to power 180,000 homes. Though Pennsylvania is far from reaching its predicted wind potential of 3,307 MW, it's been building its fleet of wind turbines for more than a decade. Now Pennsylvania has 24 wind farms that provide clean energy for its residents.

https://www.saveonenergy.com/green-energy/take-a-tour-of-the-wind-farms-in-pennsylvania-part-1/

I drive past the one occasionally on trips up to the mountains...personally, I think it's beautiful and have considered building my own smaller turbine for the hillside, which actually is not that hard or expensive at all.