Just curious: did Canada say it was also going to end its mining and shipping of coal to Asia?
2
Germany is missing because they foolishly went away from nuclear energy after the tsunami disaster in Japan (and instead of making the power plants more safe) and are trying to make up for that resulting in more reliance on coal then they would have at this point. All their green energy efforts are all to replace the nuclear energy.
3
The whole thing is a fraud. The Canadian and Australian economies are highly dependent on the revenue from selling coal and tar sand to Asia. Germany never had a plan to reduce its carbon output, but sure did talk a good came. only the United States and Britain amoungst the major industrial countries have and continue to reduce our carbon footprint. Fracking for natural gas accounts for much of the actual reduction in both the USA and Britain.
2
Look it up yourself - BP Statistical Review of Energy 2017. I'll put the link below and there's a spreadsheet that includes a Carbon Dioxide Emissions tab. They start records in 1965.
Germany's peak years for emissions were 1973, 1974, 1976, 1979, 1980.
Germany's lowest emissions were in 2009, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-revi...
Look it up. Don't take my word. I'm not going to bother fact-checking what you say about Britain. Fracking did help here in the US as natural gas has been killing coal.
But we're also helped by Texas getting over 10% of their electricity from wind last year (and growing), and Iowa getting almost 37% of theirs (up from 1% in 2000), and Kansas, Oklahoma and other Plains States booming on wind power, too. https://www.eia.gov
2
There's a major flaw in Paris Accord, as the coal example clearly shows.
While USA, Canada, Jjapan, and Europe are placed under obligation to cut their carbon emission, other great polluters like China. India, Russia are supposed to merely slow down their growing pollution. Moreover, India is supposed to be paid for so doing.
In other words, in reality the 'climate accord' is a scam to subsidize 'developing' nations (why for chrissake 2nd-soon-to-be-first world economy is considered a 'developing nation'?) at the expense of 'developed' (stagnating) ones.
How is it in our national interests to burden our economy for the sake of economic development of our competitors?
Yes, it's a wonderful idea to globally cut the carbon emission, but let's have a fair deal. Renegotiate this fraudulent accord!
2
The US has emitted more CO2 than any nation in the world. At this point, we're still the second-largest emitter behind China.
Real estate and infrastructure along our coastlines is worth trillions of dollars, and is at risk from rising sea levels. Miami, just one small dot on our coastline, is raising four or five hundred million just to install pumps to keep streets dry during high-tide floods in clear weather.
Virginia Beach, Annapolis, Boston, other cities up and down the Atlantic coast, all facing ever-increasing flooding like that - so even without increased storm surge from higher sea levels, just the high-tide flooding will cost us money we could better spend elsewhere. And the more CO2 we and others emit, the more response (as in $$$) will be needed every decade.
So what would your re-negotiation to an accord that included goals nations felt they could attain do? And no magic wand approach where you simply declare nations reverse their entire infrastructure at the same rate as the wealthiest nations.
2
Is anyone puzzled with Canada's stance?
Tar sands.
Phasing out coal, but, love, love those tar sands.
Dirty, nasty stuff. Latest headline, the Keystone Pipeline is leaking.
Doublespeak. Canadian Minister of Environment and Climate Catherine McKenna "The market has moved on" So much for this declaration out of Canada. Praise to the other nations. Looking at you, Canada.
2
"Is anyone puzzled with Canada's stance?"
Not a bit. Every country is supposed to negotiate its interests against common ones... except USA. We're supposed to give, give, be spat on, wipe, and give more.
1
That's not true, so why say it? Every nation committed to what it felt could be accomplished, and there aren't any sanctions built into the Paris Agreement anyway, so why all this pretense that it's a great big anti-US plot? It isn't.
1
But here's what won't stop here in the US.
"Utilities Keep Closing Coal For Economic Reasons, Led By Gas, Efficiency And Renewables
The central thread in these utility decisions is that coal is increasingly priced out of power markets by natural gas and renewables, or made obsolete by shrinking demand.New research by Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy attributed 49 percent of coal’s collapse over the past six years to increased competition from cheap natural gas, 26 percent to lower-than expected electricity demand and 18 percent to expanded renewable energy."
http://www.theenergycollective.com/energy-innovation-llc/2405238/utiliti...
"Around 56 gigawatts of regulated coal-fired capacity in the Midwest has operating costs that are higher than the all-in costs of new wind power."
In the Great Plains states, the average long-term all-in power purchase agreement price for wind power is around $20/MWh. On a comparable basis, the majority of the coal-fired power generation in the same region has operating costs higher than $30/MWh.
Favorable pricing and wind resources have allowed utilities in states like Iowa and Kansas to invest in their rate bases, leading to higher earnings for investors, lower rates for customers and a cleaner energy portfolio."
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Utilities-increasingly-adding-low...
1
Anyone who looked closely at the Paris Climate Accord saw that the US (had it stayed in the treaty) was going to be on hook to make payments or massive loans to countries that have no intention of giving up coal (Bangladesh, India) but would have been happy to soak American taxpayers for this "guilt" money. I am glad SOMEone took the time to get the US out of this. Another feel-good, baseless, powerless, unapproved-by-congress treaties given to us by Obama and the feckless imbeciles that supported him. And Merkel talks a good game, but Germany is no closer to phasing out coal than it was 5 years ago. Take that for what it is--German hot air. Like the "clean" diesel the government tried to dump on Europe at the behest of VW, Audi, BMV, Mercedes.
2
You mean the US and other developed nations would fund developing nations attempts to reduce emissions, in part by purchasing clean technologies. Trump is intent on the United States drawing into a shell and not being one of the countries that would be getting that business.
You're behind the times on that "no intention of giving up coal", too. India's big energy plans are still there, but the desired power source is shifting rapidly.
"India’s solar tariffs have literally been free falling in recent months
India has cancelled plans to build nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations, about the same as the total amount in the UK, with the price for solar electricity “free falling” to levels once considered impossible.
Analyst Tim Buckley said the shift away from the dirtiest fossil fuel and towards solar in India would have “profound” implications on global energy markets.
According to his article on the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis’s website, 13.7GW of planned coal power projects have been cancelled so far this month, in a stark indication of the pace of change."
http://www.dhakatribune.com/world/south-asia/2017/05/25/india-cancels-pl...
As Trump abandons that part of the world to China, India must see benefits in not having to depend on their energy supply being shipped past the growing Chinese Navy. Australia's still trying to start the Adani mining project to supply India, but it's a shaky future.
1
Farqel,
Are you talking about the 'Green Climate Fund'? Last June, USAToday reported: "industrialized countries are expected to help fund climate change mitigation efforts in developing countries, which include China and India...The U.S. has promised to contribute $3 billion to this fund, and it has contributed $1 billion to date...according to the fund's pledge tracker, the U.S. contribution is 'subject to the availability of funds.'" (usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/02/fact-checking-trump-speech-p...
It doesn't sound like we're actually 'on the hook' for anything, but $3 billion in total isn't what I'd call "massive" money regardless. For comparison, last year the NYTimes reported "federal subsidies for the production of oil and gas...[are] worth roughly $4 billion a year" (nytimes.com/2016/08/06/upshot/do-oil-companies-really-need-4-billion-per...
2
bfagan,
"You mean the US and other developed nations would fund developing nations attempts to reduce emissions, in part by purchasing clean technologies."
The keyword here is "in part." The US would still be a net loser under the accord, while 'developing' country would benefit.
I DO NOT want to subsidize 'developing countries' with my taxpayer money. I want the developmental gap between my country and its competitors to grow not shrink.
The Paris Accord stinks.
1
This is part of why Trump says the Climate Accord is unfair. It calls for major adjustments by the United States, while everybody else agrees to continue doing what they're doing.
3
Why have you chosen a military dictator who aligned himself with Mussolini and Hitler as your avatar?
1
The headline implies that there is something facile or disingenuous about countries which don't use much coal leading a campaign to eliminate it. Perhaps there are reasons why these countries don't use much coal, and that knowledge can be shared to support transitions in other countries. Perhaps the headline could have been a little less smug and a little more positive.
4
Michael,
"The headline implies that there is something facile or disingenuous about countries which don't use much coal leading a campaign to eliminate it. "
And there is, if you consider that under the accord USA was supposed to significantly cut its emission while subsidizing her competitors' attempt at slowing down their growth of emission.
2
Shortly before this article appeared in the NYTimes, the prestigious UK science journal *Nature* reported "World’s carbon emissions set to spike by 2% in 2017" (http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-carbon-emissions-set-to-spike-by-2-in.... The report is sub-headed "Increased coal use in China appears to be driving the first increase in global greenhouse-gas output since 2014."
Opponents of US government policies to reduce our CO2 emissions have been whining "but what about China" for years. The Nature news report doesn't make that argument any less fallacious. One expects 'lukewarmers' to claim it does, regardless.
1
"The Nature news report doesn't make that argument any less fallacious."
Maybe, it's because there's no fallacy in the argument to begin with.
Or are you of the opinion that any argument Mal Adapted from Oregon deems false becomes such?
2