Curious that in an editorial dealing with electricity production in China, the word "nuclear" does not appear. China proposes to triple the amount of energy produced by nukes in three years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
(Well, assuming Wiki can be believed)
And India isn't far behind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India
China is also big on hydropower -- produced by dams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_China
The simple fact is that NONE of the "climate" proposals will have even a slight effect on climate in the foreseeable future, and if we, in the US, emitted essentially no more CO2 ever, the net result would be a tiny fraction of one degree generations hence. It simply isn't worth the expenditures.
That said, there's certainly nothing wrong with "clean" power. So, where do you propose that we construct the next nuke, and what river should be next on this list to dam?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
(Well, assuming Wiki can be believed)
And India isn't far behind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India
China is also big on hydropower -- produced by dams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_China
The simple fact is that NONE of the "climate" proposals will have even a slight effect on climate in the foreseeable future, and if we, in the US, emitted essentially no more CO2 ever, the net result would be a tiny fraction of one degree generations hence. It simply isn't worth the expenditures.
That said, there's certainly nothing wrong with "clean" power. So, where do you propose that we construct the next nuke, and what river should be next on this list to dam?
1
The real cause continues to be swept under the rug (is it politically incorrect?) There are just too many human beings on this Earth.
That is why the fishing stocks are being wiped out, the rain forests destroyed, Urban sprawl, water shortages, Global warming. If we don't somehow find a way to reduce the number of people on this planet in a controlled reduction of population, nature will do it for us using wars, famine, and plagues.
That is why the fishing stocks are being wiped out, the rain forests destroyed, Urban sprawl, water shortages, Global warming. If we don't somehow find a way to reduce the number of people on this planet in a controlled reduction of population, nature will do it for us using wars, famine, and plagues.
7
Statistics based on past individual performance tell little about planetary impact.
2
Nice first step by both countries, but it is just that, a step. There is long ways to go if both of them strive to provide a better life for their citizens let alone a better world.
3
Global climate change is in the news and Republicans skepticism about it is mocked. Yet, Democrats aren’t discussing the impact of human population growth. So who is really being unscientific?
Consider these questions as to which is more responsible
1) For human starvation, historically and into the future
a. Is it global climate change or
b. Human Population growth
2) For water scarcity and pollution
a. Is it global climate change or
b. Human Population growth
3) For the ethnic tensions, wars and genocide around the world?
a. Is it: global climate change or
b. Human population growth
4) For habitat loss?
a. Is it global climate change or
b. Human population growth.
5) For the massive species extinction?
a. Is it global climate change or
b. Human population growth?
6) Is the human population explosion caused by climate change or assuming climate change to be caused by humans, aren’t the sheer numbers of humans largely responsible?
Answer, even with no change in weather; these apocalyptic events would still be taking place because of human population growth.
The world population doubled in the last 50 years and as it swells past seven billion, it is causing air and water pollution, food and water scarcity, habitat loss and the mass extinguishing of the diversity of life not seen in the last 65 million years.
The taboo veil over discussion on this subject remains, because it doesn't conveniently fit into Democratic party platform.
Consider these questions as to which is more responsible
1) For human starvation, historically and into the future
a. Is it global climate change or
b. Human Population growth
2) For water scarcity and pollution
a. Is it global climate change or
b. Human Population growth
3) For the ethnic tensions, wars and genocide around the world?
a. Is it: global climate change or
b. Human population growth
4) For habitat loss?
a. Is it global climate change or
b. Human population growth.
5) For the massive species extinction?
a. Is it global climate change or
b. Human population growth?
6) Is the human population explosion caused by climate change or assuming climate change to be caused by humans, aren’t the sheer numbers of humans largely responsible?
Answer, even with no change in weather; these apocalyptic events would still be taking place because of human population growth.
The world population doubled in the last 50 years and as it swells past seven billion, it is causing air and water pollution, food and water scarcity, habitat loss and the mass extinguishing of the diversity of life not seen in the last 65 million years.
The taboo veil over discussion on this subject remains, because it doesn't conveniently fit into Democratic party platform.
9
Hey, if overpopulation is the problem, why is it that the richest countries - the ones where people are too busy to reproduce - have caused far and away the greatest amounts of pollution and the largest CO2 emissions? Stack up total US emmissions aince the invention of the steam engine against those of China and you will see what I mean. The emergency began when China and India came into a world-economy turbo-charged by neoliberalism. The inconvenient truth is that capitalism is the problem. Which is another thing the Dems don't talk about by the way!
7
Further evidence that the goal of the Trump administration (and of the Republican party in general) is to make as much money as possible for friends in the fossil fuel industry before the world converts to green alternatives -- despite the fact that in so doing they are destroying not only the environment but also the long-term economic health of the United States. Our children will look back and ask how America decided to cede the energy sector to China and Europe.
4
Our military is light years ahead of this addministration in their promotion of alternate energy. They look at it as a national security issue not some hippy dippy feel good thing.
5
It's time they did something, instead of us all the time. And unless you're ready to stop driving to yoga, quit your bellyaching.
2
It’s sad that these countries are so much smarter than we are and with so much greater vision. They create new technologies and new jobs, we want to dig coal and drill for oil. They understand it’s less expensive to give preventative care not emergency care, we cut out Medicare. They realize drug abuse is a disease not a crime. We have Sessions, another angry old white man who wants to live in a mid-century world where women stay in the kitchen and druggies get thrown in jail while he sucks on a cigarette and downs his drinks at a two martini lunch.
Our old and sad government wants us to stay with the old. Huge old companies that will eventually be buried by these technologies we’ll be buying not selling. Not great for the trade deficits, but great for the old people who own the old companies that do things the old way. Just another example of how out of touch our ruling proletariat has become. The all need their brains reset.
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power.” George Orwell, 1984.
It gets scarier and scarier. And it has nothing to do with Teflon don trump.
Our old and sad government wants us to stay with the old. Huge old companies that will eventually be buried by these technologies we’ll be buying not selling. Not great for the trade deficits, but great for the old people who own the old companies that do things the old way. Just another example of how out of touch our ruling proletariat has become. The all need their brains reset.
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power.” George Orwell, 1984.
It gets scarier and scarier. And it has nothing to do with Teflon don trump.
Unless a catalytic means for reducing emissions....from coal; from oil ; from
any fossil fuel source....unless a smart catalytic converter is invented we
must concentrate on saving....
Our Lives: OUR entire planet.
I believe that a world consortium for advancing smart catalytic conversion
can come up with a solution....so we should invest in this technology.
I believe that this could be the way to solve our planet.
any fossil fuel source....unless a smart catalytic converter is invented we
must concentrate on saving....
Our Lives: OUR entire planet.
I believe that a world consortium for advancing smart catalytic conversion
can come up with a solution....so we should invest in this technology.
I believe that this could be the way to solve our planet.
Thanks to President Poison Pill we can now burn coal, wood and trash without restriction. USA USA USA - cough, cough, barf . . .
Impeach, now.
Impeach, now.
2
The United States don't learn no lessons based on facts.
We're on our way to Heaven. The Bible told me so. Why worry about pollution and global warming. The only life we care about is the afterlife.
We're Christians. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" That's for Godless Americans.
We're on our way to Heaven. The Bible told me so. Why worry about pollution and global warming. The only life we care about is the afterlife.
We're Christians. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" That's for Godless Americans.
4
IN the book of Revelation it says God will "destroy those who destroy the earth"... So the group of Chistians you speak of should read their bible more. I know it's popular in the NY Times to denigrate religious views - but there is a large gap in understanding.
2
I think most people have reached the conclusion that the world will not meet its carbon reduction goals by 2030. They read these articles about progress on reduction with some skepticism. After all, each country values their own economic growth more than reduced carbon ppm for the rest of the world.
I take a different viewpoint. I look at the entire economic system and try to find the weak link. I believe that weak link is our profound belief in perpetual growth on a finite planet. That, along with our belief that technology will always save us from ruin.
We are so wrapped up in perpetual growth, while limited by diminishing returns on resource extraction, that we borrow and borrow to somehow cajole growth out of a system that has had declining growth- based on nature's limits- for decades. My bet is that all this debt that can never be paid back will lead to a financial collapse that will reduce fossil fuel extraction and make climate change the least of our problems.
I take a different viewpoint. I look at the entire economic system and try to find the weak link. I believe that weak link is our profound belief in perpetual growth on a finite planet. That, along with our belief that technology will always save us from ruin.
We are so wrapped up in perpetual growth, while limited by diminishing returns on resource extraction, that we borrow and borrow to somehow cajole growth out of a system that has had declining growth- based on nature's limits- for decades. My bet is that all this debt that can never be paid back will lead to a financial collapse that will reduce fossil fuel extraction and make climate change the least of our problems.
2
"I think most people have reached the conclusion that the world will not meet its carbon reduction goals by 2030."
I fear almost nobody admits that those goals are not good enough, and no potential goal is good enough. We are past fixing this just by reducing carbon. Of course we should do that, but it is only the beginning of what needs doing.
We have got to face up to other emissions that contribute.
We have got to face up to warming is coming. We will either geo-engineer some cooling, or we will have to deal with the warming by changing our farming and our shorelines, or both.
I fear almost nobody admits that those goals are not good enough, and no potential goal is good enough. We are past fixing this just by reducing carbon. Of course we should do that, but it is only the beginning of what needs doing.
We have got to face up to other emissions that contribute.
We have got to face up to warming is coming. We will either geo-engineer some cooling, or we will have to deal with the warming by changing our farming and our shorelines, or both.
The US always billed itself as the land of tomorrow even as the world around it remained content with the land of yesterday. Almost every new scientific revolution in the post-World War II era had its genesis in the US, a fact that drew recent immigrants such as myself to its shores. It is painful to see the death of that grandiose ambition and the satisfaction being derived in being mediocre. Despite their energy-density and supply reliability advantages, the idea of burning the dead bodies of ancient plants and animals aka fossil fuels to get energy is a sunsetting one. The land of tomorrow will be powered by next generation, decentralized energies such as renewables and perhaps small nuclear. Instead of using its inherent technological and cultural strengths to lead in this endeavor to facebookize energy and uberize its supply, the US is taking a back seat.The small island nations across the world will pay a brutal prize for the loss of American zeal to be the land of tomorrow. Bangladesh is predicted to lose 17% of its land area, a country with 150 million people in the same land area as Iowa. If you thought the Syrian refugee crisis was serious, the main event is yet to come.
3
It makes sense that Trump simultaneously increases our military might and increases our contribution to the world pollution. The latter will make us unpopular and make the former necessary.
It won't be too long before we restore our number one polluter position in the world like we had been for over a hundred years.
It won't be too long before we restore our number one polluter position in the world like we had been for over a hundred years.
2
That explains why they made Trump believe it's a hoax.
3
This article is the poster child of the philosophical line of the nytimes.
In the arguably one of the most promising and interesting subject, like climate change and how to deal with it, the editorial board of the nytimes has in fact proposed no number, not even a single one, to gauge the enthusiastic agitprop behind the step? opening?? of India and China to pursue an expansion into the renewable technologies.
How the reader should form an idea of what that means?
How can one compare this policy with that into the US to check out if the Paris agreeements are indeed held to their rationale of not?
What the concrete possibility is beyond the boastful and very political remark of reaching a complete car park transformation from the oil to the electric fuel?
I guess we can have those answer, alas not in the nytimes.
In the arguably one of the most promising and interesting subject, like climate change and how to deal with it, the editorial board of the nytimes has in fact proposed no number, not even a single one, to gauge the enthusiastic agitprop behind the step? opening?? of India and China to pursue an expansion into the renewable technologies.
How the reader should form an idea of what that means?
How can one compare this policy with that into the US to check out if the Paris agreeements are indeed held to their rationale of not?
What the concrete possibility is beyond the boastful and very political remark of reaching a complete car park transformation from the oil to the electric fuel?
I guess we can have those answer, alas not in the nytimes.
3
So sad that the US is giving up any moral authority on human rights issues and any technical authority on renewable energy. It's a fine thing to honor and respect the past; but it is essential that we invest in the future; for ourselves, our nation, and the world.
2
I have never thought of the US as a country with any moral authority on anything.
They always want their own way, they always bring guns and they like to go to war to protect their corporate interests. They don't take care of their own citizens, don't offer universal medical care, fight amongst themselves constantly.
They blame other countries for their own troubles, and are not sympathetic to refugees.
They always want their own way, they always bring guns and they like to go to war to protect their corporate interests. They don't take care of their own citizens, don't offer universal medical care, fight amongst themselves constantly.
They blame other countries for their own troubles, and are not sympathetic to refugees.
7
Buttons Cornell - true. For te vast majority of US history - unless you were a white male - there was little receipt of those moral virtues.
Sigh. Meanwhile, largely due to the replacement of coal by natural gas fired power plants CO2 emissions in the USA continue to decline. The demand for cleaner energy by Americans of all political stripes will drive further declines as will what is happening with automobile and industrial technology. The President' easing of overburdening regulations will have little overall impact on this decline.
Good for China and India's commitments for years in the future. The USA is here and now, not promises for some future time. But, hey, any excuse to bash President Trump, right?
Good for China and India's commitments for years in the future. The USA is here and now, not promises for some future time. But, hey, any excuse to bash President Trump, right?
2
"The President' easing of overburdening regulations will have little overall impact on this decline."
Your defense of Trump is that US greenhouse gas emissions will decline DESPITE his policies?
Golly gosh! How could I have ever dreamed to criticize our glorious leader?
Your defense of Trump is that US greenhouse gas emissions will decline DESPITE his policies?
Golly gosh! How could I have ever dreamed to criticize our glorious leader?
4
Solar and wind are the fastest growing segment of the energy field in jobs and energy despite all obstruction by Trump. Those regulations don't seem to be stopping them at all.
And it is the future we need to worry about. But what you failed to see is that china and India are helping the here and now. China's CO2 has peaked, which means unlike the US, it is a not increasing rate. In The US our rate of CO2 is still increasing, unlike the chinese.
Strange that other countries are able to do what the US says it can't, without suffering economically.
And it is the future we need to worry about. But what you failed to see is that china and India are helping the here and now. China's CO2 has peaked, which means unlike the US, it is a not increasing rate. In The US our rate of CO2 is still increasing, unlike the chinese.
Strange that other countries are able to do what the US says it can't, without suffering economically.
2
I see the biggest problem in having leaders who are climate deniers is that everyone else - China, India, Europe - are making great gains, innovating, designing and building all of this equipment. And because our leaders don't believe, we are lagging behind. This is not just a disaster for the planet, but it puts the US behind the innovation. So, even when our leaders do start listening to science, we will be importing technology, rather than building our own.
5
Designing what equipment pray tell? Solar technology has been around for a very long time.
1
sjaco -- indeed solar power has "been around for a very long time," but only recently has it become economically competitive... seriously economically competitive. Read here, US government figures:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30112
"Of the 2016 total utility-scale capacity additions, more than 60% were wind (8.7 GW) and solar (7.7 GW), compared with 33% (9 GW) from natural gas" ... and almost nothing else.
These days utilities are building natural gas (mostly high-efficiency combined-cycle plants), wind and solar, and building a lot of solar capacity.
Why are they doing that? And why are they retiring coal-fired power plants and older less-efficient natural gas plants? Simple: it's what wins economically.
Nobody has a home combined-cycle turbine, very few people own private wind turbines, but non-utility solar is booming: in 2016 it added 2.5 gigawatts: the total solar capacity addition exceeded that of either natural gas or wind, and is growing faster too.
Wind and solar power are still getting cheaper: technology advances and economies of scale ...that's what's new about solar. Get used to it, you might want to buy some, all your casinos do. Read here:
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/nevada-votes-to-end-nv-energy-monopoly
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30112
"Of the 2016 total utility-scale capacity additions, more than 60% were wind (8.7 GW) and solar (7.7 GW), compared with 33% (9 GW) from natural gas" ... and almost nothing else.
These days utilities are building natural gas (mostly high-efficiency combined-cycle plants), wind and solar, and building a lot of solar capacity.
Why are they doing that? And why are they retiring coal-fired power plants and older less-efficient natural gas plants? Simple: it's what wins economically.
Nobody has a home combined-cycle turbine, very few people own private wind turbines, but non-utility solar is booming: in 2016 it added 2.5 gigawatts: the total solar capacity addition exceeded that of either natural gas or wind, and is growing faster too.
Wind and solar power are still getting cheaper: technology advances and economies of scale ...that's what's new about solar. Get used to it, you might want to buy some, all your casinos do. Read here:
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/nevada-votes-to-end-nv-energy-monopoly
2
Travel anywhere in northern China during the winter. If that is progress I'll eat my hat.
4
I think you should look at the dictionary. Progress doesn't mean the goal is reached. It's a simple fact coal use dropped and they spend more on renewables now than the US or even the entire EU. Check back in 10 years if we are all still here.
1
Good for the Times giving us international comparisons that show where the US lags. But why does it lag? Now it’s time to relate this to big oil money making huge election donations to both parties. So, unlike China, we have a famous democracy—but----who pays for our elections and directs policy?
The Times seems to ofen use the fair and balanced standard to avoid being charged that it’s a liberal paper by Fox and the rw media.
Maybe this is why no columnist ever discusses how other democracies don’t turn their elections over to the super rich and mega-corporations for financing. And they also have explicit green parties with input into energy policy.
The Times has no columnist to discuss the many groups trying to reverse Citizens United, called one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court. How does this block green energy progress that we see abroad? Contrast with countries with more public financing of elections.
The Times has no columnist who ever explains the differences between ACA, Medicare for all, and the public option. Or the benefits of govt negotiating insurance/drug costs. Or, crucially---the better cheaper health care systems in dozens of other world democracies. There’s a pattern here. Stay safe in the center. But our center is right wing compared to other capitalist democracies.
The Times seems to ofen use the fair and balanced standard to avoid being charged that it’s a liberal paper by Fox and the rw media.
Maybe this is why no columnist ever discusses how other democracies don’t turn their elections over to the super rich and mega-corporations for financing. And they also have explicit green parties with input into energy policy.
The Times has no columnist to discuss the many groups trying to reverse Citizens United, called one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court. How does this block green energy progress that we see abroad? Contrast with countries with more public financing of elections.
The Times has no columnist who ever explains the differences between ACA, Medicare for all, and the public option. Or the benefits of govt negotiating insurance/drug costs. Or, crucially---the better cheaper health care systems in dozens of other world democracies. There’s a pattern here. Stay safe in the center. But our center is right wing compared to other capitalist democracies.
3
The United States is behind India and China not because we can't do better but because we still have many climate change deniers in Congress and in the White House. Meanwhile people suffer from bad air quality days even in areas that were generally clean until recent years.
Mr. Trump doesn't seem to understand either the necessity of lowering carbon emissions nor the business opportunities, his favorite area, that will emerge from greater dependence on renewal energy sources such as wind, water and solar energy.
It's a sad time when the United States is behind emerging countries.
Mr. Trump doesn't seem to understand either the necessity of lowering carbon emissions nor the business opportunities, his favorite area, that will emerge from greater dependence on renewal energy sources such as wind, water and solar energy.
It's a sad time when the United States is behind emerging countries.
5
Finally, some very good news on the green energy front and a welcome relief from all the recent bad headlines!
But it is indeed embarrassing and extremely frustrating to have an American government that is doing the exact opposite and pulling us back instead of continuing to lead the way forward.
Let's hope that the individual federal states (like California), private companies and individual citizens will make up as much as possible for the backward trend of this ignorant and science-denying Trump regime.
But it is indeed embarrassing and extremely frustrating to have an American government that is doing the exact opposite and pulling us back instead of continuing to lead the way forward.
Let's hope that the individual federal states (like California), private companies and individual citizens will make up as much as possible for the backward trend of this ignorant and science-denying Trump regime.
3
Republicans , the world can not live with them & it can do much better without them.
Question : Why are there ANY female GOP supporters ? Do they not have mothers , sisters , daughters , aunts , female friends or brains ? Why do they vote to prevent equal pay for women , healthcare for themselves & their families , Planned Parenthood funding , education for their children ????
Question : Why are there ANY female GOP supporters ? Do they not have mothers , sisters , daughters , aunts , female friends or brains ? Why do they vote to prevent equal pay for women , healthcare for themselves & their families , Planned Parenthood funding , education for their children ????
4
As the worst environmental offenders, China and India SHOULD be the ones making great strides at this point in our history.
The world--and their own citizens--would be in a better place if China and India managed to merely match Trump's "laggard" US standards.
The world--and their own citizens--would be in a better place if China and India managed to merely match Trump's "laggard" US standards.
4
Chris Devereaux: "As the worst environmental offenders, China and India SHOULD be the ones making great strides at this point in our history."
Are you saying the energy consumers of the US have paid the entire bill for all the fossil carbon we released to the atmosphere since the mid-19th century?
Are you saying the energy consumers of the US have paid the entire bill for all the fossil carbon we released to the atmosphere since the mid-19th century?
1
Could you be bothered to check your facts? (Obviously not!) If CO2 is the sole measure of "environmental offense" India produces less than half as much CO2 as the US, and its per capita emissions are about 1/8th.
And the US we have right now is sure not Trump's, he sure did not make it in any way, and he and Pruitt are desperately trying to undo what we have achieved in terms of advancing our energy & pollution future.
And the US we have right now is sure not Trump's, he sure did not make it in any way, and he and Pruitt are desperately trying to undo what we have achieved in terms of advancing our energy & pollution future.
1
What you are ignoring is that the US is number two on that list, right in the middle of both countries. India is third behind the US. And both countries are surpassing Trump's laggard standards. When you are the number two polluter, complaining about the number three is not smart. And for many decades the US was the number one polluter. It is only in recent years from sheer numbers that china has had more output.
2
In spite of Trump and Pruitt being two of the most dangerous individuals on the planet when it comes to clean air and water, improvements march on. New proposed coal fired power plants have reduced by 2/3’s in the States. According to the Brookings Institute 5% of total coal fired generation was retired in 2015, and in the first half of 2016 anther 2.4%. Natural gas is the chosen fuel right now because it’s cheap and easy to move around the country.
Renewables are not going away. As some have pointed out Wind Power is strong in the East and the West and Southwest are flourishing with Solar Power. I live in GA and Southern Companies subsidiary has been purchasing solar plants in the Southwest for years. Not because their great environmentalists it’s all about the “money”. Their cheap to build and operate and will continue to do so.
It takes 8-10 years to license, permit, design, and build a coal fired power plant. No utility is going to risk that when they all see the handwriting on the wall. Trump and Pruitt are just a near term impediment but innovation in renewables will control the future.
Renewables are not going away. As some have pointed out Wind Power is strong in the East and the West and Southwest are flourishing with Solar Power. I live in GA and Southern Companies subsidiary has been purchasing solar plants in the Southwest for years. Not because their great environmentalists it’s all about the “money”. Their cheap to build and operate and will continue to do so.
It takes 8-10 years to license, permit, design, and build a coal fired power plant. No utility is going to risk that when they all see the handwriting on the wall. Trump and Pruitt are just a near term impediment but innovation in renewables will control the future.
3
American exceptionalsm needs to be redefined, and re-emerge as courageous, forward thinking and strategically pragmatic when it come to climate change, consumerism and capitalism--the 'C's of the modern apocalpyse.
4
Trump should be honest to those West Virginia coal miners we hear so much about. The decline of demand in coal is not some massive liberal conspiracy. It is the inevitable reality. Industry and economies change, and responsible government helps its people adapt. As this article shows, these two countries with a combined population of nearly 2.7 billion are already changing their energy consumption habits. That's a huge economic opportunity US firms could be competing for, and we have the advantage of a lot of existing green tech companies and top research universities. That's a much better way to "Make America Great Again" instead of trying to convince everyone the future is coal and there is a magic time machine back to 1955
2
By 2020, the very cleanest US Coal burning plant will be dirtier than the very dirtiest Chinese coal burning plant! Also less efficient. We are going to be beat in both fossil fuel energy production and green energy production.
Thanks Trump. Thanks Republicans.
Thanks Trump. Thanks Republicans.
1
That's not completely technically true -- there are two coal-fired plants in the US that are or will (when completed) do CO2 sequestration. The second of these has become a construction cost-overrun nightmare ... and it may end up burning natural gas .. coal is no longer economic
http://tinyurl.com/lt8ophj
Other than these, there are effectively no new US coal-fired electric plants being built. They cannot pay for themselves in competition with natural gas, wind, and solar.
Many coal-fired plants are being closed, some others converted temporarily to natural gas, and the remainder are being run for now like an old car being run until it is junk -- nothing invested into it.
There's no reason for America to invest in advanced coal plants unless the price of such plants that use carbon sequestration can be reduced to the point where they are at least competitive with combined-cycle natural gas on both CO2 and cost.
At the moment, nobody believes that is possible, least of all the coal industry. They are not willing to put a penny into CO2-sequestration R&D ... that's why they have no strategy except the PR "war on coal."
http://tinyurl.com/lt8ophj
Other than these, there are effectively no new US coal-fired electric plants being built. They cannot pay for themselves in competition with natural gas, wind, and solar.
Many coal-fired plants are being closed, some others converted temporarily to natural gas, and the remainder are being run for now like an old car being run until it is junk -- nothing invested into it.
There's no reason for America to invest in advanced coal plants unless the price of such plants that use carbon sequestration can be reduced to the point where they are at least competitive with combined-cycle natural gas on both CO2 and cost.
At the moment, nobody believes that is possible, least of all the coal industry. They are not willing to put a penny into CO2-sequestration R&D ... that's why they have no strategy except the PR "war on coal."
1
Fortunately, American people don’t react to global warming like metaphorical frogs to slowly boiling water, not any more. Trumperature is only 180°F and we are already very agitated.
I wonder ----do China and India. Germany and other countries making progress in green energy have prestigious, influential newspapers featuring op ed page columnists who cast doubt on global warming's drastic harm?
The NYT, America's paper of record, just hired the conservative WSJ columnist Bret Stephens who wrote--- "Climate of Complete Certainty"---casting doubt on the certainty of harm from global warming.
The op ed page editor wrote that the Times is thrilled that he is joining the paper.
This is to give us all the range of opinion 'fit to print', per the Times.
The NYT, America's paper of record, just hired the conservative WSJ columnist Bret Stephens who wrote--- "Climate of Complete Certainty"---casting doubt on the certainty of harm from global warming.
The op ed page editor wrote that the Times is thrilled that he is joining the paper.
This is to give us all the range of opinion 'fit to print', per the Times.
2
If you had actually read any of Bret Stephens' pieces instead of repeating the false liberal babble, you would know that he doesn't dispute the harm; instead he disputes the extent and certainty with which progressives make their arguments and he has sound rationale there.
Perhaps you and other Times readers could do well to be challenged on long-held beliefs to see if you have any cogent counterarguments versus seeking puritanical echo chambers on these pages. Everyone reading here should know precisely the consequences of echo chambers when these readers finally awoke on November 9, 2016.
Perhaps you and other Times readers could do well to be challenged on long-held beliefs to see if you have any cogent counterarguments versus seeking puritanical echo chambers on these pages. Everyone reading here should know precisely the consequences of echo chambers when these readers finally awoke on November 9, 2016.
1
Meredith -- it was quite common for reputable papers in other countries to run articles claiming manmade global warming is bunk ... but that largely ended about five years ago and the 2015-16 El Nino (with associated record-smashing world temperatures) largely put the whole issue to rest in the public mind of everywhere else in the world. In the US the rear-guard climate denialism has largely been restricted to right-wing news outlets -- the Murdoch-owned WSJ being the most reputable of them.
It is indeed hilarious and pathetic that the NY Times picked up Stephens, a WSJ cast-off for being a never-Trumper. (The Murdochs and FOX cast in their lot with Trump... though they may now be regretting it.) Stephen's editorials at the WSJ against climate science were second only to Mark Steyn's in complete lack of any actual scientific argument, and reliance on pure name-calling.
The NY Times at least has toned him down from "sick souled religion" and "closet Stalinists" ... and after two beginning op-ed pieces where he made a complete fool of himself he has gone off to topics that are far more his metier.
A collection of climate scientists (of which i am one) posted a public letter that you can see here
https://www.climatefactsfirst.org/
that the New York Times has never seen fit to answer.
It is indeed hilarious and pathetic that the NY Times picked up Stephens, a WSJ cast-off for being a never-Trumper. (The Murdochs and FOX cast in their lot with Trump... though they may now be regretting it.) Stephen's editorials at the WSJ against climate science were second only to Mark Steyn's in complete lack of any actual scientific argument, and reliance on pure name-calling.
The NY Times at least has toned him down from "sick souled religion" and "closet Stalinists" ... and after two beginning op-ed pieces where he made a complete fool of himself he has gone off to topics that are far more his metier.
A collection of climate scientists (of which i am one) posted a public letter that you can see here
https://www.climatefactsfirst.org/
that the New York Times has never seen fit to answer.
3
If China and India do not find alternatives to making electricity with coal, both countries face huge costs from the damage from pollution from coal fired plants that will be greater that the economic growth rates in any of the economies of the U.S. or Europe. Trump and the Republicans have exhausted their energy and time for considering the future of energy with denying climate change and insisting upon ignoring alternative energy sources until the costs of producing and selling fossil fuels becomes prohibitive. This strategy pretty much assures that in this century the U.S. will have to buy nearly all the latest alternative energy systems from firms in China or India. Greed can lead to poverty, but most Republicans think that it only leads to a lot of billionaires.
1
It is alarming that Trump administration is slowing down, if not outright discarding, the opportunities created by the renewable solar and wind energy industries in the US. According to a 2017 report by the Environmental Defense Fund the renewable energy now makes up 64% of new electricity generation capacity installed in the U.S. each year. Solar employment opportunities are currently growing at a rate 12 times faster than the rest of the U.S. economy. There are more people employed in the solar and wind industry than in the coal industry. The jobs are spread across the US but with more concentration in the states that support clean energy. Even states such as Texas and Iowa that supported Trump have active renewable energy industry. Comparatively jobs in the coal sector are declining. Due to low costs even the utilities in the coal producing red states are switching to cleaner burning natural gas for electric generation. So the US support for the Paris Accord is good for the US economy and even for states that voted for Trump. It is in Trump’s own political interest to support the growth of renewables in the US. But that may be asking too much. The last four months have shown that Mr. Trump often does not know what in his best interest and is often swayed by myopic thinking.
3
Trumps deconstruction of our renewable energy plans is not only shameful, it is bad economics. Short term goals of this administration may be met such as cheaper fuel costs, but at the expense of establishing a renewable energy infrastructure. This will cost future generations in so many ways, climate change, health etc.
2
The more successful renewables are, the less we’ll need to have this argument.
1
The bigger the price difference between renewable and fossil energy, the more fossil energy we'll burn. OTOH, if Congress enacted Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adustment, enough of the marginal climate-change cost of fossil fuels could be internalized in the price to make renewable energy competitive immediately. The "invisible hand", namely the natural thrift of consumers and the lure of profit for entrepreneurs, will then drive the transition to carbon-neutral energy with alacrity.
See citizensclimatelobby.org for more information, then lobby your legislators for CF&D.
See citizensclimatelobby.org for more information, then lobby your legislators for CF&D.
Besides not finding science conclusive on carbon emissions the GOP has basically taken the fried chicken analogy to global warming
Many people feel life is not worth living without fried chicken. And the same apparently is true for Trump voters who feel the inconvenience and expenses related to moving away from fossil fuels are not worth it
Of course the analogy breaks down because unlike fried chicken your pollution can kill me.
But that on the whole is part of Trump's attraction - superficial arguments, oversimplification, shallowness were hallmarks of his campaign.
They were like comfort food - tastes great, but will kill us.
Many people feel life is not worth living without fried chicken. And the same apparently is true for Trump voters who feel the inconvenience and expenses related to moving away from fossil fuels are not worth it
Of course the analogy breaks down because unlike fried chicken your pollution can kill me.
But that on the whole is part of Trump's attraction - superficial arguments, oversimplification, shallowness were hallmarks of his campaign.
They were like comfort food - tastes great, but will kill us.
2
Well and bluntly said, Andrew. To anyone who accepts the lopsided consensus of working climate scientists, the motive for AGW denial is transparent.
Limiting projected global warming to 1.5 C requires elimination of carbon emissions 30 years from now - which neither China, nor India, nor the US are likely to achieve. Meeting emissions reductions pledges will result in around 2.5 C projected warming.
It's going to be hot.
It's going to be hot.
1
Others are making progress into new technologies and we are stuck with a coal-fired president.
2
"a coal-fired president" - nice. Coal-hired, too!
1
This article is extremely misleading. Most of China's new electrical capacity is from nuclear. India just contracted with China to build ten new nuclear facilities. Germany is closing its nuclear plants, and has the highest electricity prices and the worst air pollution in Europe. The reverse is true for France. Converting to electric cars may be good or bad, depending on how the electricity is generated.
The New York Times can do better.
The New York Times can do better.
3
"The New York Times can do better."
Well, Mr. Williams, there once was time when that would have been true. But though tis sad to say, what was once true is now just a memory...
Well, Mr. Williams, there once was time when that would have been true. But though tis sad to say, what was once true is now just a memory...
4
Art, i don't know where you are getting your numbers for your claim "Most of China's new electrical capacity is from nuclear" ... that is just flat wrong.
http://ceenews.info/en/power-statistics-china-2016-huge-growth-of-renewa...
"In 2016, wind turbines generated 241 TWh of electricity, an increase of 30 percent compared to 2015 levels. Electricity generation from solar power grew by 72 percent with a cumulative generation of 66 TWh in 2016. The third-strongest growth can be attributed to nuclear power stations which generated 24 percent more electricity than last year and thus reaching 213 TWh."
Wind energy out-produced nuclear power in china in 2016, and is also growing faster. Solar power produced about 40% of the electricity of nuclear but is growing by 72% per year (wow!)
http://ceenews.info/en/power-statistics-china-2016-huge-growth-of-renewa...
"In 2016, wind turbines generated 241 TWh of electricity, an increase of 30 percent compared to 2015 levels. Electricity generation from solar power grew by 72 percent with a cumulative generation of 66 TWh in 2016. The third-strongest growth can be attributed to nuclear power stations which generated 24 percent more electricity than last year and thus reaching 213 TWh."
Wind energy out-produced nuclear power in china in 2016, and is also growing faster. Solar power produced about 40% of the electricity of nuclear but is growing by 72% per year (wow!)
1
Great for them, the lesson is that our government does not need to do anything, our private companies will do our share, let's hope that other countries do their share. Their share is not to reduce the growth of their emissions but rather at least to not increase them at all. I bet they won't be doing that!!!!
vulcanalex has apparently never heard of market externalities.
1
A staple of marketing classes is Marketing Myopia, an article by by the late Harvard Business School professor, Theodore Levitt, in 1960. In it he writes about the efforts to stay in business and the ultimate failure of a buggy whip manufacturing company in the early part of the 20th century. Making buggy whips was a dying industry, and the company failed to make the transition to what was wanted and needed in the new era.
The same is happening in this country today. Under Trump and the Republicans, we are scrabbling to hold on to the way energy has been sourced and used for the last couple hundred years, not recognizing that the world has moved on. In March, 75 mayors of U.S. cities sent Trump a letter condemning his plans and stating they will not cooperate. They also say: "“Climate action is also an investment in our economy and job creation — electric vehicles, solar power, energy efficiency and battery storage are all avenues to restoring our nation’s manufacturing base and create good, middle class jobs."
China and India are investing in the future. Under Trump and the Republicans, the U.S. is throwing it's future down a rabbit hole as they pursue an absurd belief that we can return to some mythical past when coal was king and oil ruled the world. China is working on solar and wind technology and developing "super batteries" even as they cancel plans to open coal-fired generating facilities. We want to re-open mines.
The same is happening in this country today. Under Trump and the Republicans, we are scrabbling to hold on to the way energy has been sourced and used for the last couple hundred years, not recognizing that the world has moved on. In March, 75 mayors of U.S. cities sent Trump a letter condemning his plans and stating they will not cooperate. They also say: "“Climate action is also an investment in our economy and job creation — electric vehicles, solar power, energy efficiency and battery storage are all avenues to restoring our nation’s manufacturing base and create good, middle class jobs."
China and India are investing in the future. Under Trump and the Republicans, the U.S. is throwing it's future down a rabbit hole as they pursue an absurd belief that we can return to some mythical past when coal was king and oil ruled the world. China is working on solar and wind technology and developing "super batteries" even as they cancel plans to open coal-fired generating facilities. We want to re-open mines.
6
I'd change that a little bit to "Trump and the Republicans are trying to throw". Too many states, cities and corporations are doing their own thing with efficiency, renewables and pollution controls to have it stop here.
So on one side, you have Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander, Snowball Inhofe and Ted Cruz leading the fossil crowd - with Koch and other uber-wealthy libertarian family funding behind them.
On the other, you have states making and meeting renewables targets, Hawaii pledging 100% renewable, and that goal being matched by the tech giants, even WalMart.
It's a shame the Republicans insist on gutting the Clean Power Plan. It was deferring how each state achieved the targeted reduction to that state, and it addresses the EPA's requirement to regulate CO2 emissions.
So now we'll have most of the wealthier states doing it on their own, and we'll see how Pruitt does when the inevitable legal challenges come at him (Ha - see how quickly his EPA gets sued now that he's not one of the ones filing suits).
But it is shame about the GOP. They used to be about jobs over rules, now they're ruling against jobs.
So on one side, you have Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander, Snowball Inhofe and Ted Cruz leading the fossil crowd - with Koch and other uber-wealthy libertarian family funding behind them.
On the other, you have states making and meeting renewables targets, Hawaii pledging 100% renewable, and that goal being matched by the tech giants, even WalMart.
It's a shame the Republicans insist on gutting the Clean Power Plan. It was deferring how each state achieved the targeted reduction to that state, and it addresses the EPA's requirement to regulate CO2 emissions.
So now we'll have most of the wealthier states doing it on their own, and we'll see how Pruitt does when the inevitable legal challenges come at him (Ha - see how quickly his EPA gets sued now that he's not one of the ones filing suits).
But it is shame about the GOP. They used to be about jobs over rules, now they're ruling against jobs.
Meanwhile Suniva and SolarWorld (two largest manufacturing capacity US companies) are filling chapter 11 and insolvency respectively. As a result, they are pushing the ITC to enact ludicrous duties and tariffs on all imported cells and panels. Forget the fact that the US currently (outside those two failing companies) has a mere fraction of the ability to produce enough panels to meet the current domestic demand. Storms on the horizon....
It is interesting to note that apparently the downfall of both SolarWorld and Suniva can be attributed to unfair competition from Chinese producers dumping low-cost and allegedly substandard products in both the EU and U.S.
The jobs lost from Coal are more than amply replaced in the clean energy area.Unless you inclufe ghe medical workers needed to treat those injured from breathing in fossil fuel emissions. Wind and solar need to be maintained. Lots of of jobs from that.
China and India's policies are driven by self interest of their ruling classes. Once opposed to carbon controls in order to protect their economic interests, now they are becoming advocates as their grip on power is threatened by populations who are demanding better air, cleaner water, healthier food, etc. the unique geography and physical environment of both India and China make them more vulnerable to climate change, experiencing its effects earlier and more severely than in the US. Their governments have to make changes to mollify public concerns, our government is presently more responsive to campaign donations from the oil, gas and coal industries.
2
Doug -- there's no "unique geography" ... but there is destiny in demographics.
Both countries have very high population densities, India even greater. What this means is that if they are to grow energy consumption per capita to western norms (a measure of prosperity) then they can expect the concentration of pollutants to be 8 and 5 times higher respectively, GIVEN equal air pollution control technology.
Neither China nor India does much pollution control of their coal-fired plants -- india is a particularly sick joke in this regard. The result is the worst and most dangerous air pollution in the world, in terms of the number of people it kills and sickens.
Coal is not economic any more unless it is given license to kill large numbers of people for free. That is true in the US, true in India and China too. The irony is that CO2 had nothing to do with this reality.
Both countries have very high population densities, India even greater. What this means is that if they are to grow energy consumption per capita to western norms (a measure of prosperity) then they can expect the concentration of pollutants to be 8 and 5 times higher respectively, GIVEN equal air pollution control technology.
Neither China nor India does much pollution control of their coal-fired plants -- india is a particularly sick joke in this regard. The result is the worst and most dangerous air pollution in the world, in terms of the number of people it kills and sickens.
Coal is not economic any more unless it is given license to kill large numbers of people for free. That is true in the US, true in India and China too. The irony is that CO2 had nothing to do with this reality.
Having visited both China and India first around 1985 and then about once a year I only noticed the rapid environmental degradation primarily because of severe unlimited population increase (India - during these 30 years from 800 million to 1.15 billion) and accelerated desire to join the western world in construction regardless of pollution control (India and China). For these countries to pay lip service to the Paris agreement does not contribute to clean air or removal of solid waste of its once beautiful coastal regions.
2
Trump often complains about the state of our nation’s infrastructure and even said that our airports and train terminals are worse than those in third world countries. Now with his decidedly anti-science stand on climate change and a return to fossil fuel-friendly policies, we can expect our environment to deteriorate to third world country levels as well, especially if President Trump pulls us out of the Paris climate change treaty.
Trump apparently does not believe in a quality of life standard for the very people he purports to help with his noxious policies. For Trump, as in his business days, the ends always justify the means. Even if those means happen to take the country backwards and do more harm than good in the long term. In Trump’s mind, renewable energy is not a viable business model at this time and he has more to gain politically by creating near term fossil fuel jobs. Whatever environmental damage is caused by his myopic policies is the next president’s problem, so he just doesn’t care.
Trump apparently does not believe in a quality of life standard for the very people he purports to help with his noxious policies. For Trump, as in his business days, the ends always justify the means. Even if those means happen to take the country backwards and do more harm than good in the long term. In Trump’s mind, renewable energy is not a viable business model at this time and he has more to gain politically by creating near term fossil fuel jobs. Whatever environmental damage is caused by his myopic policies is the next president’s problem, so he just doesn’t care.
2
Industrial Revolution, its dependence on oil and coal, legacy of wars for earth's resources have all gone together. In the same period China and India have seen their value and quality of life go down precipitously, and it is understandable that they see reason.
1
Both India and China do not have much of a natural resources of oil and gas. The adoption of renewable energy policy is a win-win situation to both China and India in the sense of economic stability and public health. The icing on the cake, they can brag about leading the way in reducing the global warming. The U.S has plenty of resources and not under pressure to adopt the changes for economic reasons. The U.S has rapidly changed to become independent of oil imports after OPEC threatened the U.S economy. It is the economy that drives U.S. policies. If Global warming is a threat to U.S. economy, the policies will change real fast, no matter who the president is.
1
Let's not blame this on "Trump's America" but on "America". USA has never owned up and felt responsible for being the top per capita polluter.
~16 tons per person compared to China and India's 7,2 respectively based on 2013 numbers.
We never think of investing in mass transit or even think about changing the way we live in mega sprawl suburbia with high number of cars,square footage and motorized equipment to maintain all that green lawn.
How many of us Americans can get to work/grocery store/school/playground without using a car? Very, very, very few.
~16 tons per person compared to China and India's 7,2 respectively based on 2013 numbers.
We never think of investing in mass transit or even think about changing the way we live in mega sprawl suburbia with high number of cars,square footage and motorized equipment to maintain all that green lawn.
How many of us Americans can get to work/grocery store/school/playground without using a car? Very, very, very few.
This article demonstrates what really worries me. In addition to the significant problem that the Trump administration is ignoring one of the two largest problems facing this country, the other being radical terrorism, it also is ceding jobs to countries such as China, India Germany. Democratic politicians need to point out that we need to take leadership in this field and not allow the Trump administration to miss this great opportunity to lead the world in the development of new energy sources and generate new jobs. While environmental concerns are enough in my book to warrant proactive measures to fight climate change, politically it is vital that Democrats constantly make the case that we need to address climate change forcefully to create new, better-paying jobs for the middle class in this country!
Jonathan -- islamic terrorism is not a major problem in the United States. It is a major hysteria, all out of proportion to what it has done and cost.
Counting the 9/11 terrorism (that produced the vast fraction of all islamic terrorism deaths in the US) it has killed under 5,000 people to date .... less than 350 per year average.
Car accidents, guns and opioids each kill around 30,000 per year.
Swimming pool drownings kill about 3,500 per year in the US.
Americans are irrational about terrorism generally, and utterly bonkers about islamic terrorism.
Counting the 9/11 terrorism (that produced the vast fraction of all islamic terrorism deaths in the US) it has killed under 5,000 people to date .... less than 350 per year average.
Car accidents, guns and opioids each kill around 30,000 per year.
Swimming pool drownings kill about 3,500 per year in the US.
Americans are irrational about terrorism generally, and utterly bonkers about islamic terrorism.
Greetings from the country of California, where we get up to 80% of power from renewables at times: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/california-renewable-en...
I guess it is now a race to see if the bluer states can reduce fossil fuel use faster than the red states can increase it. However, pollution and efficiency can cross state lines, so this is clearly a federal issue.
I guess it is now a race to see if the bluer states can reduce fossil fuel use faster than the red states can increase it. However, pollution and efficiency can cross state lines, so this is clearly a federal issue.
1
Whether or not you believe in climate change, why would conservatives ignore a new and emerging technology? We can either lead or find ourselves chasing technology in 10 years.
3
Here's the best response to climate change deniers I've ever seen: http://nitwitia.com/0033-climate-scientists-exactly-like-nazis/
Certainly wonderful news. And the correct direction for our earth. But you fail to point out how massive the emisions from these two countries continue to be, not to degrade their late but welcome efforts, but to imply that we Americans are remiss in our own efforts. We look like the laggards? And it's "Donald Trump" America? Just another example of the breast beating of the self hating. One only needs to review the other comments to this editorial to see this. We will only reduce our own emissions when it is economically feasible, which it now is, especially when it comes to wind power production. It will be the capitalist economy which will move this, not Obama-era governmental regulations formulated by self proclaimed intellectuals who can't help themselves to tell others how to live their lives. This is OUR America and we are not obligated to commit economic suicide to achieve these goals. Yes, we don't want pollution. But until China and India reduce even further any advances w achieve are still minimal on a global level.
Vincent,
Our previous POTUS saw that regulations were the only route available to him, with Congress dominated by climate-science deniers.
As long as fossil fuels enjoy a price advantage over renewables by socializing their marginal climate-change costs, the capitalist economy will not move the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. Congress should have long since internalized the cost of climate change in the price of fossil fuels with a carbon tax, which would have harnessed market forces to accomplish the transition rapidly and efficiently. That's what a genuine conservative would support.
Our previous POTUS saw that regulations were the only route available to him, with Congress dominated by climate-science deniers.
As long as fossil fuels enjoy a price advantage over renewables by socializing their marginal climate-change costs, the capitalist economy will not move the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. Congress should have long since internalized the cost of climate change in the price of fossil fuels with a carbon tax, which would have harnessed market forces to accomplish the transition rapidly and efficiently. That's what a genuine conservative would support.
This is great news for the USA. As other countries burden themselves with unreliable energy sources, the better the USA looks for locating job, especially in energy intensive industries. Hopefully other countries will also make strides in requiring vehicles to run on alternative energy sources, which should reduce the demand for fossil fuels, lowering prices, and saving USA consumers billions of dollars that won't be send overseas. This is all great news for America and shows the wisdom of Trump's policies. MAGA
Unfortunately there is an irrefutable economic case for continuing to burn fossil fuels and suppress green energy. Namely, the economic benefits to the fossil fuel industry and its captains, who lavishly fund anyone in power who supports their troglodyte agenda. It's not about jobs - they don't even employ that many people. It's all about the donors.
1
Was the embrace of climate change science by the left in America part of a plot by China to keep the American right reflexively defending carbon while China moves out to a wide lead in clean energy technology? People are saying . . . .
Blaming Trump is very easy these days. Americans, with their abundant natural resources in general, are spendthrift (democrats or republicans). Look at your use of motor vehicles or ACs & lack of public transport in liberal-sf-bay-area. It is astonishing how majority of the world's sole-super-power's citizens don't care.
3
"China and India should easily exceed the targets they set for themselves in the 2015 Paris Agreement..." But, the NYTimes doesn't tell us the targets they set. Some mention of how bad things really are in cities such as Beijing, but no discussion or facts. You cannot breath, you cannot see the sun or the stars, and you cannot drink the water. Filth is everywhere. There is no comparison when it comes to emissions in the US vs. India or China. When you start at abysmal, it's not hard to claim huge percentages decreases, and still end up bad.
China and India are not reacting to the future threat, they are reacting to the current state. And the data in this article omits the fact that their 'decline' in CO2 emissions estimated by 2020 is based on reduced growth in emissions allowed by the agreement they signed. They are not going to grow as much and this is touted as a reduction! Interesting math. Interesting commitment they made (allowed to make).
China and India are not reacting to the future threat, they are reacting to the current state. And the data in this article omits the fact that their 'decline' in CO2 emissions estimated by 2020 is based on reduced growth in emissions allowed by the agreement they signed. They are not going to grow as much and this is touted as a reduction! Interesting math. Interesting commitment they made (allowed to make).
2
Energy is fundamental to the culture, economy and ecology of a nation. The more a nation can base its development upon a renewable energy structure, the stronger it will become in the near future as is evident in China, India and Germany.
It would also be such energy outstanding nations that could translate their national goals in the bold pursuit of tackling the unjust, unsustainable, therefore, unstable international monetary system and transform it by basing it on a carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2 per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net. A keen observer of the global climate challenge gave his opinion of this Tierra global governance system by stating: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011.
It would also be such energy outstanding nations that could translate their national goals in the bold pursuit of tackling the unjust, unsustainable, therefore, unstable international monetary system and transform it by basing it on a carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2 per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net. A keen observer of the global climate challenge gave his opinion of this Tierra global governance system by stating: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011.
The United States has made the decision, even though most voters don't understand it, to specialize in military weaponry and to ignore our infrastructure, schools, healthcare, and global warming. Of course those who control this decision-making won't be here WTSHTF.
1
Typical NYT article: US BAD, other countries (take your pick on a given day) GOOD because they "might", "should or could (possibly), achieve carbon emission goals. Having been to both China & India recently, I can assure you the air in large cities is eye-watering and barely breathable. No where in the article does it mention that in recent years the US has cut its carbon emissions far more than any country in the world. That fact does not fit the hand-wringing scenario. That is why I read Forbes Magazine and the actual emission reports as well as the NYTs.
3
Phyllis -- this is about Trump's policies going forward, not what we have accomplished so far. Why should Trump get credit for what has been done when he promotes a policy to undo it?
If the article were about the decline in measles in the US due to vaccination would you argue that a new president who intends to stop vaccinations deserves credit for the fact that measles is mostly under control in the US?
If the article were about the decline in measles in the US due to vaccination would you argue that a new president who intends to stop vaccinations deserves credit for the fact that measles is mostly under control in the US?
All of this winning is amazing
1
Multimegawatt storage is now available through power-to-hydrogen-gas (see Hydrogenics). This is the missing link for storing large scale renewables.
1
This is the usual mumbo-jumbo from the Editorial Board. Who really cares about how emissions changed according to earlier projections. What we really care about is the absolute decrease in emissions and the US is doing just fine on that score.
3
We are being extremely selfish and shortsighted. Selfish in that the boomer generation is passing on so much damage to our children and grandchildren. Both in climate, debt and economically. Shortsighted, by our giving the next generation of power technology leadership to other nations as some hold tight to coal and oil.
6
Here's a lesson everyone should learn: Computer Models are not Reality. And promises by nation states such as India and China for achieving some arbitrary emissions level at some point in the future (a "five year plan" if there ever was one) are not Reality either.
Key phases: "appear to have peaked" and "expected to obtain...eight years ahead of schedule".
We don't trust our government to tell us the truth in America; yet the NYT trusts the Chinese and Indian governments to speak truthfully?
I will bet the Editorial Board $1,000 that neither of these predictions is true by January 1 2022.
Key phases: "appear to have peaked" and "expected to obtain...eight years ahead of schedule".
We don't trust our government to tell us the truth in America; yet the NYT trusts the Chinese and Indian governments to speak truthfully?
I will bet the Editorial Board $1,000 that neither of these predictions is true by January 1 2022.
3
Sure, KarlosTJ.
So let's look at measurements. How about by BP? In their 2016 global energy review, they document the following
Germany's CO2 emissions in gigatonnes
2015 - 753.6
1990 - 1003.2
1980 - 1077.2
Their economy has continued to grow during that decline in CO2. Electrical generation has grown. They are still the fourth-largest economy in the world, and haven't gone back to living in caves, either.
Here in the US, utilities are challenged by the steep DROP in costs for wholesale electricity in areas where wind or large solar are growing.
Iowa - 35% electricity from wind power now. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas all big wind power generators, too. Offshore wind auction recently got a winning bid from Norway's national oil company - too bad ExxonMobil's too stupid to use their offshore experience this way.
I'm waiting for the Republican leadership in renewable-rich states to tell the fossil leadership to take a hike. Chuck Grassley in Iowa would be one example.
Our "jobs" President is a joke, and the party leadership is willing to slow growth where the real jobs are in order to try to protect the ones already heading out.
So let's look at measurements. How about by BP? In their 2016 global energy review, they document the following
Germany's CO2 emissions in gigatonnes
2015 - 753.6
1990 - 1003.2
1980 - 1077.2
Their economy has continued to grow during that decline in CO2. Electrical generation has grown. They are still the fourth-largest economy in the world, and haven't gone back to living in caves, either.
Here in the US, utilities are challenged by the steep DROP in costs for wholesale electricity in areas where wind or large solar are growing.
Iowa - 35% electricity from wind power now. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas all big wind power generators, too. Offshore wind auction recently got a winning bid from Norway's national oil company - too bad ExxonMobil's too stupid to use their offshore experience this way.
I'm waiting for the Republican leadership in renewable-rich states to tell the fossil leadership to take a hike. Chuck Grassley in Iowa would be one example.
Our "jobs" President is a joke, and the party leadership is willing to slow growth where the real jobs are in order to try to protect the ones already heading out.
1
Whether the predictions come true or not, we need to try new things. If they don't work try something else. Im disappointed with Mitch McConnell not moving his state away from Coal and into new technologies.
1
You folks live in an alternate universe believing that China is a leader in climate change. In 2016 alone China added more coal-fired electrical capacity than the entire electrical capacity of Canada - which is mostly hydro by the way. Where's the offset to that?
Probably the best thing they're doing is a result of their lack of regulatory oversight. They are building a nuclear reactor funded by Gates and others, that shows promise, and may become a safe nuclear alternative. But do you trust a government that allows no dissent to make good environmental decisions. The track record is not good in this regard.
Climate policies allow China to increase greenhouse emissions until 2030. At that point it won't be hard to make improvements. Not sure they ever get back to today's levels though. And todays levels are not exactly aspirational.
You folks need to actually go to China. Reconcile your perspective with your eyes and a better grasp of data before you go spouting this nonsense of China as a leader in climate change.
Probably the best thing they're doing is a result of their lack of regulatory oversight. They are building a nuclear reactor funded by Gates and others, that shows promise, and may become a safe nuclear alternative. But do you trust a government that allows no dissent to make good environmental decisions. The track record is not good in this regard.
Climate policies allow China to increase greenhouse emissions until 2030. At that point it won't be hard to make improvements. Not sure they ever get back to today's levels though. And todays levels are not exactly aspirational.
You folks need to actually go to China. Reconcile your perspective with your eyes and a better grasp of data before you go spouting this nonsense of China as a leader in climate change.
22
Ed Bukhzar, China announced a few months back a plan to invest abut $450 billion over ten years on new renewable energy sources. You are talking about the China of a few years ago. Rampant pollution and the chance for prosperity based on leadership in new fields has caused the Chinese leadership to take a shift in their old coal policies.
In reply to Ed Bukszar from Vancouver:
You are comparing apples to oranges by using a different definition of "leader in climate change" than the editorial does. As the article specifies in detail, China is making changes now that will result in strong changes over the next decade in China's carbon footprint. As a result, China will easily fulfill its commitments made in the Paris Agreement. The Trump administration, on the other hand, is thinking of pulling out of the Agreement entirely.
Your comparison to the total CO2 footprints of Canada and China are even more skewed. For every one person living in Canada there are about 39 people living in China.
All that said, Canada is a lovely country and Vancouver is a really happening city. Canadians should be proud of what they have done to reduce the growth of their own CO2 footprint. Now if you could only do something about all that mining of tar sands....
You are comparing apples to oranges by using a different definition of "leader in climate change" than the editorial does. As the article specifies in detail, China is making changes now that will result in strong changes over the next decade in China's carbon footprint. As a result, China will easily fulfill its commitments made in the Paris Agreement. The Trump administration, on the other hand, is thinking of pulling out of the Agreement entirely.
Your comparison to the total CO2 footprints of Canada and China are even more skewed. For every one person living in Canada there are about 39 people living in China.
All that said, Canada is a lovely country and Vancouver is a really happening city. Canadians should be proud of what they have done to reduce the growth of their own CO2 footprint. Now if you could only do something about all that mining of tar sands....
And they just want to be a manufacturing leader in alternative energy, which if we are smart we won't allow by applying tariffs.
2
Many thanks for raising this to view, and also for the great reporting the New York Times climate team is doing. Our country is not only an embarrassment, but is also fast becoming a pariah nation, and this attitude toward climate change at the highest reaches of our government is one salient reason why.
2
This Editorial will fall on deaf ears. Multiple well researched articles on Universal Health Care in Industrialized Democracies except in US, didn't make an iota of a difference in US. Why do you think comparing China and India to US will change anything in US?
5
These are not great or big strides, they are mere publicity. Yes they will lower World damaging outputs already, damaged beyond recovery and with over half of the population of the World, pre-industrial and barbaric, at best, much more is yet to come! Without a major reduction, by half, of our present World population, we will continue, at a faster pace, our destruction of our World. I am amazed that no one seems to recognize this singular, major probem, or that having seen our dismal future, they are mortally afraid and wish to pass the problem off to the future.
1
"...and a child shall lead them...." Ironic. The Trump-child leads America towards environment oblivious. The two countries with the most children at risk are won over to environmental sanity.
1
The thing to consider is the scale of Asia as a consumer of fossil fuel with respect to North America. Here's the latest verified consumption data from www.eia.gov circa 2015.
Coal: Asia, 6.3 billion short tons; North American, 990 million short tons. Or Asia burns six times more coal than North America.
Oil: Asia, 32 million barrels per day; North America, 24 million barrels per day. Or Asia burns 50% more oil products and its consumption is increasing rapidly, where North America consumption is slowly increasing.
Natural gas: Asia 24 trillion cubic feet per year; North America, 34 trillion cubic feet per year. Asia and North America are rapidly increasing natural gas consumption.
Natural gas liquids (the light ends like ethane for plastics): both Asia and the US are rapidly increasing consumption.
The point being is Asia and the rest of the developing world is why oil and gas wants to turn US into an exporter of oil and gas. And why Trump is kowtowing to the House of Saud. Coal might be on its own, since it's the crazy aunt of the fossil fuel family.
Yes, Asia (China and India being the biggest consumers of fossil fuel) is cutting back - however, it burns and will burn in future a lot of fossil fuel. Like a whole lot. Like six times more coal than US, Mexico and Canada. And an ever growing appetite for oil and gas, despite electric cars and renewabels. Rex Tillerson, the Eagle Scout and Exxon retiree, is happy. Mother Earth won't be.
Coal: Asia, 6.3 billion short tons; North American, 990 million short tons. Or Asia burns six times more coal than North America.
Oil: Asia, 32 million barrels per day; North America, 24 million barrels per day. Or Asia burns 50% more oil products and its consumption is increasing rapidly, where North America consumption is slowly increasing.
Natural gas: Asia 24 trillion cubic feet per year; North America, 34 trillion cubic feet per year. Asia and North America are rapidly increasing natural gas consumption.
Natural gas liquids (the light ends like ethane for plastics): both Asia and the US are rapidly increasing consumption.
The point being is Asia and the rest of the developing world is why oil and gas wants to turn US into an exporter of oil and gas. And why Trump is kowtowing to the House of Saud. Coal might be on its own, since it's the crazy aunt of the fossil fuel family.
Yes, Asia (China and India being the biggest consumers of fossil fuel) is cutting back - however, it burns and will burn in future a lot of fossil fuel. Like a whole lot. Like six times more coal than US, Mexico and Canada. And an ever growing appetite for oil and gas, despite electric cars and renewabels. Rex Tillerson, the Eagle Scout and Exxon retiree, is happy. Mother Earth won't be.
1
"Scale of Asia as consumer....." Please do remember the fact that Asia contains many population dense nations.China and India combine has huge population. In absolute terms both nations can be consuming more. Calculate percapita and enlighten everyone.
"however, it burns and will burn in future a lot of fossil fuel " Reason for this both countries started industrialisation late (around 70s for China and around 90s for India). We have huge population to uplift the standard of living comparable to US. Similarly African countries has the same right to uplift when they are ready. It would be not equitable asking others to not pollute because they are late! Industrialed countries have been polluting the environment, but you refuse to giveup the same benefits to others now.
"however, it burns and will burn in future a lot of fossil fuel " Reason for this both countries started industrialisation late (around 70s for China and around 90s for India). We have huge population to uplift the standard of living comparable to US. Similarly African countries has the same right to uplift when they are ready. It would be not equitable asking others to not pollute because they are late! Industrialed countries have been polluting the environment, but you refuse to giveup the same benefits to others now.
You might want to look at the actual number of people in Asia and North America before you make these comparisons. Don't get me wrong; India and China can and should do more. But in per capita terms, they are already far ahead of the US when it comes to emissions.
Wrong ... the point you are missing is per capita consumption, its easy to look at totals and say Asia consumes 6x more coal than North America ... when you ignore the point that Asia's population (at 4 billion and change) is close to 10x that of North America.
Asia (India and China) have to cut back, because if they reach North America levels of per capital fossil fuel consumption, then Mama Nature stands no chance.
The opportunity here is to avoid catastrophe (which is sure to occur) were Asia to reach North America levels of per capita fossil fuel consumption.
Asia (India and China) have to cut back, because if they reach North America levels of per capital fossil fuel consumption, then Mama Nature stands no chance.
The opportunity here is to avoid catastrophe (which is sure to occur) were Asia to reach North America levels of per capita fossil fuel consumption.
If fossil fuels are an addiction, Trump has just given us a relapse.
1
This story confirms what Al Gore teaches at his training sessions to about 11,000 of us Climate Reality Leaders!
You're kidding Gore has teaching sessions? Do people pay to attend?
Ask coal miners how "bogus" the threat was. What is really bogus is the climate apocalypse preached by "progressive" pseudo scientists.
1
Another science-denying Trump-voter trying to present a "fair and balanced" false equivalence. Natural gas did in the coal industry. Look it up next time.
1
So maisany you are a devout disciple of the Church of Global Warming preaching the climate apocalypse and I am a "science denier"?
The climate apocalypse is pure faith based, believing in prophesies. Problem is the computer modeling of climate is severely limited, missing for example the massive 25% - 50% increase in vegetative mass over the last few decades largely due to CO2 fertilization. That was a big miss.
The climate apocalypse is pure faith based, believing in prophesies. Problem is the computer modeling of climate is severely limited, missing for example the massive 25% - 50% increase in vegetative mass over the last few decades largely due to CO2 fertilization. That was a big miss.
sjaco -- i happen to be a "progressive" (or perhaps "liberal"). I also happen to be a real scientist. And real scientists have shown that manmade global warming is real, and if allowed to continue unabated will have "apocalyptic" (your word) consequences for mankind ... of course science has nothing to say about the apocalypse according to John: the Whore of Babylon and the Beast, culminating in the Second Coming of Jesus.
"Bogus" is just name-calling. You want to argue reality? Then engage in a scientific argument! Unable to do so? Well then you lose!
Ask yourself why did Exxon-Mobil, that has many tens of thousands of scientists and did some early climate research give up and admit that CO2-mediated global warming is real ... scientifically?
"Bogus" is just name-calling. You want to argue reality? Then engage in a scientific argument! Unable to do so? Well then you lose!
Ask yourself why did Exxon-Mobil, that has many tens of thousands of scientists and did some early climate research give up and admit that CO2-mediated global warming is real ... scientifically?
1
.....And yet Peking has to shut down on many excessively polluted days, as people actually DIE from breathing it.....all while Pittsburgh, PA has some of the cleanest, brightest days ever.....yet the NYTimes Editorial Board plods on singing praises of Chinese Environmental Progress and implying that the USA isnt doing enough!
3
The fact that you can breathe the air in Pittsburgh is because almost all the basic steel manufacture in the Monongahela Valley shut down.
Secondarily it is because the clean air acts (last revised in 1990) greatly tightened emissions limits on NAAQS pollutants, including SOx, NOx, and particulates.
None of this directly has any relationship to CO2 ... though indirectly the fact of the matter is that coal-fired electricity is now headed for oblivion all over the world, because it cannot be made economic unless it allowed to kill or sicken enormous numbers for free.
China and India are now on paths to free themselves from coal too.
Secondarily it is because the clean air acts (last revised in 1990) greatly tightened emissions limits on NAAQS pollutants, including SOx, NOx, and particulates.
None of this directly has any relationship to CO2 ... though indirectly the fact of the matter is that coal-fired electricity is now headed for oblivion all over the world, because it cannot be made economic unless it allowed to kill or sicken enormous numbers for free.
China and India are now on paths to free themselves from coal too.
1
You're preaching to us, the converted. Tell this to Trump and Pruitt.
Our friend's 9 year old son just returned from India. When asked how was your trip, did you like India, without batting an eyelid, he said, it was very Smelly! We had similar experience when we visited late winter, we were in a trans Yamuna suburb of Delhi, the smell from the "nullah" (wide ditch) was so bad, we could not sleep at night, while the locals slept through it all, they have gotten used to the smell. Despite Modi's swachch Bharat drive, the air, water, soil pollution is so bad, you almost want to do a do-over rather than try to patch or band aid the things that cause the terrible stench. Remembering it is a tropical country, where it gets hot, dusty and much of the land is unpaved and raw, the smartest minds are stumped as to how to solve a problem like cleaning India.
2
There is indeed a tremendous awareness in India on Solar and Wind energy sources.
It is not as if there are no formidable challenges, not the least developing batteries to store the excess electricity generated by solar farms on sunny days and wind farms on windy days. The non conventional energy will compliment hydroelectric and nuclear energy sources. This necessitates the installation of energy storage the type Elon Musk has commendably pioneered using Li ion storage batteries.
The great news is that with Tesla, the Government of Andhra Pradesh intended to set up regional smart grids by initially converting all agricultural pump sets into solar energy-powered ones and eventually export any surplus power into the grid and agreements with Tesla Inc. and Iowa State University in the fields of renewable energy storage.
It's only a matter of short time before this initiative of Andhra Pradesh is replicated throughout the country. There is a palpable excitement sweeping across the country with the highly sensible Modi Central Government in the driver seat working round the clock to put country ahead in the field of energy production, an example for others to emulate.
It is not as if there are no formidable challenges, not the least developing batteries to store the excess electricity generated by solar farms on sunny days and wind farms on windy days. The non conventional energy will compliment hydroelectric and nuclear energy sources. This necessitates the installation of energy storage the type Elon Musk has commendably pioneered using Li ion storage batteries.
The great news is that with Tesla, the Government of Andhra Pradesh intended to set up regional smart grids by initially converting all agricultural pump sets into solar energy-powered ones and eventually export any surplus power into the grid and agreements with Tesla Inc. and Iowa State University in the fields of renewable energy storage.
It's only a matter of short time before this initiative of Andhra Pradesh is replicated throughout the country. There is a palpable excitement sweeping across the country with the highly sensible Modi Central Government in the driver seat working round the clock to put country ahead in the field of energy production, an example for others to emulate.
1
Even if the United States wanted to go full throttle on climate change and go renewable energies, the infrastructure could not handle it.
However, that in itself is a massive opportunity that dwarfs the expansion of the national highway system in the 50's. It would be a massive boom and employ millions more that sit idle today.
However, like all progress, republicans stand in the way.
However, that in itself is a massive opportunity that dwarfs the expansion of the national highway system in the 50's. It would be a massive boom and employ millions more that sit idle today.
However, like all progress, republicans stand in the way.
2
The overwhelming majority of Americans were in favor of the estate tax that affects only estates valued in the multi-millions of dollars. But Frank Lutz, the Republican wordsmith, got all the Republicans to start calling it the "death tax". Then, a majority of Americans reversed themselves and were against the death tax and legislation was passed to reduce it and eliminate it for one year. President Trump was to now eliminate it permanently.
A similar word change happened with global warming. When former Vice President Al Gore won an Academy Award for the documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth", what was happening to the our planet was accurately called "global warming". Then, the oblique, less accurate and more benign term of "climate change" began replacing the scientifically accurate "global warming". Less Americans began seeing this as an urgent issue for immediate action according to polling. It mostly fell off the radar screen as a central political issue in campaigns even though 97% of climate scientists determined that global warming is real, is caused by human activity and is already causing weather and climate problems and disasters around the globe.
Word choice does matter because it affects thought and action whether its the estate tax or global warming.
A similar word change happened with global warming. When former Vice President Al Gore won an Academy Award for the documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth", what was happening to the our planet was accurately called "global warming". Then, the oblique, less accurate and more benign term of "climate change" began replacing the scientifically accurate "global warming". Less Americans began seeing this as an urgent issue for immediate action according to polling. It mostly fell off the radar screen as a central political issue in campaigns even though 97% of climate scientists determined that global warming is real, is caused by human activity and is already causing weather and climate problems and disasters around the globe.
Word choice does matter because it affects thought and action whether its the estate tax or global warming.
1
The American movement to deny climate change is the direct result of the marginalization of traditional conservatism. Traditionally, conservatives resist change, or at best advocate for slow, incremental change. In a balanced political system, conservatism is a counterfoil to radicalism, which advocates for quick, profound changes.
To understand why traditional conservatism has been marginalized, consider the interaction between the political and economic system and the environment.
As the environmental movement became accepted by the mainstream, it also became clear that the political and economic system had to change. Traditional conservatism was no longer tenable because resisting change in the political and economic systems meant the destruction of the environment. This presented an existential problem for traditional conservatism which it was unable to solve. Instead, American conservatism morphed into the radical movement we now call the neocons. And of course, for the neocons to maintain the mantle of conservatism, they are compelled to deny climate change. Without that fig leaf to hide behind, it becomes clear that they are the servants or dupes of an aging industry that must adapt or die.
To their credit, some oil companies appear to be onboard, or at least willing to pay lip service to the new reality, even while using their political dupes to delay that change for as long as possible.
To understand why traditional conservatism has been marginalized, consider the interaction between the political and economic system and the environment.
As the environmental movement became accepted by the mainstream, it also became clear that the political and economic system had to change. Traditional conservatism was no longer tenable because resisting change in the political and economic systems meant the destruction of the environment. This presented an existential problem for traditional conservatism which it was unable to solve. Instead, American conservatism morphed into the radical movement we now call the neocons. And of course, for the neocons to maintain the mantle of conservatism, they are compelled to deny climate change. Without that fig leaf to hide behind, it becomes clear that they are the servants or dupes of an aging industry that must adapt or die.
To their credit, some oil companies appear to be onboard, or at least willing to pay lip service to the new reality, even while using their political dupes to delay that change for as long as possible.
In this country it is politics that trumps health. There are approximately 70,000 workers in coal country that Trump wants to protect but there are 400,00 workers in the solar industry. Solar workers are not concentrated in one state, however. Protecting a dying industry has an electoral college impact. Solar workers do not. Coupled with the impact of fossil fuel investors who support the GOP, the tilt in the USA away from renewable energy is predictable. Our Electoral College is dangerous to the world and hurting the US.
1
Interesting point on the Indian bid to supply solar power at 24 percent less than coal-fired power. Was that bid to supply at a constant 24 hour rate or only during the peak sunshine hours, in which case equivalent capacity from other sources would be required? Solar power can be priced at zero during peak availability periods, and still be too expensive to compete.
1
No nation, especially a big one like India, gets all their power from "a power station" or "a wind farm" or "a solar farm".
So, if you're offered amazingly cheap electricity during daylight, and/or amazingly cheap electricity when breezes are blowing, do you buy it when it's available? You sure do. And you keep some gas turbines or hydro available for quick response, and you keep other generation for when the sun's down and the wind's calm.
By the way, if you have a large power plant like a big coal plant, you have to have 100% of that capacity available in case the plant goes offline. They do, you know.
Texas gets 10% of their electricity from wind power, you know. And growing.
So, if you're offered amazingly cheap electricity during daylight, and/or amazingly cheap electricity when breezes are blowing, do you buy it when it's available? You sure do. And you keep some gas turbines or hydro available for quick response, and you keep other generation for when the sun's down and the wind's calm.
By the way, if you have a large power plant like a big coal plant, you have to have 100% of that capacity available in case the plant goes offline. They do, you know.
Texas gets 10% of their electricity from wind power, you know. And growing.
The Times' Editorial researchers made a mistake -- India is NOT "...expected to obtain 40 percent of its electricity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2022...". Rather, that source refers to India's power generation *capacity*. Since solar farms do not produce at night and wind farms do not produce during calms, the actual electricity production expected from that capacity is only 28 percent of India's total in 2022.
In addition, the source notes that preventing a reduction in non-fossil capacity percentage after 2022 depends on India's building no more coal plants after 2022, which seems quite unrealistic.
In addition, the source notes that preventing a reduction in non-fossil capacity percentage after 2022 depends on India's building no more coal plants after 2022, which seems quite unrealistic.
There may be a silver lining here. There will be downward pressure prices of Non-Renewal sources of energy. With US exports of coal going down further, running the coal mines might become too expensive. With cheaper Natural Gas, more power plants will move away from coal.
Solar cells are a US invention. President Carter got solar panels installed on WH, Ronald Reagan promptly removed them. President Obama committed US to Paris accord and DT put US in a course to not meeting them, despite the obvious economic advantages. When US wants to take a serious look at how it lost its manufacturing mojo and leadership in global affairs this should be a prime example.
1
Old story. American invented and innovated steel production on a trial basis for the Basic Oxygen Process (BOP) to replace the open hearth process. The steel companies were making loads of profits from the open hearth process facilities and changing would mean lost profits, so they refused to upgrade. In the 1970's European and Japanese manufacturers using BOP produced the best and cheapest steel in the world and drove the U.S. companies out of their own markets. It's the product of social science hypotheses never tested -- the social science being economics. Markets are supposed to bring together the best considerations of buyers and sellers enlightened self interests and to thus produce prices which reflect true value and exchanges which serve the best interests of both sets of parties. The problem is that humans never really know everything about every deal and sometimes they don't consider long term consequences relevant to their deal making. When the real world is studied it shows that innovations which eventually dominate markets were losers for a long time before they displaced the previous technologies. Conservatives are so concerned about maximizing profits in the short run that they tend to cause profitable enterprises to never innovate and thence go out of business.
This really isn't surprising. Both India and China, with the largest and poorest populations in the world, have considerable natural resources but a dearth of infrastructure. Modernization of infrastructure is the key to their success in world markets. Bringing in state-of-the-art infrastructure is much easier to do in if there is no previous infrastructure in place.
This is one of the reasons why the United States is slow to upgrade existing infrastructure.
We won't justify improving infrastructure until demand forces the issue - but with only incremental improvements, demand grows very slowly. WWII left Europe with barely any infrastructure in place so, while the US has infrastructure built in the 1930's, most of Europe's infrastructure is from the 1950's and beyond. Much of the infrastructure put in place in India and China is built upon 21st Century technology. The United States will be slow to catch-up in large part because of our "if is ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.
In the end, this "the sky is falling" mentality of the climate politics will not be much of a motivator in the USA but "climate-change deniers" (such as those in the Trump Administration) won't be much of a hindrances either/
Economics will drive US progress. Natural gas is more efficient than coal. Wind and solar are better. Nuclear can be much more efficient and safer than it is today, and nuclear waste from 40-year-old reactors can be recycled to power 21st Century reactors.
This is one of the reasons why the United States is slow to upgrade existing infrastructure.
We won't justify improving infrastructure until demand forces the issue - but with only incremental improvements, demand grows very slowly. WWII left Europe with barely any infrastructure in place so, while the US has infrastructure built in the 1930's, most of Europe's infrastructure is from the 1950's and beyond. Much of the infrastructure put in place in India and China is built upon 21st Century technology. The United States will be slow to catch-up in large part because of our "if is ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.
In the end, this "the sky is falling" mentality of the climate politics will not be much of a motivator in the USA but "climate-change deniers" (such as those in the Trump Administration) won't be much of a hindrances either/
Economics will drive US progress. Natural gas is more efficient than coal. Wind and solar are better. Nuclear can be much more efficient and safer than it is today, and nuclear waste from 40-year-old reactors can be recycled to power 21st Century reactors.
Exactly at the moment when the new administration is engaged in a kind of nationalism that wants to return to outdated technologies, outdated fuels, outdated ideologies, outdated economic models, the new and rising superpowers are investing in the future.
This is not the time to be retreating into the past, no matter how glorious those times seem in memory. America can be great again, but not this way. The time is ripe to embrace the new paradigm and offer America the same kind of vision for the future of the country and the world that China and India are embracing now. Democrats, where are you? Protesting against whatever ails the country is only the first step. Working positively to fully embrace the future is the only way America will ever be a leader in the world again.
You either do that or face the accelerating decline of the empire that is already well underway.
Protesting against whatever ails the country is only the first step. Working positively to fully embrace the future is the only way America will ever be a leader in the world again. Do it. It's not too late.
This is not the time to be retreating into the past, no matter how glorious those times seem in memory. America can be great again, but not this way. The time is ripe to embrace the new paradigm and offer America the same kind of vision for the future of the country and the world that China and India are embracing now. Democrats, where are you? Protesting against whatever ails the country is only the first step. Working positively to fully embrace the future is the only way America will ever be a leader in the world again.
You either do that or face the accelerating decline of the empire that is already well underway.
Protesting against whatever ails the country is only the first step. Working positively to fully embrace the future is the only way America will ever be a leader in the world again. Do it. It's not too late.
1
Trump and his team are intent on turning the clock back for our great country in too many ways. We must be organized and disciplined to vote these people out as soon as possible. Hard-core Trump supporters are now only 20% of our population. There's no reason why we cannot turn this around. 2018 is our first chance. Hopefully this is all only a temporary blip on the screen of our country's history.
India is the most populous ethnic sectarian diverse democracy on Earth. China is the most populous country on Earth led by a term limited collective one-party leadership. Both nations have ancient ethnic sectarian advanced roots, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi are both far more experienced, talented, temperate, intelligent and mature than Donald John Trump.
1
The history of the US is capitalism and at a certain point capitalism becomes stuck in the box of short term quarterly profit based motives. India and China have experimented with many models for their economies over the past one hundred years and thus are much more fluid in their ability to grasp what is needed at this moment rather than our over grown stodgy way of thinking. This is represented clearly by republican intrangigence in the face of climate change and care for our environment. We need to change our mode of thinking if we are to enter the modern age.
Now the Left can add China and India to countries the US should be like, in addition to Denmark and Norway.
The US should be like the US. It shouldn't be like the oil capital and the fading coal country. Along with all the fossil fuel riches, we also have a lot of land, we have a lot of wind, we have a lot of sunlight.
Texas is booming in wind power, by the way. You want to pick on them?
Germany gets over 5% of their electricity from solar cells, and their southernmost tip is on a line running through North Dakota. We've got the Southwest desert. Small states like NJ and Massachusetts are currently in the top 10 for solar power output - there's a huuuge missed opportunity elsewhere.
We have thousands of miles of coast, where offshore wind can be delivered to power-hungry population centers which, strangely enough, are along the coast. We also (as of a year or two ago) led the world on wind generation - China had more capacity installed, we're better at using what we have.)
We also have a lot of the best research and development in integrating renewables, grid modernization and battery storage technologies. Nice recent paper on new zinc battery anodes that would allow zinc rechargeable batteries to scale up - cheaper safer material than lithium.
So, I'd prefer that the USA be the USA, but look forward rather than backward.
Texas is booming in wind power, by the way. You want to pick on them?
Germany gets over 5% of their electricity from solar cells, and their southernmost tip is on a line running through North Dakota. We've got the Southwest desert. Small states like NJ and Massachusetts are currently in the top 10 for solar power output - there's a huuuge missed opportunity elsewhere.
We have thousands of miles of coast, where offshore wind can be delivered to power-hungry population centers which, strangely enough, are along the coast. We also (as of a year or two ago) led the world on wind generation - China had more capacity installed, we're better at using what we have.)
We also have a lot of the best research and development in integrating renewables, grid modernization and battery storage technologies. Nice recent paper on new zinc battery anodes that would allow zinc rechargeable batteries to scale up - cheaper safer material than lithium.
So, I'd prefer that the USA be the USA, but look forward rather than backward.
1
Trump and Koch and Mercer and enablers Pence and Ryan and McConnell are bent on making China and India great.
The hustle to keep the anachronistic fossil powers in place and placate the kleptocracy is one big lie from top to bottom. It's not a jobs program; clean renewable energy, infrastructure, storage, and delivery, along with conservation, already provide more jobs. It's not about the market, which has already voted with its feet for newer cleaner energy. It's not for the poor suckers sickened by dirty energy and its toxic effluent, especially when they are eager to take away health care for the less prosperous.
It's shortsighted and guaranteed to promote the people paying attention.
Mind you, big fossil gets over 100:1 for its lobbying dollars, and Republican politicians get their re-election campaigns bought and paid for.
How stupid is that? Victims voting for their persecutors ...
The hustle to keep the anachronistic fossil powers in place and placate the kleptocracy is one big lie from top to bottom. It's not a jobs program; clean renewable energy, infrastructure, storage, and delivery, along with conservation, already provide more jobs. It's not about the market, which has already voted with its feet for newer cleaner energy. It's not for the poor suckers sickened by dirty energy and its toxic effluent, especially when they are eager to take away health care for the less prosperous.
It's shortsighted and guaranteed to promote the people paying attention.
Mind you, big fossil gets over 100:1 for its lobbying dollars, and Republican politicians get their re-election campaigns bought and paid for.
How stupid is that? Victims voting for their persecutors ...
4
Nothing done by Obama or Trump will have any significant effect on the climate of the planet. The root cause of all global environmental problems including any effect of humans on the climate is overpopulation, but as this article illustrates, there is no leadership to address it. As the population grows from 7.5 to some 10 billion carbon-generating human heaters during this century, incremental increases in per capita energy efficiency due to "renewable energy sources" will not alleviate our ongoing environmental disaster. Attributing "strides on climate change" to countries like China and India with massive populations who seek to emerge from poverty and adopt carbon-intensive lifestyles is unscientific.
5
"US President Trump’s Executive Order on “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth” sets the US on a path to miss its Paris Agreement commitment for 2025 by a large margin, the Climate Action Tracker said recently ( May 15,2017) adding that it would warrant moving the US from a “medium” to an “inadequate” CAT rating".. According to CAT tracker, this would put the world on a pathway consistent with a 4 degree C global average warming. This is the way Donald Trump wants to make America great again and the planet earth.
Five years ago no one expected that India or China would go for stopping or slowing down coal use because of the thinking that this would be an insurmountable hurdle for these countries and that the coal powered plants would be necessary for these developing countries to satisfy their high energy demands but these countries have proved that theory wrong, and they are on the way to overcome those challenge. other countries can learn from them.
Five years ago no one expected that India or China would go for stopping or slowing down coal use because of the thinking that this would be an insurmountable hurdle for these countries and that the coal powered plants would be necessary for these developing countries to satisfy their high energy demands but these countries have proved that theory wrong, and they are on the way to overcome those challenge. other countries can learn from them.
23
Great reminder that the Trump administration will drive America into an economic back water (in energy at least).
While we continue to squeeze money out of overly mature technologies India and China show the lead.
Consider also the cancellation of the TPP. Instead of having an agreement that includes intellectual property rules, worker rules, and environmental rules, we have a agreement now to trade chicken for beef. Arguably beef is one of the least environmental friendly method of producing food, requiring large land masses and producing significant pollution.
The remaining TPP nations decided to go ahead without America. Good luck to reach a better deal with every individual nation. It is not going to happen.
While we continue to squeeze money out of overly mature technologies India and China show the lead.
Consider also the cancellation of the TPP. Instead of having an agreement that includes intellectual property rules, worker rules, and environmental rules, we have a agreement now to trade chicken for beef. Arguably beef is one of the least environmental friendly method of producing food, requiring large land masses and producing significant pollution.
The remaining TPP nations decided to go ahead without America. Good luck to reach a better deal with every individual nation. It is not going to happen.
9
If Americans were taught more about the impending apocalyptic floods they might be inclined to put immediate pressure on their elected officials. The people need to demand action.
NYT readers should write letters with this reference:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/climate/antarctica-virtual-real...
NYT readers should write letters with this reference:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/climate/antarctica-virtual-real...
11
About time - in both India and China you cannot avoid seeing or smelling the pollution. At Delhi airport - you cant see the jet engines on the planes next to yours, you cant see the trucks on the highway, spewing diesel into the air.
In Beijing or Shanghai, the coal fumes in the air making breathing hurt, especially in winter.
Thankfully, the US never got to that stage, giving climate change deniers plausible routes of escape.
but if the Ross Ice Shelf really does detach from Antarctica, as the NYT has been reporting, then these deniers, especially with real estate in New York or Miami, will feel water up to their knees, may be then realize it is too late.
In Beijing or Shanghai, the coal fumes in the air making breathing hurt, especially in winter.
Thankfully, the US never got to that stage, giving climate change deniers plausible routes of escape.
but if the Ross Ice Shelf really does detach from Antarctica, as the NYT has been reporting, then these deniers, especially with real estate in New York or Miami, will feel water up to their knees, may be then realize it is too late.
11
The best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is economic contraction (emissions actually went down circa 2008), which can be accomplished through either population reduction or a reduction in economic activity by the extant and growing population. The former, I would think, is preferable to the latter, and is well under way in some locales (Japan comes to mine). Wind and solar farms are as much a blight on the planet as are copper mines and coal-fired steam plants.
Electric cars do nothing except remove the emissions from the tailpipe to the power generating source. Better to get rid of cars entirely. Electrons flit about the world ceaselessly and with hardly any environmental impact. If, in this information age, all that matters is what's in our heads, and we can get what's in our head wherever we need and practically cost free, why must we continue to live in a car-centric world?
Continuing to politicize environmental concerns really doesn't help. Calling out the Trump Administration for lagging behind its predecessor on good environmental stewardship will only cause it to dig in its heels. It certainly won't change the hearts and minds of any of its supporters. You could have just said that China and India are getting better than they were, and left it at that.
But I know. The NY Times is the official organ for anti-Trumpism. You feel obligated to every day furnish your readers a new and creative means of justifying their visceral hatred of Trump.
Electric cars do nothing except remove the emissions from the tailpipe to the power generating source. Better to get rid of cars entirely. Electrons flit about the world ceaselessly and with hardly any environmental impact. If, in this information age, all that matters is what's in our heads, and we can get what's in our head wherever we need and practically cost free, why must we continue to live in a car-centric world?
Continuing to politicize environmental concerns really doesn't help. Calling out the Trump Administration for lagging behind its predecessor on good environmental stewardship will only cause it to dig in its heels. It certainly won't change the hearts and minds of any of its supporters. You could have just said that China and India are getting better than they were, and left it at that.
But I know. The NY Times is the official organ for anti-Trumpism. You feel obligated to every day furnish your readers a new and creative means of justifying their visceral hatred of Trump.
2
That's an overly facile argument about electric cars.
Since you now have a choice of how your electricity is generated, it's possible to power your car from 100% renewable sources, if you choose. Even if you choose to stick to receiving your electricity via conventional means, as utilities move to increasing the percentage of renewable generation in their portfolios, your car will also become "cleaner" without doing anything to it mechanically. Show me a gas-powered vehicle that can do that.
Since you now have a choice of how your electricity is generated, it's possible to power your car from 100% renewable sources, if you choose. Even if you choose to stick to receiving your electricity via conventional means, as utilities move to increasing the percentage of renewable generation in their portfolios, your car will also become "cleaner" without doing anything to it mechanically. Show me a gas-powered vehicle that can do that.
"Electrons flit about the world ceaselessly and with hardly any environmental impact." — You should do some research on the environmental impact of producing e-gadgets and batteries, disposing of e-waste, and running the gigantic server farms that feed our hunger for information.
So 20th century. It's photons that flit around the world. Electrons, by comparison, are a feeble way to carry information.
1
To remain competitive, US industry must change. Change does cause stress, and solar electric is very democratizing. Instead of having to purchase expensive fossil-based electricity from a corporation, consumers can throw up solar panels and just walk away. Electric cars extend this capability to the purchase of gasoline.
If you think getting rid of the fossil fuel industry in the US is impossible, just look at what Germany has done. Most of their domestic electricity is now from solar.
And consumers are taking note, Trump administration or not. Tesla Motors now exceeds the market cap of Ford. In NH, we had one neighborhood close to us setup a solar cooperative and power their homes from the sun - and gave the raspberries to the electric power company (NYSE: ES).
If you think getting rid of the fossil fuel industry in the US is impossible, just look at what Germany has done. Most of their domestic electricity is now from solar.
And consumers are taking note, Trump administration or not. Tesla Motors now exceeds the market cap of Ford. In NH, we had one neighborhood close to us setup a solar cooperative and power their homes from the sun - and gave the raspberries to the electric power company (NYSE: ES).
6
And the NYT editorial board actually BELIEVES the stats promulgated by the Chinese and Indian statistical mills? The perfect linear growth in Chinese GDP over 15 years tells you all you need to know about these numbers. They put Bernie Madoff to shame.
8
China and India are the largest markets in the world, yet oligarchs in America want to hobble our economy to hydrocarbons. Why? They have control of hydrocarbons. Like those industrialists who cornered the wooden bucket market or ice cutting on the Hudson, the hydrocarbon industry will be reduced to dust and America will be swept away with them. We are being led by pirates and con men. Throw these bums out of congress and lock them up. Take their ill gotten gains and rebuild our infrastructure.
15
C. Wright, it's true that the energy in fossil fuels has powered the economic development of the industrialized world. But it's energy that the world needs: there's no intrinsic reason it has to be fossil energy. Fossil fuels have been a "cheap" energy source only because the cost of the climate change they cause has been socialized. If a fraction of the socialized cost is "re-privatized", or internalized, as by a well-designed carbon tax, market forces would drive the transition to a carbon-neutral economy rapidly and efficiently.
We should all be conscious of the fact that Donald Trump is just the vacuous vessel of the current political philosophy of the Republican Party. As we all certainly know now, elections matter.
12
I give thanks every day to all the brave and dedicated people who have sacrificed and laboured across all the generations past for the betterment and enlightenment of humanity.
How stupid, nonchalant and disrespectful we have become that we put our entire civilisation at risk and jeopardise the very birth right of future generations to enjoy the same sort of natural world we ourselves enjoy.
The collective moral failure to act to address human-induced climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence that we must is an enormous crime against humanity.
In reality, we are already decades late with a prudent climate change response. While few are as overtly stupid as the Republican/Trump regime in America, many governments are still 'soft-peddling' their climate change efforts.
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."
It's time to start acting like it does.
How stupid, nonchalant and disrespectful we have become that we put our entire civilisation at risk and jeopardise the very birth right of future generations to enjoy the same sort of natural world we ourselves enjoy.
The collective moral failure to act to address human-induced climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence that we must is an enormous crime against humanity.
In reality, we are already decades late with a prudent climate change response. While few are as overtly stupid as the Republican/Trump regime in America, many governments are still 'soft-peddling' their climate change efforts.
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."
It's time to start acting like it does.
6
This is a heartening analysis, but kind of silly.
Dictatorial China has polluted its water and air for a long long time, through unregulated industry. We've all seen photos of cities in China suffocated in toxic smog, and photos of urban citizens wearing protective masks as they wheel their tender children (also heavily masked) down the sidewalks. China should not be applauded for it's earth-friendly policies. Their leaders don't give a darn about "Mother Earth." Obviously. Good grief. Chinese political leaders are trying to satisfy and quiet the nation's populace ... vast and coughing.
India? A substantial proportion of its citizens live in abject poverty.
Yes. The US is a mess. But our businesses are successfully promoting solar and wind power, and now employing a whole lot more workers than the coal industry does
It's just not accurate to hail China and India as true friends of The Earth. Too simple. Look into the history.
Dictatorial China has polluted its water and air for a long long time, through unregulated industry. We've all seen photos of cities in China suffocated in toxic smog, and photos of urban citizens wearing protective masks as they wheel their tender children (also heavily masked) down the sidewalks. China should not be applauded for it's earth-friendly policies. Their leaders don't give a darn about "Mother Earth." Obviously. Good grief. Chinese political leaders are trying to satisfy and quiet the nation's populace ... vast and coughing.
India? A substantial proportion of its citizens live in abject poverty.
Yes. The US is a mess. But our businesses are successfully promoting solar and wind power, and now employing a whole lot more workers than the coal industry does
It's just not accurate to hail China and India as true friends of The Earth. Too simple. Look into the history.
4
The main gist of the article is that India and China are going full speed away from coal powered energy and towards green energy whereas we (current administration) are looking at going the other way, evidence? climate change deniers leading EPA, trying to undo previous admins green policy, talking about getting out of the Paris agreement etc etc. Yes, China has polluted massively and Yes, a substantial amount of Indians live in poverty (though that number is going down) but that is not the point here. Also, if you look into "the history" especially the Industrial revolution and later you will see that we have contributed massively to the climate problem. And after reaching the top of the economic ladder we condescendingly taunt developing countries such as China and India, very rich don't ya think??
1
But the editorial's title is "China and India MAKE GREAT STRIDES". We all know China and India have huge environmental problems....but at least they are addressing it, making great strides....! And what is the USofA doing? Burying its head in the sand and electing climate deniers.
Yes, Clemence and Tinman9, I agree with you. The current US administration is destructive and panders to the oil-and-gas industry, and people now, and in the future. will suffer for it.
But Communist China has polluted its landscape immeasurably, mercilessly. It's a soiled and toxic mess in many places (not ALL places, since China is geographically large). I'm a Leftie. I like Marx. But I don't believe that active (dictatorial) "Communist" nations are reliable or inclined to be Earth-friendly.
Ok, so they sign a treaty and reduce their emissions and pollutions by an amount bigger than the amount promised by the US.
That's like kicking a stone off Everest.
Our country has become dangerous thanks to science-phobic Republicans, but this article overstates the virtues of China and India.
But Communist China has polluted its landscape immeasurably, mercilessly. It's a soiled and toxic mess in many places (not ALL places, since China is geographically large). I'm a Leftie. I like Marx. But I don't believe that active (dictatorial) "Communist" nations are reliable or inclined to be Earth-friendly.
Ok, so they sign a treaty and reduce their emissions and pollutions by an amount bigger than the amount promised by the US.
That's like kicking a stone off Everest.
Our country has become dangerous thanks to science-phobic Republicans, but this article overstates the virtues of China and India.
That Climate Change (warming) is with us as we speak, ought not be news to anybody who has been paying attention...and is not and imbecile or hopelessly stupid. China and India are forcing themselves to change coal-based energy production due to the high contamination of the air they breathe (with awful health consequences for their people), to renewable environmentally friendly solar and wind energy. That the Unites States, also a big culprit in contaminating the world (no walls here) and accelerating the adverse effects of climate change, is a laggard, is shameful. Now with irresponsible, and deeply ignorant, Trump at the helm and destroying common sense advances Obama directed towards protecting "Mother Earth", we are losing ground due to the gross negligence of a president who refuses to see, and smell, the evidence. And stupidity doesn't do justice to the harm inflicted. The nasty and vengeful disregard for Nature seems to carry, in my opinion, a 'racist' attitude of Trump towards anything with Obama's signature, however just and wise. Trump is such a twisted and insecure thug, incorrigible for sure, that any minute he continues his misrule is our loss. For our health, and the world's, he must be sent packing ASAP.
7
I remember back in early 80s, as a school kid in India, We did a lot of exhibits on Solar Cooker or other eco-friendly stuff. Bio Gas (Methane) popularly known as Gobar (Cow dung generated) Gas was being promoted by the Govt. as a cheap and readily available source of fuel in rural areas. I saw my first wind turbines, not in Europe, not here in States, but near my native rural village on the western coast of India. But all that took a back seat when India liberalized its economy in 90s. Like other developing countries, India too started following the western model for development where for decades, corporations have used (and manipulated) science as a marketing tool to change people's habits and increase their profits. Criticizing developing countries and their traditional ways as unscientific was their way of selling products overseas. Organic, Eco friendly became ineffective and archaic (as was portrayed by many companies) till it became cool and scientific (and profitable) in the west in the recent past. So, it's no surprise, that when we in America started adopting eco friendly policies, and our companies started selling eco friendly products, the developing countries like India, where people, policy makers and intellectuals often blindly followed the model of developed world have started going back to the resources and technologies they always had, but had neglected.
10
climate change is not a Chinese hoax and Plump is a Putin hoax!
3
Trump is a self-centered being, who cares not for the people of our country, but for his own good. Like many in the conservative right, he still refuses to acknowledge the detrimental effects of coal and gas. Such people tend to ignore science, since the immediate effects of pollution will not be evident until many years from now. Meanwhile, they would like to benefit from the decisions of sane leaders of the world, including those of India, China and Germany, who are making their best efforts to stall and reverse climate change. Trump and his backers prefer to profit in the short term, and leave the consequences to those yet to be born.
We need a sane, thinking leader in this country, someone who can promote clean energy and not glorify carbon-based old and dirty technologies. We need a leader who cares for the people, and who can begin to learn why the vast majority of scientists may be right. It does not hurt to invest in clean solar and wind technologies. These are getting cheaper every year. If countries like India and China can realize the benefits of clean energy even in terms of cost, why can't a far more technologically advanced country do the same?
We need a sane, thinking leader in this country, someone who can promote clean energy and not glorify carbon-based old and dirty technologies. We need a leader who cares for the people, and who can begin to learn why the vast majority of scientists may be right. It does not hurt to invest in clean solar and wind technologies. These are getting cheaper every year. If countries like India and China can realize the benefits of clean energy even in terms of cost, why can't a far more technologically advanced country do the same?
3
" It’s America — Donald Trump’s America — that now looks like the laggard."
You will NEVER make progress on global warming until you stop combining your campaign to reduce CO2 emissions (with which I agree) with your campaign to insult Republicans (with which I do NOT agree.)
Stop saying "Donald Trump's America." America was addicted to huge cars before Trump was even born. It is AMERICA, and not Donald Trump's America which you must address.
You will NEVER make progress on global warming until you stop combining your campaign to reduce CO2 emissions (with which I agree) with your campaign to insult Republicans (with which I do NOT agree.)
Stop saying "Donald Trump's America." America was addicted to huge cars before Trump was even born. It is AMERICA, and not Donald Trump's America which you must address.
43
In this instance Donald Trump's name is used as a metaphor for all of America's history of short sighted, blinder wearing leaders who encouraged the use of fossil fuels. He represents the get rich now and to hell with the other guy attitude that made America's "leaders" wealthy and comfortable in their fenced compounds. They have been, and still are, the sorts of individuals who have climbed their way to the top on the backs of poorer folks. They cannot face a future that isn't identical to their past. And they are afraid to try, least a new future bring a role for themselves that isn't covered with gravy.
Donald Trump and his ilk... the entire Republican congress, are a drain on an enterprising America. Rather than reaching for a new future where all people prosper, they work to entrench themselves, and us,in their dirty past. These selfish demigods will destroy America first.
Donald Trump and his ilk... the entire Republican congress, are a drain on an enterprising America. Rather than reaching for a new future where all people prosper, they work to entrench themselves, and us,in their dirty past. These selfish demigods will destroy America first.
So Aruna thinks Trump is a real Republican. Not all Republicans would agree. I suggest taking the Times more literally in this.
Trump knows full well the impact of fossil fuels. He is 70 years old and must remember the world as it was BUT chooses to ignore the facts for the sake of greed and profit despite his own grandchildren. Donald's Trump's "America" is just another word for unchecked short term greed.
China and India may have made big strides on climate change because it is economically lucrative to protect the environment and not drive away tourists but both countries have a lot of steps to take to protect their microenvironment, the air they breathe. Smoking has not been reduced in this century as compared to the last century. The US has made the most significant strides in reducing smoking in public places and in reducing smoking related cancers due to second smoke. Being a non smoker, Trump is leading by example and underscores the warning on cigarette packets that say smoking is injurious to your health. I don't know about President Xi of China but I know that Prime minister of India Narendra Modi is a non smoker, leading by example but both Xi and Modi need to clear the bad air generated by smokers that contribute to a high incidence of lung diseases that place a heavy burden on the public health of their nations.
1
You didn't mention the fundemental reason behind at least for China - CCP's regime is in danger of collapse if they don't fix two big problems (corruption and pollution). You may not be familiar with the democratic movement in Taiwan, which started from anti-pollution grassroot movement. It was a good lesson and a forecast of what is going to happen. China and Chinese benefit from the unique political system - socialism with Chinese character. CCP can be superefficient if it decides to accomplish something. It was a no-brainer for CCP. The economic model needs a disruption. The old model of blindly pursue GDP growth made no sense any more. The new strategy is one stone for two birds. Not to mention China can take the high ground now (for both trade and global climate change).
It is the reason why Western nations need to be more sophisticated when it comes to the "human right" issue. After watching the clown shows happening in Western nations, it has become very clear. Democracy is merely a fantacy if citizens are not ready or qualified. It cannot be just simply the right to vote. Sad!
It is the reason why Western nations need to be more sophisticated when it comes to the "human right" issue. After watching the clown shows happening in Western nations, it has become very clear. Democracy is merely a fantacy if citizens are not ready or qualified. It cannot be just simply the right to vote. Sad!
1
You know what I learned from this editorial? I learned that President Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia was a blockbuster success, because it is obvious that the Times editorial board wants to talk about anything, as long as it does not involve the biggest news of the day, an American president visiting a major Muslim country and being welcomed like a king while delivering a speech that invites that Muslim world to join us in rejecting Islamic extremism.
17
"Biggest news of the day"? Why? Because der Donaldt won the Saudi gold medal for the 100-meter backpedal? Surely you jest. Nice curtsy during the medal ceremony, BTW.
1
Charles, I guess I could not tell if your comment was a snide comment about how US voters used to like having a Mr. President and are uncomfortable with the trappings of a king.
1
Did you read the front page?
Some of us, btw, believe climate change is one of the most serious issues of the day.
Some of us, btw, believe climate change is one of the most serious issues of the day.
3
This story isn't about climate change. If you think china and India are doing anything for the purpose of saving the planet, think again. What they are doing is trying to control pollution and make their more densely crowded cities livable.
What the EB doesn't seem to get -- there are many things -- is that if CC is occurring due to things people do, then more people (other things equal) will lead to greater CO2 emissions. And switching to renewable energy sources only makes a minor impact on emissions as people being people, they want more of whatever there is to have. So, say I've got a 3500 square foot house and 2 cars. I put solar panels on my roof and have an electric car. I even use environmentally friendly bulbs. Then, because I'm so impressed with myself I build an addition to my house, drive more miles in my gas guzzling SUV, take more vacations to Europe, etc. I create a false sense of doing something positive and as a result, feel free to let my inner energy hog out.
And if man made CC is real, then the rest of the world needs to act to reduce birth rates and keep the population steady.
Climate -- and man's contribution -- is a complex system. While adding new energy sources that work is good, that by itself doesn't mean much. Like most of life, CC is multivariate. Just thinking that pulling one lever will fix anything (assuming we need a fix) is at the very least, silly.
What the EB doesn't seem to get -- there are many things -- is that if CC is occurring due to things people do, then more people (other things equal) will lead to greater CO2 emissions. And switching to renewable energy sources only makes a minor impact on emissions as people being people, they want more of whatever there is to have. So, say I've got a 3500 square foot house and 2 cars. I put solar panels on my roof and have an electric car. I even use environmentally friendly bulbs. Then, because I'm so impressed with myself I build an addition to my house, drive more miles in my gas guzzling SUV, take more vacations to Europe, etc. I create a false sense of doing something positive and as a result, feel free to let my inner energy hog out.
And if man made CC is real, then the rest of the world needs to act to reduce birth rates and keep the population steady.
Climate -- and man's contribution -- is a complex system. While adding new energy sources that work is good, that by itself doesn't mean much. Like most of life, CC is multivariate. Just thinking that pulling one lever will fix anything (assuming we need a fix) is at the very least, silly.
3
"The rest of the world needs to act"? But we withhold funding for women's health care if abortion is even mentioned. All over the world.
When 2 nations with close to 3 billion inhabitants are turning the corner on carbon emissions, that is good news indeed. When incremental strides are made, countries need to look to each other for ideas-- for vehicles, Japan requires replacement of car engines after so many miles, California has the strictest smog device controls, Mexico City with day-to-day driving "rights" and Western Europe with reduced commuting carbon footprints. India and China making strikes with power generation is huge. But it will still require more of the little things worldwide, the hundreds of millions of small gas-powered and highly polluting engines that power leaf blowers in the U.S. and motorbikes across the developing world. It all adds up.
3
This is really good news. Aside from the actual positive impact on the planet, it also helps diminish the domestic CC-denier argument that it does not matter what the US does about climate change, because India and China are the problem. (Not true, but an argument you often hear anyway.)
45
Since the developing world in increasing emissions and we are decreasing they are the problem, not withstanding this article they will be increasing their emissions not decreasing them.
1
China has recently been painted as the villain, good to see perspective in this Times’ piece.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is cumulative in nature, so it only makes sense to look not only at current emission levels but historical ones. China’s historical emissions were estimated in 2002 to stand at 7.6 percent of the global total since 1850 in one study, while the United States stood at number one in the world at a staggering 29.3 percent (more than all twenty-five EU countries combined), or nearly four times China’s total.
In 2012 each U.S. citizen was responsible for between two and three times the per capita carbon emissions of their PRC counterparts; that has changed little in intervening years.
In November 2014, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Beijing, Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping were able to reach an agreement that faithfully implemented by the two sides over time could prove to be a major breakthrough on the issue. Then Congress did nothing. Trump has accelerated the problem with his appointments but there is a broader brush to paint with; America simply has not yet come of age in this world of global warming. Time for that to occur.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is cumulative in nature, so it only makes sense to look not only at current emission levels but historical ones. China’s historical emissions were estimated in 2002 to stand at 7.6 percent of the global total since 1850 in one study, while the United States stood at number one in the world at a staggering 29.3 percent (more than all twenty-five EU countries combined), or nearly four times China’s total.
In 2012 each U.S. citizen was responsible for between two and three times the per capita carbon emissions of their PRC counterparts; that has changed little in intervening years.
In November 2014, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Beijing, Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping were able to reach an agreement that faithfully implemented by the two sides over time could prove to be a major breakthrough on the issue. Then Congress did nothing. Trump has accelerated the problem with his appointments but there is a broader brush to paint with; America simply has not yet come of age in this world of global warming. Time for that to occur.
7
The destiny of a country is determined by the vision of their leaders - the national highway projects, EPA, Civil Rights laws, GI Bills were the visionary acts of the past leaders both Democrats and Republicans. America has lost that visionary class and we have Trump - a con man who only talks about deals. The greatness of the country will be destroyed in few decades and this mediocrity will ensure America to become one of the country of the world, not the leader of the world. "Make America Great" project is the formula of the "Make China and India Great". We are seeing the signs.
11
China and India have been reducing fossil fuel emissions for more than two decades. The billionaires who now rule the United States, however, derive their riches from fossil fuel consumption and staunchly support its relentless expansion, which can only lead to the end of life our planet.
In all of human history, there has never been a greater crime than that now being committed by this small group, two of whom, Scott Pruitt and Rex Tillerson, are in the President's cabinet.
In all of human history, there has never been a greater crime than that now being committed by this small group, two of whom, Scott Pruitt and Rex Tillerson, are in the President's cabinet.
11
Actually, China and India have been *increasing* their fossil fuel emissions dramatically for more than two decades, especially during the last decade. Let's not "deny" the facts, no matter what our policy analysis might be.
1
True, the fossil fuel emissions of the two countries have increased. The emissions, you see, would have been even greater had not the two governments intervened.
Whether or not you believe in anthropogenic climate change, it is clear that it is getting more difficult, more expensive, and more damaging to extract and process the Earth's remaining supplies of fossil fuels. Moreover, our ongoing reliance on fossil fuels continues to have serious political and security implications — for example, securing access to fossil fuels has been the primary basis for our entanglements and massive arms deals in the Middle East for the past fifty or more years.
From a purely business standpoint, it makes no sense for the US to cede leadership to China and India in renewable energy research, technologies and industries. It is profoundly shortsighted for the US to focus almost solely on the short-term financial gain of the few big players in the fossil fuels industries while ignoring renewables. In the long term, such shortsightedness will not only damage the US economically, it will result in us being reliant on other countries for our energy security, and leading us to destructive entanglements similar to those suffer now for fossil fuels.
From a purely business standpoint, it makes no sense for the US to cede leadership to China and India in renewable energy research, technologies and industries. It is profoundly shortsighted for the US to focus almost solely on the short-term financial gain of the few big players in the fossil fuels industries while ignoring renewables. In the long term, such shortsightedness will not only damage the US economically, it will result in us being reliant on other countries for our energy security, and leading us to destructive entanglements similar to those suffer now for fossil fuels.
63
In fact, technological advancements like fracking have made it easier, less expensive, and less damaging to extract fossil fuels from the Earth. The availability of vast new domestic fracked fossil fuel supplies has significantly reduced our need to import fossil fuels (and as you note, the security concerns that come with them).
1
No fracking has made it easier in the US to develop our carbon resources. And the US has not been dependent on the middle east for some time and now will become a net exporter due to fracking.
1
You raise a valid point that fracking has reduced our dependence on foreign oil, and in that way has mitigated some of our oil-related security issues. Nonetheless, the Trump administration wants to vastly expand oil exploration both domestically and abroad, so the oil problem is far from going away.
In terms of the benefits of fracking, I think the reduced dependence on foreign oil that you cite is the biggest one. The story quickly goes downhill from there though. Yes, by one metric it is currently less expensive in most cases to extract natural gas through fracking then it is to extract and process oil. But fracking is still more expensive than, say, a wind farm or solar panel array. Moreover, I don't believe your cost equation accounts for the loss in property values for the homeowners whose homes have been damaged by the destruction of the bedrock on which their homes are located. It's more of a shift in costs from corporations to homeowners than a straight economic win. In terms of the "easier" argument, that is debatable. Fracking technology is certainly amazing, and also certainly non-trivial. Finally, in terms of fracking being better for the environment than oil, you could be right, but fracking is still pretty awful. While burning natural gas is a lot better than burning oil, it's still burning stuff. We've simply got to stop burning so much stuff. Also, fracking is clearly related to groundwater contamination, methane off-gassing, and subterranean damage.
In terms of the benefits of fracking, I think the reduced dependence on foreign oil that you cite is the biggest one. The story quickly goes downhill from there though. Yes, by one metric it is currently less expensive in most cases to extract natural gas through fracking then it is to extract and process oil. But fracking is still more expensive than, say, a wind farm or solar panel array. Moreover, I don't believe your cost equation accounts for the loss in property values for the homeowners whose homes have been damaged by the destruction of the bedrock on which their homes are located. It's more of a shift in costs from corporations to homeowners than a straight economic win. In terms of the "easier" argument, that is debatable. Fracking technology is certainly amazing, and also certainly non-trivial. Finally, in terms of fracking being better for the environment than oil, you could be right, but fracking is still pretty awful. While burning natural gas is a lot better than burning oil, it's still burning stuff. We've simply got to stop burning so much stuff. Also, fracking is clearly related to groundwater contamination, methane off-gassing, and subterranean damage.
This is outstanding news. What Trump and his fossil fuel patrons refuse to realize, is that the markets are driving the push to clean energy. It's now cheaper to use the sun and the wind. True, there are times when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, but existing plants and especially natural gas plants, can fill in the gaps. (Gas turbines are better suited for intermittent use because they don't require heating up a gigantic boiler. They operate like jet engines.)
More to the point. The companies that make power generation and transportation equipment are global entities. They serve the entire world. They are not going to develop products and technologies for China and India and then keep making obsolete equipment for the US. Add in Europe and that's most of the world. They will tool up to meet the rising global demand. US automakers are pushing hard to go electric because the demand is there.
Trump claims he is making America great again. He is doing the opposite. He is putting us at the end of the line while the rest of the planet moves forward.
More to the point. The companies that make power generation and transportation equipment are global entities. They serve the entire world. They are not going to develop products and technologies for China and India and then keep making obsolete equipment for the US. Add in Europe and that's most of the world. They will tool up to meet the rising global demand. US automakers are pushing hard to go electric because the demand is there.
Trump claims he is making America great again. He is doing the opposite. He is putting us at the end of the line while the rest of the planet moves forward.
18
This is pretty consistent, compare our mortality rate, education level, health costs and availability of education for our children. yep we really are great now! Great fools.
China's per capita greenhouse gas emissions are about half that of the US. India's are about one tenth that of the US. It's their very large populations that put them at the top of the offenders list. Seems to me that per capita emissions is a fairer measure.
Put another way, if the US had China's population (about 1.4 billion) it's greenhouse gas emissions would be eight times that of China. If the US had India's population (about 1.3 billion), its emissions would be forty times that of India.
Regardless of the numbers, as the editorial points out, China and India are working hard to reduce emissions. While the Trump administration and the congressional Republicans are working to increase them, or smother efforts to decrease them.
Put another way, if the US had China's population (about 1.4 billion) it's greenhouse gas emissions would be eight times that of China. If the US had India's population (about 1.3 billion), its emissions would be forty times that of India.
Regardless of the numbers, as the editorial points out, China and India are working hard to reduce emissions. While the Trump administration and the congressional Republicans are working to increase them, or smother efforts to decrease them.
68
What you've said illustrates another component of the same problem - excess population. Any workable solution has to address population, and the economic problems that appear as a result of declining populations. Keep an eye on Japan for how that goes; they seem to be first.
1
I guess the good news is when the residents of our major cities are wearing masks, we know what countries we can purchase renewable energy from.
7
Remember, electric cars in and of themselves are not a panacea - they can run on coal and oil-burned electricity. Electric cars are great if the fuel source is renewable energy.
4
Battery cars are a win on CO2 if the electricity comes from combined-cycle natural gas. This is true because the thermodynamic efficiency of CC natural gas is as good as 65%, natural gas has less carbon than gasoline per unit heat, and car engines rarely are better than about 27% averaged over the driving cycle.
Battery cars also benefit from being engineered for highest efficiency as cars, and do regenerative braking (as do hybrids).
The battery-car efficiency advantages are so high that CO2 emissions are actually slightly better than standard cars even if the electricity comes from coal-fire, as long as it is a modern high efficiency plant ... but this is marginal.
And of course the other pollutants from gas cars are not an issue with battery cars -- a huge advantage for urban areas particularly.
Battery cars also benefit from being engineered for highest efficiency as cars, and do regenerative braking (as do hybrids).
The battery-car efficiency advantages are so high that CO2 emissions are actually slightly better than standard cars even if the electricity comes from coal-fire, as long as it is a modern high efficiency plant ... but this is marginal.
And of course the other pollutants from gas cars are not an issue with battery cars -- a huge advantage for urban areas particularly.
1
India and China are doing all (with one exception) the right things because they HAVE to. Just look at any recent pictures Delhi and Beijing.
The one thing they are not doing (neither is anywhere else) that is driving EVERYTHING climate and environment related is their population explosion.
This planet simply cannot keep up with increasing the population by 80 million people each year.
With trump, the republican congress, and 60 million marks euphemistically labeled supporters, America continues its slide into the dustbin of history.
The one thing they are not doing (neither is anywhere else) that is driving EVERYTHING climate and environment related is their population explosion.
This planet simply cannot keep up with increasing the population by 80 million people each year.
With trump, the republican congress, and 60 million marks euphemistically labeled supporters, America continues its slide into the dustbin of history.
25
China remains the only modern nation that deliberately limits its procreation rate.
1
The population growth rate in China is half that in the US.
You mean to tell me you have never heard of China's one-child policy? India's population control measures are less well-known, but quite effective - its population is growing about 1.2%/year. It's the Pakistans of the world we need to worry about. (The US is about 0.8%, China 0.5%.)
Get a clue and research the facts before posting nonsense like "The one thing they are not doing... is their population explosion."
Get a clue and research the facts before posting nonsense like "The one thing they are not doing... is their population explosion."
Lack of vision and foresight have brought down empires far more powerful than the US.
72
The US is clearly below the level of public education needed to sustain a real functioning democracy.
3
And let us not forget that nearly one billion people world-wide have trouble finding access to latrines and healthy water. China and India are making great strides in recent years to offer better sanitation and addressing these environmental issues.
America is falling behind and many of its People appear unable to understand that increasing changes in our volatile weather and the reality of Climate Change, a term regarded as liberal propaganda, are one and the same.
America is falling behind and many of its People appear unable to understand that increasing changes in our volatile weather and the reality of Climate Change, a term regarded as liberal propaganda, are one and the same.
34
The renewable energy situation in the US is complex. On one hand, we have a federal government with deep ties to the oil and gas industry, headed by a president who makes the simplistic —but mistaken — assumption letting loose fossil fuel production will open the throttle on our economy.
On the other hand, solar is taking off. Offshore wind on the east coast will be supplying power for tens of millions by 2025. All the auto manufacturers are bullish on electric vehicles. And state governments get it — they are taking measures to reduce greenhouse gases despite the retrograde policies coming out of Washington.
We may be able to keep pace with China and India, not because of federal action, but despite it.
On the other hand, solar is taking off. Offshore wind on the east coast will be supplying power for tens of millions by 2025. All the auto manufacturers are bullish on electric vehicles. And state governments get it — they are taking measures to reduce greenhouse gases despite the retrograde policies coming out of Washington.
We may be able to keep pace with China and India, not because of federal action, but despite it.
103
Yes let Mr. Market make such decisions, he is wiser than anybody. And it is not despite of it, we still have massive subsidies for solar and wind that will be phased out as part of tax reform, after all they mostly benefit the rich.
We have a "wind farm" in our back yard---literally--- those things are ugly and I doubt that any of you would appreciate having them as close as we do.
"Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not let him save face? He didn't ask for your opinion. He didn't want it. Why argue with him? You can't win an argument, because if you lose, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior, you hurt his pride, insult his intelligence, his judgment, and his self-respect, and he'll resent your triumph. That will make him strike back, but it will never make him want to change his mind. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." (Andrew Carnegie)
I doubt we will convince the Trumps, McDonnells, and other GOP = deniers that global warming is a serious issue. But, clearer air and cheaper renewable energy costs and new businesses speak, I sincerely hope, to every Congressmen regardless of where they currently receive money for future campaigns. We cannot pull out of the Paris agreement. We need to join the nations of the world in making planet Earth livable for generations to come.
I doubt we will convince the Trumps, McDonnells, and other GOP = deniers that global warming is a serious issue. But, clearer air and cheaper renewable energy costs and new businesses speak, I sincerely hope, to every Congressmen regardless of where they currently receive money for future campaigns. We cannot pull out of the Paris agreement. We need to join the nations of the world in making planet Earth livable for generations to come.
38
Thanks Rev Wayne. You talk sense.
Indeed I have had the same experience with the NYT editors that they have with Trump.
You CANNOT convince people that they are wrong. Trying it only makes them angry. You have to find a tactful way which appeals to THEIR values.
Indeed I have had the same experience with the NYT editors that they have with Trump.
You CANNOT convince people that they are wrong. Trying it only makes them angry. You have to find a tactful way which appeals to THEIR values.
Climate change reminds me of when Geraldo Rivera got the world's attention when he opened the mobster Al Capone's safe. Great anticipation. Great excitement. Nothing was there. Sp called Global warming is the great leftist hoax perpetrated by a radical cabal scientists with a leftist agenda to stop industry and capitalism in their tracks. The Al Gores and Leo DiCaprio trot all over the world the their Lear Jets and SUV Carivans reminding us to do as they say, not as they do. The hypocrisy is astounding.
4
It is true that aviation will be the hardest technology to decarbonize.
The intransigence and stubborn refusal to acknowledge scientific fact in posts like this is sickening to all responsible American citizens. You will kill us all with your reactionary stance, your blind support of hate, bigotry and medieval attitudes. You destroy humanity with your foolishness.
1
Steve -- you got any more rational argument than this? Or is this the best argument that climate change is not real?
2
Climate change remains probably the most vital issue confronted by the nations of this planet, but also one of the most difficult on which to achieve a consensus. The scientists who have documented the threat we face promise that a vigorous campaign to reduce greenhouse gases will prevent or at least reduce floods and drought, together with the attendant disasters of starvation, disease and political disruption.
This means we will measure success, not in terms of improved living standards, but according to the invisible calculus of disasters avoided. The switch to renewable energy sources would also shift the world economy to a more sustainable trajectory of growth, but this achievement, too, would remain obscure to the average person.
The Paris climate accord offers major longterm benefits in exchange for temporary costs. We incur the latter first, unfortunately, and we will have to rely on scientists to inform us when the former have arrived. Quite possibly the survival of our democratic civilization depends on our overcoming the bad optics of this challenge, but it might prove easier to do so if we acknowledged that opposition stemmed in part from the difficulty of helping people visualize success.
This means we will measure success, not in terms of improved living standards, but according to the invisible calculus of disasters avoided. The switch to renewable energy sources would also shift the world economy to a more sustainable trajectory of growth, but this achievement, too, would remain obscure to the average person.
The Paris climate accord offers major longterm benefits in exchange for temporary costs. We incur the latter first, unfortunately, and we will have to rely on scientists to inform us when the former have arrived. Quite possibly the survival of our democratic civilization depends on our overcoming the bad optics of this challenge, but it might prove easier to do so if we acknowledged that opposition stemmed in part from the difficulty of helping people visualize success.
2
We have the best government that corporate special interest money can buy. Might as well just incorporate our federal government as a for profit company and list it on the NYSE.
24
Tony, you should have mentioned 33 state governments controlled by the Greedy Operatives Party.
You left out the part where the US has actually substantially *reduced* greenhouse emissions over the last 10 years.
3
By reducing coal use, replacing it with natural gas. TRhe point is we can do more and go faster
1
Yes, Robert, good point. But that was over the last 10 years. What will happen as Trump rolls back efforts started under Obama--and Bush, too? Not only could we do far, far better, we're in danger of halting progress completely under Trump and this know-nothing Republican congress.
1
The gap between "substantially" and "enough" is considerable, and still too much. Things need to be sped up, not retarded, as under the policies of this denier administration.
1
Trump doesn't want to be leader of the free world, he wants to model America after military dictatorships who grow by conquest.
Scientific agencies are to be slashed while the largest military budget in the world is to be increased by 10%. No explanation for the massive military increase was provided by the administration, and due to general chaos, I don't know if anyone bothered to ask.
The model for progress that worked in the 20th century is being replaced by that of humanity's earlier history. This means China or India will be surpassing us on multiple fronts.
I sometimes fear humanity is regressing and will destroy itself. Now, thoughts that humanity will progress, but with little influence from Americans, is gaining on that fear.
Scientific agencies are to be slashed while the largest military budget in the world is to be increased by 10%. No explanation for the massive military increase was provided by the administration, and due to general chaos, I don't know if anyone bothered to ask.
The model for progress that worked in the 20th century is being replaced by that of humanity's earlier history. This means China or India will be surpassing us on multiple fronts.
I sometimes fear humanity is regressing and will destroy itself. Now, thoughts that humanity will progress, but with little influence from Americans, is gaining on that fear.
8
Trump is the world's most spoiled bully, and and bullying is the only way of life he knows.
2
My husband and I visited China about eight years ago. One of the memories we brought back was the smog. Our guide told us that it was just foggy, but it was quite obviously something else. We also saw the number of cars on the highways. Pollution happening before our eyes.
Pollution in Europe and North America was a consequence of industrialization. I remember back in the 1950s that people didn't know what was causing the smog in LA. Then there was acid rain. People paid the price of that pollution and businesses reaped the profit.
I'm not surprised that India and China are taking steps to address these problems. Their populations don't like them. It constantly surprises me that the USA is so unwilling to acknowledge the problems even exist.
Pollution in Europe and North America was a consequence of industrialization. I remember back in the 1950s that people didn't know what was causing the smog in LA. Then there was acid rain. People paid the price of that pollution and businesses reaped the profit.
I'm not surprised that India and China are taking steps to address these problems. Their populations don't like them. It constantly surprises me that the USA is so unwilling to acknowledge the problems even exist.
13
If the world does not act as one with regard to climate change, all of us and our future generations will pay a very dear price. Reversing human-induced climate change is no longer about individual countries doing their part as positive as it seems. No country can afford to look the other way starting with USA.
5
Border checks and extreme vetting may prevent people from entering this country, but climate change knows no borders. Like it or not, we all share the same earth.
What China, India and other countries do to contain (or not contain) climate change will have an effect on us and vice versa.
The radiation from the Chernobyl accident spread to Ukraine and to even places like France and Italy. Consequences of global warming, no matter which countries are the culprits, may not be felt as quickly as the effect of the Chernobyl accident, but we all will pay the price some day.
The choice is to collectively perish by denying climate change and pursuing harmful energy policies or survive by accepting the truth and investing in renewable energy sources.
What China, India and other countries do to contain (or not contain) climate change will have an effect on us and vice versa.
The radiation from the Chernobyl accident spread to Ukraine and to even places like France and Italy. Consequences of global warming, no matter which countries are the culprits, may not be felt as quickly as the effect of the Chernobyl accident, but we all will pay the price some day.
The choice is to collectively perish by denying climate change and pursuing harmful energy policies or survive by accepting the truth and investing in renewable energy sources.
26
It's 1984 revisited. "Ignorance is Strength" could be the mantra on Mr. Trump's caps but 2 of the 3 words are too long for many to grasp. Undercutting progress on climate stabilization is foolhardy in economic and public health terms but the startups and smaller renewable companies have not had the time or the political skill at feathering their war chests to aggressively fund "information" campaigns about such fantasies as clean coal.
Churchill may have been right when he said America always does the right thing after exhausting all the other options.
Churchill may have been right when he said America always does the right thing after exhausting all the other options.
6
Both China and India are making big strides in reducing pollution of their air, water and land by trying to reduce their use of fossil fuels, by cleaning their rivers and land which for far too long had been in an awful state. The 2 most populated countries currently are very fortunate to have their finest leaders in history, Modi and Xhi who care about their environment while developing their respective countries. Both countries had hit rock bottom in terms of air quality in urban and industrial areas, disgustingly polluted rivers, lakes and land fills with toxic garbage. Another reason for China and India to increasingly use wind and solar energy is economic. Alternate forms of energy are abundant. Sun shines bright on most parts on the 2 countries year round and tapping that energy means less use of the polluting sources of energy and the sale of solar energy tapping approaches are economically lucrative. Citizens of India and China have been made aware of the importance of clean environment. At the very beginning of his taking over as the prime minister of India 3 years ago, Modi started the "Swatch Bharat" or clean India grass roots campaign for its billion plus people recognizing that the government can only help people who help themselves. China recognized decades ago that population control would be beneficial overall for its people and the environment. Its "one child" policy was so successful that is an excellent model for the rest of the world especially for India.
3
Modi the finest leader? Have you forgotten Gujarat? The banning of beef? The rupee debacle?
Authoritarianism and bigotry are at the root of Modi's governance.
Authoritarianism and bigotry are at the root of Modi's governance.
1
Nmp from St. Louis, MO. No I have not forgotten the great work that Modi did for the progress of Gujarat after some initial mistakes when he took office. What authoritarianism you talking about? He has ensured that his party wins as many democratically elected states as it can. The freedom of press is far greater than ever was. Bigotry? Modi has ensured that he has stretched his hand to all countries in the world including those with a Muslim majority unlike any previous leaders. Indian remains as secular as ever before except that he does not treat the minorities like they are his vote bank but treats them with respect and dignity. The rupee debacle? Are you talking about the demonetization? In the end it worked out and I don't think recent elections in the most populated state of UP had any adverse effect on the outcome of the elections or the economic growth. So it was not a debacle but a smart attack on corruption and black money. The root of Modi's governance is progress and prosperity for all. the banning of cow slaughter is sporadic an not that troubling but welcomed by the majority I guess. what is deeply troubling and should be avoided is the rise of low level of extremism and the attack on a handful of people that unfairly takes away the luster of the Modi magic.
1
How sad for the US that we have abandoned leadership in the future of clean energy. We are getting bogged down in the past in the US, reverting to the 19th and 20th centuries. Unless we change course, countries in Asia, not the US, are going to be Great in the 21st century.
Thank you, President Trump, the GOP party, and US capitalists for selling out future US greatness, ceding it to Asian countries. Yes, we really are a country in decline in everything except military funding. We pour so much into the military industrial complex that there is nothing left for anything else.
Thank you, President Trump, the GOP party, and US capitalists for selling out future US greatness, ceding it to Asian countries. Yes, we really are a country in decline in everything except military funding. We pour so much into the military industrial complex that there is nothing left for anything else.
116
Carol: You mean, surely, "We pour so much into the military industrial complex" and gigantic tax breaks for the ultra-rich. I can't think what else we pour money into on such a scale.
1
Government is not the source of innovation. Entrepreneurs are opening new ways to power our world at low cost and on a 24/7 basis.
For a few examples see aesopinstitute.org
With modest support start-up companies can replace fossil fuels far faster than is generally believed.
New science and the resulting technologies can be developed on a 24/7 basis and impact society even more rapidly than has been the case with hand-held devices.
As products that were believed impossible enter the markets they will provide hope that the race against climate change can lead us beyond present trends.
Prior to 1903 few scientists believed heavier than air flight was possible. This newspaper did not believe they had done so until 5 years later.
Argonne National Laboratory scientists recently were part of a team that found a loophole in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Such a loophole has made possible engines that can run 24/7 without fuel.
Imagine the implications!
For a few examples see aesopinstitute.org
With modest support start-up companies can replace fossil fuels far faster than is generally believed.
New science and the resulting technologies can be developed on a 24/7 basis and impact society even more rapidly than has been the case with hand-held devices.
As products that were believed impossible enter the markets they will provide hope that the race against climate change can lead us beyond present trends.
Prior to 1903 few scientists believed heavier than air flight was possible. This newspaper did not believe they had done so until 5 years later.
Argonne National Laboratory scientists recently were part of a team that found a loophole in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Such a loophole has made possible engines that can run 24/7 without fuel.
Imagine the implications!
Mark Goldes, government's role in abating anthropogenic global warming is not to innovate, but to motivate. AGW is, among other things, the result of a global failure of the "free" market to price greenhouse emissions from fossil fuels.
The quickest way for the US to drive its transition to a carbon-neutral economy is to enact a carbon tax, and then leave it to the entrepreneurs.
The quickest way for the US to drive its transition to a carbon-neutral economy is to enact a carbon tax, and then leave it to the entrepreneurs.
This is no surprise. China and India acknowledge the science of global warming and are acting to combat it. In contrast, the United States is led by the only world's political party -- the Republicans -- so corrupted by fossil fuel industry "donations" that it denies the science. The Republican Party and its ignorant leaders and incurious feckless voters stand alone in the world. The United States has gone from a world leader on stemming global warming to the biggest danger.
59
Trump and the majority of GOP congressional Republicans don't care about the future of the children and of the grandchildren of the less than very wealthy Americans. But, this is not the heart of the problem.
The root cause is that so many Americans choose to not believe inconvenient and frightening truths. We are no longer "the home of the brave."
The root cause is that so many Americans choose to not believe inconvenient and frightening truths. We are no longer "the home of the brave."
26
But do they even care about their own children and grandchildren or those of very wealthy Americans? Wealth will not ultimately provide protection from the problems that will be unleashed by climate change.
1
Trump wants to remove the economic sanctions on Russia that prevent it from selling its Siberian oil. Trumps first trip abroad landed in Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, in America, Trump wants to bring back coal, deregulate natural gas, and drill offshore. I sense a pattern: promoting the interests of the World's premier monopolizable resource. Nobody ever got poor by doing that. This is very much in TrumpCo's interest. America's interest? Not so much.
13
The fossil fuel industry has woven a tight spider web around our lives (transportation, home building products, food production, pharmaceuticals, energy production, and on and on) and it may seem impossible to become free from this earth killing monster. Yet we support this industry every day. Look at your daily lives and consider how dependent you are. Would you be willing to accept higher cost for a healthy place to live? Consumers can change the market by changing what is demanded of the market. These actions can make a difference. Our lives depend on it.
5
Responsible government sees long term and applies incentives to the populace (MPG targets, carbon taxes, emissions restrictions for coal, for example) via regulation to push people towards good conduct and what is needed to save the planet, while encouraging job growth in alternative energy. Ex: Obama.
The GOP pushes policies dictated by their big donors (how much did big coal give to Trump's inaugural? Who is the Secretary of State? Who heads the EPA? Etc, etc) in a short term view disastrous for all (Coal jobs? Pipelines? Really?) except for the big donors to maximize short term profits and their assets. Meanwhile cheap gas pushes up SUV sales because people aren't able to think critically past next week nor govern their own poor instincts. And Fox is right there to push.
Yes, government sometimes does need to save us from ourselves. Leadership is important. But many don't know their best interests and there is no competence test for voters (or their elected officials).
The GOP pushes policies dictated by their big donors (how much did big coal give to Trump's inaugural? Who is the Secretary of State? Who heads the EPA? Etc, etc) in a short term view disastrous for all (Coal jobs? Pipelines? Really?) except for the big donors to maximize short term profits and their assets. Meanwhile cheap gas pushes up SUV sales because people aren't able to think critically past next week nor govern their own poor instincts. And Fox is right there to push.
Yes, government sometimes does need to save us from ourselves. Leadership is important. But many don't know their best interests and there is no competence test for voters (or their elected officials).
1
et.al,
Individual efforts to reduce carbon footprint shouldn't be discouraged, but won't be enough to solve the global problem. Anthropogenic global warming is, among other things, a Tragedy of the Commons. As long as the "free" market doesn't require energy consumers to pay the marginal cost of their emissions, too few will pay it voluntarily to make a difference.
If AGW is to be halted, government intervention in energy markets is required, to internalize climate change costs in the market price of fossil fuels. The quickest and most economically efficient way to do that is with a carbon tax. See citizensclimatelobby.org.
Individual efforts to reduce carbon footprint shouldn't be discouraged, but won't be enough to solve the global problem. Anthropogenic global warming is, among other things, a Tragedy of the Commons. As long as the "free" market doesn't require energy consumers to pay the marginal cost of their emissions, too few will pay it voluntarily to make a difference.
If AGW is to be halted, government intervention in energy markets is required, to internalize climate change costs in the market price of fossil fuels. The quickest and most economically efficient way to do that is with a carbon tax. See citizensclimatelobby.org.
"Every man for himself and me first" used to be a line jokingly said when I was in high school. It seems, though, to be the mind set of our current 'leadership.' Sadly, the belief that building walls, pulling out of trade deals, backing away from an insistence on human rights if it interferes with profit, and forsaking the well being of the planet for the possibility of short-term jobs gains, will make us not "great," but rather will turn us into a shadow of our former selves.
The world is a community, neither a collection of individuals nor of individually walled-off nations . While nations must keep the interests and well-being of their own people foremost in their minds, it is as part of the global community that we thrive or dry up and wither. It is not hard at this point to imaging the adjectival phrase "once great" being added to the name of our nation in the not too distant future.
The world is a community, neither a collection of individuals nor of individually walled-off nations . While nations must keep the interests and well-being of their own people foremost in their minds, it is as part of the global community that we thrive or dry up and wither. It is not hard at this point to imaging the adjectival phrase "once great" being added to the name of our nation in the not too distant future.
48
Let's start the discussion about population growth. The UN predicts that population growth in developing countries will be 7 billion by the end of the century.
14
That's definitely an issue. It's just not this issue.
3
And renewable energy, especially solar, is the response
2
In a decade or also, world population is projected to increase by another 30%. In that near future, the first challenge would be whether or not the world could be governable at all. And the energy industry and its mouthpieces would still be buried in fierce internal fights over who should get a large piece out of their so-called "population dividend."
Trump has made great strides in Climate Change. He's setting us back decades.
I wish he would get the memo that firing all of the scientists and defunding the EPA and other environmental agencies won't make the truth about climate change go away. The scariest part of Narcissist Personality Disorder is not simply that you lie to others to protect your fragile ego. It's that you lie to yourself and could care less about the consequences.
I wish he would get the memo that firing all of the scientists and defunding the EPA and other environmental agencies won't make the truth about climate change go away. The scariest part of Narcissist Personality Disorder is not simply that you lie to others to protect your fragile ego. It's that you lie to yourself and could care less about the consequences.
129
When will the American people realize that far from making America "great again," the anti-government, anti-taxes, climate change denying, fossil fuel-loving, far right, reactionary Republican Party is weakening America, and if allowed to continue in power, will leave America choking on the dust kicked up by other countries like China and India as they surge past us in research, development, and innovation in the clean energy field as well as many others?
Soon, the US will be incapable of efforts like the space program in the 60's or of leading the world in addressing the effects of climate change today, because the Republicans' grossly inappropriate tax cuts and downsizing of government will make them impossible to fund. The only leadership role left for the US will be in arms dealing.
It is time to repudiate the anti-government, anti-tax mantra of the Republican Party. It's choking the life out of our country and we're stagnating because of it.
Soon, the US will be incapable of efforts like the space program in the 60's or of leading the world in addressing the effects of climate change today, because the Republicans' grossly inappropriate tax cuts and downsizing of government will make them impossible to fund. The only leadership role left for the US will be in arms dealing.
It is time to repudiate the anti-government, anti-tax mantra of the Republican Party. It's choking the life out of our country and we're stagnating because of it.
155
The NYTS is promoting climate change denial with virtually all of its most recent, new hires. The most prominent new staff additions are from Rupert Murdoch enterprises and, for the rare and precious new columnist, the Times hired Bret Stephens, who promotes climate change denial.
Justin Gillis, Coral Davenport and the other NYTS science writers who accurately and factually report on climate change deserve better than to have their work undermined by the alt-facts and non sequitor opinions of columnists and Op-Ed writers in the NYTS. I believe NYTS subscribers deserve better. When we can get Fox News for free, why should we pay to see the same opinions in The New York Times?
Justin Gillis, Coral Davenport and the other NYTS science writers who accurately and factually report on climate change deserve better than to have their work undermined by the alt-facts and non sequitor opinions of columnists and Op-Ed writers in the NYTS. I believe NYTS subscribers deserve better. When we can get Fox News for free, why should we pay to see the same opinions in The New York Times?
1
I have been teaching a University course on solar energy conversion every year or other year since 2006. I must say that the recent rate of decrease of solar energy costs has exceeded my expectation – and that of many others. I am overjoyed at the state of the technology at present. The main reason for this is investment in the technology though feed-in tariffs (Germany, Japan, etc) and especially by relatively recent massive investments by China with the twin aim of reducing energy costs and controlling much of the manufacturing technology. This has benefitted the whole world, including the US, where many of the key solar cell technologies were invented, beginning with the first practical solar cell technology based on pn junctions in Bell Labs in 1954. I am a bit of an optimist, but I do believe that even in the US, notwithstanding recent policy changes, the pace of adaptation of solar energy will continue to increase in the future.
114
Don't forget the role of California, the 6th largest economy main the world, and the third largest in solar production, with 3 times more solar jobs (200,000) than all the coal mining jobs in the entire US.
4
To the surprise of almost everyone, atmospheric (ambient) heat, a huge untapped reservoir of solar energy can run engines 24/7.
This will provide an alternative to solar panels and wind farms.
Since there is no combustion, most parts can be 3-D printed out of polymers (plastics).
24/7 cheap green energy can replace intermittent systems with continuous electric power.
See aesopinstitute.org to learn more.
This will provide an alternative to solar panels and wind farms.
Since there is no combustion, most parts can be 3-D printed out of polymers (plastics).
24/7 cheap green energy can replace intermittent systems with continuous electric power.
See aesopinstitute.org to learn more.
Trump is a job-killer too. Everything about the man is phony.
40
"Trump is a job-killer too. Everything about the man is phony."
Hey , Trump is going to bring back all those great coal mining jobs where you get Black Lung & go on to healthcare-welfare for your shorten life.
America , what have you done to yourself ! You have elected , sort of , a deranged conman & a Congress that is using him. The country is shifting to be run by the American Taliban + Wall St. Crooks alliance.
Hey , Trump is going to bring back all those great coal mining jobs where you get Black Lung & go on to healthcare-welfare for your shorten life.
America , what have you done to yourself ! You have elected , sort of , a deranged conman & a Congress that is using him. The country is shifting to be run by the American Taliban + Wall St. Crooks alliance.
What it will serve to underline is that the US is becoming a disproportionate polluter. As emerging economies are shifting more and more to environmentally neutral technologies and succeed in doing so without jeopardizing their prosperity, Trump's America will stand out.
We can only hope that this will get the US government and the business interests it so slavishly serves to align with its own people and seek to promote the deployment of cleaner technologies. Ultimately, that is where economic success, too, will be found.
We can only hope that this will get the US government and the business interests it so slavishly serves to align with its own people and seek to promote the deployment of cleaner technologies. Ultimately, that is where economic success, too, will be found.
24
What do you mean "is becoming a disproportionate polluter" - to hear Westerners tell it, you'd think the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries never happened. It wasn't India and China who put a hole in the ozone layer, or gave the world Global Warming - they're just following in someone's footsteps.
126
Let's rephrase. Becoming an outlier among polluters. Europe is trying, not hard enough for sure, to move towards cleaner energy generation, but the US remains wedded to fossil fuel to an unsustainable extent.
On the other hand, 'following in someone's footsteps', if those footsteps are leading toward ruin, maybe not such a good idea?
On the other hand, 'following in someone's footsteps', if those footsteps are leading toward ruin, maybe not such a good idea?
4
Part of what's so terribly ironic is that at the state and local level, there is a lot more interest in making climate friendly changes. The mayors of 75 cities across the U.S. are part of the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda. They vowed to resist Trump's rollback of climate regulations and have been undertaking a variety of initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the state level it's more of a mixed bag, but a number of states have a good track record. Many individuals, too, are finding ways to improve their own contribution to climate change. The thing is that this is being done with little support from the federal government. Obama actually did a lot, but it was done quietly and with little public notice because of the obstructionism from the right. Just think what a difference could be made if this were being undertaken as a national mission. Reagan did an immense amount of damage to this country. One of the things that typifies what a horror he really was is that he did a 180 from Jimmy Carter's nascent efforts to move forward.
5
Trump and the Republicans will happily concede technological leadership and cost savings to China and India, so long as they continue to get big money from the fossil fuel companies. For them, it's not about doing what's best for America's long term interests: it's about making a quick buck now for themselves.
217
The money argument is probably true, but now it's a vote-for-jobs issue. Time to focus on coal - yes, we want a war on coal. Nationwide. No production, no distribution. We'll get to tar sands next. Destroy the coal industry and replace it with good renewable energy jobs.
that's the problem with bringing business style into government - government deals with long term challenges and takes an incremental approach incompatible with quarterly profits.
I suggest a trip to Beijing and Mumbai to compare the air quality ( don't forget your mask and eye drops).
2
You are correct the air quality in Beijing and Mumbai is atrocious; it is precisely the reason that India and China are so aggressive in promoting renewables, now accelerated with the economic viability. Think of LA, 50 years ago, with similarly terrible air. That drove California to become a leader in auto emissions reduction; catalytic converter technology transformed internal combustion vehicles and reduced emissions by orders of magnitude. We are seeing that happen now in electric power with wind and solar.
11
From afar, one can easily check out how much the population has grown in both cities. The climate change debate sometimes sounds like a partisan interpretation of fierce internal competition within the energy industry. Environmental issues should be more than that, but are not captured by narrow selfish interests. For instance, cities like Beijing (25 million) and Mumbai (19 million) could provide better public transportation in an efficient manner, and yet private cars proliferated. The source of fuel is secondary to the neglected model of urban planning and development.
The climate change initiatives in the form of public health investments for generating cleaner energy through non-conventional renewable sources like solar and wind that China and India have taken in the past two years are not only exemplary but also pragmatic with sound economic logic behind the efforts. This shows that if the Trump administration in the US is determined to invite climate catastrophe for the people of his country by promoting the fossil fuel industry in a big way, the rest of the world is at least getting wiser and better prepared to face the climate change challenges lying ahead.
229
If you travel to either country you will be exposed to a level of toxicity that will create doubt that anything is being done.
1
If you limit your understanding to what is immediately in front of you then you don't pass the test of being human (being able to look ahead).
2
Well Gee they don't have our infrastructure which we are not going to abandon. We have massive solar and wind farms somehow nobody understands that.
1
if you look at market mix in any of the regional transmission orgs (RTOs) which are available free on line to anyone with an internet connection you can follow in real-time no less, what the mix in your neck of the woods is.
the markets have already spoken and coal was finally kicked to the curb several years ago. and for all the things he did and didnt do, it was likely Obama's gift to the planet was longer life (if we dont blow it up).
old coal is out, baseload coal's role is so diminished nobody who works in the industry can believe it, 40% of CALs power came from solar for the first time last month, wind is killing everyone and once distributed generation and some peaking issues as described by "the duck curve" get ironed out, its lights out (pun intended) for 66% of large baseload units that used to run 24/7/365 except for outages and ~ 90% of the really, really dirty smaller coal plants.
my only request is counter-intuitive but I ask that all nukes be subsidized for ONLY the length of their current licenses to get the last bit of CO2 free energy from them before turning their lights out for good..