Support NeoGAF

[Dooraven]

Unfortunatley the only most probable way China and the US will compromise is when the Communists get elected in the US or Communism collapses in China and I don't see that happening in a while..

 

[arstal]

Unfortunatley the only most probable way China and the US will compromise is when the Communists get elected in the US or Communism collapses in China and I don't see that happening in a while..

It will happen once China gets middle class lifestyles for the majority of their population. That won't happen for 100 years though.

Overpopulation isn't a big concern, as once China,India, Pakistan, and Indonesia industrialize fully, their pops will decline like Europe, and we will become more efficient.

All this climate stuff- the problem is both sides are cynical. The developing world just wants to bring the industrialized nations down. They don't care about the enivornment. THe western world wants to keep the developing world unindustrialized, as their development will add to pollution which hurts them.

The western argument is better for the environment, but it will create a global underclass.

I'll say this- push comes to shove, at least Americans will fight for their lifestyle. There is no way I'd support a reduction in lifestyle to help out foreigners, especially when global warming isn't 100% proven or what the effects are. The cure to me would likely be worse then the disease.

 

[Chrono]

Technology is going to be what solves global warming. The benefit of a carbon price is that it accelerates those technologies, more so if it was adopted worldwide.

So there's no agreement, not as big of a deal as the hysterical leftists would tell you. The most important thing is the energy bill in the US and how much it invests in R&D. They'll probably also get a carbon cap in and the market will be pushed into alternative energy even faster.

In just a few years there will be technologies that can compete with fossil fuels, they'll get more investment then and sell more and get even more investment, the companies will get bigger and lobby harder and politicans will have to answer to constituents with green jobs, this will lead to more support and investment and so on. Effects of climate science, the really bad stuff, will also result in more action.

Science and technology are advancing exponentially, energy will be on a particularly fast curve. Solar technology alone will turn the tide this coming decade and make a mockery of all those doomsday predictions.

I'll say this- push comes to shove, at least Americans will fight for their lifestyle. There is no way I'd support a reduction in lifestyle to help out foreigners, especially when global warming isn't 100% proven or what the effects are. The cure to me would likely be worse then the disease.

Nobody is going to give up anything. The hippies can cry about mother earth all they want, it just won't happen. Especially when those developing countries, except China, can't control their populations. Sorry, you don't get to just pop out more starving children and ask for a bigger share of pollution or more handouts.

And the science on climate change is pretty clear. I don't know about 100%, but you don't need that number to take action. Do you only buy insurance when there's a 100% chance your house is burned down or car gets stolen or you get sick? Please. Say you don't want to believe it/don't care, just don't be an idiot and insult reality.

 

[Hypereides]

China is really beginning to piss me off. They're surpressing their own people, censoring journalism and the media, being secretive about their own goverment and their arrogance is leading them to being innegotiable.

Its really starting to paint the picture of a horrible country.

I think the UN and US are making a disasterous mistake giving them a free pass. Before they realise it giving China a loose leash will bite right back in the ass.

The US isnt much better on this regard, but are willing to find a compromise on the climate solution while China completely denies any change in their political view. Thats horrible leadership.

Mugabe's speach about blaming the other countries for the deep shit he made for himself is ridiculously lol worthy :lol. I really wonder how some of these political figures are able to get immunity with stained profiles.

 

[avatar299]

Technology is going to be what solves global warming. The benefit of a carbon price is that it accelerates those technologies, more so if it was adopted worldwide.

No fucking shit.

 

[Chrono]

A couple of quotes I wanted to post here...

Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, said the deal had "the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing short of climate change scepticism in action. It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal

LOL @ this one:

"Mr President, I ask whether - under the eye of the UN secretary general - you are going to endorse this coup d'etat against the authority of the United Nations."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8421935.stm?ls

So now its a confirmed failure thanks to China, arab states and to a lesser part US of A. Great.

Can we eject these nations into space?

What did arab states do? I barely heard them mentioned.

Anyway, when searching for 'arab' in this thread, looking for whatever it is you're talking about, I found this exchange I missed:

Ultimately, we should do both. Invest heavily in research and put pigovian taxes on oil and electric power.

The faster we go green, the better. It's a shame that we are still heavily dependent on oil of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Chavez wouldn't be as successful as today without the oil.

Just build some nuclear plants - we already have the solution without ridiculous taxes.

And for the millionth time I'd like somebody to tell me how the fuck can nuclear replace oil? Things like transportation fuel and plastics, do nuclear plants make those? No? Then why the fuck do I keep hearing this repeated too many times, including on a penn & teller episode.

 

[Chrono]

No fucking shit.

You would think so.

 

[Dooraven]

China is really beginning to piss me off. They're surpressing their own people, censoring journalism and the media, being secretive about their own goverment and their arrogance is leading them to being innegotiable.

Its really starting to paint the picture of a horrible country.

Wait, you're beginning to realize this now?

If the US wants to something now it bloody well can. Its definitely radical and I don't really support it unless China becomes so non-cooperative but basically:

Force all Companies that operate within the US to pull out of China or face a ban on selling their goods in the US. They will have to decide weather they want to keep the massive US Customer base or keep their expenses low and stay in China but be sealed off from the US. I really doubt that most companies would want to sacrifice their potential for sales over cheaper costs but many might so it a risk really (since China's local market is going to take years to develop to the size of the US).

The one thing that China fears is mass unemployment at the moment and a massive pull-out by foreign based businesses would do that.

 

[liquid_gears]

A couple of quotes I wanted to post here...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal

LOL @ this one:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8421935.stm?ls





What did arab states do? I barely heard them mentioned.

Anyway, when searching for 'arab' in this thread, looking for whatever it is you're talking about, I found this exchange I missed:






And for the millionth time I'd like somebody to tell me how the fuck can nuclear replace oil? Things like transportation fuel and plastics, do nuclear plants make those? No? Then why the fuck do I keep hearing this repeated too many times, including on a penn & teller episode.

You said that 'in just a few years time, we will have technology that can compete with fossil fuels'. This isn't going to happen anytime soon, not until the oil runs out and massive, massive amounts of cash are injected into R&D. We're talking decades at the very minimum here.

Besides, your last comment doesn't make any sense. How do windfarms, photovoltaics and tidal power produce energy for transportation and plastics, as opposed to nuclear power? It's essentially just the same stuff, they're just different methods of producing electricity. How the fuck can they ever replace oil? The answer is that nothing can.

This is why root and branch treatment is needed.

 

[Rentahamster]

And for the millionth time I'd like somebody to tell me how the fuck can nuclear replace oil? Things like transportation fuel and plastics, do nuclear plants make those? No? Then why the fuck do I keep hearing this repeated too many times, including on a penn & teller episode.

Nuclear power replaces coal, not oil. Coal makes up 44.2% of the USA's domestic energy production. In places like India, it makes up 68% of India's CO2 emissions.

Replacing coal power plants with nuclear, even just a small amount, will make a significant impact on CO2 levels. It will have an even greater positive effect on the environment locally - with reductions in smog, mercury, and other toxic byproducts of coal burning.

This eventually impacts transportation as well, if battery technology continues to progress. CO2 free electricity generated by nuclear plants can effectively power long distance and reliable electric/hybrid cars so they won't have to use petroleum based materials fuel.

Eventually, oil can be slowly phased out of transportation, leaving it only for stuff like plastics production - assuming we don't invent something better by then.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/coalfacts.cfm

 

[Souldriver]

Some tard of Sudan compared the (already very weak and half-assed) last minute proposal to the holocaust. He said the values in the pact are the same as the ones who let to the holocaust...


Brilliant...

 

[Ripclawe]

Technology is going to be what solves global warming

Yes and that is what should have been pushed instead of everyone slam down their economy and restrict the people from flying a lot as an example and blaming consumerism.


All this nonsense was a shakedown by the UN and other countries to get money from the rich countries. When you balk at having the money be distributed by a middle entity to make sure its being used for the purpose it was meant to be, that is a red flag.

 

[thefro]

It's really amazing how many people think that the US operates under a Parliamentary system.

President Obama can't make a binding International treaty without it being approved by 2/3rds of the US Senate. There are 40 Republicans in the Senate and lot of them are Climate Change deniers.

Now, if the Democratic Party would man up they could get Climate Change legislation through the Senate but it's not that easy and there are several corporate Democrats who would be right wingers in European countries who might filibuster a bill or at least who are too chicken to use the Senate rules to put the bill to a majority vote.

 

[Rentahamster]

It's really amazing how many people think that the US operates under a Parliamentary system.

President Obama can't make a binding International treaty without it being approved by 2/3rds of the US Senate. There are 40 Republicans in the Senate and lot of them are Climate Change deniers.

Now, if the Democratic Party would man up they could get Climate Change legislation through the Senate but it's not that easy and there are several corporate Democrats who would be right wingers in European countries who might filibuster a bill or at least who are too chicken to use the Senate rules to put the bill to a majority vote.

How can you possibly blame this on the Republicans alone? The last time this came up for a vote regarding the Kyoto Protocol (Byrd-Hagel Resolution), 95 senators voted "yes", including 43 Democrats. Not one senator voted "no". Harry Reid, current majority leader, didn't even vote "yes".

Neither party is serious about this issue.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205

 

[Ripclawe]

No one is going to vote for an economy crippling bill, it wouldn't be in their self interest.

 

[thefro]

How can you possibly blame this on the Republicans alone? The last time this came up for a vote regarding the Kyoto Protocol (Byrd-Hagel Resolution), 95 senators voted "yes", including 43 Democrats. Not one senator voted "no". Harry Reid, current majority leader, didn't even vote "yes".

Neither party is serious about this issue.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205

That's a meaningless vote... the fact that the Senate never approved Kyoto should paint a different story for you.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I posted this in the PoliGaf thread, but this seems more appropiate.

I'm trying to learn as much as a I can about cap and trade, and so far these comments I've made in the other thread seems to be a problem with the program:

-Companies that don't even pollute can get into the carbon market. A market that treats carbon credits as a commodity, and speculation happens.

-Carbon offsets seem bad because they aren't regulated, and polluters still continue to pollute even when they purchase carbon offsets.

-Polluters sell their carbon credits because they know their carbon output will fall in the future, thus driving down the value of carbon credits, making it cheaper to pollute.

-Polluters can also dump, right? Polluters with sell their carbon credits at a cheaper rate, thus (again) , making it cheaper to pollute.

 

[Rentahamster]

That's a meaningless vote... the fact that the Senate never approved Kyoto should paint a different story for you.

Never approved it? That's because the Clinton administration never bothered to submit it because he knew the whole Senate would kill it anyway, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Rejecting Democratic proposals to postpone consideration of the accord, Craig called on President Clinton to "promptly submit the treaty and allow the Senate to kill it."

"What we have here is not ratifiable in the Senate in my judgment," Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said. According to aides in Washington, Kerry wanted Clinton to sign the deal but hold off submission of it until follow-on conferences scheduled for Bonn in June and Buenos Aires in November.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/climate/stories/clim121197b.htm

 

[blanky]

I'm kinda depressed by this whole thing, it felt like a theatre of politics to me and not trying to prevent drastic consequences. Obama's language at his speech really dissapointed me, I expected much more from him. His "better life for our grandkids or delay" makes it sound like putting a rabid dog to sleep or letting him kill himself off instead of the big global problem that's affecting everyone or is rather an imperfect deal we all stand by for than nothing. As much as politics has to be a part of a process to make such a grand treaty, it'd be nice if those politicians would realize just what they are actually there for. I wish the blame game and stabs at everyone else would stop and people would just commit to improving life for the coming decades. But its politics, and something as grand as this will never go smoothly sadly and even in the face of possible? "danger" some still prefer to think about themselves. ah well =/

 

[Ripclawe]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/science/earth/20climate.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

With the swift bang of a gavel on Saturday morning, a prolonged fight between nations small and large over an international pact to limit climate risks that was forged the night before by the United States and four partners came to a somewhat murky end.

The chairman of the climate treaty talks declared that the parties would “take note” of the document, named the Copenhagen Accord, leaving open the question of whether this effort to curb greenhouse gases from the world’s major emitters would gain the full support of the 193 countries bound by the original, and largely failed, 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The culmination of two weeks of talks here, capping two years of negotiation, came roughly 24 hours after President Obama swept into a conference center full of exhausted negotiators in the final hours of a deadlocked effort to produce a binding agreement curbing the surging global flow of greenhouse gases.

By late Friday night, he and leaders from Brazil, India, South Africa and China produced a short, last-ditch sketch of a nonbinding emissions deal that was also aimed at aiding those most vulnerable to warming.

Other countries, including Britain, quickly sought its approval by the full assemblage of 193 countries. But after dawn on Saturday, a half dozen countries loudly intervened, challenging efforts to approve the accord. Another group, from Venezuela to Sudan, stridently fought the pact.

Robert C. Orr, the United Nations assistant secretary general for policy and planning, said the “wild roller coaster ride” through the night was partly due to the authority of more than 120 heads of state being superimposed on a process normally driven by ministers and diplomatic protocols.

The document that resulted, still being refined Saturday morning — and attacked by countries that claimed they were left out of the process — is far less than a new binding climate treaty, which was the expectation of many countries when this negotiating process began in 2007.

This was time well spent .

 

[Neo C.]

After this useless conference, I just hope the oil price jumps to the 150$ in the next few years. It would help to decrease the oil usage more than everything else, though on the flipside Chavez and co. are going to have a good time for the next ten years.

 

[ToxicAdam]

And for the millionth time I'd like somebody to tell me how the fuck can nuclear replace oil? Things like transportation fuel and plastics, do nuclear plants make those? No? Then why the fuck do I keep hearing this repeated too many times, including on a penn & teller episode.

Electricity or hydrogen can replace oil. The caveat is for the bigger engines that power ships, semis and boats. That will take many more decades to replace.

Plastics can be recycled or created in a lab.

Link

 

[Chrono]

You said that 'in just a few years time, we will have technology that can compete with fossil fuels'. This isn't going to happen anytime soon, not until the oil runs out and massive, massive amounts of cash are injected into R&D. We're talking decades at the very minimum here.

No way, not even close. Solar prices are already dropping by huge amounts, it's unbelievable, and the growth will come once it hits a critical point where there will a solar revolution of sorts. Again, think exponential growth. There's practically a new battery technology for storage every week, and these are from projects started years ago. All alternative energy technologies are seeing huge improvements and things are just getting started right now. The Obama administration is investing a lot in science and technology, this will accelerate progress even further.

Besides, your last comment doesn't make any sense. How do windfarms, photovoltaics and tidal power produce energy for transportation and plastics, as opposed to nuclear power? It's essentially just the same stuff, they're just different methods of producing electricity.

I didn't say photovoltaics and wind will work for transportation, like nuclear they're for electricity. However, batteries are also advancing incredibly and eventually the majority of cars will have them.

How the fuck can they ever replace oil? The answer is that nothing can.

This is why root and branch treatment is needed.

Biotechnology can create 'drop-in' fuels that are even superior to current ones, no need to have new infrastructure for that. Same for oils and plastic, either make them directly like bio-gasoline (ethanol is old news) or make oil from your feedstock and then put that into current oil refineries.

Nuclear power replaces coal, not oil. Coal makes up 44.2% of the USA's domestic energy production. In places like India, it makes up 68% of India's CO2 emissions.

Replacing coal power plants with nuclear, even just a small amount, will make a significant impact on CO2 levels. It will have an even greater positive effect on the environment locally - with reductions in smog, mercury, and other toxic byproducts of coal burning.

This eventually impacts transportation as well, if battery technology continues to progress. CO2 free electricity generated by nuclear plants can effectively power long distance and reliable electric/hybrid cars so they won't have to use petroleum based materials fuel.

Eventually, oil can be slowly phased out of transportation, leaving it only for stuff like plastics production - assuming we don't invent something better by then.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/coalfacts.cfm

When nuclear is talked about as if it could replace oil for transportation I never hear about batteries, and the tech still isn't there anyway. That penn & teller episode had nothing about batteries or at least said investment is needed to develop advanced ones.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Yes and that is what should have been pushed instead of everyone slam down their economy and restrict the people from flying a lot as an example and blaming consumerism.

Pretty much.

The developing nations went with their begging bowls handy looking for a gravy train, and the developed were trying to fuck everyone over with their world bank wankery.

This had nothing to do with the environment.

 

[Dooraven]

One of the easy ways for people to switch to electric vehicles (when they become readily available which could be in the next 5 years) is by doing a programme similar to cash for clunkers but instead a "Gas for electric program". But I doubt it would happen.

 

[Zaptruder]

Yes and that is what should have been pushed instead of everyone slam down their economy and restrict the people from flying a lot as an example and blaming consumerism.

While the whole dialogue that the environmentalists are pushing is on the wrong angle...

they are still getting us to make the necessary turn here; and that is carbon taxes should be used to encourage newer technology... but also represent the true cost of older technology.

The longer we continue to subsidize fossil fuel and older energy technologies, the less impetus we have for shifting off them.

We've already moved from cheap to expensive to expensive with security implications... yet we continue to subsidize the costs of these energy sources because we deem them important.

Well, the reality is, we can either artificially slow the economy while it readjusts for a newer better energy supply... or we can take a chance at let the economy come to a 'natural' halt by not managing these issues and only dealing with them once they reach crisis levels.

At the trajectory we're headed on, we're going to see another economic crisis on the level of the GFC with energy instead of property at its basis.


While technology is indeed the ideal answer... the problem despite its accelerating pace is the logistical and practical problems; time to research, design, test, manufacture and succeed at market.

At this point, we aren't even letting the market work naturally; we continue to hamper the development of advanced energy by subsidising the considerable externalities of fossil energy sources.

 

[iamaustrian]

wow great
earth goes down the shitter and no one gives a damn fuck

booh at all the big industry countries.
this conference was a complete farce.

just another proof that humanity deserves to become extinct

 

[Dooraven]

This conference did more damage to the environment than good.

 

[Chrono]

One of the easy ways for people to switch to electric vehicles (when they become readily available which could be in the next 5 years) is by doing a programme similar to cash for clunkers but instead a "Gas for electric program". But I doubt it would happen.

Car companies will lobby like hell for this, and it will be easy and popular for politicians to use the 'energy independence' meme with it.

It's guaranteed to happen.

 

[Rentahamster]

When nuclear is talked about as if it could replace oil for transportation I never hear about batteries, and the tech still isn't there anyway. That penn & teller episode had nothing about batteries or at least said investment is needed to develop advanced ones.

I dunno who's saying nuclear could replace oil, and I don't watch that Penn and Teller show. I'm not sure what their viewpoints are, but their viewpoints are not the only ones. Nuclear power is for electricity generation, and if we can get it to replace fossil fuel electricity generation in significant amounts, it's good for the environment.