Important to Note. Paris Withdrawal is a Years long Process

June 1, 2017

Also, notably, this reaction from French President Macron.

 

Advertisements

27 Responses to “Important to Note. Paris Withdrawal is a Years long Process”

  1. Ron Voisin Says:

    But…Thankfully the financing for Paris activities ends tomorrow.


    • I hope that one day in the future, the world will turn on climate deniers…..HARD, and make all of you pay.

      • lracine Says:

        There are many different forms of “denial”… stop and think about what your carbon foot print is…

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          Why? Why would that matter?

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          You think I am in denial because I don’t designate one day a week for going meatless?!?

          That I need to think about my own carbon footprint or I am in denial?!?

          Anyone ever call you a little moralistic prig before? Let me be the first.

          • funslinger62 Says:

            That’s better than being the massive hypocrite that you appear to be. If you are genuinely concerned about climate change then you should be concerned about your carbon footprint.

            These are the things I have done in the past to help reduce my carbon footprint.

            1) Purchased a Prius in 2000. Purchased a Prius in 2004 to replace the 2000 model. Leased a Nissan Leaf in 2013 to replace the Prius that I sold to a nephew. Purchased a Chevy Volt last October to replace the leased Leaf that I returned. Purchased a $1000 reservation for a Tesla Model 3 that I plan to purchase as soon as available while giving the Chevy Volt to my mother to replace her old ICE car.

            2) Replaced all of my gas lawn tools except my lawn mower (I have 6 acres to mow) with battery-operated tools.

            3) Replaced all incandescent light bulbs with compact florescent bulbs. Then, six years later replaced all CF bulbs with LED bulbs.

            4) Initially went meatless for one day a week. Then, five years later went to meatless for all but one day a week. Then, after realizing that I didn’t prefer meat to plant-based foods anymore, went meatless for all but one or two days a month. Blue Apron helps tremendously with delicious vegetarian meals. My next goal is totally vegetarian and then eventually veganism.

            5) Replaced all electronics and appliances with Energy Star varieties where they were available. More energy efficient ones where Energy Star wasn’t available. This has saved me lots of money over the long run.

            6) Replaced all of the 46-year-old single-paned windows with brand new doubled-pane windows. Purchased an electric tankless water heater to replace my gas powered water heater. Planning to replace my gas powered central A/C unit with an electric one as soon as I can afford one.

            7) Encouraged, quite forcefully, my local electric coop to encourage the local governments to support the building of two nearby solar farms that will be opening in a few months. I am also planning to get solar panels for my roof in the near future. Not so easy to do while retired living on a meager pension. Living in Mississippi with its relatively lower cost of living helps some.

            8) Reduced the number of airline flights in favor of longer trips in my automobiles.

            9) Invested in RE ventures when I could afford to do so.

            10) Vigorously encourage a carbon tax even though it will increase the costs of some of the things I like to purchase.

            11) Often debate climate change deniers about the science, convincing a few to change their minds. Not an easy task in Mississippi, a state with an abundance of deniers.

            What exactly the hell have you done other than proclaim your concern for the climate? Words, while they can encourage action, are meaningless when it comes to actually reducing your impact.

  2. Tom Bates Says:

    The senate never ratified the document, The USA is not in the agreement so with today’s notice by Trump we are out. There is no years long process except in the bizarro world of the left. All Obama did was sign a unilateral memorandum of understanding that has no legal force.


  3. We’re coming for you, Trump.

    You won’t be re-elected in 2020 (if you aren’t imprisoned for treason prior to that), and Republicans will have difficulty being elected to dog catcher.

    SCUM.

    • lracine Says:

      You only think you will have a choice in 2020…. I have news for you…. you don’t… (George Carlin)

      we have a government that is best describe as Inverted Totalitarianism…

      – in inverted totalitarianism, corporations through political contributions and lobbying, dominate the United States, with the government acting as the servant of large corporations. This is considered “normal” rather than corrupt.

      – inverted totalitarianism aims for the mass of the populace to be in a persistent state of political apathy. The only type of political activity expected or desired from the citizenry is voting. Low electoral turnouts are favorably received as an indication that the bulk of the populace has given up hope that the government will ever help them.

      -Inverted totalitarianism reverses things. It is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash.

      Intrigued? Read a few of Sheldon Wolin books…. or catch the interviews that Hedges did of Wolin before his death.

  4. indy222 Says:

    We’re sliding down the slippery slope to a grim future. Never mind that solar is growing and wind is growing – not near fast enough – and only on top of existing fossil fuel. The critical fatal flaw that is not highlighted by anyone – is that we are only willing to do what is economically advantageous to ourselves. We are NOT willing to decommission perfectly well-functioning fossil fuel power sources. Since so many power plants are quite new in Asia, these won’t stop their pollution for a very long time. All we’re doing is raising the fraction of NEW power plants which are solar/wind. ONLY government enforced economic pain, and enforced global and long-term Depression can make a meaningful dent in our GHG emissions by damn-the-torpedoes full-stop-GHG-ahead, and the message of the Trump debacle is that we are completely unwilling to insure we all make that kind of sacrifice.

    We love our children? Hah! No we don’t. Maybe we are in love with the IMAGE of us as loving our children, but we’re burying our collective heads into a steaming pile of psychopathology, and it’s the most innocent who will pay the highest cost – (as always).


    • How much the Conservatives, religious fake Christian nutters and GOP love their children, especially their daughters

      read and weep

      • webej Says:

        A little off topic, but the article conflates two different problems:
        [1] Statutory rape laws which make it illegal for two 17-yeards, all depending on where you are with respect to State boundaries, to have sex. It is crazy to think a 17 year old girl is raping a 16 year old boy when they are in love, even if you think their decisions are unwise. Society should perhaps discourage sex with girls who are too young to consent, but it is insane to equalize two teen-agers in love with a gang rape. The statutory rape laws are responsible for >90% of this whole problem. Some of the cases in the article (including the 11-year old) seem more like ordinary criminal rape than statutory rape, by the way.
        [2] Sex, marriage, the age of consent, and conservatives. This is a huge knot of contradictions. Too young to give sexual consent, unless married (duh!?). Protecting young people by making sex criminal (duh?!). In traditional cultures where people are married by their families at a young age, the girl stays with their father until she is considered of appropriate age to consummate the marriage, proving that at least in the past, these people weren’t completely retarded. There are a lot of problems here that cannot be resolved by the criminal justice system, especially when the statutes are insane and inconsistent.

        That said, I come from a very conservative traditional Xian background, and well remember what my mother said to my sister when she announced at age 9 that at age 16 she would become a hair-dresser, leave the house, and get married. She said: “If you’re 16, you’d be getting a spanking instead!” She became a surgeon and married at age 30, the marriage somewhat “arranged” by mutual friends.

      • lracine Says:

        You know…. I have good friends that are devout, they lead a life that I would call spiritual…. they are also very conservative.. hence Republicans… they would be as appalled by that article as I was… (I don’t share all of their beliefs….lol). But they are good people whom I respect.

        You damage your creditably when you tar and feather everyone with the same brush.

        If you truly want to address climate change…. we are going to need to work with “those people”.

        We are going to need to make inroads into the churches to explain why climate change is real and happening…. you can’t start that dialog by calling them names….

        • Lionel Smith Says:

          If you truly want to address climate change…. we are going to need to work with “those people”.

          No. ‘those people’ belong in jail. Simple. Literal interpretations of the Old Testament notwithstanding (Lot and all).

      • Lionel Smith Says:

        Is this a wind up? Whatever consider me wound up.

        Disgraceful, positively paleolithic. What is the age of consent in Florida? I recall when visiting in the early 1970s that it was 21 (Georgia similar). That rapist should be in jail.

        But of course he is shielded by congress critters who preach that it is the fault of the females for being raped.

        US of A sort yourselves out stop regressing to a stone age society and the likes of Trump go on about the Taliban, what we see here is straight out of their playbook and that may even be an insult to the Taliban.

    • lracine Says:

      Yeap… but think it through…

      If you enforce a drastic cut in GHGE in the way for example that Kevin Anderson has laid out. You have to understand that our standard of living we have will be a thing of the past.

      I live in a very rural Red area of the county. The country will revolt if you do this… it will get very ugly very quickly…. it is political suicide.

      We do not have a well educated population… one that would be receptive (ie understand and comprehend) the scientific arguments for why GHGE need to be curtailed…. and without that you are not going to get the population’s cooperation…

      I am waiting for the financial system to implode… (think of the drop of the fossil fuel consumption and GHGE with the collapse of the USSR…) that is the last “hail Mary” that we have.

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        “If you enforce a drastic cut in GHGE …The country will revolt if you do this… it will get very ugly very quickly…. it is political suicide.”

        Of course, you are correct. Which is why we first need to build the new RE infrastructure, so we can then decommission the FF infrastructure.

        Building and deploying RE is our first and foremost priority. It is the only thing that truly matters. Which is why a carbon tax, which does zero to actually build that RE is nonsensical, especially since RE subsidies will be on the chopping block to pass any such legislation.

        And if I have not made it clear to anyone, let me repeat:

        every penny of RE subsidies buys RE infrastructure.

        • funslinger62 Says:

          Gingerbaker “Which is why a carbon tax, which does zero to actually build that RE is nonsensical, especially since RE subsidies will be on the chopping block to pass any such legislation.”

          Still living in your fantasy world I see. A sufficiently large carbon tax will not only reduce the use of fossil fuels, it will increase investments into RE. As to subsidies, it would be to the advantage of RE if ALL energy subsidies were ended since FF get most of them.

          Why don’t you just admit why you are against a carbon tax? You are a hypocrite with a huge carbon footprint.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            “A sufficiently large carbon tax will not only reduce the use of fossil fuels, it will increase investments into RE. “

            Oh, S-U-R-E it will. (That’s sarcasm). Here is an idea:

            Before making such grandiose claims, why don’t you gather a single effing shred of proof. A carbon tax has been in place in several places for years. Almost all of them have been abject failures. And none of them, AFAIK, has ever been demonstrated to result in increased RE investment compared to anywhere else.

            “As to subsidies, it would be to the advantage of RE if ALL energy subsidies were ended since FF get most of them.”

            And here we are folks: Exhibit A – another self-professed environmentally-conscious free market fundamentalist who doesn’t support RE subsidies because he can’t be bothered to think about the issue more than five seconds.

            “Why don’t you just admit why you are against a carbon tax? You are a hypocrite with a huge carbon footprint.”

            You are a special kind of dense if you have not yet gathered that I am against a carbon tax. And you gotta lotta balls to shriek about me, considering you have no effing clue about my carbon footprint. I’m a “hypocrite” am I ?!? – yet YOU are the one who evidently doesn’t give a flying fig about RE subsidies yet claims to care about the environment.

            Come up to Burlington, VT and say that to my face. I dare you. I DOUBLE dare you.

          • funslinger62 Says:

            “Oh, S-U-R-E it will. (That’s sarcasm).
            Here is an idea:
            Before making such grandiose claims, why don’t you gather a single effing shred of proof. A carbon tax has been in place in several places for years. Almost all of them have been abject failures. And none of them, AFAIK, has ever been demonstrated to result in increased RE investment compared to anywhere else.”

            Carbon taxes need to be implemented on a large enough scale and with a high enough rate to guarantee success. If one US state implements a carbon tax, it becomes less competitive with other states. But, the US has enough clout to implement a carbon tax and avoid being uncompetitive by implementing carbon tariffs on countries that don’t have a carbon tax.

            Using failed carbon taxes as evidence that all carbon taxes will fail is simply a logical fallacy. We are in a severe crisis and must reduce carbon emissions rapidly. To do so, it must be painful for consumers to purchase products that require the use of FFs. And alternative energy sources must be readily available to support a shift away from FFs.

            To date, no carbon tax, outside of the Australian carbon tax was high enough to succeed rapidly enough. However, the failure in Australia was due to a lack of a sufficient amount of RE infrastructure to support a shift away from fossil fuels. This lack of RE infrastructure didn’t allow for enough lower cost options for people to switch to resulting in the failure of the tax. In other words, Australia was premature in its implementation of a carbon tax.

            The US has a sufficient initial RE infrastructure to support an increasing shift away from FF. If it implements a significant and sufficiently high carbon tax, it will significantly speed up the shift to RE. There will be enough RE to handle the initial shift which will encourage more investment in RE. Which will allow RE infrastructure to grow in order to continue to support an ever increasing shift to lower cost products made using RE.

            This is what you fail to consider with a carbon tax. By causing a shift towards greener fuels, the increased demand creates a better incentive for investors to invest in RE.

            “And here we are folks: Exhibit A – another self-professed environmentally-conscious free market fundamentalist who doesn’t support RE subsidies because he can’t be bothered to think about the issue more than five seconds.”

            LOL I do support RE subsidies. But, I’d much rather get an end to FF subsidies even if that eliminates RE subsidies because it would give RE a bigger advantage than mere RE subsidies in the absence of the ending of FF subsidies. It’s a matter of getting the best solution politically possible.

            The best solutions for RE in order of most impactful are:
            1) No FF subsidues, RE subsidies
            2) No energy subsidies at all
            3) FF subsidies and RE subsidies

            “You are a special kind of dense if you have not yet gathered that I am against a carbon tax. And you gotta lotta balls to shriek about me, considering you have no effing clue about my carbon footprint. I’m a “hypocrite” am I ?!? – yet YOU are the one who evidently doesn’t give a flying fig about RE subsidies yet claims to care about the environment.
            Come up to Burlington, VT and say that to my face. I dare you. I DOUBLE dare you.”

            So, what exactly have you done to reduce your carbon footprint. Refer to the above thread with my comment to see what I have done.

            If you haven’t yet done or aren’t planning to do everything economically feasible for you to reduce your carbon footprint, I might just make that trip to Burlington. OTOH, I’ll just save the carbon emissions and chastise you again here on climatecrocks.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: