Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:44 am

First the good news:

EU wants stricter climate goals 2030

BRUSSELS – The European Commission is planning the official climate goals of the European Union to significantly increase. The EU wants to 2030, a reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases by 45 percent. Now that is another 40 percent as compared to the figures of 1990.


https://www.firstorderhistorians.com/20 ... oals-2030/

Now the bad news:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/climate/trump-clean-power-rollback.html

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration next week plans to formally propose a vast overhaul of climate change regulations that would allow individual states to decide how, or even whether, to curb carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants, according to a summary of the plan and details provided by three people who have seen the full proposal.

The plan would also relax pollution rules for power plants that need upgrades. That, combined with allowing states to set their own rules, creates a serious risk that emissions, which had been falling, could start to rise again, according to environmentalists.


So the hope for our common future and America's contribution herewith lies with the state's legislators. Pollution and climate change is a global issue which we can combat. Countries whom don't act in line with the Paris agreement and thus have an unfair economic advantage (not paying for their pollution), must be taken into check by the global community. America aint special. ;)
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
BlueberryWheats
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:46 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:13 am

Dutchy wrote:
America aint special. ;)


Heresy!
The tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:46 am

BlueberryWheats wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
America aint special. ;)


Heresy!



:lol:
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2858
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:54 pm

Dutchy wrote:
America aint special. ;)


Without America, you'd be buckling under some Nazi overlord today. Think before you write. America was and is the only beacon of freedom on this planet.
 
2122M
Posts: 1317
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:16 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
America aint special. ;)


Without America, you'd be buckling under some Nazi overlord today. Think before you write. America was and is the only beacon of freedom on this planet.


A Few Things:

1) You sound like a middle age, out of shape dad bragging about how he scored the winning touchdown in a high school football game 30 years ago.

2) Let me fix that post for you: "Without America providing support on the Western front for the back half of the war, the Brits for breaking the enigma code and defeating Hitler in North Africa (among many other things of course), the French for maintaining a fierce resistance behind enemy lines and, oh yeah, the Russians for soaking up and destroying the bulk of Hitler's war machine from 1942-1945, you'd be buckling under some Nazi overlord today.

Proof maybe that it takes an international effort to overcome great obstacles? (see, Climate Accord, Paris and Nuclear Deal, Iran)

3) America is one on the verge of bucking under some Nazi overlord at the moment, not Europe.

I say all of these things as a proud American who considers himself very lucky to have been born here. But I'm also not so arrogant as to think that America is the only beacon of anything. Expect good BBQ (with all respect to Korea and Mongolia)
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:24 pm

Not to burst your bubble but....

https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/us-c ... wn-europea

As the International Energy Agency recently reported,

International Energy Agency wrote:
Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.4% in 2017, reaching a historic high of 32.5 gigatonnes (Gt), a resumption of growth after three years of global emissions remaining flat. The increase in CO2 emissions, however, was not universal. While most major economies saw a rise, some others experienced declines, including the United States, United Kingdom, Mexico and Japan. The biggest decline came from the United States, mainly because of higher deployment of renewables.


Contrast that with a 1.8% increase in the EU as a whole.

As Politifact notes, after reviewing several sources, carbon emissions under Trump continue to drop, although the decline was not as much as Obama's last year (2016). This could be due to the economy continuing to grow and have nothing to do with Trump's policies. Or it could be some of Trump's policies. It's hard to say.

Bottom line. America is doing it's part. Until the EU starts to reduce it's emissions on a comparable level I don't think you should lecture us on our world leading decline.
 
2122M
Posts: 1317
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:36 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Not to burst your bubble but....

https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/us-c ... wn-europea

As the International Energy Agency recently reported,

International Energy Agency wrote:
Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.4% in 2017, reaching a historic high of 32.5 gigatonnes (Gt), a resumption of growth after three years of global emissions remaining flat. The increase in CO2 emissions, however, was not universal. While most major economies saw a rise, some others experienced declines, including the United States, United Kingdom, Mexico and Japan. The biggest decline came from the United States, mainly because of higher deployment of renewables.


Contrast that with a 1.8% increase in the EU as a whole.

As Politifact notes, after reviewing several sources, carbon emissions under Trump continue to drop, although the decline was not as much as Obama's last year (2016). This could be due to the economy continuing to grow and have nothing to do with Trump's policies. Or it could be some of Trump's policies. It's hard to say.

Bottom line. America is doing it's part. Until the EU starts to reduce it's emissions on a comparable level I don't think you should lecture us on our world leading decline.


Sounds like Obama era policies worked and should be maintained.

One thing from that reason.com link:

"Although the Trump administration is generally hostile to international climate change agreements, the Environmental Protection Agency reports that the U.S. reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 2 percent in 2016. This drop is largely attributable to a continuing market-driven switch from coal to natural gas, to more renewable generation, and to a relatively mild winter."

Why are they talking about Trump and 2016 climate results in the same sentence when Trump didn't take office until January 2017? That sentence is like saying, "Although the New York Jets threw a lot of interceptions last year, they still managed to win the Super Bowl in 1969."
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:39 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Not to burst your bubble but....

https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/us-c ... wn-europea

As the International Energy Agency recently reported,

International Energy Agency wrote:
Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.4% in 2017, reaching a historic high of 32.5 gigatonnes (Gt), a resumption of growth after three years of global emissions remaining flat. The increase in CO2 emissions, however, was not universal. While most major economies saw a rise, some others experienced declines, including the United States, United Kingdom, Mexico and Japan. The biggest decline came from the United States, mainly because of higher deployment of renewables.


Contrast that with a 1.8% increase in the EU as a whole.

As Politifact notes, after reviewing several sources, carbon emissions under Trump continue to drop, although the decline was not as much as Obama's last year (2016). This could be due to the economy continuing to grow and have nothing to do with Trump's policies. Or it could be some of Trump's policies. It's hard to say.

Bottom line. America is doing it's part. Until the EU starts to reduce it's emissions on a comparable level I don't think you should lecture us on our world leading decline.


There are elements within the US whom are certainly doing their part, good for all of us. But just remember that per person America uses about twice as an average European and an average European uses tig times as many as an average Chinese, also something to consider. Looking at it in that way, the US has a lot more road to travel., so don't be too content with this.
I am talking policy-wise. I think these are necessary steps towards a better future. So I support the EU for setting these goals, fully aware that my own country trails behind within the EU, but even we are getting there eventually. Investing in and relaxing regulations for coal plants aren't the way forward, but actually taking a huge step back.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:42 pm

2122M wrote:

Sounds like Obama era policies worked and should be maintained.

One thing from that reason.com link:

"Although the Trump administration is generally hostile to international climate change agreements, the Environmental Protection Agency reports that the U.S. reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 2 percent in 2016. This drop is largely attributable to a continuing market-driven switch from coal to natural gas, to more renewable generation, and to a relatively mild winter."

Why are they talking about Trump and 2016 climate results in the same sentence when Trump didn't take office until January 2017? That sentence is like saying, "Although the New York Jets threw a lot of interceptions last year, they still managed to win the Super Bowl in 1969."


First you contradict yourself. Obama era policies should be maintained? But then you quote the article saying "largely attributable to a continuing market-driven switch"

So which is it? Natural gas is cheaper, cleaner and more efficient. The only possible link here is that Obama's policies made coal that much more expensive than natural gas. I'll grant that. But we've been making a transition to natural gas for quite some time now.

As for "why are we talking about Trump and 2016" results. That's why I linked the Politifact article. The reason.com article was talking about 2016 emissions, and what Trump's impact could have. But it then points out that in reality, despite his hostility, US emissions will continue to drop due to market driven forces.

That's where the politifact article comes in and shows that, yes - The US had a drop of emissions in 2017 as well.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:43 pm

2122M wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
America aint special. ;)


Without America, you'd be buckling under some Nazi overlord today. Think before you write. America was and is the only beacon of freedom on this planet.


A Few Things:

1) You sound like a middle age, out of shape dad bragging about how he scored the winning touchdown in a high school football game 30 years ago.

2) Let me fix that post for you: "Without America providing support on the Western front for the back half of the war, the Brits for breaking the enigma code and defeating Hitler in North Africa (among many other things of course), the French for maintaining a fierce resistance behind enemy lines and, oh yeah, the Russians for soaking up and destroying the bulk of Hitler's war machine from 1942-1945, you'd be buckling under some Nazi overlord today.

Proof maybe that it takes an international effort to overcome great obstacles? (see, Climate Accord, Paris and Nuclear Deal, Iran)

3) America is one on the verge of bucking under some Nazi overlord at the moment, not Europe.

I say all of these things as a proud American who considers himself very lucky to have been born here. But I'm also not so arrogant as to think that America is the only beacon of anything. Expect good BBQ (with all respect to Korea and Mongolia)


The voice of reason, thanks.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:49 pm

Dutchy wrote:
I am talking policy-wise. I think these are necessary steps towards a better future. So I support the EU for setting these goals, fully aware that my own country trails behind within the EU, but even we are getting there eventually. Investing in and relaxing regulations for coal plants aren't the way forward, but actually taking a huge step back.


There is evidence that restricting coal power plants in the USA actually leads to MORE emissions globally because we sell that coal to countries with power plants that aren't as clean as our own. This is probably a first for me linking to a motherjones article.. https://www.motherjones.com/environment ... rts-china/

As our use of natural gas increases, we will begin to export more of our coal. Demand will make coal in the US cheaper which will mean it makes more financial sense in China to continue to import it (along with Australian coal).

So while the US, EU and Australia may find other renewable means for energy and thus reduce our emissions. We'll continue shipping our coal to developing countries that may not have the same power plant technologies we do.
 
2122M
Posts: 1317
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:52 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
2122M wrote:

Sounds like Obama era policies worked and should be maintained.

One thing from that reason.com link:

"Although the Trump administration is generally hostile to international climate change agreements, the Environmental Protection Agency reports that the U.S. reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 2 percent in 2016. This drop is largely attributable to a continuing market-driven switch from coal to natural gas, to more renewable generation, and to a relatively mild winter."

Why are they talking about Trump and 2016 climate results in the same sentence when Trump didn't take office until January 2017? That sentence is like saying, "Although the New York Jets threw a lot of interceptions last year, they still managed to win the Super Bowl in 1969."


First you contradict yourself. Obama era policies should be maintained? But then you quote the article saying "largely attributable to a continuing market-driven switch"

So which is it? Natural gas is cheaper, cleaner and more efficient. The only possible link here is that Obama's policies made coal that much more expensive than natural gas. I'll grant that. But we've been making a transition to natural gas for quite some time now.

As for "why are we talking about Trump and 2016" results. That's why I linked the Politifact article. The reason.com article was talking about 2016 emissions, and what Trump's impact could have. But it then points out that in reality, despite his hostility, US emissions will continue to drop due to market driven forces.

That's where the politifact article comes in and shows that, yes - The US had a drop of emissions in 2017 as well.


Obama era policies and Market Driven forces can co-exist. It's not an either-or situation. As evidenced by the fact that market driven forces are still in play, but under Trump policies it seems our improvement as slowed.

Don't forget that it was Obama that pushed hard for better fuel economy standards for cars in the US and began a number of other eco-friendly initiatives that Trump has pulled the plug on (not all carbon emissions related, but along the same lines.)

And finally, before you start dismissing the Europeans (and this was pointed out above) The US has a loooong way to go to reach the per capita emissions levels of the EU. So while the US is improving more that Europe, its because they have the farthest to go.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13136
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:00 pm

The only answer is a carbon tax. The more carbon emitted to make and ship stuff, the more it is taxed. The EU should implement this at its borders, and even inside its borders, forcing Poland and Germany to reconsider their coal addiction.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:08 pm

2122M wrote:
And finally, before you start dismissing the Europeans (and this was pointed out above) The US has a loooong way to go to reach the per capita emissions levels of the EU. So while the US is improving more that Europe, its because they have the farthest to go.


That is certainly a fair point to make. I am not contesting that. But you also need to factor in GDP when looking at a per capita basis. When you account for economic output, the US falls down to 80th on the country list (EU broken out in this list). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _emissions Unfortunately that list is from 2006 and I can't find a better breakdown.
Edit: found another article, though it is based on canada outputs: http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines ... emissions/

Emissions is directly linked to economic output and population. The three are linked. As we have discussed on this forum before, during 2008 emissions dropped quite a bit due to the recession. (I think we reclaimed something like 5 days on that calendar of resources being replenished - someone might be able to find it again I can't seem to find it.)

The easiest way to curb US emissions would be to kill our economy. Good luck selling that to the public haha. :white:
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6232
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:12 pm

Aesma wrote:
The only answer is a carbon tax.

More taxes... color me surprised.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:14 pm

Aesma wrote:
The only answer is a carbon tax. The more carbon emitted to make and ship stuff, the more it is taxed. The EU should implement this at its borders, and even inside its borders, forcing Poland and Germany to reconsider their coal addiction.


May I frame it a little different, no taxation just adding the external cost of burning fossil fuels. So I think you are right, that is the only sensible way to move forward. Within the EU there is such a system, but the current price per ton CO2 is way too low, I think it is somewhere around the € 7 mark. It should be € 100 to make sense. Interestingly, China and some South American countries are thinking in the same direction.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:18 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
I am talking policy-wise. I think these are necessary steps towards a better future. So I support the EU for setting these goals, fully aware that my own country trails behind within the EU, but even we are getting there eventually. Investing in and relaxing regulations for coal plants aren't the way forward, but actually taking a huge step back.


There is evidence that restricting coal power plants in the USA actually leads to MORE emissions globally because we sell that coal to countries with power plants that aren't as clean as our own.


Actually on the surface that might seem like the right argument to make and it seems to be correct. But we have to remember that if we want to meet the Paris agreement red lines (2,0C or actually 1,5C) we need to slash the total output of global warming gasses by 95% in 2050.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
2122M
Posts: 1317
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:19 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
2122M wrote:
And finally, before you start dismissing the Europeans (and this was pointed out above) The US has a loooong way to go to reach the per capita emissions levels of the EU. So while the US is improving more that Europe, its because they have the farthest to go.


That is certainly a fair point to make. I am not contesting that. But you also need to factor in GDP when looking at a per capita basis. When you account for economic output, the US falls down to 80th on the country list (EU broken out in this list). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _emissions Unfortunately that list is from 2006 and I can't find a better breakdown.
Edit: found another article, though it is based on canada outputs: http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines ... emissions/

Emissions is directly linked to economic output and population. The three are linked. As we have discussed on this forum before, during 2008 emissions dropped quite a bit due to the recession. (I think we reclaimed something like 5 days on that calendar of resources being replenished - someone might be able to find it again I can't seem to find it.)


I agree with most of that too. I guess my overall point is: Why take these steps backwards. What is the harm in continuing to work with the international community in setting global standards and lowering our own emissions. Realistically, no matter how well you think we're doing now, everyone agrees that pollution is bad, right? I don't think that's a controversial statement. Even if you want to debate its effects on climate change (which you shouldn't, because climate scientists that know more that you and me agree on that point), you have to agree that carbon pollution is bad for the health of people, animals and plants. So why is the current administration trying to take the giant steps backwards? Why not find forward looking solutions to the economic problems in coal country instead of clinging to the past?
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:26 pm

I don't disagree.

I guess my main point is, what Washington does, isn't really having that much of an impact. It's public positions, advancing technology and emerging market forces (natural gas) that are driving things down. I would like to see us finding ways to make coal burning cleaner rather than demonizing it as a whole. Shipping coal out of the US is worse than keeping it here. Plus, I'd like to keep those folks employed until we can find other energy options.

Also, I still don't understand why we aren't building more nuclear plants. Sure it's a tough question on what to do with the waste. But nuclear is the way to go. (Of course those coal guys I just referenced may not like that.. but maybe they can find jobs at a nuclear plant. I mean if Homer Simpson can anyone can right?!?)
 
2122M
Posts: 1317
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:37 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
I don't disagree.

I guess my main point is, what Washington does, isn't really having that much of an impact. It's public positions, advancing technology and emerging market forces (natural gas) that are driving things down. I would like to see us finding ways to make coal burning cleaner rather than demonizing it as a whole. Shipping coal out of the US is worse than keeping it here. Plus, I'd like to keep those folks employed until we can find other energy options.

Also, I still don't understand why we aren't building more nuclear plants. Sure it's a tough question on what to do with the waste. But nuclear is the way to go. (Of course those coal guys I just referenced may not like that.. but maybe they can find jobs at a nuclear plant. I mean if Homer Simpson can anyone can right?!?)


Well. this is the whole issue, and this is where its gets frustratingly political. Where do you get a lot of coal? WV and KY (R), but also PA and OH (the swingiest of the swing states). I'm afraid that Republicans are disregarding the health of Americans and the health of the planet in general in exchange for 38 electoral votes.

The coal community is a very interesting one. Its very insulated and their jobs in the mines are more than just jobs. Its a whole way of life. From what I understand, there is no interest in new jobs or industries in coal country, they just want coal to be strong. Unfortunately, its not going to be strong again (although I understand there has been a small comeback in metallurgical coal recently). They will have to adapt, and the government needs to be there to help facilitate that transition, not just pander to them and tell them everything is going to be OK.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:51 pm

2122M wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
2122M wrote:
And finally, before you start dismissing the Europeans (and this was pointed out above) The US has a loooong way to go to reach the per capita emissions levels of the EU. So while the US is improving more that Europe, its because they have the farthest to go.


That is certainly a fair point to make. I am not contesting that. But you also need to factor in GDP when looking at a per capita basis. When you account for economic output, the US falls down to 80th on the country list (EU broken out in this list). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _emissions Unfortunately that list is from 2006 and I can't find a better breakdown.
Edit: found another article, though it is based on canada outputs: http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines ... emissions/

Emissions is directly linked to economic output and population. The three are linked. As we have discussed on this forum before, during 2008 emissions dropped quite a bit due to the recession. (I think we reclaimed something like 5 days on that calendar of resources being replenished - someone might be able to find it again I can't seem to find it.)


I agree with most of that too. I guess my overall point is: Why take these steps backwards. What is the harm in continuing to work with the international community in setting global standards and lowering our own emissions. Realistically, no matter how well you think we're doing now, everyone agrees that pollution is bad, right? I don't think that's a controversial statement. Even if you want to debate its effects on climate change (which you shouldn't, because climate scientists that know more that you and me agree on that point), you have to agree that carbon pollution is bad for the health of people, animals and plants. So why is the current administration trying to take the giant steps backwards? Why not find forward looking solutions to the economic problems in coal country instead of clinging to the past?


I understand that America wants to link the GDP per capita with the emissions per capita. I think that is quite unfair for one main reason: every person on earth should be given a carbon or greenhouse gas emissions limit, that would be fair, regardless of GDP. We all are in trouble, so why should an American be allowed to pollute more than a Kenyan or someone living in the Maldives.
Besides this, a large part of the carbon emission of China should be added to America and to lesser extend Europe. They produce (= carbon emissions) in large part for Europe and America. So this doesn't paint the entire picture.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
2122M
Posts: 1317
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:57 pm

Dutchy wrote:
2122M wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:

That is certainly a fair point to make. I am not contesting that. But you also need to factor in GDP when looking at a per capita basis. When you account for economic output, the US falls down to 80th on the country list (EU broken out in this list). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _emissions Unfortunately that list is from 2006 and I can't find a better breakdown.
Edit: found another article, though it is based on canada outputs: http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines ... emissions/

Emissions is directly linked to economic output and population. The three are linked. As we have discussed on this forum before, during 2008 emissions dropped quite a bit due to the recession. (I think we reclaimed something like 5 days on that calendar of resources being replenished - someone might be able to find it again I can't seem to find it.)


I agree with most of that too. I guess my overall point is: Why take these steps backwards. What is the harm in continuing to work with the international community in setting global standards and lowering our own emissions. Realistically, no matter how well you think we're doing now, everyone agrees that pollution is bad, right? I don't think that's a controversial statement. Even if you want to debate its effects on climate change (which you shouldn't, because climate scientists that know more that you and me agree on that point), you have to agree that carbon pollution is bad for the health of people, animals and plants. So why is the current administration trying to take the giant steps backwards? Why not find forward looking solutions to the economic problems in coal country instead of clinging to the past?


I understand that America wants to link the GDP per capita with the emissions per capita. I think that is quite unfair for one main reason: every person on earth should be given a carbon or greenhouse gas emissions limit, that would be fair, regardless of GDP. We all are in trouble, so why should an American be allowed to pollute more than a Kenyan or someone living in the Maldives.
Besides this, a large part of the carbon emission of China should be added to America and to lesser extend Europe. They produce (= carbon emissions) in large part for Europe and America. So this doesn't paint the entire picture.


Interesting point on China, but shouldn't all their carbon emissions be attributed to them? Even though they are producing goods for other countries, they can still make the decision to limit emissions (as they already have of course). They make the choice to disregard excess pollution in order to be a cheap supplier for other countries, therefore, the carbon they emit is all theirs.

Is that a fair statement?
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:26 pm

That's why I am saying you have to look at the whole picture. How and why the emissions are being produced matter.

People in Iceland have the natural ability to heat their homes with geothermal energy. But someone in Alaska may have to rely on coal to heat their home.

A country producing goods, and generating emissions, should be responsible for their emission levels. But you also have to consider that they are producing goods people also need.

It's also a little hypocritical for us to criticize emerging economies that haven't had the time to fully industrialize yet. These same countries though, as 2122M pointed out, also benefit greatly from that position.

A complicated issue for sure. And will certainly be unfair to some country.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:32 pm

2122M wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
2122M wrote:

I agree with most of that too. I guess my overall point is: Why take these steps backwards. What is the harm in continuing to work with the international community in setting global standards and lowering our own emissions. Realistically, no matter how well you think we're doing now, everyone agrees that pollution is bad, right? I don't think that's a controversial statement. Even if you want to debate its effects on climate change (which you shouldn't, because climate scientists that know more that you and me agree on that point), you have to agree that carbon pollution is bad for the health of people, animals and plants. So why is the current administration trying to take the giant steps backwards? Why not find forward looking solutions to the economic problems in coal country instead of clinging to the past?


I understand that America wants to link the GDP per capita with the emissions per capita. I think that is quite unfair for one main reason: every person on earth should be given a carbon or greenhouse gas emissions limit, that would be fair, regardless of GDP. We all are in trouble, so why should an American be allowed to pollute more than a Kenyan or someone living in the Maldives.
Besides this, a large part of the carbon emission of China should be added to America and to lesser extend Europe. They produce (= carbon emissions) in large part for Europe and America. So this doesn't paint the entire picture.


Interesting point on China, but shouldn't all their carbon emissions be attributed to them? Even though they are producing goods for other countries, they can still make the decision to limit emissions (as they already have of course). They make the choice to disregard excess pollution in order to be a cheap supplier for other countries, therefore, the carbon they emit is all theirs.

Is that a fair statement?


In my view it is not a fair statement. I think all cost, thus also emission cost, lies with the end user, in that case an American. Doesn't really matter where the pollution occurred and at what stage of the production. Then it would a fair don't you think.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11527
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:32 pm

There is NO Such thing as clean coal.

As a Resident in a state with a history of issues related to Coal Ash storage ( The results of "Clean Coal" technology). There is no good solution for making coal a better fossil fuel. The best that can happen is to have renewables and natural gas take over.
https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org ... uncertain/


Trump is only delaying the demise of coal, and he is doing it at the risk of the health of millions.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/health/t ... index.html
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:35 pm

casinterest wrote:
There is NO Such thing as clean coal.

As a Resident in a state with a history of issues related to Coal Ash storage ( The results of "Clean Coal" technology). There is no good solution for making coal a better fossil fuel. The best that can happen is to have renewables and natural gas take over.
https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org ... uncertain/


Trump is only delaying the demise of coal, and he is doing it at the risk of the health of millions.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/health/t ... index.html


Billions even. Coal is out and natural gas is an interim solution.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22520
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:38 pm

Don't forget the executive orders signed in early 2017 saying that for every one new environmental regulation, three must be rolled back. There are several great alternatives to coal, ones that do not cause cancer and muck up the environment when used. Wind and solar, for example.

Trpmb6, you said that "someone in Alaska may have to rely on coal to heat their home" which is technically true, but have you ever been to Alaska? They use WOOD stoves and pellet stoves and old fashioned brick fire places. And, yes, I have spent time in Southeast Alaska. I would love to visit again.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:53 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Trump is only delaying the demise of coal, and he is doing it at the risk of the health of millions.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/health/t ... index.html

Billions even. Coal is out and natural gas is an interim solution.


That's a bit hyperbolic. China, last I heard is still on track to build another 100 new coal plants. The EU is already missing its targets, Germany is actually declining. And after the diesel scam was discovered, no European has the right to lecture anybody about clean air. Period.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11527
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:19 pm

mham001 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Trump is only delaying the demise of coal, and he is doing it at the risk of the health of millions.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/health/t ... index.html

Billions even. Coal is out and natural gas is an interim solution.


That's a bit hyperbolic. China, last I heard is still on track to build another 100 new coal plants. The EU is already missing its targets, Germany is actually declining. And after the diesel scam was discovered, no European has the right to lecture anybody about clean air. Period.



Wow? No on has a right to lecture about clean air? I Think you are WOEFULLY Mistaken on that one.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:34 pm

mham001 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Trump is only delaying the demise of coal, and he is doing it at the risk of the health of millions.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/health/t ... index.html

Billions even. Coal is out and natural gas is an interim solution.


That's a bit hyperbolic. China, last I heard is still on track to build another 100 new coal plants. The EU is already missing its targets, Germany is actually declining. And after the diesel scam was discovered, no European has the right to lecture anybody about clean air. Period.


So nobody has the right to lecture anyone, may I ask whom is lecturing someone? Or is any perceived criticism on the US, lecturing?

Furturmore, if you consider nobody is holy, nobody has the right to say anything, so this problem can't be solved together? Quite a reasoning here.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13136
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:38 pm

L410Turbolet wrote:
Aesma wrote:
The only answer is a carbon tax.

More taxes... color me surprised.


Actually the tax could replace other taxes, the goal is not to raise money, but to make it uneconomical to pollute.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:07 pm

Aesma is correct. Not many politicians will publicly state as such, but the only way to really kill off dirty fossil fuels is to make it too expensive to use.

Doing so would have vast consequences in the near term though. Imagine making gas so expensive that nobody would buy it. Gasoline is largely a byproduct of the refining process. What would we do with all of it since we still rely heavily on other petroleum based products? What would happen in the middle east when you take away black gold?

What happens in the emerging economies that rely heavily on fossil fuels to make the products we all enjoy?

I honestly don't know the answer to those questions. But it's not as simple as tax the hell out of coal and viola, we have clean air again.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:21 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Aesma is correct. Not many politicians will publicly state as such, but the only way to really kill off dirty fossil fuels is to make it too expensive to use.

Doing so would have vast consequences in the near term though. Imagine making gas so expensive that nobody would buy it. Gasoline is largely a byproduct of the refining process. What would we do with all of it since we still rely heavily on other petroleum based products? What would happen in the middle east when you take away black gold?

What happens in the emerging economies that rely heavily on fossil fuels to make the products we all enjoy?

I honestly don't know the answer to those questions. But it's not as simple as tax the hell out of coal and viola, we have clean air again.


Nobody has, but what we do know is that we need to do this and the longer we wait the more painful it is going to be. Everything that we do now with fossil fuels could be replaced by other materials, except perhaps aviation and long-distance trade. But also remember we need to eat less meat, also quite a source of gasses.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:24 pm

You can take my carbon emissions... but you will never take my meeeeaaattt!!!

Alternate endings to Braveheart.

oo. that gives me an idea for a lighthearted forum post.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13136
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:20 pm

Well we're less rich than you and already pay much more for gas. Here most people wouldn't dare buy a gas guzzling pickup truck.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 3018
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:31 pm

I may be an engineer during the week but it's difficult to transport cattle or do work on the farm on the weekends without a pickup ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

My truck does pretty good though, 22 on the highway. Shuts down from 8 cylinders to 4 cylinders on the highway which is kind of neat. It helps that my commute is short too. I suppose I could get another vehicle but the cost curves don't make a lot of sense. Plus I like my truck. Makes smashing Prii easier :stirthepot:
 
jordanh
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:56 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:37 pm

2122M wrote:
Well. this is the whole issue, and this is where its gets frustratingly political. Where do you get a lot of coal? WV and KY (R), but also PA and OH (the swingiest of the swing states). I'm afraid that Republicans are disregarding the health of Americans and the health of the planet in general in exchange for 38 electoral votes.


And a lot of money donated to their campaigns, I understand.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:53 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
I may be an engineer during the week but it's difficult to transport cattle or do work on the farm on the weekends without a pickup ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

My truck does pretty good though, 22 on the highway. Shuts down from 8 cylinders to 4 cylinders on the highway which is kind of neat. It helps that my commute is short too. I suppose I could get another vehicle but the cost curves don't make a lot of sense. Plus I like my truck. Makes smashing Prii easier :stirthepot:


For European standards, 1l per 9,3km is dismissable, sorry. I can imagine that in your situation it is the rid ride ;-)
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7280
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:09 pm

seb146 wrote:
Don't forget the executive orders signed in early 2017 saying that for every one new environmental regulation, three must be rolled back. There are several great alternatives to coal, ones that do not cause cancer and muck up the environment when used. Wind and solar, for example.

Trpmb6, you said that "someone in Alaska may have to rely on coal to heat their home" which is technically true, but have you ever been to Alaska? They use WOOD stoves and pellet stoves and old fashioned brick fire places. And, yes, I have spent time in Southeast Alaska. I would love to visit again.

I dont think its so much the individual consumer this legislation targets, its the mass scale use of coal that does the most damage. I dont think coal used on the level of the individual consumer causes that much harm to the environment but admittedly I have nothing to base that off of. IMO the only fossil fuel made for and consumed by Joe Schmo that causes wide spread environmental harm is gasoline and diesel.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22520
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:21 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Don't forget the executive orders signed in early 2017 saying that for every one new environmental regulation, three must be rolled back. There are several great alternatives to coal, ones that do not cause cancer and muck up the environment when used. Wind and solar, for example.

Trpmb6, you said that "someone in Alaska may have to rely on coal to heat their home" which is technically true, but have you ever been to Alaska? They use WOOD stoves and pellet stoves and old fashioned brick fire places. And, yes, I have spent time in Southeast Alaska. I would love to visit again.

I dont think its so much the individual consumer this legislation targets, its the mass scale use of coal that does the most damage. I dont think coal used on the level of the individual consumer causes that much harm to the environment but admittedly I have nothing to base that off of. IMO the only fossil fuel made for and consumed by Joe Schmo that causes wide spread environmental harm is gasoline and diesel.


I don't want to get nit-picky and off on a tangent but I really don't think anyone uses coal in private homes in the United States anymore. Maybe there are homeless camps or something. Even if a few here and there are burning coal, as you point out, it is the factories that are the main source of coal pollution. There are coal plants along I-80 through southern Wyoming and they reek. I can only imagine what the long term effects are. The one in eastern Oregon is rarely used. We knew when it was running, even from 70 miles away. Then, there is this

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-06-28/ ... -save-coal

The Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:23 pm

Dutchy wrote:
mham001 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Trump is only delaying the demise of coal, and he is doing it at the risk of the health of millions.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/health/t ... index.html

Billions even. Coal is out and natural gas is an interim solution.


That's a bit hyperbolic. China, last I heard is still on track to build another 100 new coal plants. The EU is already missing its targets, Germany is actually declining. And after the diesel scam was discovered, no European has the right to lecture anybody about clean air. Period.


So nobody has the right to lecture anyone, may I ask whom is lecturing someone? Or is any perceived criticism on the US, lecturing?

Furturmore, if you consider nobody is holy, nobody has the right to say anything, so this problem can't be solved together? Quite a reasoning here.


BS. The message in your OP is clear, EU - GOOD, US - BAD. But the actual facts are quite a bit different. US coal consumption is dropping at twice the rate of Europe's - in fact Europe's coal consumption ROSE last year, and not far behind the US. In this continent, US technology has led to vast, cheap natural gas reserves and it seems the capitalistic market is solving the coal problem on its own. Meanwhile, Germany consumes more coal per capita than the US, proudly burning the far dirtier lignite and then exporting the excess. Maybe to you.

For years, we used to get this same kind of haughty, smug finger pointing from Europeans in this forum, proclaiming the superiority of their diesel habit, lecturing the US about its supposed backward gasoline ways, Meanwhile hiding the fact that US emission controls were always stricter than Europe's and US skies are cleaner because of it. European policies are said to now cause 55,000 premature deaths every year in Europe. Who is killing people? Those diesel apostles are quiet now.

No, you have no right to lecture, nor criticize. One could even question why you are focused on criticizing the US when you have a neighbor next door doing far more to your air than this continent across the ocean, starting with their automotive industry. And frankly, ignoring Asian Pacific coal use is just laughable, it dwarfs everybody. Australia alone consumes 80% as much tonnage as North America (7.9% vs 9.9%)
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:00 am

Can't edit that, it should read these are projections for 2018, Australia alone consumes nearly as much tonnage as the US with 1/12 the population (7.9% vs 8.9%), equaling Europe's 7.9%.

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/co ... 8-coal.pdf
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:25 am

mham001 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
mham001 wrote:

That's a bit hyperbolic. China, last I heard is still on track to build another 100 new coal plants. The EU is already missing its targets, Germany is actually declining. And after the diesel scam was discovered, no European has the right to lecture anybody about clean air. Period.


So nobody has the right to lecture anyone, may I ask whom is lecturing someone? Or is any perceived criticism on the US, lecturing?

Furturmore, if you consider nobody is holy, nobody has the right to say anything, so this problem can't be solved together? Quite a reasoning here.


BS. The message in your OP is clear, EU - GOOD, US - BAD.


There you go, a false interpretation. Goal is in line with th Paris agreement: 1,5C warming and max 2,0C. Everything which helps to achieve this goal: Good. Everything which doesn'r help: Bad.

mham001 wrote:
But the actual facts are quite a bit different. US coal consumption is dropping at twice the rate of Europe's - in fact Europe's coal consumption ROSE last year, and not far behind the US. In this continent, US technology has led to vast, cheap natural gas reserves and it seems the capitalistic market is solving the coal problem on its own. Meanwhile, Germany consumes more coal per capita than the US, proudly burning the far dirtier lignite and then exporting the excess. Maybe to you.

For years, we used to get this same kind of haughty, smug finger pointing from Europeans in this forum, proclaiming the superiority of their diesel habit, lecturing the US about its supposed backward gasoline ways, Meanwhile hiding the fact that US emission controls were always stricter than Europe's and US skies are cleaner because of it. European policies are said to now cause 55,000 premature deaths every year in Europe. Who is killing people? Those diesel apostles are quiet now.

No, you have no right to lecture, nor criticize. One could even question why you are focused on criticizing the US when you have a neighbor next door doing far more to your air than this continent across the ocean, starting with their automotive industry. And frankly, ignoring Asian Pacific coal use is just laughable, it dwarfs everybody. Australia alone consumes 80% as much tonnage as North America (7.9% vs 9.9%)


There is still a long way to go, EU and in America and in Australia, everywhere. Investing in upgrade in coal plants which are going to be operational in the next 30 years or so is always bad, whom ever does it.

No worries I am very critical towards EU policies and policies of individual countries.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22520
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:32 am

mham001 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
mham001 wrote:

That's a bit hyperbolic. China, last I heard is still on track to build another 100 new coal plants. The EU is already missing its targets, Germany is actually declining. And after the diesel scam was discovered, no European has the right to lecture anybody about clean air. Period.


So nobody has the right to lecture anyone, may I ask whom is lecturing someone? Or is any perceived criticism on the US, lecturing?

Furturmore, if you consider nobody is holy, nobody has the right to say anything, so this problem can't be solved together? Quite a reasoning here.


BS. The message in your OP is clear, EU - GOOD, US - BAD.


Another way of saying this:

Belching smoke and toxins good, blue skies bad.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
WIederling
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:42 am

trpmb6 wrote:
The biggest decline came from the United States, mainly because of higher deployment of renewables.


From a plateau more than twice as high as that of most other developed nations.
( and all your heavy (carbon rich) manufacturing has already been externalized to China.)

i.e. nothing to boast about, really!

apropos:
does that data ( referencing 2016/2017) reflect any of Trumps MAGA drives?
Murphy is an optimist
 
sccutler
Posts: 5839
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

Re: Good news and bad news for our future

Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:01 am

2122M wrote:
...
2) Let me fix that post for you: "Without America providing support on the Western front for the back half of the war, the Brits for breaking the enigma code and defeating Hitler in North Africa (among many other things of course), the French for maintaining a fierce resistance behind enemy lines and, oh yeah, the Russians for soaking up and destroying the bulk of Hitler's war machine from 1942-1945, you'd be buckling under some Nazi overlord today.
...


Ye-e-e-p!
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bgm, Ertro, GalaxyFlyer, Jetty, N867DA, olle, tommy1808 and 77 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos