With the United States rejoining the Paris Agreement, the world is again put (hopefully) on the right track again. We have seen a lot of progress being made in the past 5 years. We need to do a lot more of course. It is just a new stap in our evolution as mankind, first the industrial revolution powered by coal and other fossil fuels, and now to clean up the earth power it by renewables.

Signators, but not implemented in legislation:

Eritrea (0.01% / world greenhous gas emtions)
Iran (1.30% / world greenhous gas emtions)
Iraq (0.20% / world greenhous gas emtions)
Libya (N/A[b] / world greenhous gas emtions)
South Sudan (N/A[b] / world greenhous gas emtions)
Turkey (1.24% / world greenhous gas emtions)
Yemen (0.07% / world greenhous gas emtions)

2,99% to be fully committed.

I was surprised to find Turkey on this list, but with Erdogan I should have known I guess.

We are already way behind. The G20 should be seriously looking at synthetic meat production and vertical indoor urban farming. We have all the technology needed, investment just needs a ramp-up.

Paris agreement was just a step. I am eagerly waiting for the next step.

Aaron747 wrote:

We are already way behind. The G20 should be seriously looking at synthetic meat production and vertical indoor urban farming. We have all the technology needed, investment just needs a ramp-up.

Have you tried any of the fake meats available today, they aren't very nice and no substitute for the real thing.

Kiwirob wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

We are already way behind. The G20 should be seriously looking at synthetic meat production and vertical indoor urban farming. We have all the technology needed, investment just needs a ramp-up.

Have you tried any of the fake meats available today, they aren't very nice and no substitute for the real thing.

Because what's available today is very primitive - the first step was to be able to grow muscle cells. Now, they are getting better at replicating the complex lattice of protein structures that holds meat together. The results are promising.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04 ... -real-deal

Aaron747 wrote:

We are already way behind. The G20 should be seriously looking at synthetic meat production and vertical indoor urban farming. We have all the technology needed, investment just needs a ramp-up.

Wow, your just full of ideas!

Aaron747 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

We are already way behind. The G20 should be seriously looking at synthetic meat production and vertical indoor urban farming. We have all the technology needed, investment just needs a ramp-up.

Have you tried any of the fake meats available today, they aren't very nice and no substitute for the real thing.

Because what's available today is very primitive - the first step was to be able to grow muscle cells. Now, they are getting better at replicating the complex lattice of protein structures that holds meat together. The results are promising.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04 ... -real-deal

It's not that all the same. Besides, livestock farms are not the biggest problem in my opinion. Now, if we reduced the number of gadgets produced, making them better and more durable, now if we stopped creating tons of useless clothes that brainless individuals clog their wardrobes with - these are the directions, the optimization of which would reduce the amount of pollution in our world. There are also cars with internal combustion engines. Electric cars are our future. But to do this, you need to achieve more sustainable electricity production.

Power generation, construction, and excavation for raw materials are big polluters.

Challenger007 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Have you tried any of the fake meats available today, they aren't very nice and no substitute for the real thing.

Because what's available today is very primitive - the first step was to be able to grow muscle cells. Now, they are getting better at replicating the complex lattice of protein structures that holds meat together. The results are promising.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04 ... -real-deal

It's not that all the same. Besides, livestock farms are not the biggest problem in my opinion. Now, if we reduced the number of gadgets produced, making them better and more durable, now if we stopped creating tons of useless clothes that brainless individuals clog their wardrobes with - these are the directions, the optimization of which would reduce the amount of pollution in our world. There are also cars with internal combustion engines. Electric cars are our future. But to do this, you need to achieve more sustainable electricity production.

Those are all critically important too - cheap clothes and indurable goods comprise a big chunk of container ship traffic, which also would benefit from optimization.

KWexpress wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

We are already way behind. The G20 should be seriously looking at synthetic meat production and vertical indoor urban farming. We have all the technology needed, investment just needs a ramp-up.

Wow, your just full of ideas!

Good investors tend to be well-read, no?

I look forward to the Senate debate and ratification vote, as required by the Constitution.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I look forward to the Senate debate and ratification vote, as required by the Constitution.

I look forward to your explanation of this fictitious requirement.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I look forward to the Senate debate and ratification vote, as required by the Constitution.

"The Paris agreement doesn't create a new international legal obligation. It reiterates the obligations already contained in Article 4 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States became a party to the Framework Convention after the Senate gave its advice and consent by an overwhelming vote in 1992." - https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doni ... -need-sign

http://www.c2es.org/document/key-legal- ... -agreement

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... agreement/

The Paris accord does not madate any new laws or any new spending. It's a non-binding accord encouraging nations to take steps and meet specified reductions in carbon emissions.

If the US decides the best way to do this is with a new carbon tax, or to mandate high as mileage standards for cars or anything like that, then THOSE measures WOULD need to be agreed to in congress. But the Paris accord contains no new laws, no new spending, and in non-binding.

2122M wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I look forward to the Senate debate and ratification vote, as required by the Constitution.

"The Paris agreement doesn't create a new international legal obligation. It reiterates the obligations already contained in Article 4 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States became a party to the Framework Convention after the Senate gave its advice and consent by an overwhelming vote in 1992." - https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doni ... -need-sign

http://www.c2es.org/document/key-legal- ... -agreement

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... agreement/

The Paris accord does not madate any new laws or any new spending. It's a non-binding accord encouraging nations to take steps and meet specified reductions in carbon emissions.

If the US decides the best way to do this is with a new carbon tax, or to mandate high as mileage standards for cars or anything like that, then THOSE measures WOULD need to be agreed to in congress. But the Paris accord contains no new laws, no new spending, and in non-binding.

Whoa - way too much nuance provided there for the knee jerk climate crowd.

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I look forward to the Senate debate and ratification vote, as required by the Constitution.

I look forward to your explanation of this fictitious requirement.

Ratification is now a fiction? Really? Article 2, Section 2 requires treaties be ratified by 2/3rds vote of the Senate. Under the Vienna Convention on Treaties, it’s a treaty.

Are you afraid it won’t pass ratification?

2122M wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I look forward to the Senate debate and ratification vote, as required by the Constitution.

"The Paris agreement doesn't create a new international legal obligation. It reiterates the obligations already contained in Article 4 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States became a party to the Framework Convention after the Senate gave its advice and consent by an overwhelming vote in 1992." - https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doni ... -need-sign

http://www.c2es.org/document/key-legal- ... -agreement

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... agreement/

The Paris accord does not madate any new laws or any new spending. It's a non-binding accord encouraging nations to take steps and meet specified reductions in carbon emissions.

If the US decides the best way to do this is with a new carbon tax, or to mandate high as mileage standards for cars or anything like that, then THOSE measures WOULD need to be agreed to in congress. But the Paris accord contains no new laws, no new spending, and in non-binding.

I’m sure the NRDC and the CAP are unbiased. Why the furore over Trump leaving it, if it isn’t binding in some manner. Why did Obama wait for a year to sign off on it?

The UN thinks it’s a treaty,

https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings ... -agreement

If it’s so obviously a good idea, the Senate will pass ratification

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I look forward to the Senate debate and ratification vote, as required by the Constitution.

I look forward to your explanation of this fictitious requirement.

Ratification is now a fiction? Really? Article 2, Section 2 requires treaties be ratified by 2/3rds vote of the Senate. Under the Vienna Convention on Treaties, it’s a treaty.

Are you afraid it won’t pass ratification?

Funny how the WH withdrawal in 2017 made no mention of Congressional ratification requirements and they continued to abide by the multiyear exit process required by the agreement.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I look forward to the Senate debate and ratification vote, as required by the Constitution.

I look forward to your explanation of this fictitious requirement.

Ratification is now a fiction? Really? Article 2, Section 2 requires treaties be ratified by 2/3rds vote of the Senate. Under the Vienna Convention on Treaties, it’s a treaty.

Are you afraid it won’t pass ratification?

I t already did. I am not sure you understand this subject since you have been lied to by right wing media.

Please look up the definition of an agreement vs a treaty. Or maybe you don't understand how Trump was able to leave it with an EO?

Either way. The senate isn't owed squat in this one.

Ted tweeted yesterday "By rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, President Biden indicates he’s more interested in the views of the citizens of Paris than in the jobs of the citizens of Pittsburgh. This agreement will do little to affect the climate and will harm the livelihoods of Americans."

Oh dear, who's gonna tell him.... And he could have at least picked a city not located in a state where he attempted to overthrow the will of voters

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The UN thinks it’s a treaty,

https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings ... -agreement

From the Library of Congress - "Under international law, a "treaty" is any legally binding agreement between nations. In the United States, the word treaty is reserved for an agreement that is made "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution). International agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as "executive agreements" in the United States, but they are considered treaties and therefore binding under international law."

https://www.loc.gov/rr/main//govdocsgui ... nstitution).

Challenger007 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Have you tried any of the fake meats available today, they aren't very nice and no substitute for the real thing.

Because what's available today is very primitive - the first step was to be able to grow muscle cells. Now, they are getting better at replicating the complex lattice of protein structures that holds meat together. The results are promising.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04 ... -real-deal

It's not that all the same. Besides, livestock farms are not the biggest problem in my opinion. Now, if we reduced the number of gadgets produced, making them better and more durable, now if we stopped creating tons of useless clothes that brainless individuals clog their wardrobes with - these are the directions, the optimization of which would reduce the amount of pollution in our world. There are also cars with internal combustion engines. Electric cars are our future. But to do this, you need to achieve more sustainable electricity production.

This is so true. The fashion industry is one of the worst polluters. Cancerous sludge behind their factories in China is enough but the mindless drones filling their plastic bags with cheap crap that ends up in the dump a few months later doesn’t help.

The truth is that by skipping Paris USA made its industries in renewable coming 4 years if not more behind China and Europe.

The cheapest energy today is not coal nor gasoline.

Global carbon pricing on everything is the solution.

Aaron747 wrote:

We are already way behind. The G20 should be seriously looking at synthetic meat production and vertical indoor urban farming. We have all the technology needed, investment just needs a ramp-up.

I doubt that's anywhere near the top of priorities. And will face a lot of opposition, both in developed and in developing countries.

@Challenger007 : yes livestock is a big problem, too much meat consumption, and often fed with stuff we could eat directly (soja, corn) and is grown on burnt forest... But the solution there is simply to eat less meat.

Aesma wrote:

Global carbon pricing on everything is the solution.

Aaron747 wrote:

We are already way behind. The G20 should be seriously looking at synthetic meat production and vertical indoor urban farming. We have all the technology needed, investment just needs a ramp-up.

I doubt that's anywhere near the top of priorities. And will face a lot of opposition, both in developed and in developing countries.

@Challenger007 : yes livestock is a big problem, too much meat consumption, and often fed with stuff we could eat directly (soja, corn) and is grown on burnt forest... But the solution there is simply to eat less meat.

the forest cleared by fire does not just release the stored carbon, but also removes carbon sinks .

best regards
Thomas

Aesma wrote:

@Challenger007 : yes livestock is a big problem, too much meat consumption, and often fed with stuff we could eat directly (soja, corn) and is grown on burnt forest... But the solution there is simply to eat less meat.

I agree, but it is far from the only one. Humanity has passed into a super-consumption mode and this applies to all spheres of life. Food, fashion, gadgets, cars - all of this has been elevated to a cult. Everyone should have only the best, the newest. How many purchased foods do we throw away because we don't have time to eat? I'm not even talking about the systematic overeating of many people, which also leads to overproduction.