Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Politicians versus America [yet another Paris Agreement Thread]
Author Message
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #21
RE: Politicians versus America [yet another Paris Agreement Thread]
The Paris deal doesn't work without our kicking in hundreds of billions of dollars. So we have substantial negotiating leverage in any attempt to negotiate a replacement (and since the deal won't work without our billions, there will have to be a new, renegotiated deal).

Some things I would insist on.

1) If we are going to kick in billions, they will not go to "countries" (meaning in many cases to dictators' Swiss bank accounts) but will go to specific projects which we will choose and design and administer, and US companies will do at least the lion's share of the work. I laid out in earlier emails some ideas about projects that I would like to see considered.
2) This isn't going to be about the US whacking emissions 20-30% and everybody else keeping on keeping on. There will be reductions everywhere. There will be shared sacrifice. Developing countries are currently still building their energy infrastructures. What better time than now to get them onto green energy with their incremental needs?
3) For US legal purposes, the document will be in the form of a treaty, with senate approval required before we are obligated.

With those three things, I would consider approving the agreement.
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 06:05 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
06-02-2017 06:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,639
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Politicians versus America [yet another Paris Agreement Thread]
How about everyone just cut their carbon emissions. No billions. No Al Gore Carbon Markets. No waiting until 2030. No wealth transfers.

Why? Because everybody worried about their own economies and moneys more than carbon emissions for some reason.

If and when all these countries actually get interested in carbon emissions then everyone can agree to all cut them.
06-02-2017 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #23
RE: Politicians versus America [yet another Paris Agreement Thread]
(06-02-2017 06:11 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  How about everyone just cut their carbon emissions. No billions. No Al Gore Carbon Markets. No waiting until 2030. No wealth transfers.
Why? Because everybody worried about their own economies and moneys more than carbon emissions for some reason.
If and when all these countries actually get interested in carbon emissions then everyone can agree to all cut them.

Yep, and until then we are all just playing games.

Since the Paris deal requires us to pump in billions, and any replacement deal will presumably require the same, let's exercise some negotiating leverage. We will put money into the deal if and only if:
1) it goes to specific projects, not to "countries" (whose tinhorn dictators will stash the funds in their Swiss bank accounts), the US controls the planning, design, and execution, and US companies get the lion's share of the work.
2) everybody makes cuts, not just us.
06-02-2017 06:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hood-rich Offline
Smarter Than the Average Lib

Posts: 9,300
Joined: May 2016
I Root For: ECU & CSU
Location: The Hood
Post: #24
RE: Politicians versus America [yet another Paris Agreement Thread]
(06-02-2017 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Paris deal doesn't work without our kicking in hundreds of billions of dollars. So we have substantial negotiating leverage in any attempt to negotiate a replacement (and since the deal won't work without our billions, there will have to be a new, renegotiated deal).

Some things I would insist on.

1) If we are going to kick in billions, they will not go to "countries" (meaning in many cases to dictators' Swiss bank accounts) but will go to specific projects which we will choose and design and administer, and US companies will do at least the lion's share of the work. I laid out in earlier emails some ideas about projects that I would like to see considered.
2) This isn't going to be about the US whacking emissions 20-30% and everybody else keeping on keeping on. There will be reductions everywhere. There will be shared sacrifice. Developing countries are currently still building their energy infrastructures. What better time than now to get them onto green energy with their incremental needs?
3) For US legal purposes, the document will be in the form of a treaty, with senate approval required before we are obligated.

With those three things, I would consider approving the agreement.
no global deal. period.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
06-02-2017 06:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EverRespect Offline
Free Kaplony
*

Posts: 31,322
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Politicians versus America [yet another Paris Agreement Thread]
(06-02-2017 06:50 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Paris deal doesn't work without our kicking in hundreds of billions of dollars. So we have substantial negotiating leverage in any attempt to negotiate a replacement (and since the deal won't work without our billions, there will have to be a new, renegotiated deal).

Some things I would insist on.

1) If we are going to kick in billions, they will not go to "countries" (meaning in many cases to dictators' Swiss bank accounts) but will go to specific projects which we will choose and design and administer, and US companies will do at least the lion's share of the work. I laid out in earlier emails some ideas about projects that I would like to see considered.
2) This isn't going to be about the US whacking emissions 20-30% and everybody else keeping on keeping on. There will be reductions everywhere. There will be shared sacrifice. Developing countries are currently still building their energy infrastructures. What better time than now to get them onto green energy with their incremental needs?
3) For US legal purposes, the document will be in the form of a treaty, with senate approval required before we are obligated.

With those three things, I would consider approving the agreement.
no global deal. period.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
Yep, Xactly!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 07:40 PM by EverRespect.)
06-02-2017 07:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #26
RE: Politicians versus America [yet another Paris Agreement Thread]
(06-02-2017 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Paris deal doesn't work without our kicking in hundreds of billions of dollars. So we have substantial negotiating leverage in any attempt to negotiate a replacement (and since the deal won't work without our billions, there will have to be a new, renegotiated deal).

Some things I would insist on.

1) If we are going to kick in billions, they will not go to "countries" (meaning in many cases to dictators' Swiss bank accounts) but will go to specific projects which we will choose and design and administer, and US companies will do at least the lion's share of the work. I laid out in earlier emails some ideas about projects that I would like to see considered.
2) This isn't going to be about the US whacking emissions 20-30% and everybody else keeping on keeping on. There will be reductions everywhere. There will be shared sacrifice. Developing countries are currently still building their energy infrastructures. What better time than now to get them onto green energy with their incremental needs?
3) For US legal purposes, the document will be in the form of a treaty, with senate approval required before we are obligated.

With those three things, I would consider approving the agreement.

Very good. But, the definition of "green" needs to be fleshed out. People often make claims that "Country-X produced all of its electricity from wind for the first time", but the reality of it is that when wind production is high, the excess is essentially wasted. Grids need baseline electricity even with intermittent sources, and those are generally nuclear, coal, or gas. I believe California has some newer, small, gas plants designed to ramp up and shut down quickly in order to compensate for the intermittent sources.

But, I've heard studies that even hydro-electric is not carbon-neutral, meaning it produces more carbon that it saves... I'm not sure why that would be. IF solar and wind mean bringing coal plants on line to meet baseline grid needs, then it may be that nuclear is the only carbon-neutral power source, with some hydro-electric or geothermal as well.

If we enter an agreement that winds up as a multi-billion dollar boondoggle that does not provide any genuine benefit, then it would be a disaster, and not any better than how you've characterized environmentalists. How we define "green energy" is critical, and if the goal is to benefit the environment, we need to make sure that we actually do that.
06-03-2017 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #27
RE: Politicians versus America [yet another Paris Agreement Thread]
03-thumbsup This thread.
06-03-2017 02:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_Is_Back Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,047
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 541
I Root For: Buffalo
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Politicians versus America [yet another Paris Agreement Thread]
[Image: DBah3jFVYAANvVW.jpg]
06-03-2017 02:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #29
RE: Politicians versus America [yet another Paris Agreement Thread]
(06-03-2017 11:47 AM)I45owl Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The Paris deal doesn't work without our kicking in hundreds of billions of dollars. So we have substantial negotiating leverage in any attempt to negotiate a replacement (and since the deal won't work without our billions, there will have to be a new, renegotiated deal).
Some things I would insist on.
1) If we are going to kick in billions, they will not go to "countries" (meaning in many cases to dictators' Swiss bank accounts) but will go to specific projects which we will choose and design and administer, and US companies will do at least the lion's share of the work. I laid out in earlier emails some ideas about projects that I would like to see considered.
2) This isn't going to be about the US whacking emissions 20-30% and everybody else keeping on keeping on. There will be reductions everywhere. There will be shared sacrifice. Developing countries are currently still building their energy infrastructures. What better time than now to get them onto green energy with their incremental needs?
3) For US legal purposes, the document will be in the form of a treaty, with senate approval required before we are obligated.
With those three things, I would consider approving the agreement.
Very good. But, the definition of "green" needs to be fleshed out. People often make claims that "Country-X produced all of its electricity from wind for the first time", but the reality of it is that when wind production is high, the excess is essentially wasted. Grids need baseline electricity even with intermittent sources, and those are generally nuclear, coal, or gas. I believe California has some newer, small, gas plants designed to ramp up and shut down quickly in order to compensate for the intermittent sources.
But, I've heard studies that even hydro-electric is not carbon-neutral, meaning it produces more carbon that it saves... I'm not sure why that would be. IF solar and wind mean bringing coal plants on line to meet baseline grid needs, then it may be that nuclear is the only carbon-neutral power source, with some hydro-electric or geothermal as well.
If we enter an agreement that winds up as a multi-billion dollar boondoggle that does not provide any genuine benefit, then it would be a disaster, and not any better than how you've characterized environmentalists. How we define "green energy" is critical, and if the goal is to benefit the environment, we need to make sure that we actually do that.

Good discussion. You make excellent points. I would say that in fleshing out my abbreviated outline, all of these points should be considered.

I would say that your characterization of "a multi-billion dollar boondoggle that does not provide any genuine benefit" is exactly how I would describe the Paris Accord.
06-03-2017 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #30
RE: Politicians versus America [yet another Paris Agreement Thread]
This is how I would summarize the argument of the AGW crowd at this point.

Climate change is going to be a catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it.
So what to do about it?
Kill oil and kill coal.
Will that solve the problem?
No.

It's the "what to do about it" question that we need to start addressing, instead of crafting ever more "sky is falling" stories about the future.
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2017 03:31 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
06-03-2017 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.