Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
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 |
|
ark30inf
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11,639
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
|
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 |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
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 |
|
Hood-rich
Smarter Than the Average Lib
Posts: 9,300
Joined: May 2016
I Root For: ECU & CSU
Location: The Hood
|
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 |
|
EverRespect
Free Kaplony
Posts: 31,322
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: ODU
Location:
|
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 |
|
I45owl
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX
|
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 |
|
Fo Shizzle
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina
|
RE: Politicians versus America [yet another Paris Agreement Thread]
This thread.
|
|
06-03-2017 02:20 PM |
|
Bull_Is_Back
Heisman
Posts: 6,047
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 541
I Root For: Buffalo
Location:
|
RE: Politicians versus America [yet another Paris Agreement Thread]
|
|
06-03-2017 02:28 PM |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
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 |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
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 |
|