PDA

View Full Version : What the US-China climate deal means to the world



Cebu_4_2
12th November 2014, 02:21 PM
By KARL RITTER
Associated Press

STOCKHOLM (AP) - The world's outlook for reaching a global climate deal next year brightened Wednesday as China and the U.S. - the top two polluters - presented a joint plan to limit emissions of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases that are blamed for warming the planet.

The unexpected move was praised worldwide as a historic step in the fight against climate change, though some analysts said the targets aren't ambitious enough to prevent global warming from reaching dangerous levels.

The announcements from the American and Chinese presidents, Barack Obama and Xi Jinping, drew praise from environmentalists who had feared China's desire for fast growth and Obama's weakened political standing might prevent such action.

They were a less welcome surprise for U.S. Republicans, who will take control of Congress next year. They pointed out that the deal lets China keep increasing emissions while U.S. has to cut.

Here are some questions and answers about the significance of the announcement and the challenges that lie ahead for the United States and China - and for the rest of the world - as they negotiate an elusive climate pact that's supposed to be adopted in Paris next year.

WHAT DID THE US AND CHINA ANNOUNCE?

China, whose emissions are rising as it builds new coal plants to fuel its economic growth, set a target for its emissions to peak in 2030 or earlier. That's the first time China has set a deadline for stopping its emissions growth. China also said it would increase the share of clean energy sources like wind and solar power to 20 percent by 2030, about double what it is today.

The U.S. set a goal to make its 2025 emissions between 26 and 28 percent lower than they were in 2005. That would be faster than previous goals, and the Obama administration says it would help the U.S. achieve its longer-term goal of bringing emissions 80 percent lower than 2005 by 2050. U.S. emissions peaked in 2007, but about half the reductions since have been due to the recession. Emissions increased last year.

WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE TARGETS?

China is the biggest source of greenhouse gas pollution, pumping out about a quarter of the world's emissions. The U.S. is No. 2 with about 15 percent. The two countries are often adversaries at U.N. climate talks, and their unprecedented joint announcement sends an important signal that a deal is possible next year. Last month, the European Union said that its 2030 emissions would be 40 percent lower than in 1990. With pledges from the top three emitters on the table a year ahead of the Paris climate summit, pressure now builds on other countries including India, Russia and Japan to present their own targets.

Guri Bang, of the CICERO environmental research group in Norway, has followed the international climate talks for 15 years. She said that for the first time since a failed summit in Copenhagen in 2009, there is now "reason to be positive" about the negotiations.

WHAT OTHER ISSUES NEED TO BE SOLVED FOR A GLOBAL CLIMATE DEAL?

In the last global emissions pact, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, rich countries took on legally binding commitments while developing countries did not. Many developing countries want that arrangement preserved in next year's deal, while developed countries including the United States - which didn't sign up for Kyoto - don't. And in fact, for the United States, any binding treaty would have little chance of being ratified by Congress.

Rich countries agreed in 2009 to jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor countries cut their emissions and adapt to rising seas, desertification and other fallout from climate change. Developing countries want the rich nations to make firm commitments to live up to their pledges.

WHAT IMPACT WILL THE US-CHINA DEAL HAVE ON GLOBAL WARMING?

It's difficult to assess the impact because China isn't committing to a specific level of emissions. China's target is for when emissions should stop rising - not how high they should reach. Also, it's unclear whether China's emissions would plateau or decline quickly after that. Either way, China's increases between now and 2030 will dwarf any decreases the U.S. can achieve, scientists tracking global emissions told The Associated Press, meaning global emissions will continue to rise.

Global temperatures have risen 0.8 C (1.4 F) since pre-industrial times, and the U.N. climate talks are aimed at keeping that number from topping 2 degrees C (3.2 degrees F). The U.N.'s expert panel says that would require cutting global emissions by 40-70 percent by 2050 and to zero by the end of the century.

WHAT ARE THE MAIN CHALLENGES FOR CHINA?

Coal still fuels about 80 percent of China's electricity, and heavy industries such as steel, cement and chemicals heavily depend on coal. Moving away from that will require China to transforming the very makeup of its economy. The government has already been trying to boost less polluting sectors of the economy, such as high-tech, and in fact coal use fell by a percentage point last year. Still, quitting coal will require a massive investment in natural gas and renewable energy.

WHAT ARE THE MAIN CHALLENGES FOR THE US?

A significant proportion of the reductions Obama promised hinge on cutting carbon pollution from coal-fired plants. But Republicans are fighting the plans both at the state level and in Congress.

Lawsuits have already been filed against the proposals, setting the stage for a lengthy battle that's likely to continue well beyond Obama's term. The new pollution standards could face further obstacles if the next president doesn't support them.

WHY HAS IT BEEN SO HARD TO GET A GLOBAL CLIMATE AGREEMENT?

Since they began more than two decades ago, the U.N. climate talks have been bogged down by arguments between rich and poor countries over who should do what to fix global warming. Rich countries say developing countries need to act because they account for most of the growth. Developing countries say the rich have already pumped out so much pollution for so long that they should take the lead.

The U.S. and China have been on opposite sides of that debate, which is why their joint announcement is seen as such a breakthrough.

___

Associated Press writers Josh Lederman and Jack Chang in Beijing and Dina Cappiello and Seth Borenstein in Washington contributed to this report.

madfranks
12th November 2014, 02:27 PM
Here's a more realistic analysis: (http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/11/12/obamagas-pr-stunt-china-wows-western-media/)

President Obama and the President of China jointly have announced a deal on carbon emissions . . . for 2030, when both of them will be in retirement. The details of the deal have yet to be hammered out — or hammered and sickled out, as the case may be.

The Western media are cheering this as an historic agreement. It is in fact a bilateral PR stunt.

Obama calls this “a major milestone.” It is in fact a major headstone. It marks an interred corpse. This deal is dead on arrival.

Because China never reports its carbon emissions in detail, the deal is operationally irrelevant. Because Obama doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hawaii of getting any carbon emissions deal past Congress, the deal is operationally irrelevant. The Western media are cheering about this, as if it represents a major breakthrough. It is in fact evidence that Obama is the lamest lame-duck President since Herbert Hoover.

This guy is grabbing at straws. He is trying to turn “No, you can’t,” into “Yes, I can.”

It is a deal that has been in planning stages secretly for five months. He announced it to the voters exactly a week after his party had its head handed to it in the mid-term elections.

All of this is preparation for a new treaty through the United Nations in 2015. But no President ever bothered to submit the 1997 Kyoto Protocol Agreement to the Senate for ratification. It was supposed to go into effect in February 2005. It is a dead letter. It is unenforceable. No one tries to enforce it.

The White House bulletin speaks only of “intention,” as in “I intend to divorce my wife, and marry you, because I am committed to you [every Thursday].”

3. Today, the Presidents of the United States and China announced their respective post-2020 actions on climate change, recognizing that these actions are part of the longer range effort to transition to low-carbon economies, mindful of the global temperature goal of 2℃. The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030. Both sides intend to continue to work to increase ambition over time.

What about sanctions for violating specific standards? No mention of this. Just intentions.

Who might impose such sanctions? The United Nations? How would the U.N. enforce its authority, assuming that it can get the world’s politicians to surrender sovereignty to the U.N.?

2. To this end, President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping reaffirmed the importance of strengthening bilateral cooperation on climate change and will work together, and with other countries, to adopt a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties at the United Nations Climate Conference in Paris in 2015. They are committed to reaching an ambitious 2015 agreement that reflects the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances.

Translation: “The UN’s PR stunt of 2005 failed, so we will try again in 2015.”

4. The United States and China hope that by announcing these targets now, they can inject momentum into the global climate negotiations and inspire other countries to join in coming forward with ambitious actions as soon as possible, preferably by the first quarter of 2015. The two Presidents resolved to work closely together over the next year to address major impediments to reaching a successful global climate agreement in Paris.

Translation: “A lame duck President and a Communist career hack — ‘United States’ and ‘China’ — are now going to ‘work together.’ ” I mean, what could go wrong?

An historic agreement? “Yes, I see! Yes, I believe! Yes, we can!”

It is the next stage of a U.N. PR stunt that is going nowhere, announced 22 years after the 1992 Kyoto resolves, which went went nowhere.

This will be forgotten in a couple of weeks. The UN will not get its treaty ratified in 2015. There will be no enforcement of any of this.

It is, in short, ObamaGas.

Carl
12th November 2014, 03:05 PM
Because Obama doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hawaii of getting any carbon emissions deal past Congress, the deal is operationally irrelevant.

There you go....

mick silver
12th November 2014, 03:41 PM
china not going to stop burning coal if they were to do so then they would have to stop building those coal fire power plants

Cebu_4_2
12th November 2014, 04:16 PM
Just shows you the mindset. China can continue to pollute and profit while amerika goes further down the manufacturing shithole. amerika used to be the worlds producer, then Japan and now China. amerika has nothing to produce because it cant pollute or compete with the cheap made China crap plus all the other regulations and the alphabet gangs. I don't see anything getting better in amerika any time soon.

Horn
12th November 2014, 05:04 PM
China can pass carbon emissions per capita already in my estimation. Everything is done with their many fingers over there.

midnight rambler
12th November 2014, 05:11 PM
Yep, purely a PR stunt to make the rubes feel good about themselves. Anyone who thinks this situation is going to remain at the current level and not get worse (FORGET about improving!) is suffering from some serious delusions.

https://utstatic.a.cdnify.io/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/tumblr_mhn8q6SnJo1qz5gm9o1_1280.png

Glass
12th November 2014, 05:57 PM
This could be good opportunity.

Where would you build a wind farm in the US? Something about 50Mw. 20 Turbines.

the city where I live is considered to be the most windy in the world, even windier than the Chicago state. I was gonna post in the weather section. I think the wind here has been blowing stronger and longer for the past 3 years, maybe 4. We always get a good breeze but it's at least 30% faster on average than a couple of years ago.

Middle of November and it was 16C/60F in the wind yesterday. So a good place for a wind farm just about anywhere in WA. but I'm looking at one in europe at the moment. Electricity prices are fluctuating a bit with the maneuvering between the Russians and the US/Saudi's. So funding viability is affected, obviously by revenue.

palani
12th November 2014, 06:53 PM
Where would you build a wind farm in the US? Something about 50Mw. 20 Turbines.

I am afraid wind generators emit carbon too.

http://i62.tinypic.com/21kduso.jpg

http://i62.tinypic.com/33pczv5.jpg

http://i58.tinypic.com/adn9c4.jpg

http://i58.tinypic.com/kdmhpg.jpg

Glass
12th November 2014, 06:58 PM
should I show a collection of burning car photos that I've accumulated together to give the impression that all cars burst into flames around the same time?

That might give some indication of bias. And as we all know, the green movement is swings and roundabouts.

all they are doing is trying to position the carbon (if that is what it is) emissions are not visible to people but that they are remote from where people are. Like electric cars. Zero emissions ...... at the car but still emissions from burning coal etc, some where not near the car.

So then it's all good. See no pollution then there is no pollution. Monkey see nothing, monkey scared by nothing, except the boogey man of global warming.

So asking again, where would be a good place to do a wind farm in the US?

Or maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe I can setup a Wind company like that Solar company. Get lots of grants and go broke?