Trump Expected to Pull Out of Paris Climate Agreement

Coal and natural gas are superior when you disregard pollution. Deciding that acid rain and heavy metal leeching made coal more expensive. Deciding that air pollution should be minimized made coal more expensive. Deciding that blowing up mountain tops and scooping the coal out should be cleaned up makes coal more expensive. Deciding the coal ash waste after power generation, should be disposed of properly adds cost.... I hope you get the picture.

Natural gas doesn't have the emission or heavy metal issue, it's more of an issue of poorly cemented wells affecting reservoirs and how much water fracking requires.

There's a reason why India and China have each cut out 100GW worth of coal power, the quality of life and decreased productivity aren't worth the consequences of pollution.

No one is suggesting that solar and wind power everything, because that's not possible with current technology but make a greater chunk of the energy mix. Solar and wind get more efficient every year and will power a modern economy, just not the majority of it.

You'll have to provide a link for the most expensive claim. Even so, the Germans enjoy quite the living of standard and good manufacturing production.

Wholesale prices being negative are the result of physics. Germany uses coal/natural gas/nuclear as a base load, but when the sun shines too much or the wind blows too much, you can get to zero.....

Solar produces electricity when demand is at its peak.....

 

China has a massive fleet already, nearly 1 TW worth of coal generation. In Q1 2017, coal generation set a new record. China may have cancelled some planned plants but they probably don't need them, the ones already available and being built will easily support China's electricity demand growth for years to come.

http://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2017-q1-electric-power-statistics/
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/05/02/china-coal-fired-power-generation-surprises-naysayers/

As for India, they have a huge amount of coal already under construction, but still incredibly energy poor. I'll wait some time before giving any credence to their press releases.

Germany industries don't pay the same rates that German consumers do.

Daily peak demand in modern countries are in the late afternoon to mid-evening. Texas for example:

http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/loadForecastVsActualCurrentDay.html

Yearly peak demand in colder countries like Germany is in the winter.

 

Ok? How does that dispute anything I said? They are building coal plants that are cleaner which will make coal more expensive and thus more competitive with renewables:



The hotter the temperature, the cleaner the process. Furthermore, China is enforcing more stringent pollution standards.

That's fair. However, like China they will continue to build coal, albeit cleaner coal fired plants and increase regulations. Solar costs keep dropping as well:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels
Coal won't be so cheap for much longer.

Ok? Still not the highest residential or industrial prices per your graph. Doesn't seem to be affecting Germany much.

Still pretty close. Solar would work well in sunny places like Texas, but would have a harder time in Germany due to its climate. Not surprisingly, in the UAE, the desert, solar prices are crushing it. http://www.thenational.ae/business/...oduce-regions-cheapest-electricity-from-solar

It's not very hard to understand, areas with a lot of sunlight and lot of wind are places to invest. I can understand why you single out Germany, but it's not a very good example of solar and wind potential.

Lastly, it was only in the last several years that solar and wind began to become competitive. You put too much stock in what's happening right now instead of the trends.

 

That isn't the real world. There's the problem right there.

 

Fair enough, I'll let you live in your little fantasy land thinking whatever you choose to believe, it has no bearing on the real world where the country that generates a quarter of the entire world's gross product is kind of a big deal even if liberals are upset at who runs that country at the moment.

 

After Trump went AWOL on the Paris Accord, some of his apologists put forth this rationalization

His U.N. ambassador later insisted that the president planned to renegotiate a better deal to hold down world temperatures, referencing to what Trump had said in his Rose Garden speech regaring the accord,, “we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair.”

Pier Morgan tweeted "Don't agree with President Trump's decision re #ParisAccord but
sounds to me like he's just trying to cut a better deal. "
​

On "Meet The Press", John Kerry: offered his take on this rationalization

When Trump says he'll negotiate better climate deal,
it's “like OJ Simpson saying he’s gonna go out & find the real killer”
​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-his-ex-wifes-killer/?utm_term=.29095066caf0

 

Sounds like the "apologists" were just offering a rational take based on what actually happened and Kerry was selling BS hyperbolic rhetoric. I can understand why you might prefer the latter though.

 

Yes, like his apologists always do. They have such a long track record of just telling it like it is.

Just in case anyone thought of trying to point out that all politicians lie, the number of lies isn't even close. Trump and his team lie more frequently than any of them. IMHO they also do it more idiotically than any of them as well.

 

that only underscores your ignorance, too ignorance to realized that

The Paris Accord is non-binding, ​

 

too ignorant*

If its not binding then why do you care if we bail? Even if we did our part, it wouldn't of helped the environment according to UN and EPA models. Both say we if we met CPP requirements it would change the temperature of the Earth .02 degrees by 2050.

 

LOL, this is an absolutely amazing post. Good job kiddo.

Quick hits

1) You assume that I don't realize that the agreement was non-binding despite the fact that I've pointed that out to people many times in this very thread.

2) The fact that it's a non-binding agreement that none of the major CO2 emitters in the world were likely to abide by means that it was always pretty much worthless

3) Since the deal was garbage that wasn't actually going to accomplish anything and that no one that matters was really going to abide by in the first place, it makes sense that you'd opt out of it and look for a better deal.

 

why don't u care ?

i wish that you would stp spreading fake new !

who do you think you are, Donald Trump ?

 

I answered that in what you quoted below. it doesn't help anything so i don't care if we bail . now answer my question. why do u care if we bail?

What fake news? You know when most people scream 'fake news', they explain why its fake or at least what is fake. you did neither.

The EPA has not refuted that the CPP reduces the temperature of the EARTH by only .02 degrees. Its their model. not hard to use.

https://www.cato.org/blog/002degc-t...-vital-number-missing-epas-numbers-fact-sheet

MY grandparent's generation stormed the beaches of normandy and sacrificed so I wouldn't have to live in a world with Nazis. greatest generation. I hope to one day be able to tell my grandkids 'its .02 degrees cooler outside cause of me you little *****. you're welcome.'

 

That data point was from an MIT study... and the MIT has already accused Trump for misunderstanding / misusing their data:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...esearch-in-reasons-for-ditching-climate-deal/
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ials-trump-misunderstood-our-climate-research
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ed-our-data/iqMIeh72HKWkf6YLgI9aGO/story.html

 

Trump has not mentioned my data point ( its not a data point). I mentioned the CPP (clean power plan) which was Obama's plan to meet Paris agreement. Trump refers to an MIT study about the whole Paris plan (every nation). What i brought up was not an MIT study. its an EPA model of the CPP. No MIT involved.

 

I don't know which points have been raised so far. I don't plan to back read and find out. But plain and simple pulling out of this agreement is likely a very bad idea. The whole idea of capitalism and the free market being the best outcome is predicated on those markets functioning under several assumptions. One of those assumptions is that the effects of transactions are internalized. With pollution, there is an external cost. The socially efficient method of resolving this is to force the consumers and producers to internalize the cost through some instrument. This is not an instantaneous process and of course, should be implemented over time to maximize efficiency.

However, with this global warming problem there are huge complications. First of all, the energy market is global. If our government forces American companies to internalize costs, foreign entities not subject to the same regulation will have a competitive advantage. Even if you were to try to impose tariffs, then the AMERICAN companies would still find it profitable to ship energy overseas ( both inputs like oil and in building factories)... the total amount of energy used and therefore pollution from energy created isn't going to significantly decrease unless there is collective action.

A second complication is that the problem is global in nature. Not the just the energy market, but the effects of the externality created by its use. Its going to disproportionately effect certain countries and populations and it wont necessarily be in line with pollution output of a given nation. Small island nations that don't pollute much could be hurt the worst in other words.

Say in 30 years India's coastal areas are being flooded due to rising seas and the country is suffering greatly. Lets also say that at this point, the warming effects are becoming noticeable in places in the U.S. and new climate science shows that if the world keeps producing carbon at this level then soon there will be major economic damage for the U.S. Say also that at this point we have developed Solar and Wind energy technology that is close to the productivity and cost of our oil and coal and NG infrastructure. Well, its an easy choice for us to replace and implement clean energy .. but what about india? They don't have the technology, they would have to buy it from us. That's a cost. Lets also say that even if the world suddenly goes clean, the damage to india's economy will still be great ( because the way the earth sinks carbon takes time). In the face of certain damage, there is no incentive for them to help us out. We'd have to provide the incentive by giving them $. Or I guess maybe we can just threaten to bomb them.

Still, this beckons the response ... what does this matter to me? I'm an American. I don't want to face high energy prices and they will slow down the economy. Well, over time we will still be hurt ... the science of the warming is inexact, and how much carbon leads to what degree increase and what that degree increase will do ?? This is still in its infancy. But, most of the models show that previous attempts to predict damage are underestimating the effects. The point here, is that it will be more efficient to deal with the issue sooner rather than later.

My previous points have shown collective action is needed. Paris was an important step... maybe ... maybe not. But the direction that trump chose is a step backwards. Appointing an EPA head who is against the notion that the climate is changing is a step in the wrong direction. Not giving this issue the full weight and appreciation of "the leader of the free world" is a mistake that could cost dearly down the line. Its not even that it WILL its that it COULD. Mr trump is gambling right now and while taking an educated guess is sometimes a respectable course of action... when the unknown is this potentially great its reckless and is morally unjustifiable towards younger people and the yet to be born.

 

This is embarrassing, and Trump has been slow at naming ambassadors, he now needs to find one more...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/politics/acting-ambassador-to-china-david-rank-resigns/index.html

 

Because it's absolutely pointless to bail when you can only re-negotiate when you are in the agreement..... Trump could have stayed in the agreement and welshed on our part while he "comes up" with something else.

Once again, Trump is being dishonest about re-negotiating anything.

Is that 0.2 Celsius of Fahrenheit?

 

I think he is a true believer in conspiracy and that global warming is a hoax.