US/China Climate Change Agreement

[Fallen]

The United States and China are pledging to move faster to reduce or limit emissions of heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming. China and the U.S. are the world's two largest polluters, and by taking action together, leaders from both countries hope to spur other nations to be equally aggressive as they work to finalize a worldwide climate treaty next year.

What both countries are announcing, according to the White House:


UNITED STATES


—Reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent by the year 2025, compared to what the U.S. was emitting in 2005. Previously, Obama had committed to cutting emissions by 17 percent by 2020 compared to 2005 levels, and officials say the U.S. is on track to meet that goal.

—Double the rate at which the U.S. is reducing its emissions per year. Between 2005 and 2020, the U.S. on average must cut emissions 1.2 percent per year to meet Obama's overall goal of 17 percent. Over the five years between 2020 and 2025, the U.S. aims to reduce emissions and average of 2.3 percent to 2.8 percent per year.

—Submit the new 2025 emissions reduction target by the end of the first quarter of 2015 as the intended U.S. contribution to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the treaty that nations hope to finalize later in 2015 in Paris.


CHINA


—Set a target for carbon dioxide emissions to peak by around 2030, with the goal of topping out earlier if possible.


—Expand the share of China's energy consumption derived from zero-emission sources to about 20 percent by 2030. The U.S. says that would require China to develop up to 1,000 gigawatts of new power from sources like nuclear, wind and solar.


I'm curious to hear thoughts on this issue.



Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article3797363.html#storylink=cpy

[Tgo01]

China won't do it.

[Fallen]

China won't do it.

Not even the second part? They're pretty much on track to do that now.

[Gelston]

We're all going to be dead before 2025 anyways.

[Tgo01]

Not even the second part? They're pretty much on track to do that now.

Let me rephrase; they won't really do it but they'll fudge the numbers to say they did.

[Fallen]

We're all going to be dead before 2025 anyways.

From legalized pot or Global Warming? I'm thinking first one, then the other.

[Tgo01]

We're all going to be dead before 2025 anyways.

You optimist you.

[Gelston]

From legalized pot or Global Warming? I'm thinking first one, then the other.

The pot fumes will cause global warming to make the Earth 50 degrees hotter.

[Wrathbringer]

I'm concerned with the cost of these measures as they're largely passed on to the consumer. Anyone have numbers?

[Fallen]

Let me rephrase; they won't really do it but they'll fudge the numbers to say they did.

They have to start trending downward on their reliance on coal. It simply isn't sustainable given the amount of pollution their choking their people with. Whether you believe in climate change or not, pollution is pollution, and they are polluting the shit out of their air, and air has a tendency to move around.

My take on it is worst case scenario, neither the US nor China manage to live up to their agreements. However, many countries were hesitant to agree to pollution reductions because of a lack of effort by US and China, the world's leading polluters. Now they have far less of an excuse. Hopefully, this will spur progress with a new Kyoto-like agreement.



Q: Does this make a global climate deal in Paris next year more likely?

It should. Until now, opponents of tougher climate policies have been able to argue it is pointless to act when the two biggest emitters are doing little themselves. Some also question how serious a threat climate change poses, especially in big fossil fuel producers such as Canada, Australia and the US. That has been a problem for some leaders in the EU who last month agreed (http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/2030/index_en.htm)the bloc would cut its emissions 40 per cent from 1990 levels by 2030.

The US-China deal makes these arguments harder to pursue. That includes big emerging economies such as India that have also been wary of any global treaty that could require them make bigger climate commitments.
The fact that Washington and Beijing have announced their targets months earlier than expected should also ratchet up pressure on other countries to offer deeper emissions cuts than they might have if this deal had been announced on the eve of the Paris summit next year.

[Gelston]

They have to start trending downward on their reliance on coal. It simply isn't sustainable given the amount of pollution their choking their people with. Whether you believe in climate change or not, pollution is pollution, and they are polluting the shit out of their air, and air has a tendency to move around.

My take on it is worst case scenario, neither the US nor China manage to live up to their agreements. However, many countries were hesitant to agree to pollution reductions because of a lack of effort by US and China, the world's leading polluters. Now they have far less of an excuse. Hopefully, this will spur progress with a new Kyoto-like agreement.

They already lie about pollution numbers in their cities. I think they'll lie about this stuff too.

[Fallen]

I'm concerned with the cost of these measures as they're largely passed on to the consumer. Anyone have numbers?

I'm looking, but I haven't seen anything yet.

[Fallen]

They already lie about pollution numbers in their cities. I think they'll lie about this stuff too.

That lie still may be enough to spur real commitment in Paris.

[Jarvan]

Let me rephrase; they won't really do it but they'll fudge the numbers to say they did.

Well, Beijing already is one of the cleanest cities in the world.

Didn't you know?