TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

U.S. & China Reach Climate Change Agreement

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by jkliu47, Nov 11, 2014.

  1. jkliu47

    jkliu47 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Messages:
    442
    Location:
    Glendale, CA
  2. Raffy.Roma

    Raffy.Roma Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,209
    Location:
    Rome (Italy)
  3. Benz

    Benz Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,907
    Location:
    Netherlands
    November 11th, 2014: "U.S. and China Reach Climate Deal After Months of Talks".

    November 11th, 2014: "U.S. and China Reach Climate Deal After Months of Talks".

    Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/world/asia/china-us-xi-obama-apec.html...

    Interesting:

    "It was the signature achievement of an unexpectedly productive two days of meetings between the leaders. Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi also agreed to ......, as well as an understanding to cut tariffs for technology products."
     
  4. ggies07

    ggies07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,261
    Location:
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Good news indeed! Now Obama needs to deny the Keystone pipeline and we will be well on our way.
     
  5. Robert.Boston

    Robert.Boston Model S VIN P01536

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,842
    Location:
    Portland, Maine, USA
    Interesting comment on NPR coverage of this news, to the effect that the administration thinks it can deliver on this agreement without new legislation. Which, as NPR pointed out, is really good because the incoming chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, Sen. Imhofe, is one of the biggest climate deniers in Congress (NPR's characterization).

    Of course, it might be possible for Congress to block the steps that the administration envisions by defunding agencies, etc.
     
  6. tigerade

    tigerade Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    674
    Location:
    Georgia
    A predictable response:

    The Angry GOP Backlash to Obamas Historic Climate Accord - Yahoo News

     
  7. ggies07

    ggies07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,261
    Location:
    Ft. Worth, TX
  8. jkliu47

    jkliu47 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Messages:
    442
    Location:
    Glendale, CA
  9. Todd Burch

    Todd Burch Electron Pilot

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,734
    Location:
    Smithfield, VA
    [Face in palms]
     
  10. ggies07

    ggies07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,261
    Location:
    Ft. Worth, TX
    I've been thinking a lot lately about the fact that it would help if Tesla is on time with the Model 3 for the next presidential debate. If Tesla can come out strong in 2015 with a model of the car and other facts and to say it will be out in 2016, it will show our nation that there is a really nice 200 mile EV coming soon for a reasonable price. I would hope more Americans would see the light and understand we can move away from the whole oil situation. That way when the politicians have debates on our energy policy, no one can get by on "We need more fracking and Canadian oil."

    We would have the public and I hope the moderators calling them out and letting them squirm on the subject. Tesla needs to come out swift and clean with the Model 3. Just, BAM!, here it is. No set backs. Have it all ready to go. There will be no falcon wing doors and the motor should be ready after 2 years of testing on the Model S and X.
     
  11. Robert.Boston

    Robert.Boston Model S VIN P01536

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,842
    Location:
    Portland, Maine, USA
    Don't underestimate the importance of regional impacts. Mitch McConnell is absolutely correct: the EPA's proposed regulations on carbon would have a short-run negative impact on Kentucky, as well as West Virginia, Montana, and all the other coal-producing states. And it would have a short-term negative impact on the larger number of states that have enjoyed cheap electricity from coal--artificially cheap, I would argue, but cheap nonetheless. I have no doubt that the overall effect of the regulation will be good for the American economy and the world environment, but there are transition costs that are real, and they fall disproportionately on some states' citizens.

    The crime is that the Republicans killed their own approach to address climate change, cap-and-trade, which would have generated a revenue stream that could have been channeled back to offset the impacts on particular groups of citizens. Of course, the money probably would have been hijacked as 'corporate welfare' for companies like Peabody Coal that are harmed, rather than Peabody Coal's unemployed miners.
     
  12. ggies07

    ggies07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,261
    Location:
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Yes, that will happen some: no pain, no gain. Right? We are addicted to something as a nation that will take some effort to switching over. We can take those coal jobs and move them into solar installs and manufacturing/corp. Jobs. At this point i have no tolerance for excuses from that side.

    If mitch's state was all about solar, then he would try every which way to make solar an issue. It's all whats 'now' for them.
     

Share This Page