They're building solar power plants everywhere, shutting down factories and coal power plants around large cities.
"Other main targets include:
– reduction of emissions from coal burning industries and vehicles2
– boost cleaner and more efficient use of coal
– promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal
– support for wind, solar and bio power sectors; increase in proportion of clean energy
– encourage the use of waste straw as a resource
– reduction in-field burning
– implementation of control measures to deal with air pollution
...
By 2020, he said, the intensity of water use per unit of GDP will fall by 23%, energy intensity by a further 15%, and carbon intensity by 18%."
What about U.S.? It's people saying "as long China and India get a pass... Even if the US disappeared off the face of the map, its still to late... so let it happen."
You're the problem. Even if the rest of the world disappeared of the map, U.S.'s carbon emissions and pollution still exceed world's capacity to absorb it. Do you know how much of the world's environment is scorched to produce raw resources to produce goods for consumption in the U.S.? You're not taking it seriously.
Not to mention that we're incredibly hypocritical about the fact that we happily burned coal and oil and continue to, but expect developing economies to just... stop. It's worse when you consider Europe getting uppity about migrancy, which is being causes in large part by drought related to climate change.
It's going to be the story of this century: the people least responsible for climate change are going to disproportionately suffer for it. Meanwhile those most responsible will demonize them for their efforts to survive it.
I hear this logic but dont buy it. Yes many western countries were polluting heavily during the industrial age, but that was using the best technology that existed at the time. The world now knows better about these harmful environmental practices, and has access to better tech to avoid this. If you apply this thinking that 'its what the other countries did previously' that's fine but then you do you expect developing continues not to utilise computers and other new technology for 50 years while they catch up? You cant have it both ways or your just cherry picking what suits your bias.
I feel the better arguement is that per capital these countries are lower polluters and we need to all strive to reduce pollution to an acceptable per-capita level. And as a global population need to look at how we lift everyone lifestyle while reducing environmental harm. This 'you had your turn polluting the world and now it's mine' lacks logic and will not solve the problem.
> The world now knows better about these harmful environmental practices, and has access to better tech to avoid this
Except the better tech tends to be more expensive and less labor intensive. A country with a huge cheap labor force would handicap itself by not using the most cost effective means to grow their economy, negative externalities notwithstanding.
The problem is that people don't really exist as a "We, mankind"... we exist as various competing nations and other divided groups. It's laughable to think that what's good for "We, mankind" in the US is somehow good for "We, mankind" in North Africa, or China, or India.
A significant part, when you consider that the tensions we've seen explode have existed for decades. As we saw in Egypt however, when people can't support themselves, they become desperate enough to finally act.
Sadly people in this part of the world seem to only see said events in either the rosy "Arab Spring", or some version of "Islam is fundamentally evil/unstable" sense.
Libyas security collapsed after its infrastructure, including its world class irrigation system was bombed out under the guise of implementing 'no fly zone'
Dishonest? I do not know why violent revolution was fomented in Syria or have a reasonable explanation why Libya was bombed. You should explain your comment.
You seem to be claiming that bombing in Libya started the instability in Libya, rather than the reality which is that it was a result of that instability. I suspect you know that however, because again... dishonesty.
It is not clear that Libya was on the verge of collapse before Nato bombed it. It is not clear that the US is not on the verge of collapse with the terrible state of their current election - but it IS clear that bombing and funding violent revolutionary forces within it would not help anything.
No I am not the one making two sentence cryptic and insulting, dishonest accusations.
I did in the comment which triggered you to repeatedly call me dishonest! If you wont substantiate your accusation properly you are the one being dishonest. What deception are you charging me of? - by my pointing out the European migrant crisis is caused by wars which our policy makers are highly complicit in waging. The european migration crisis is entirely the cause of people fleeing violent conflict - not weather.
If we wont stop attacking people, we wont stop wrecking the environment.
Solar and wind based energy production is not going to fully or even mostly replace our gas/coal burners because they lack constant and predictable outputs.
Also, we have neither infrastructure for storing power at this level, nor would it be economically feasible.
Hydro and geo-thermal are better sources in this sense, but neither are abundant and have their own drawbacks.
'- promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal' - Only valid if the electricity is produced by means other than burning fossil fuels, otherwise you are just moving the problem up the supply chain.
Same way with electric cars, if the electricity is still being produced by dirty means, it is not all that impressive a reduction in poluttion or emissions, it's just moving the problem up the chain.
Not trying to sound defeatist or anything, it's just not a complete solution, still seem like band aid attempts by themselves.
Both real-world examples and simulations say it's possible, by combining different renewable energy sources, spreading them out geographically, and using large distribution networks, among others: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/dispelling-the-nuclear-basel...
I feel like I might really dive into this conversation.
Technically feasible, yes, agreed. The simulations tell us this much, that at point T+x, we could have a green electricity grid, but you have to take into account the process of getting there and that means economics and politics. And there's a lot of half-measure that seem green, but just kick the can.
Ok, from the engineering side, the flexible, dispatchable sources will be required like I said, can't fully remove them. They can be hydro, which is clean and great, but it's not universally available and were it is, it's expensive to setup and tends to wreck local ecosystems. In most developing countries, the flexible source will remain what is already available most likely, at least in the short-medium term, and that is coal and gas. (this will be mostly for economic reasons)
... “renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the United States.” ... That's why the time frame is 30+ years and that's in the US. What about less developed countries ? What's the time frame there ?
What I'm saying is: we will get there eventually, we really need to, our survival as a race might well depend on it, but it's going to be one hell of a ride, it's going to take a while and it will occur at different paces in different places.
And that you need a combined approach in terms of policy as well: investments, direct grants or subsidies for large producers for new and existing renewable plants and transmission infrastructure / public-private partnership projects (depending on your countries economic preferences), incentivizing individuals to go green (ex: subsidies on solar panel purchases by homeowners in Germany, government backed buybacks of old cars, subsidies for electric cars), better environmental standards, incentives for green certifications and an actual independent third-party validation of the companies that receive/offer said certificates, increased power to government environmental agencies (don't overdue it, point is not to shrug Atlas through punitive measures, but to get them to work towards going green), tax-breaks for companies that can prove low-emission is an option, but would probably be a bureaucratic nightmare, carbon-tax and myriad of other tweaks and measures.
And the 'Free Market' doesn't like any of this. Politics and economics, not just the greatest engineering challenge we have undertaken to date.
"lack constant and predictable" We can solve this with batteries, which we have so far not been able to succeed in to do at large scales. There has been some small scale success with liquid batteries, using cheapish elements.
Which in theory is feasible to scale up.
Technically yes, economically difficult for most nations, if it's approached at this level.
Germany has had an interesting approach to solar, where they subsidized solar panels for homeowners. I think it is the smarter approach because you incentives individuals to go green, rather than trying to implement a top down solution.
And even so, we will need to keep power plants on call for redundancy and high load purposes.
"Other main targets include: – reduction of emissions from coal burning industries and vehicles2 – boost cleaner and more efficient use of coal – promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal – support for wind, solar and bio power sectors; increase in proportion of clean energy – encourage the use of waste straw as a resource – reduction in-field burning – implementation of control measures to deal with air pollution
...
By 2020, he said, the intensity of water use per unit of GDP will fall by 23%, energy intensity by a further 15%, and carbon intensity by 18%."
What about U.S.? It's people saying "as long China and India get a pass... Even if the US disappeared off the face of the map, its still to late... so let it happen."
You're the problem. Even if the rest of the world disappeared of the map, U.S.'s carbon emissions and pollution still exceed world's capacity to absorb it. Do you know how much of the world's environment is scorched to produce raw resources to produce goods for consumption in the U.S.? You're not taking it seriously.