How can China, India, Russia and the US reduce CO2 emissions?

@Senator , thanks for starting what looks to be an open-minded thread that admits we have a real pickle of a problem instead of denying the scientific consensus. ( not that you would, but some still do.)

My take, and a lot of scientists agree: cutting is good, renewables will help, but we have to go whole hog investing in carbon capture/scrubbing technology. Even if we cut new emissions to zero, we'd still have too much carbon in the atmosphere for a long time to come. Gotta remove it and bury that isht.

Good scrubbers would also be more gentle on the economy.

Cheers.

 

China is also taking the lead on new technology - it's not the worlds largest producer of solar panels and wind turbines. US is going backwards, China owning the future

I think our generation will be labeled the one that handed over number one superpower to China.

In terms of Global Warming, we'll have to look for China's leadership to solve it as the US doesn't seem to have the will to take any kind of action.

 

Crash China’s economy. Declining economy == declining CO2 emissions.

 

VOTE the right people in regardless of party

 

China, Russia, and India's solution: Continue to blast out emissions unabated while funding attacks on the USA's emissions.

USA solution: Get to zero emissions regardless of the cost to avoid guilt over emissions. Watch as rest of the world does nothing and shrugs off criticism.

 

Nuclear power. Solar and wind are cute but nuclear is by far the best way to generate large amounts of cheap power. Modern nuclear is simply very safe and we are being blind to ignore it.

Further, if we are looking at longer term projections then we need to remember that human populations are expected to start declining soon.

 

Not as long as natural disaster and malfunctions can happen. We also have absolutely no idea what to do with the waste (hi Hanford!). As the years go by, more and more of these plants will be exposed to natural disasters, more and more of them will get old and start to break down (as everything does), and when these things happen it's always going to be a gigantic disaster that lingers for a very, very long time.


Solar, wind, thermal, hydro technologies will continue to advance rapidly, will continue to decrease in price and therefore become more accessible. All while not having the potential downside of absolutely disastrous meltdowns. We need to back away from nuclear as fast as we need to back away from oil and coal.

 

False accusations and doesn’t contribute to anything useful

 

China has a plan based on capitalism. Weird huh for a communist government. If you have been to any large city in China, you would understand why.

Even if fully successful, it’s likely already too late to hold below 2c. There is no one single solution, it has to be a combination, then pray.

China Unveils an Ambitious Plan to Curb Climate Change Emissions

 

[Educational Post]
Climate Change is not true science -- it's one of two things: 1) Political Science and/or 2) A cult-like religion. My #1 problem with climate change crusaders is this: They never once even consider a cost-benefit analysis on what their proposals would look like. If I have a headache, I'll pay $2.00 for advil, but I won't pay $2,000 for advil. Cost benefit analysis done. The crusaders want us to shut down entire segments of the economy for the odd chance that in 40 years it lowers the global temperature by 1 degree. Sorry, but that's absurd. The economic benefit of fossil fuels (70+ % of the world's energy usage) is tremendous. Fossil fuels have been a primary driver of lifting billions of people out of poverty, extending life expectancy, lowering disease rates, and increasing quality of life overall. No one is willing to trade these obvious benefits for an unknown green fantasy. My #2 problem with climate change pumpers is that they are unable to explain man's contribution to any potential warming of the earth. There are 15+ climate change variables -- no one has put forth a compelling argument on how 1) CO2 is the key and 2) How man's tiny contribution makes a lick of difference.

The climate change crusaders constantly and purposefully conflate clean air/clean water with global warming. For reference, CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas. Conflating clean air/water with global warming is an attempt to mislead, which is a form of lying. That's what makes me angry. I am an honest, very genuine person. When you piss on my leg and then try to tell me it's raining, then I'm not buying it. The IPCC forecasting models have consistently been wrong, wrong, wrong, yet the climate fantasy pushers won't even consider engaging in debate about why -- instead they respond with name calling. It's not a persuasive argument, and it's why most of American is unwilling to pay for global warming prevention (if it's even possible). The cultish angle in this debate is that scientists cannot take opposing views to global warming because doing so ostracizes them permanently from the liberal scientific community. If they take that position, then the research money runs dry and then they'll have to go sell insurance for State Farm or join the clergy.

So in summary, blame yourself libs. You've been unable to persuade people on the subject, your tactics are dishonest, and the data is not clear. Make a better argument if you want people to line up with you. As of yet, you have failed. China, India and Russia are not giving up the economic gains from fossil fuels, which are HUGE and IDENTIFIABLE, for your idealistic, poorly-reasoned green fantasy.


GOOD DAY

 

Would be wonderful if we have that type of technology in our tool box. Enough people, polluter-as-profit and countries are going to wait until the problems hit them right in the face before they react urgently, and it’s way too late then (already likely late now) for a non active removal solution. Active removal might take a long time but at least our great great grand children has a brighter future and that’s hopeful. Promising but also could be false hope.

 

Believe it or not governments have a role in creating capitalism that drives competition. Especially competition for innovation and consumer demand.

Unfortunately the US, and Russia have done the opposite of what a capitalist economy should be doing. China and India are huge polluters still but at least they see the demand and are working to make sure the are leading in innovation and consumer demand.

The US govt now is working against consumer demand and innovation to take care of fossil fuel and coal companies so they can sustain fat profits during the change that consumers are demanding. It’s anti capitalism and goes against what people are wanting. Given the choice in front of them, I believe everyone will choose green as long as it doesn’t hit their pocket books.

Unfortunately though, the troll environment we now have seen become the norm might change a small pocket of the population that might choose to pollute just to “own libs”. If they aren’t thinking about politics and their online ego, even they will choose green options if it makes sense to do so. They just can’t see it as political which it should be.

 

meanwhile, the US is the world leader in CUTTING CO2 emissions. Yes, you read that right. Much more progress than the hypocritical countries who were outraged at the US for pulling out of the Paris agreement.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...t-criticize-trump-environmental-policies.html

 

Interestingly, scrubbing is literally in the fine print of the Paris accord. It has to happen if we want to hit the temperature targets most people believe are sustainable without major economic and social disruption.

 

I read that it’s not clear yet if it can scale and how expensive they will be...

Relative to other :

 

I agree, and there's always just a chance that we could unleash a godzilla-like creature! I could die happy under the foot of a building-sized reptile.

 

Won't scale and the energy of converting Carbon to something that's not in the atmosphere exceeds the energy of burning a fossil fuel so unless you cut Co2 emissions significantly, this won't work. But it might buy us a bit of time - not much though without the reductions

 

Modern nuclear power plants are not the same as what you see with Chernobyl or Fukushima - those were old models that were not considered safe and would never operate in Europe or the US. Fukushima was over 50 years old and was known to be unsafe against tsunamis. Other plants hit by much stronger shaking and the same wave height survived without a hitch.

Fact is the only viable solution to Global Warming without destroying the world economy is nuclear power.