People could demand more, but they're just as passive and indfferent as everyone else. We buy SUVs and gas guzzling trucks no one really needs. Packaging and food services is as wasteful as ever. This is on everyone.
Haven't seen much discussion on this. This was certainly a pleasant surprise. Whether it leads to something substantial we'll see but at least it shows that the PRC and US are at the table. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59243434 COP26: Cautious welcome for unexpected US-China climate agreement Activists and politicians have cautiously welcomed an unexpected US-China declaration that vowed to boost climate co-operation. The EU and UN described the move as encouraging and an important step, but Greenpeace said both countries needed to take concrete action. The US and China are the world's two biggest CO2 emitters. They said they would work together to achieve the 1.5C temperature goal set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement. Scientists say that limiting global temperature rises to 1.5C will help humanity avoid the worst climate impacts. This is compared with pre-industrial temperatures. While the latest pledge is short on detail, analysts say it is a tacit acknowledgement by China that the crisis warrants urgent attention and that it will play a bigger role in confronting the global challenge. The announcement by the two global rivals was made on Wednesday at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, which officially ends on Friday. US President Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping are now expected to hold a virtual meeting as early as next week. According to China's climate envoy, the declaration was agreed following some 30 meetings with the US over the past 10 months. It pledges close co-operation on cutting emissions, while a joint working group will also "meet regularly to address the climate crisis" over the next decade. The reaction to the surprise agreement has been largely positive, but experts and activists have warned that policies must now be enacted to support the promises. Genevieve Maricle, director of US climate policy action at pressure group WWF, said the announcement offered "new hope" that the 1.5C limit might be achieved. But she added that "we must also be clear eyed about what is still required if the two countries are to deliver the emission reductions necessary in the next nine years". Greenpeace International Executive Director Jennifer Morgan warned that China and the US needed to show greater commitment to reaching climate goals. Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who is president of the Asia Society which works on global climate change agreements, told the BBC that the agreement was "not a gamechanger" but was a big step forward. "The current state of geopolitics between China and the United States is awful, so the fact that you can extract this... agreement between Washington and Beijing right now is [important]," he said. The US-China declaration calls for increased efforts to close the "significant gap" that remains to achieve that 1.5C target. There were steps agreed on a range of issues including methane emissions, the transition to clean energy and de-carbonisation. China's top climate negotiator Xie Zhenhua told reporters that on climate change "there is more agreement between China and US than divergence". China refused to join an agreement earlier this week to limit methane - a harmful greenhouse gas, but has instead pledged to develop a "national plan" to address the issue. Mr Xie was followed by John Kerry, the US climate envoy, who said that while US and China had many differences, co-operation on climate was vital. "Every step matters right now and we have a long journey ahead of us," he said. China is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, followed by the US. In September Mr Xi announced that China would aim for carbon neutrality by 2060, with a plan to hit peak emissions before 2030. The US is aiming for net-zero by 2050. In other developments at the COP26 climate summit on Wednesday: A draft of a final COP26 deal was announced, with countries being urged to strengthen carbon-cutting targets by the end of 2022. The document also urges more help for vulnerable nations - but the text has been criticised by many for not being ambitious enough UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged other national leaders to give their negotiators more leverage to reach a final deal. Speaking at a news conference, he insisted the ambition of keeping global temperature rises below 1.5C was not yet dead The sentiment was echoed by COP26 President Alok Sharma, who said, "We all know what is at stake in these negotiations and indeed the urgency of our task." He also suggested "near-final texts" on an agreement could be published overnight before groups convene again tomorrow ahead of the intended final day of the conference on Friday The focus of COP26 on Wednesday was travel. Dozens of countries have promised to phase out petrol and diesel-powered cars but the US, China and Germany haven't signed up. A number of major manufacturers - including Ford and Mercedes - have pledged commitments too.
A lot of rich and powerful people are threatened by a potential loss in revenue moving from oil/gas/coal to cleaner energy so yes, there will be significant disagreement about what to do about it. While you don't agree that climate change will have devastating effects, it's hard to understand how you and the people you quote seem to think it will have a mix bag. A significant reduction in food and water supply is no bueno, friend. A more acid and less oxygenated ocean is no bueno. A lower salinity near the poles is going to have an impact on global weather and ocean currents. To try to forecast what the outcomes of all of those things is very challenging. But these kinds of changes are generally not good for things such as agriculture and ecosystems.
I think the NYT just listed its top ten non-Biden candidates for 2024. AOC is Number Ten (she'll be just 35 in 2024). I would love to see her run for the Presidency, and I would love to see her WIN the Presidency (no joke, I mean that), because I'd like to see how easy it is for her to govern this country. Again, I am 100% serious, I am not being sarcastic, I would love to see what an AOC-led America would look like.
The thing about AOC is that she's a lot more cagey than most people realize. She takes hard liberal views because that's what gets her the limelight, but there are things that betray a more centrist sensibility. But I doubt she will be anywhere near a contender in 2024 she's just branded to far left for even many democrats and its hard to see her getting a nomination in the current environment. She isn't Obama who can rally people to the polls and swing enough middle voters to win an election. The person I think who could run and win, and do a great job of governing is Abrams. Too bad she is running for governor again. But she has it all, she's a successful entrepreneur, a lawyer, and community activist. She's a successful writer, is charismatic, and knowns how to rally people to a cause. She's well liked and respected across the board. Even Trump endorsed her over Kemp...well, more him being pissed at Kemp but you get my point. The biggest attack on her is about Georgia losing the All-star game which really she didn't have a lot to do with. She's galvanizing without having having to be divisive. I would love to see her run.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...nuclear-energy-is-leading-nonsensical-policy/ Opinion: Germany’s anxiety about nuclear energy is leading to nonsensical policy By Katja Hoyer Today at 1:54 p.m. EST Katja Hoyer, an Anglo-German historian and journalist, is the author of “Blood and Iron: The Rise and Fall of the German Empire 1871-1918.” A modest display of pyrotechnics at the Brandenburg Gate accompanied by the ill-fitting tune of “Auld Lang Syne” drifting through the empty streets of Berlin — New Year’s Eve in Germany was again a rather subdued affair because of rising coronavirus infections. But not in the small village of Grohnde in Lower Saxony, where loud cheers could be heard at midnight. A group of around 100 people had gathered there in front of the giant twin towers that could be seen from miles around. They had come to celebrate what they called a “historic moment.” One of Germany’s oldest nuclear power plants had just ceased operation. Just before midnight on Dec. 31, Germany switched off three more of its nuclear power plants. Once it had 17; now only three are left, and they too will be shut down at the end of the year. Soon Germany will produce no nuclear energy at all. But the activists were wrong to celebrate. Germany’s hasty nuclear retreat is neither safe nor green. It’s a disastrous mistake that will have ramifications well beyond the country’s own borders. The Grohnde plant is a perfect example of what Germany is giving up. It was one of the most productive nuclear power plants in the world. It provided enough electricity to cover 15 percent of Lower Saxony’s annual energy needs single-handedly, saving 10 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year in the process. The site even made headlines in February 2021 for producing more electricity than any other nuclear power plant in the world. Now it will have to be dismantled at a cost of around 1 billion euros. Germany’s new vice chancellor, Robert Habeck of the Green Party, justified the decision on national TV a couple of days earlier: “Our exit from nuclear energy is right. ... We may be doing this much quicker than other European countries but we have made a conscious decision to do so.” Conscious or not, the decision will isolate Germany. The pro-E.U. government in Berlin finds itself at odds with Brussels over its views on nuclear energy. The (German) president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has said that the E.U. still needs nuclear technology, and French President Emmanuel Macron announced in a televised speech that he is going to “relaunch the construction of nuclear reactors in our country." There are historical reasons for Germany’s unique skepticism. For more than four decades, the Iron Curtain ran right through the country. If the Cold War had turned hot, Germany would have been on the front lines of a nuclear battlefield. Both the Soviet Union and the United States had stationed nuclear weapons on German soil. Anti-nuclear anxieties led to an amalgamation of pacifism and environmentalism. The politicians who made the decision to phase out nuclear energy in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 were all children of the tense world of divided Germany — not least then-Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had grown up in East Germany and trained there as a physicist. German environmental activists have long argued that nuclear reactors pose a serious security risk to the country, and Fukushima seemed to confirm this. But many experts agree that safety standards in Germany are so stringent and the technology permanently updated that the remaining risks are negligible. So far, no major incidents have blemished the safety record of civilian nuclear energy in Germany. Even Japan has moved on from 2011 and continues to rely on nuclear plants to combat climate change. But German politics can’t remain stuck in the 20th century. The largest country in Europe has a voracious demand for energy. As German public transport, heating systems and cars switch from fossil fuels to electricity, most experts predict a further rise in electricity demand. Some estimatean increase of 34 percent by 2030. Meanwhile, renewables provide only 42 percent of Germany’s energy. The rest is still supplied by coal, nuclear power and imports. Germany’s new government aims to increase the margin to 80 percent by 2030, but this is ambitious and could have nasty side effects. Ironically, the post-Merkel administration has already had to agree to loosen legislation for environmental protection when it comes to building up renewables. Two percent of Germany’s land mass is designated for the use of wind turbines; most of that area will have to be deforested first. Germany’s coal plants are also due to be shut by 2030, which will make the country heavily dependent on energy imports. Germany buys over half of its natural gas from Russia, and with the new pipeline Nord Stream 2 nearly complete, this proportion might well increase, giving Moscow immense power over Germany. Even if Germany were to import its energy from elsewhere (Norway is the second largest source of imports), the situation would be absurd. Why give up your own, relatively green, nuclear energy to buy electricity that was generated in nuclear, coal or gas plants elsewhere? Germany’s decision to give up efficient and perfectly serviceable nuclear plants is nothing but shortsighted. Its neighbors have come to terms with the necessity of retaining nuclear energy while investment in renewable technology is underway. Yet by succumbing to its lingering Cold War fears, Germany is ultimately putting its fate in the hands of others.
additional commentary Germany Shuts Down Three Perfectly Good Nuclear Power Plants Teutonic carbon dioxide emissions and electricity prices are projected to increase as a result. https://reason.com/2022/01/04/germany-shuts-down-three-perfectly-good-nuclear-power-plants/
CO2 Analogy to Tobacco: “Nonsense,” states James Hansen https://www.masterresource.org/hansen-james/hansen-tobacco-analogy/
Not really sure what the point of bumping this or how this addresses my comment about mountaintop removal in coal mining. Anyway I agree with Hansen that carbon based fuels have been valuable to human development for exactly the reasons he says. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't switch away from them now that we know more about the damage they can do. Many other things have been valuable to human development that we don't use anymore. Lead was a very valuable commodity that helped with many technologies and used for thousands of years by humans. We don't use it very much anymore now that we know the damage it can do.
Dessler on Koonin: Cancel Culture at Work https://www.masterresource.org/dessler-andrew/dessler-koonin-cancel/
The group that brought down Keystone XL faces agonies of its own It was the upstart that changed the face of America’s environmental movement. But 350.org, founded by the legendary Bill McKibben, has been laid low by a budget crunch, equity fights and union strife. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/20/350org-mckibben-boeve-keystone-00009866
