|
Phanatic posted:Now are you going to quote where I made this White Flight argument you attribute to me or are you going to retract the claim that I made it? Yes, I'll retract it, because it looks like I misread you quoting someone else. My bad. I still heavily disagree with methane production from hydrogen and carbon capture, already an energy intensive process. If we can do carbon capture, it should only be used to put that carbon away, not just neutralize the carbon in the air. Its self-defeating when we can't even fully cut our carbon footprint enough to stop the runaway train that is Carbon and Methane emissions. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Dec 3, 2020 |
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Unfortunately, again, Germany also proved that a 100% renewable without Nuclear is basically just false advertising. How did Germany prove that exactly? They prematurely and without any plan retired nuclear plants that were key to maintaining reduced CO2 emissions. This doesn’t speak to the viability of a future renewable grid in the Us. Sure, currently Germany is failing to build out enough wind due to NIMBY issues but the US isn’t Germany. We have more empty land than Germany has land. Not to mention the US has much better resources for solar power than Germany, a more diverse geography over a wider longitudes than Germany, and a much larger energy consumption base that needs to be supplied.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, I'll retract it, because it looks like I misread you quoting someone else. Acknowledged and appreciated. quote:I still heavily disagree with methane production from hydrogen and carbon capture, already an energy intensive process. If we can do carbon capture, it should only be used to put that carbon away, not just neutralize the carbon in the air. Its self-defeating when we can't even fully cut our carbon footprint enough to stop the runaway train that is Carbon and Methane emissions. Before, you said this: CommieGIR posted:Cutting 28% of our methane emissions (Energy sector contributions) would most certainly be a significant impact. See, this is what I mean. When you want to argue every little bit of emission reduction helps even though that little bit by itself isn't the whole answer, you do that. Then you turn around and argue that simply reducing emissions or even going completely carbon-neutral doesn't help us, and that we need to be actively reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. You switch between these two completely incompatible positions over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Seriously, man, using excess supply from wind to produce an energy-dense convenient form of fuel to store that energy so that it can be used elsewhere/when is an unmitigated good idea. Yeah. I wonder how economical these kinds of electro-chemically synthesized fuels could be. Maybe if wind and solar electricity become so plentiful and so cheap, it wouldn't be that uneconomical. There are a lot of applications where fuel is better than electricity. Phanatic posted:See? "Make energy really expensive" equates to "a shitload of people die." When the problem is "a shitload of people die" and your solution reduces to "a shitload of people die" then your solution isn't one. Yeah, cost of energy is extremely important and cannot totally be abstracted away. Dramatically increasing the cost of energy is basically the same thing as calling for a return to the Stone Age.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 14:31
|
|
|
"Hello, good morning. "Begin the decade long process of installing 10TW of nationalized nuclear power. Now. Thanks for coming to my TED talk."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Yeah, cost of energy is extremely important and cannot totally be abstracted away. Dramatically increasing the cost of energy is basically the same thing as calling for a return to the Stone Age. Most of the energy we use is ONLY cheap because of massive government subsidies. We can easily subsidize better energy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:"Hello, good morning. Bbbbut what about the costs ...
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
To be quite honest, it seems far more likely that rapid decarbonization is far more likely to come about in the US through zero-carbon resources becoming the low-cost option than any sort of command economy type of alternative. This would most likely need to be through some sort of aggressive carbon price or maybe through other types of emissions regulation (eg MATS) that is suitably expensive to comply with for fossil fuel generation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:To be quite honest, it seems far more likely that rapid decarbonization is far more likely to come about in the US through zero-carbon resources becoming the low-cost option than any sort of command economy type of alternative. This would most likely need to be through some sort of aggressive carbon price or maybe through other types of emissions regulation (eg MATS) that is suitably expensive to comply with for fossil fuel generation. The problem with using a carbon price is that all the prices proposed are well below what the market has empirically been shown to withstand. In July 2008 the price of oil was $147 a barrel, right now the price of oil is $45. So we've seen what the market does when the cost of oil is tripled what it is now and it wasn't the decarbonization we need. Routinely the price proposed in the <$100 a ton of co2e: https://www.resourcesmag.org/common-resources/the-year-of-the-carbon-pricing-proposal/ But a carbon tax of $200 per ton of co2e would only raise prices on gasoline at the pump by $0.50 (according to this pro-carbon tax article from brookings, but there are many other similar sources: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-carbon-tax-opportunity/) Unless you're talking about a carbon tax in the $1,000+ range (and escalating over time) then it is a very ineffective policy rife with inequity (shifting costs to poorer consumers who can't avoid) and potential for abuse (with taxes come tax exemptions). This chart is a perfect example of why carbon taxes aren't effective: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 03:23
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:To be quite honest, it seems far more likely that rapid decarbonization is far more likely to come about in the US through zero-carbon resources becoming the low-cost option than any sort of command economy type of alternative. This would most likely need to be through some sort of aggressive carbon price or maybe through other types of emissions regulation (eg MATS) that is suitably expensive to comply with for fossil fuel generation. No its not, because it largely leaves us dependent upon Natural Gas to provide the backing and does little to provide MORE energy than necessary to replace those Fossil plants. Carbon Pricing is practically a bait and switch at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The problem with using a carbon price is that all the prices proposed are well below what the market has empirically been shown to withstand. In July 2008 the price of oil was $147 a barrel, right now the price of oil is $45. So we've seen what the market does when the cost of oil is tripled what it is now and it wasn't the decarbonization we need. As to the equity aspect of very high prices, I suspect that similar concerns apply to basically any attempt to solve the problem. Note that any 'cost be damned' approach would under the current system be recovered through customer rates in all vertically-integrated service territories, and this would be at least as regressive if not more so. I don't even know how such an approach would even work in deregulated states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:I agree that a low carbon price would not have a strong emissions impact. I similarly agree that carbon tax with big exceptions that exclude entrenched interests would be similarly ineffective. I disagree that any possible carbon tax would need to have such exceptions. Even if I conceded that such a policy would be likely to have such exceptions, I would still posit that an aggressive tax without such exceptions is still a more plausible solution than any other given the current state of US policy. Any other market based solutions would likely have the justice issues of a carbon tax true, but that's yet another reason why regulatory solutions are actually more feasible rather than less. It is easier to implement decades long policies if they don't end up disproportionately burdening the majority of the potential voter base. There's a reason the GND includes a lot of policies to support the just transition beyond regulating climate emissions. That's the thing, if we're imagining a theoretical $1000+ a ton carbon tax with no regulatory loopholes then why not just implement actual regulations that phase out emissive industries directly rather than through a convoluted and difficult to measure tax? Besides, I don't think that its actually more plausible that we'd implement a market based solution like a carbon tax without loopholes than we'd implement a regulatory solution without loopholes. Carbon taxes are stuck either being ineffective but with political viability or theoretically effective but no political support, all the while providing a worse opportunity for a just transition than non-market approaches. Instead of some new co2e tax scheme we could just end of life these technologies. We could say, "we're shutting down the coal plants by this date, and the gas plants by this date, and stopping the sale of ICE vehicles by this date" and then we as a society can begin to actually plan and adapt to that new future. Versus a carbon taxing scheme that still leaves all those questions technically up in the air, depending on profitability, on specific emissions measurements, on the impact of loopholes, on the specific GWP of different gases, etc. So we can't consider proactive measures to help communities, to transition infrastructure, to avoid unneeded investment as a society because a carbon tax delegates that role to every consumer and producer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 04:25
|
|
|
In the current regulatory environment any increased costs (regardless of whether policy levers used are market-based or non-market-based) would be borne by raising electric rates, thus would have roughly the same regressive impact. The only alternative would be if the additional costs were paid for by taxpayers instead of ratepayers through some kind of progressive tax instead, but now I would claim we have squarely left the realm of 'policies that are plausible to be enacted in the US in the near-term'. I disagree that a carbon tax on generation would be as convoluted or difficult to measure as you are claiming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
We don't know what regulations would effectively phase out these industries because so much goddamn stuff is directory or indirectly related to fossil fuels. The theory is that if we bend the economy it'll innovate those solutions. Not to mention a tax on emissions is going to much simpler than dozens and dozens of regulations. Again, that's just the theory however what is interesting is that the fossil fuel industry does support a carbon tax with the agreement that we'd remove existing regulations. My take, they'd eat the cost to continue emitting however I do believe would should have a carbon tax and that income should go to renewables, etc. but do not remove existing regulations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
Carbon tax is an ineffective, complex way to decarbonize rife with justice issues. Build nationalized power with an infrastructure bill, sell it near cost. There *is* desire among most voters to pass infrastructure expansion and repair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 12:36
|
|
|
We need to decarbonise more than just mains electricity and nationalising everything is not the answer. Pricing carbon is a way to let things like cheaper batteries making cheaper to run overtake ICE for the predominate mode of portable power (mainly transport but there are a lot of portable gen sets) while still allowing for all the edge cases where ICE are indeed the better solution without a rule for each and every single minor and major edge case. And if they can create liquid fuel from direct carbon capture and get it cheap enough - then batteries could become the less preferred tech again as everyone swaps back to ICE without another round of legislation to make it so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 14:12
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:nationalising everything is not the answer ? I though nationalizing all economic functions was a like a video game cheat code that instantly solves every political and social problem, and renders economics obsolete. At least this is what I have come to believe from reading posts on the Something Awful message boards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 14:56
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:We need to decarbonise more than just mains electricity and nationalising everything is not the answer. Nationalizing the Energy grid is a good answer though, or at least nationalizing new plant construction. Up to 3/4s of new Nuclear plant cost is just Interest on loans. Nationalizing would remove that. Not everything Capital does is actually good or efficient..
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 15:56
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:? I though nationalizing all economic functions was a like a video game cheat code that instantly solves every political and social problem, and renders economics obsolete. At least this is what I have come to believe from reading posts on the Something Awful message boards. Are you deliberately blind to the catastrophe that is privatized power utility in the United States No serious strategic energy researcher looking at grid resilience as a critical economic and warfighting resource advocates for status quo management or carbon tax. Viable pathways to improved resilience and increased noncarbon baseload capacity run through various shades of regulatory mandate and nationalization. Nationalization isn't about stapling progressive mantras onto telephone poles, it's about steering power generation and distribution investment into maintenance, improvements, and expansions that private industry is not provided a profit motive to perform in a vacuum. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:nationalizing all economic functions I'm going to double post specifically about this strawman right here. Leave whatever crusade you're on at the door. This is an energy sector technology and policy thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:We need to decarbonise more than just mains electricity and nationalising everything is not the answer. Transportation is a sub-20% slice of global energy expenditure. Providing massively expanded decarbonized public power results in deep emission cuts while simultaneously supercharging domestic industry. Installing and distributing 10 TW of nationalized capacity would be a massive fait accompli in carbon emission reduction, grid resilience and reliability, and economic stimulus. It also puts us back on track to being ready to power whatever sequestration technology we roll out by 2040-2050, presuming the next generation of voters is interested in pursuing a sub-4C track.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:We need to decarbonise more than just mains electricity and nationalising everything is not the answer. Nationalization is not sufficient but is probably necessary. Electricity distribution is obviously a natural monopoly. For electricity generation you need to price in carbon somehow. Also in a "free market" ,with a high proportion of renewables you will end up with intermittent negative prices, which makes it hard for baseload power providers to stay in business, even though they may be necessary to prevent blackouts. All of this means the government having to design and then regulate a really complicated market structure. Nationalization is simpler!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
ANYTHING YOU SOW posted:Nationalization is not sufficient but is probably necessary. Everything you are saying here is backed by strategic energy research sponsored by our government and its military.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:47
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Carbon tax is an ineffective, complex way to decarbonize rife with justice issues. The obvious counterargument is that 'well, we won't JUST build nuclear, we'll build more renewables and storage etc etc.' This may very well be your position (although the 'Just build a poo poo ton of nucler RIGHT NOW' does seem to be a position advocated for in the thread. Note that determining a least-cost (or near enough) generation mix for the whole country that maintains reliability standards is a ton more complex than a carbon tax, which is actually really simple, you determine a price and then charge that price for measured emissions. Utility-scale power plants generate a lot of data about their operation, possibly a little estimation would be necessary but I do not understand the charge that a carbon tax (at least on generation resources) would be 'complex'.Not to mention the complexity of actually transitioning our clusterfuck of a system to create a nationalized energy grid. At a minimum this would require the states to relinquish their existing authority (which is absolute over pretty much everything except interstate wholesale markets), which would be a huge mess. Potato Salad posted:I'm going to double post specifically about this strawman right here. Leave whatever crusade you're on at the door. This is an energy sector technology and policy thread. You should not be surprised that someone has that takeaway from your argument given that you opened with "Build nationalized power with an infrastructure bill, sell it near cost." e: just a reality check that Joe "I will not ban fracking" Biden is on the left side of the center of political gravity in the U.S. and that the right side is busy preventing coal plants from shutting down or attempting to effectively exclude renewable resources from capacity markets in order to subsidize gas generation, or pulling out of the Paris Accord. e2: if anything it would seem that further deregulation is a more likely structural change. FreeKillB fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:nationalising everything is not the answer. It's part of the answer but not enough by itself, yeah
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:You should not be surprised that someone has that takeaway from your argument given that you opened with "Build nationalized power with an infrastructure bill, sell it near cost." Actually it is surprising for someone to assume that "nationalizing all economic functions" is secretly the objective of someone talking specifically about power generation. You and silence_kit should either take some adult education courses to improve your reading comprehension skills or stop posting disingenuous slippery slope fallacies
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
FreeKillB posted:carbon tax, which is actually really simple, you determine a price and then charge that price for measured emissions. Focusing just on this statement because I think its important to point out that you're just handwaving away a massive amount of the issues with a carbon tax. First, "determine a price" is doing a massive amount of heavy lifting because it doesn't matter how simple the process could be if it results in a worthless carbon tax. It isn't just "determine a price" because we already have, its 0. Instead, we have to "determine a price that will end all co2e production within the next few decades" a vastly more challenging proposition and one that also evaporates the support amongst the oil companies who advocate for a "carbon tax" that won't actually reduce emissions. Second, "charge that price for measured emissions" has absolutely massive complications involved in it. The issues are in three major areas: 1. The simplicity of the statement implies no life cycle analysis, so for example oil companies won't have to pay any carbon tax on fossil fuels, since they're not the ones emitting, the consumers are. Alternatively, doing life cycle assessment of emissions is hard and complex and requires analysis of each individual product and production process. Will companies do this themselves we have to trust their numbers or are we creating a massive new bureaucracy to do it for them? Who pays for the emissions from forest fires? 2. Measurement is actually loving hard. We're just now getting evidence of the massive amount of methane emissions coming from oil & gas production thanks to scientists flying around with infrared cameras measuring it without needing the permission of O&G companies. We don't measure co2e emissions at all right now at the overwhelming majority of sites of emission. Besides, consider the lawsuits over attempting to tax emissions from land change or agriculture. If we don't have measurements do we use a baseline assumption of emissions? How do those baselines get made? Because the industry numbers are vastly lower than the independent emissions estimates so it matters a lot who gets to decide. 3. This also just ignores the challenge of normalizing to CO2-equivalent emissions. Which GWP do we use for methane? What happens if later science supports a larger GWP? What time-frame for GWP do we use, 20 years, 100 years, or some formula to account for both? Do we back tax people if these numbers change or do they just get those emissions tax free? If your carbon tax is "just charge only power plants for what they emit from their smokestacks and all other emissions get charged 0" then sure it might be "simple" but its also worthless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Focusing just on this statement because I think its important to point out that you're just handwaving away a massive amount of the issues with a carbon tax. Its also worth noting most Methane and CO2 emissions are self-reporting, and there's nothing to keep them honest as there is no real consequence for under-reporting your emissions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2020 23:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Focusing just on this statement because I think its important to point out that you're just handwaving away a massive amount of the issues with a carbon tax. Trabisnikof posted:Instead, we have to "determine a price that will end all co2e production within the next few decades" a vastly more challenging proposition and one that also evaporates the support amongst the oil companies who advocate for a "carbon tax" that won't actually reduce emissions. I find the argument ' markets cannot address this problem by assigning a price to the externality because entrenched interests will not allow the price to be set sufficiently high' to be unconvincing. Any policy will be ineffective if watered down sufficiently (through inadequate levels or exceptions/loopholes or what have you), and entrenched interests are going to resist no matter what. 1) I don't see why you couldn't take an estimation of what the emissions from burning a gallon of gas are and charge that tax at the point of sale? I do not expect that the tax would be able to capture non-economic sources of emissions like forest fires. 2) I agree that the state of the art should be improved for pipeline emissions, and that this is an area where the implementation should be careful to avoid large loopholes. I take your point about land use and agriculture: a carbon tax is not a policy that will address the problem across the entire economy without a ton of work, and I still maintain that it can do good in the realm of power generation (probably ok for transportation and certain industrial emissions as well). 3) In practice I would argue for 'the highest tax we can plausibly enact'. Generally I would be surprised if anyone ended up setting a tax retrospectively as opposed to purely prospectively. Maybe I should clarify that I would not advocate a carbon tax alone but would also seek regulation in other directions and happen to think that a carbon tax is among the more politically possible items that should be pursued.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
In frame of contemporary American politics: The issue of a carbon tax is that it would almost certainly be seen as a regressive tax (specifically on car travel and heating) by the public and for the most part it would be one even if it targeted at climate change. It is rather unfortunate that the US is arguably too far gone for mass transit and electric cars are clearly not there yet to be a complete alternative. In addition, there are many Americans simply can't afford a new car period. At the same time, there is neither the public interest or any real institutional interest in nuclear power and you could make the argument that it is already too late for a mass rollout of plants (which would take decades), and the only real alternative trying to reduce coal dependence as much as possible with current trends (natural gas still being an issue). If you had a radically different politics environment, that would be different, but even then, I don't think we could ever meet the type of infrastructure investment that China is already conducting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:If you had a radically different politics environment, that would be different, but even then, I don't think we could ever meet the type of infrastructure investment that China is already conducting. You mean the hundreds of coal plants they're building and or their continued double-digit-percentage annual increase of natural gas production and consumption?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:You mean the hundreds of coal plants they're building and or their continued double-digit-percentage annual increase of natural gas production and consumption? Its worth pointing out a couple things: China's coal plants are more efficient, 90% of them are Supercritical Coal Plants, the US has....1. Most of ours plants are significantly older Their standards are higher for their plants as far as efficiency and cleanliness. China is trying to catch up with the rest of the world generation wise, and cheap is still king even in their economy. Their coal plants need to go away, but its going to take time to build out capacity, but they are still largely doing more than we are. The other problem is the comparison: Comparing our efforts to China's is an age old Climate Change denial tactic. We should be doing better than China, not pointing fingers and throwing our hands up in failure. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Focusing just on this statement because I think its important to point out that you're just handwaving away a massive amount of the issues with a carbon tax. I think cap and trade mechanisms are more effective. Set a maximum number of carbon emission permits per year, allow the market to set the price. Reduce the target each year, allow offset programs to produce credits etc. For fossil fuels the intent is to make the product less attractive to the consumer (higher cost) and so steer them towards alternatives. Unfortunately it is a regressive tax though and other compensatory measures are need3d to assist vulnerable consumers. But yeah, it’s not exactly straightforward. Reportedly the carbon trading mechanism here in Australia did reduce emissions and didn’t cause the $100 lamb roasts that opponents predicted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 04:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
That is not correct. The US has one *ultrasupercritical* coal plant. It has dozens of supercritical coal plants, a nice amount. 
Phanatic fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 04:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That is not correct. The US has one *ultrasupercritical* coal plant. It has dozens of supercritical coal plants, a nice amount. So they are still outperforming us, and we shouldn't be waiting for them to apply Greener energy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So they are still outperforming us, https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions China: 10.06 gigatons of CO2 USA: 5.41 GT of CO2 China's GDP is about 15 trillion. The US's is about 21 trillion. On both an absolute measure and per unit of productivity, the US emits far less than China does.      In what sense did you mean "outperforming us? That they're building more new coal plants than we are?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:You mean the hundreds of coal plants they're building and or their continued double-digit-percentage annual increase of natural gas production and consumption? This and your other charts are easily explained by the fact they are still a developing country and their electricity demand are far greater than a developed one will be unless you think electricity consumption should be capped per capita in the developing world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 06:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:First, "determine a price" is doing a massive amount of heavy lifting because it doesn't matter how simple the process could be if it results in a worthless carbon tax. It isn't just "determine a price" because we already have, its 0. Instead, we have to "determine a price that will end all co2e production within the next few decades" a vastly more challenging proposition and one that also evaporates the support amongst the oil companies who advocate for a "carbon tax" that won't actually reduce emissions. Why can't we just have a small carbon tax and re-direct this funding towards renewables and as a way to push consumers towards less emitting things? Sure, it would difficult to implement but the theory strikes me as sound. California's gas tax and all host of other things have driven up the use of carpooling, electric vehicles and public transport. I see little to negatives here? No, it don't mean a regressive taxation policy - people need to go places, cool/heat their homes and use electricity. This would just be one out of literally hundreds of things we could do combat global warming. It's a carbon tax + other thing + other thing + other thing, etc. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Dec 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions Its a developing country that reach the modern industrial age only 30 years ago. For how long they've needed, we're behind and comparing our progress to theirs makes us look lovely and backwards. And when it comes to investing in Green and Nuclear, they are way ahead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
China or Xi has announced they are taking climate change much more seriously. Granted, it remains to be seen but this is a good thing. The secret origins of China's 40-year plan to end carbon emissions quote:The biggest emitter of planet-warming pollution managed to take almost the whole world by surprise. In a September speech to the United Nations, Chinese President Xi Jinping put a 2060 end date on his country's contribution to global warming. No other nation can do more to keep warming below the 1.5C threshold set in the Paris Agreement. Yet diplomats, climate activists and even policy experts inside China for the most part had not anticipated this pivotal turnabout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2020 06:16
|
|