Utilities Have A Plan To Protect The Climate, Which Probably Won't Work - Weather Channel

[hatrack]

Ed. - This is a long article but well worth reading.

Last month, a thousand well-heeled bankers, scrappy startups and energy CEOs sat down at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance conference in a swanky New York hotel to discuss the billions they would spend over the next 20 years to build cleaner energy and save the planet from the worst ravages of climate change.

They have fine plans. They seem like earnest people. They certainly represent powerful companies and big ideas. It’s exactly the conversation you would hope is happening inside corporate boardrooms as scientists calculate the catastrophic impacts of continuing to burn fossil fuels. There’s just one problem. Time.

The IPCC warns that in order to prevent catastrophic warming, we need to completely wean off our fossil fuel addiction by 2050. Last year, carbon emissions actually went up instead of down. According to the World Energy Outlook, renewables are expected to supply only 40 percent of the world’s electricity by 2040. America’s power giants have made pledges that go beyond that outlook, but these pledges are simply not aggressive enough.



“If you look at the rate at which we need to decarbonize, we simply are not going to decarbonize as fast as the IPCC says that we need to,” says Ethan Zindler, Head of Americas at Bloomberg’s New Energy Finance division.

EDIT

https://features.weather.com/collateral/power-companies-reduce-carbon-emissions-nuclear-energy-climate-change/

[at140]

1. Nothing is going to work umtil

China & India & se Asia reduces emissions.
Their population is TEN times bigger than USA.
We all live on the same planet?

[IndyOp]

2. How does your comment relate to the U.S. meeting goals?

All nations cannot meet international goals unless the U.S. meets them.

We have to meet the goals and nudge, pressure, require other nations to meet theirs as well.

[at140]

3. Our population is 315 million

Population of Asia is around 5000 million.
Unless we force the rest of the world to reduce emissions, our air quality cannot improve much and global warming will continue.

Our unilateral restraints on emissions will hurt American jobs and give unfair advantage to businesses in China, India & SE Asia. I have travelled to all 3 of those regions just 2 years ago, and the air pollution is horrendous.

[IndyOp]

4. If the unilateral restraints on admissions are part of...

trillions of dollars of government subsidies for U.S. companies that want to make leaps in clean energy technology and create decent-paying jobs as we return tax rates for the wealthy to 1950’s -then the U.S. can earn money by selling the new tech internationally. Whoever gets ahead on climate crisis tech will be the long-term winner.

Buttigieg is talking about government funding of tech innovation because economics research shows that companies do okay at investing billions for innovation that will pay off in 3-5 years, but - internationally - it takes government investment to develop innovation that will pay off only after a decade or more. China and other nations directly invest billions and trillions in research conducted by major corporations while the US has historically put money into agencies like DARPA from which US companies benefit.

To make it through the climate crisis we are also going to have to go through the looking glass regarding our understanding of how government spending can impact the economy. We won’t have money to do what has to be done without embracing modern monetary theory. If we do that, much of the old thinking about what presents danger or reward - in terms of governments creating money to accomplish goals and buffer impact of changes - will change.

[progree]

6. Google "greenhouse gas emissions per capita by country" and then tell us who needs to

show some restraint. Please bear in mind too that a lot of China and Southeast Asia's emissions are manufacturing the goods that we Western piggies consume.

[at140]

7. Per capital x population

= the result is what counts.
If sparsely populated Norway is causing 10 times per CAPITA emissions than United States, it still means nothing. I won't ever visit my home town in India again because I can't even breathe there.

You need to FIRST HAND visit cities in India, China, and SE Asia before reaching conclusions. We in USA could reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero and still global warming will continue without any significant difference.

Those Asian countries are never going to hurt their economies. The mass riots will kill the leaders. Because over population and poverty trumps any fear of global warming.

[progree]

9. Any one country, even China, the biggest emitter, could reduce GHG to zero and

Last edited Sun May 19, 2019, 12:43 PM - Edit history (1)

it would make little difference globally. But that's not a good excuse for everyone to do nothing, while we live out in the weeds and drive our monster super pickup trucks and SUVs alone an hour each way to work so we can have bigger houses -- where the air conditioning comes on when it's half a degree above perfect, or we feel like we're living in hell.

And we must have our pets to validate us -- A medium size dog has about as much GHG impact as an SUV driven 12,000 miles per year (mostly from producing the meat it eats). But no. Squeeeee! We need animals bred to adore us to validate us.

Oh we must have those fancy planet-killing intercontinental vacations and cruises too, so we can bore everyone we know with the pictures?

and then we wag our moralistic fingers at "those people" who don't have those things

As for population, should Wyoming wag its moralistic fingers at Californians' GHG emissions?

Anyway, the U.S. is the second biggest emitter.

Nothing is going to work until China & India & se Asia reduces emissions.

... Unless we force the rest of the world to reduce emissions, our air quality cannot improve much and global warming will continue.
Our unilateral restraints on emissions will hurt American jobs and give unfair advantage to businesses in China, India & SE Asia

... We in USA could reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero and still global warming will continue without any significant difference.
Those Asian countries are never going to hurt their economies. ...

Somehow the "why bother doing anything, and it will hurt our economy if we did" because "those people" blah blah (paraphrasing not quoting) is not an attitude I expect to find on a progressive message board and I don't agree with it either. Both China and India have taken far more drastic actions to control their population growth than we ever have.

I've lived in Nigeria, so I've seen poverty that will match anything in India. I've lived in S. Korea too (early 70's), which back then was poor, but nothing like Nigeria.

[at140]

11. You are right but preaching to the converted

I did not mean to imply nothing should be done to reduce emitting gases which trap heat.

All I know is the Asian countries are nowhere ready to do significant reductions. Having grown up there I know the Asian mentality better than others.

I would like to start sanctioning ALL non-compliers. Barring that it is stupid to impose burdens on our corporate employers. Install severe punishment on leaders of no -compliers. Including refusing visas, install high taxes on anything they own or transact in US. Only if all that is done, I can support 100% installing emission standards here. For crying out loud Asian countries do not even require emission standards on cars.

[NickB79]

5. If we can't lead by example, we need to give up the throne

Step aside and let China lead instead.

[at140]

8. If example could pursuade other countries

They would all be Democratic republics by now. Ping me when all the dictatorships and authoritarian regimes are no more.

Ping me when women can go out without covering faces and heads everywhere. Ping me when gays won't be stoned to death in any country.

[NickB79]

10. It's as much an economic as moral goal

As the climate worsens, the nations that have built the most resilience, reduced dependency on fossil fuels, researched, built and deployed the most low-carbon tech will be the nations that see the best survival as the planet warms. They'll be able to protect their people and economies from the climate shocks.

Even if no other nations decarbonized, a unilateral switch would lessen the blow when the seas rise and the crops start to fail.

The alternative is a total collapse of human civilization.

[at140]

12. 320 million will overcome 7000 million

People polluting like crazy? Have you recently visited Bangkok, Mumbai, Beijing, Jakarta, New Delhi? The traffic jams will boggle your mind. Their cars don't even require emission controls anything close to ours. I can never visit the city I was born in and lived for 20 years because I can't even breathe there.