Does Brexit Doom the Paris Climate Agreement?

[Jack Hays]

Here's some of the climate/environment fallout from Brexit. More to come I'm sure.


Newsbytes: Brexit Spells End Of Europe’s Climate Obsession Germany Starts Roll-Back Of Climate Policy

Britain’s exit dashes the European Union’s leadership ambitions on efforts to slow climate change, leaving the bloc on the sidelines while others endorse the global pact it championed to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Britain’s vote to leave the union has disrupted everyday affairs and probably displaced climate concerns as a political priority. It also removes…
Continue reading →

Six months after the U.N. Climate Change Conference – or COP21 – in Paris, the German government is becoming less and less ambitious about implementing the results. It is caving in, especially in the dispute over the future of coal. –-Handelsblatt, 30 June 2016
Germany has abandoned plans to set out a timetable to exit coal-fired power production and scrapped C02 emissions reduction goals for individual sectors, according to the latest draft of an environment ministry document seen by Reuters on Wednesday. The new version, which was revised following consultation with the economy and energy ministry, has also deleted specific concrete C02 emissions savings targets for the energy, industry, transport and agriculture sectors. —Reuters, 29 June 2016 . . . .

 

[joG]

Here's some of the climate/environment fallout from Brexit. More to come I'm sure.


Newsbytes: Brexit Spells End Of Europe’s Climate Obsession Germany Starts Roll-Back Of Climate Policy

Britain’s exit dashes the European Union’s leadership ambitions on efforts to slow climate change, leaving the bloc on the sidelines while others endorse the global pact it championed to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Britain’s vote to leave the union has disrupted everyday affairs and probably displaced climate concerns as a political priority. It also removes…
Continue reading →

Six months after the U.N. Climate Change Conference – or COP21 – in Paris, the German government is becoming less and less ambitious about implementing the results. It is caving in, especially in the dispute over the future of coal. –-Handelsblatt, 30 June 2016
Germany has abandoned plans to set out a timetable to exit coal-fired power production and scrapped C02 emissions reduction goals for individual sectors, according to the latest draft of an environment ministry document seen by Reuters on Wednesday. The new version, which was revised following consultation with the economy and energy ministry, has also deleted specific concrete C02 emissions savings targets for the energy, industry, transport and agriculture sectors. —Reuters, 29 June 2016 . . . .

As I said elsewhere, the EU is not the solution to the challenges of the 21 century. It exacerbates them.

 

[PeteEU]

Germany Just Got Almost All of Its Power From Renewable Energy - Bloomberg

 

[Jack Hays]

Germany Just Got Almost All of Its Power From Renewable Energy - Bloomberg

What a difference a month makes.

Germany has abandoned plans to set out a timetable to exit coal-fired power production and scrapped C02 emissions reduction goals for individual sectors, according to the latest draft of an environment ministry document seen by Reuters on Wednesday. The new version, which was revised following consultation with the economy and energy ministry, has also deleted specific concrete C02 emissions savings targets for the energy, industry, transport and agriculture sectors. —Reuters, 29 June 2016

 

[PeteEU]

What a difference a month makes.

Germany has abandoned plans to set out a timetable to exit coal-fired power production and scrapped C02 emissions reduction goals for individual sectors, according to the latest draft of an environment ministry document seen by Reuters on Wednesday. The new version, which was revised following consultation with the economy and energy ministry, has also deleted specific concrete C02 emissions savings targets for the energy, industry, transport and agriculture sectors. —Reuters, 29 June 2016

LOL or you just spreading carbon industry bull****... every think that?

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL or you just spreading carbon industry bull****... every think that?

The "carbon industry" is the foundation of our civilization, and will remain so for some time. Nuclear power might have been the successor, but was strangled politically.

 

[RetiredUSN]

LOL or you just spreading carbon industry bull****... every think that?

Everyone is for clean energy. The practical people only wish that ecology Nazis like yourself would STFU and let things develop without punishing jobs and making unnecessary laws in the mean time.

 

[PeteEU]

The "carbon industry" is the foundation of our civilization, and will remain so for some time. Nuclear power might have been the successor, but was strangled politically.

Thank you for showing your true colours. Out of curiosity, how much do you earn by being a coal and oil propaganda spokesman?

 

[Abbazorkzog]

The EU and the UK both suck fairly equally.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Everyone is for clean energy. The practical people only wish that ecology Nazis like yourself would STFU and let things develop without punishing jobs and making unnecessary laws in the mean time.

Yeah, what you said!

Even given that every gallon of gas burned results in twenty pounds of CO2 in the air (it's chemistry), and that there's a half billion automobiles operating almost every day in the world, and that from automobiles alone (not counting factories, ships, aircraft, and military vehicles) we pump several gigatonnes of CO2 into the air every year (from a source that the planet's climate never had to contend with)...

...yeah, how could we possibly think that such would ever affect our atmosphere and our worldwide climate?

 

[Jack Hays]

Thank you for showing your true colours. Out of curiosity, how much do you earn by being a coal and oil propaganda spokesman?

I'm a retired civil servant with no ties to any industry. Thank you for showing your true colors as a presumptuous know-nothing.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Yeah, what you said!

Even given that every gallon of gas burned results in twenty pounds of CO2 in the air (it's chemistry), and that there's a half billion automobiles operating almost every day in the world, and that from automobiles alone (not counting factories, ships, aircraft, and military vehicles) we pump several gigatonnes of CO2 into the air every year (from a source that the planet's climate never had to contend with)...

...yeah, how could we possibly think that such would ever affect our atmosphere and our worldwide climate?

You would be sitting on a stump sending your posts on Debate Politics via carrier pigeon without fossil fuels.

 

[joG]

Germany Just Got Almost All of Its Power From Renewable Energy - Bloomberg

And what is it that you want to say with that link? That Germany has made horribly inefficient investments in power plant? That the subsidy program way overshot and that energy is too costly now? The Handelsblatt article probably describes the new decisions on the matter. There was quite a commotion.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

You would be sitting on a stump sending your posts on Debate Politics via carrier pigeon without fossil fuels.

Hey - the Industrial Revolution was a great thing...but too much of ANYthing is a bad thing. For instance, antibiotics have saved untold millions of people...but the out-of-control use of antibiotics has resulted in resistant superbugs for which there are no viable treatments.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Hey - the Industrial Revolution was a great thing...but too much of ANYthing is a bad thing. For instance, antibiotics have saved untold millions of people...but the out-of-control use of antibiotics has resulted in resistant superbugs for which there are no viable treatments.

I agree Glen, but at the same time here in the good ole USA, we have a president who came into office with a agenda that spelled trouble for the economy from the very beginning. He ignored other countries pollution while penalizing the citizens of the USA. As I stated in the prior thread, he made laws that hurt the population without using any common sense in regards to transition time.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I agree Glen, but at the same time here in the good ole USA, we have a president who came into office with a agenda that spelled trouble for the economy from the very beginning. He ignored other countries pollution while penalizing the citizens of the USA. As I stated in the prior thread, he made laws that hurt the population without using any common sense in regards to transition time.

Thing is, when you're a president, you normally can't force other nations to do things against their will...and those other nations have strong business interests who are powerful within their governments, who also want to resist any kind of climate-change regulation even when they see the need for it with their own eyes.

Besides, there's something called "setting the example" - how can we demand for third-world nations to do something very expensive to do that we, the richest nation on the planet, aren't willing to show leadership by doing it first? Especially given that we and China are the two biggest polluters on the planet...which means that we and China should be first to cut our emissions, to show the way for the less-prosperous nations. China, btw, is trying to cut emissions - slowly, but surely...whereas America's still trying to decide whether maybe, just maybe, the great majority of the world's scientific community just might be right about something.

 

[Jack Hays]

Thing is, when you're a president, you normally can't force other nations to do things against their will...and those other nations have strong business interests who are powerful within their governments, who also want to resist any kind of climate-change regulation even when they see the need for it with their own eyes.

Besides, there's something called "setting the example" - how can we demand for third-world nations to do something very expensive to do that we, the richest nation on the planet, aren't willing to show leadership by doing it first? Especially given that we and China are the two biggest polluters on the planet...which means that we and China should be first to cut our emissions, to show the way for the less-prosperous nations. China, btw, is trying to cut emissions - slowly, but surely...whereas America's still trying to decide whether maybe, just maybe, the great majority of the world's scientific community just might be right about something.

Carbon just doesn't matter very much. That's 19th century science.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Thing is, when you're a president, you normally can't force other nations to do things against their will...and those other nations have strong business interests who are powerful within their governments, who also want to resist any kind of climate-change regulation even when they see the need for it with their own eyes.

Besides, there's something called "setting the example" - how can we demand for third-world nations to do something very expensive to do that we, the richest nation on the planet, aren't willing to show leadership by doing it first? Especially given that we and China are the two biggest polluters on the planet...which means that we and China should be first to cut our emissions, to show the way for the less-prosperous nations. China, btw, is trying to cut emissions - slowly, but surely...whereas America's still trying to decide whether maybe, just maybe, the great majority of the world's scientific community just might be right about something.

As a US President, you can make treaties and lobby congress to act on them when laws are needed to enforce them. Obama has abused the office with his BS climate treaties. Leading by example should have been in line with showing other countries to make the transition without hurting their own people economically.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

As a US President, you can make treaties and lobby congress to act on them when laws are needed to enforce them. Obama has abused the office with his BS climate treaties. Leading by example should have been in line with showing other countries to make the transition without hurting their own people economically.

Problem is, Congress was dead-set on agreeing with anything that Obama supported - it's been that way from the very beginning, and deliberately so.

Besides, last I recall, y'all are opposed to action on climate change NOT because Obama's going about it the right way or wrong way, but because most of y'all have gotten it into your heads that the great majority of the world's scientific community have their collective heads up their asses, that they're all somehow wrong, and that noted climate experts Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are right.

Seems to me that if y'all really thought AGW was real, then it was y'all's DUTY, and Congress' DUTY, to work with the president to negotiate such treaties and get them approved...but again, as the reference above shows, y'all refused to work with him on ANYthing, even if it had been something that y'all previously supported.

 

[PeteEU]

Everyone is for clean energy. The practical people only wish that ecology Nazis like yourself would STFU and let things develop without punishing jobs and making unnecessary laws in the mean time.

LOL So you have no problem punishing jobs and making unnecessary laws when it hits the renewable energy ? The carbon industry gets massive tax breaks world wide and needs to just die. It has nothing to do with ecology or anything like that, but pure logic. Why the hell should we the taxpayer keep paying for a dying limited industry and not for an industry that has some future? The sun aint gonna shut off, but oil and gas will run out.

 

[PeteEU]

And what is it that you want to say with that link? That Germany has made horribly inefficient investments in power plant? That the subsidy program way overshot and that energy is too costly now? The Handelsblatt article probably describes the new decisions on the matter. There was quite a commotion.

Oh shocker you too are part of the pro-American carbon lobby on these boards.. who would have thought that..

 

[PeteEU]

I'm a retired civil servant with no ties to any industry. Thank you for showing your true colors as a presumptuous know-nothing.

Sure.... then answer this. Are you for laws that force car producers to make their cars more efficient? How about laws that force the coal industry to clean up their own mess? Or how about making so called clean coal? For or against? Because I can tell you right now, that the industries would NEVER have gotten to do that if it was left up to the free market.

No we need to take away the tax dollars we throw at the carbon industry every year and go massive into alternative energy sources and making things like efficient batteries. There is no future in the carbon industry and they are profitable without our tax money.

 

[humbolt]

Oh shocker you too are part of the pro-American carbon lobby on these boards.. who would have thought that..

Me too. Being a carbon based life form, I'm kind of attached to it.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sure.... then answer this. Are you for laws that force car producers to make their cars more efficient? How about laws that force the coal industry to clean up their own mess? Or how about making so called clean coal? For or against? Because I can tell you right now, that the industries would NEVER have gotten to do that if it was left up to the free market.

No we need to take away the tax dollars we throw at the carbon industry every year and go massive into alternative energy sources and making things like efficient batteries. There is no future in the carbon industry and they are profitable without our tax money.

How do you feel about nuclear power? It is the only power source other than fossil fuels with the consistent load bearing capacity to support our technological civilization.

I don't see a downside to fossil fuels.

Though Media Refuse To Admit, CERN Results Vastly Strengthen Svensmark's Cosmic Ray-Climate Theory

 

[RetiredUSN]

LOL So you have no problem punishing jobs and making unnecessary laws when it hits the renewable energy ? The carbon industry gets massive tax breaks world wide and needs to just die. It has nothing to do with ecology or anything like that, but pure logic. Why the hell should we the taxpayer keep paying for a dying limited industry and not for an industry that has some future? The sun aint gonna shut off, but oil and gas will run out.

Never said anything of the kind. People on both sides of the argument want people to have jobs...... not kill them. I am a huge fan of renewable energy, but we are not even close to being there yet. When we are ready, then let's start transitioning in a economical feasible way. Obama's pipeline and coal fiasco has killed thousands of jobs.