• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US vows to cut its emissions at least 50% by 2030 ahead of climate summit

Phys251

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
59,629
Reaction score
51,675
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yes, it is quite amazing , escpecially if you succeed. Unfortunatly EU has been less bold. The EU goal is to reduce the greenhouse gases with 55% to 2030. BUT... the starting date is set to 1990 and since many countries already has reduced the greenhouse gases with at least 25%. It da facto means a reduction off only 30% (Sweden has reduced it's greenhouse gases with 29% since 1990)

It's disappointing. EU could and should set a more ambitious goal. like Biden.
 
Phys251 said:
www.theguardian.com

Biden vows to slash US emissions by half to meet ‘existential crisis of our time’

Move comes as the US scrambles to regain international credibility after the climate denialist presidency of Donald Trump
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

More good news from the administration that is bringing science to the forefront where it belongs. (y)
Click to expand...
I guess we do have a history of aiming for the moon and actually hitting it. So maybe we can pull off something similar today.

That goal is definitely a long shot, but I respect Biden for at least trying to steer the ship in the right direction. Every bit of clean technology investment is a good thing.
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. Do you want to make a bet at where we are in 2030?
Click to expand...
I'll bet you that he will be closer than Trump was when he said that our covid cases will go from 15 down to 0.

This is what you don't realize. You supported an idiot who was obviously not qualified for the job and who said crazy shit and made insane predictions all the time. You've twisted yourself in a pretzel to defend his shenanigans and therefor your opinion shouldn't matter to any competent person. It means nothing. Your comments bear the same weight as the saying in a fortune cookie or the answer from a magic 8 ball. It might be entertaining to read it and laugh, but no one should take it seriously.
 
And what about holding China accountable for countless Climate Change "lapses"?
 
Juks said:
Yes, it is quite amazing , escpecially if you succeed. Unfortunatly EU has been less bold. The EU goal is to reduce the greenhouse gases with 55% to 2030. BUT... the starting date is set to 1990 and since many countries already has reduced the greenhouse gases with at least 25%. It da facto means a reduction off only 30% (Sweden has reduced it's greenhouse gases with 29% since 1990)

It's disappointing. EU could and should set a more ambitious goal. like Biden.
Click to expand...
Umm... this was 50% from 2005 levels... so basically the same thing.
 
Elmo said:
I guess we do have a history of aiming for the moon and actually hitting it. So maybe we can pull off something similar today.

That goal is definitely a long shot, but I respect Biden for at least trying to steer the ship in the right direction. Every bit of clean technology investment is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Pop quiz; how much have emissions dropped since the benchmark, and how close are we to already accomplishing this goal?
 
Metric Mouse said:
Pop quiz; how much have emissions dropped since the benchmark, and how close are we to already accomplishing this goal?
Click to expand...

1619185571596.png

Compared to 2020, we only need to reduce emissions by 37% to make Biden's goal.

Most of the decline between 2008 and 2018 has been the result of two things: economic recession and the shutdown of inefficient coal-fired power plants. Essentially none of it has been the result of deliberate policy. If that's going to suddenly change, I'd like to hear just what that policy is going to be.
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. I understand that you don't want to take the bet.
Click to expand...
I wish this were a laughing matter. Due to the studied insouciance of those like Moderate Right, I figure humanity's only real hope if geoengineering, with all it's scary unpredictability.
 
This is hopeful:

“Change is coming, whether we seek it or not.” So declares a remarkable document titled “Preserving Coal Country,” released Monday by the United Mine Workers of America, in which the union — which at its peak represented half a million workers — accepts the reality that coal isn’t coming back. Instead, it argues, the goal should be “a true energy transition that will enhance opportunities for miners, their families and their communities.”
 
I don't remember vowing this.
 
jpn said:
This is hopeful:

“Change is coming, whether we seek it or not.” So declares a remarkable document titled “Preserving Coal Country,” released Monday by the United Mine Workers of America, in which the union — which at its peak represented half a million workers — accepts the reality that coal isn’t coming back. Instead, it argues, the goal should be “a true energy transition that will enhance opportunities for miners, their families and their communities.”
Click to expand...
Sure beats the "Put a lot of coal miners our of business" mantra from a few years ago. Progress is great.
 
Juks said:
Yes, it is quite amazing , escpecially if you succeed. Unfortunatly EU has been less bold. The EU goal is to reduce the greenhouse gases with 55% to 2030. BUT... the starting date is set to 1990 and since many countries already has reduced the greenhouse gases with at least 25%. It da facto means a reduction off only 30% (Sweden has reduced it's greenhouse gases with 29% since 1990)

It's disappointing. EU could and should set a more ambitious goal. like Biden.
Click to expand...


?????? EU goal of 55% reduction by 2030 is 5% more than Bidens goal of 50% reduction by 2030. AND Biden uses 2015 which had higher CO2 output than 1990
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Once you overcome the resistance from those who adamantly oppose ANY "gubmint reguhlaten" the US just might succeed.
Click to expand...

The US has already succeeded in cutting CO2 more than any nation in the world.
 
dixon01767 said:
The US has already succeeded in cutting CO2 more than any nation in the world.
Click to expand...

If you are talking in terms of absolute numbers, you are quite likely correct.

If you are talking about percentage reduction, then between 1990 and 2019:

the US has reduced its CO2 output by 0.76%​
​
France has reduced its CO2 output by 17.6%​
​
Russia has reduced its CO2 output by 26.64%​
​
Germany has reduced its CO2 output by 29.88%​
​
and​
​
the UK has reduced its CO2 output by 38.25%.​

The US remains the second largest CO2 emitter in terms of gross tonnage so any basis of a claim to excellent performance is like the person who was covered in mud from head to toe claiming that they are "cleaner" than the person who was already 98% clean on the basis that the one who was covered in mud from head to toe removed more dirt when they wiped their left little finger clean up to the first joint than the other did when they took a bath.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I'll bet you that he will be closer than Trump was when he said that our covid cases will go from 15 down to 0.

This is what you don't realize. You supported an idiot who was obviously not qualified for the job and who said crazy shit and made insane predictions all the time. You've twisted yourself in a pretzel to defend his shenanigans and therefor your opinion shouldn't matter to any competent person. It means nothing. Your comments bear the same weight as the saying in a fortune cookie or the answer from a magic 8 ball. It might be entertaining to read it and laugh, but no one should take it seriously.
Click to expand...

Last year the USA cut emissions by 13%. It only had to shut the economy down to do it.
And its TRUMP who was not qualified for the job, made insane predictions and said crazy stuff in office?
 
Athanasius68 said:
And its TRUMP who was not qualified for the job, made insane predictions and said crazy stuff in office?
Click to expand...
Yes. Biden made a very very ambitious goal and we very likely won't reach it without a major technological breakthrough or by placing harsh restrictions on businesses or the american people which would be hated in general and is not politically feasible.

Trump continually promised that a deadly virus would magically go away, he said we would go from 15 cases to 0 when in reality we have over half a million dead bodies etc.

If you compare the two, one looks downright normal in comparison. You would have to be delusional to think Biden's prediction is even comparable to Trumps.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If you are talking in terms of absolute numbers, you are quite likely correct.

If you are talking about percentage reduction, then between 1990 and 2019:

the US has reduced its CO2 output by 0.76%​
​
France has reduced its CO2 output by 17.6%​
​
Russia has reduced its CO2 output by 26.64%​
​
Germany has reduced its CO2 output by 29.88%​
​
and​
​
the UK has reduced its CO2 output by 38.25%.​

The US remains the second largest CO2 emitter in terms of gross tonnage so any basis of a claim to excellent performance is like the person who was covered in mud from head to toe claiming that they are "cleaner" than the person who was already 98% clean on the basis that the one who was covered in mud from head to toe removed more dirt when they wiped their left little finger clean up to the first joint than the other did when they took a bath.
Click to expand...
No one was claiming that the United states was cleaner, just that they have done more work cleaning up the planet by reducing their emissions than anyone else. In this case total tonnage matters more than percent. If Cuba went 100% green, for example, it would not be as positive for the planet as the if China reduced emissions by 20%.
 
While I generally support this pledge I think it is somewhat meaningless in terms of energy security without a parallel vow to in-source manufacture of photovoltaics and energy storage. Otherwise, "50% reduction by 2030" essentially translates into "buy more from China."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom