China, India to Reach Climate Goals Years Early, as U.S. Likely to Fall Far Short

[ScienceRocks]

China, India to Reach Climate Goals Years Early, as U.S. Likely to Fall Far Short

Quote

Slowing coal use in China and India has put the world's two most populous countries on track to beat their carbon emission goals under the Paris climate agreement, according to a new analysis.
Greenhouse gas emissions from both countries are growing more slowly than they predicted just a year ago, and the difference is substantial—roughly 2 to 3 billion tons annually by the year 2030.
That would be enough to more than offset the relatively poor performance expected from the United States as President Donald Trump rolls back controls and puts the U.S. on track to miss its Paris pledge.
The forecasts were issued by Climate Action Tracker, a consortium of three international research organizations, as negotiators from around the world met in Bonn, Germany, to carry out the global climate treaty's work.
"Five years ago, the idea of either China or India stopping—or even slowing—coal use was considered an insurmountable hurdle, as coal-fired power plants were thought by many to be necessary to satisfy the energy demands of these countries," said Bill Hare, CEO of Climate Analytics, one of the research consortium members. "Recent o

wow, conservatives are just wrong on this issue.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Wrong about what? Was there a conservative who predicted that either of these countries wouldn't meet their target? And you might want to consider why China's emissions are not growing as fast as they were (yes, they are not reducing their emissions, they are just slowing the growth of the emissions). Interesting that their emissions growth has slowed just like their GDP output has.

And yet they keep building coal fired power plants while the US shutters old plants. Why is that?
China keeps building coal plants despite new overcapacity policy - Energydesk

As U.S. Shutters Coal Plants, China and Japan are Building Them - IER

 

[RGR]

China, India to Reach Climate Goals Years Early, as U.S. Likely to Fall Far Short

Quote

wow, conservatives are just wrong on this issue.

Considering how poorly you represent even articles you cut and paste, I'm not sure your credibility can withstand even minor questions as to why you claim this.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump should deport the AGW Cult to China; it's a win-win

 

[Old Rocks]

Naw, Frankie Boi, we are going to export the senile old orange clown to Leavenworth.

 

[DGS49]

This is a god example of the political Left peddling non - obvious falsehoods to make a specious point.

China's goal is for its CO2 emissions to peak in 2030. Think about that. That means their CO2 emissions WILL CONTINUE TO RISE for the next 13 years. Then they will either plateau or fall, but there is no commitment beyond 2030. Now the Left wants to Pat China on the back because they project they might peak before that. Big whoop.

As for India, they will also be building dozens of new carbon - powered plants (they really need new capacity!), but they will try to increase the percentage of renewables in the new capacity. Again, their CO2 emissions will be INCREASING for the foreseeable future.

So while the U.S. and Europe commit to REDUCING our CO2 emissions, China and India will be dramatically increasing their emissions, all the while meeting their obligations under the Paris accords. China is by far the biggest CO2 producer, generating about 3 times what we do. There is nothing "wrong" with China or India (or any other developing nation) burning coal, gas, and other carbon fuels to provide their populations with the material benefits that we take for granted.

But the case for the U.S. is clear. Our reductions will be near insignificant when viewed alongside the dramatic increases in CO2 emissions from the developing world. We should try to be a leader in developing and deploying renewables, and we should always work to improve fuel usage efficiency, but crippling our industries to meet reduction targets would be stupid.

Trump is right.

 

[Old Rocks]

And how would switching to cheaper and less polluting energy cripple our industries? Grid scale storage is being built and installed as we post, just the beginning of another revolution in energy. Wind and solar are now the cheapest forms of energy, and most nations are installing that as fast as possible where it is practical. The US is rich in both wind and solar potential. That is why the solar and wind industries are booming, and there are no coal fired generators being built in the US at present.

AWEA 2017: Day two - as it happened

17:03 - With wind power development outpacing the expansion of transmission capacity in the US, grid congestion challenges are likely to get worse before they get better.

With corporate buyers pushing that risk back on developers in power purchase contracts, it can expose wind farm operators to significant costs.

"At this conference, it seems to be one of the issues that is keeping people awake at night," Hudson Gilmer, vice-president of commercial markets at the energy market data analysis firm Genscape, said during a stand-alone presentation.

There is currently 136GW of wind generation in the US interconnection queue and only 35-47GW of new transmission on the drawing board to be built by 2020, he said.

Although new transmission has emerged as a key priority for AWEA, Gilmer is concerned about "a backlash from regulators and ratepayers, where they are not building transmission at the same rate they were and yet we're continuing to build renewables."

If the private companies cannot do this, then the government should do it and charge for each kw put over their lines. There are vast areas in Oregon and Nevada that can produce both wind and solar without disturbing the environment that much. And, in our cities, we have vast roof areas in commercial and industrial complexes that could produce much of the energy needed for those cities.

 

[task0778]

I don't believe one word of this. Not. One. Word.

 

[Old Rocks]

Which changes the reality of it not one whit.