Climate Meltdown

“This report confirms that the year 2016 was the warmest on record – a remarkable 1.1 °C above the pre-industrial period, which is 0.06 °C above the previous record set in 2015. This increase in global temperature is consistent with other changes occurring in the climate system”

“Globally averaged sea surface temperatures were also the warmest on record, global sea levels continued to rise, and Arctic sea-ice extent was well below average for most of the year”

“With levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere consistently breaking new records, the influence of human activities on the climate system has become more and more evident”
 
See Climate breaks multiple records in 2016, with global impacts.
While Earth’s environment is melting down, Trumpists continue denial of the facts and encourage profligate burning of fossil fuels instead of using renewable energy. SAD!

Have you shopped for your EV yet? What’s holding you back? See The Norwegian EV success continues.

“Norway is leading the way for the transition to zero emission electric cars. In 2015, electric vehicles had a
22% market share in Norway. This is due to a substantial package of incentives developed to promote zero emission cars.

While the Norwegian EV market share is stabilizing on 20 % most other countries hold around 1 % market share. This implies that the Norwegian EV market is approximately 5 years ahead most other countries. This makes the Norwegian market an interesting and beneficial case for other countries.”

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.

This entry was posted in politics, weather and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Climate Meltdown

  1. Well_well says:

    It’s amusing to see that those foul-mouthed pro-whatever-Microsoft-ever-does loons are also anti-environmentalists. Yeah, let’s damage the environment because China does the same thing. Crank magnetism in action.

  2. oiaohm says:

    The problem really ramped up with continuous growth of population and industrialization. A guy with a sharp stick can’t dig up nearly as much coal as a guy with a huge bucket excavator or as much oil as Big Oil ships.
    Wrong problem. Huge areas of forest no longer exist in Australia and other Places because humans destroyed them. When Humans got short on easy to access timber we moved to coal in a lot of place. Those areas of forest were another form of long term carbon storage.

    So first we destroyed the natural carbon sinks then we got more effective at mining more.

    So due to the process being multi stage looking for a bump at a particular point is hard. Like a gas stove releases about 1/5 of the carbon it takes to cook food on a open camp fire. Like in india and other places rocket stoves and Biomass Gasifier are starting to be deployed.

    The scary part is a hunter gatherer who is using horribly inefficient methods have a larger carbon foot print than some areas of modern day humans.

    Millions of years of accumulation of carbon is being undone in a few centuries. It’s whiplash for the environment.
    Millions of years of accumulation of carbon was also released with forest destruction that starts before we get the oil and coal habit.

    Like take China and England you don’t have Coal fields any more. Yes industrialisation speed that up but both places were local mining coal before the industrial age for cooking and heating normally in open style fire setup that is highly wasteful.

    Coal fields mostly form under forests. Many areas of Australia have what is called green coal that is coal less than 200 years old.

    Saudi Arabia alone ships ~10million barrels a day.
    This sound like massive increase but this is ignoring how much use to be local in a lots of places and has been mined out of existence so now replacement has to be imported from else where. One of the things industrial age does is brings effective stoves. Look at the old medieval castle kitchens CO2 emit to cook the food is 8 times worse than most of what we use today(yes the method of maintaining the fires makes 5 times worse 8 times worse). The the weak ones that is just as bad charcoal barbecues and camp fires that most people don’t use.

    The scary part is London England if you follow the records more coal was imported into London before the industrial age than after. So 1950-1970 is a mixed bag of results. Some areas reduced there CO2 emit rates in 1950-1970 time frame.

    This is one of the common mistakes of talking about Climate is thinking we got worse with the industrial age. Humans with fire releasing CO2 have been horrible wasteful. Rocket stove like design vs fire pit. 1/5 the amount of fuel to cook the same thing on a Rocket stove.

    Human CO2 emission problems more align to population growth and destruction of CO2 sinks than the industrial age.

  3. The Wiz wrote, “Are you a sock puppet for the banned Dougman?”

    Could be. The philosophy’s similar although the vocabulary is different. OTOH, redistribution of wealth is a good thing if it allows one to sell one’s products. What good is having great products if no one can buy them? I doubt carbon taxes have much to do with that. Folks in poor regions can’t even afford water let alone gas-guzzlers. They can, however, grow chocolate and tea and coffee, sell them to us so they can afford smartphones, and…

    A lot of the world lives close to the seas so the mass of water moderates their climate. It’s the poles getting hammered now. We are just getting the side-effects. When the real crunch comes no one will be able to grow corn or wheat inland and starvation will be widespread. Let’s hope Trumpism dies an early death.

  4. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,”

    A Pure Dougie’ism. Are you a sock puppet for the banned Dougman?

  5. oiaohm wrote, ” Allow for all the coal and other times that were being dug up and burnt for cooking and heating. So humans had been very busy for thousands of years making a mess.”

    The problem really ramped up with continuous growth of population and industrialization. A guy with a sharp stick can’t dig up nearly as much coal as a guy with a huge bucket excavator or as much oil as Big Oil ships. Saudi Arabia alone ships ~10million barrels a day. There was nothing like that in ancient times. Millions of years of accumulation of carbon is being undone in a few centuries. It’s whiplash for the environment.

  6. oiaohm says:

    http://www.johnenglander.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Englander%20420kyr%20CO2-T-SL%20rev.jpg
    Mohammed Khan
    The rate of sea level rise has not accelerated since the consensus view of when man-made global warming is believed to have begun adding to naturally occurring warming (1950-1970’s).
    That is when idiot reference for when it started.

    Man-made global warming starts at the same time the Australian native burnt out the centre of Australian and turned it into a desert at the end of the last ice age. 1950-1970 are just continuations. The start is approx 8 thousand years go. Allow for all the coal and other times that were being dug up and burnt for cooking and heating. So humans had been very busy for thousands of years making a mess.

  7. oiaohm says:

    Pic, can you, FOR ONCE, not attempt to derail the conversation? I was talking about CO2 used to produce energy/electricity to run the factory and heat the furnace. Why should Trump hold US tractor manufacturing companies accountable for that kind of CO2 emission when the Chinese practically don’t do so for Chinese tractor manufacturing companies?
    Kurkosdr Problem is this is not true. Chinese tractor manufacturing is carbon taxed. Also process restricted. In fact Process restricted is very much more important. Foundries used to make tractor engine blocks and other parts in the USA are illegal to operate in China because they are too polluting. China is desperately trying to solve its pollution problem. So per ton of steel produced the USA emits more CO2 than ton of steel produced in China of the same quality all due to the different requirements on foundries. Also legal forcing China steel makers to use best practice means they have lower CO2 emit so even that they are paying more on CO2 emit per volume they are paying less due to emiting less volume because they cannot use crappy designed foundries or lights….. China is also forcing best practise on power generation this is why there is now a large investment in solar and wind and looking into different hydro options.

    China is not depending on a carbon tax alone. China uses carbon tax + strict regulation. China being a wild west where you can emit what ever you like ended with the political embarrassment of the Beijing Olympics

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/world/asia/beijing-air-pollution-red-alert.html
    Since 2015 its got even worse for companies in China. If pollution is past particular levels you factory can be shut down by order of government until it lower to emit again. China has a lot more production than the USA. But each factory individually is required to be clearer with more regulation and taxes than USA one.

    One of the the things to fix a lot of USA production would be out law many of the bad practices that China has. Basically in some places USA law need to come into alignment with China law.

    There is very little difference in labour cost between USA and China as well.

    The big issues in the USA is slow red tape followed by poor land allocation and planning for factories. Serous-ally in china you have a factory that needs a large area the government will relocate other businesses and houses so it all in one place and not having to ship all over the place when manufacturing. USA you end up with only able to by x size block of land here y size over there z somewhere else again then having to ship the parts between those three locations to make the product. Not very effective from CO2 and other emit values either. So both of those things make USA factories without question not competitive.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs
    Kurkosdr this is one of the clear points of difference. China you walk into factory in china today and there will be not a single incandescent bulb in anything. Most factories will be LED lighting completely. Even using fluorescent tubes is a please explain. Yes you go into a USA factory look up there is fluorescent or incandescent blubs. So on lighting USA factories waste more power than China ones due to use poor designed lights. China also has restrictions on what you can used for heating and how. So USA is missing a mountain of regulation forbidding poor performing solutions the lack of those regulations make USA companies not as competitive. China worked out regulations make companies update stuff quickly not waiting for it burn out and fail. So China able to have lower CO2 emit on a lot of things due to their factories being more modern in the items they are using compared to other countries because they are forbidden from using the poor performing solutions.

    There are no countries be swallowed up by the sea.
    Mohammed Khan not true 4+ island countries are gone from the Pacific due to sea level rise. Islands that have been populated for over 10000 years. So it more a question how bad is it going to get.

  8. Mohammed Khan says:

    The Maldives are not expected to go under in 30 years – perhaps never. They have survived as sea level rose more than 400 feet during the past 12,000 years, even when there were no man-made emissions. So tell me, what caused the sea level to rise 400 feet, hmmm??

    The Earth is not currently experiencing any sort of dramatic climate change. The rate of sea level rise has not accelerated since the consensus view of when man-made global warming is believed to have begun adding to naturally occurring warming (1950-1970’s). The entire point of this global warming mantra is what I referenced earlier.

    “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,”

    http://mrpogson.com/2017/03/23/climate-meltdown/#comment-373163

  9. The Wiz wrote, “I am personally hoping that I am gone before the worst of the climate changes happen.”

    Eventually, I hope enough see the writing on the wall that rather than just reducing CO2 emissions, folks will see that they need to capture CO2. That can be done by reforestation on a grand scale and irrigating crops in drier areas. Much of Africa, South America and USA could really grow a lot more biomass. Where my uncle used to grow wheat, he could double his production with just one good thunderstorm in June. My yard will have the most trees of any on my street if the deer and hares don’t eat them first… We should all do our part by planting trees and if we don’t have space for them, donate trees to someone who does. I’m going to keep on producing trees even after TLW says, “NO MORE!”, and give them away. Last year, I gave away a few. It was a good feeling. I expect I will put up a table at the end of the driveway and post a sign with printed sheets about planting/care/siting. We can also vote out turkeys like Trump who don’t seem to know anything except how to make people angry.

  10. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Wake up? I am VERY wake and can see the bullshit, while you are easily manipulated by CNN, should just go back asleep, but wait, how can you go back to sleep when you are already asleep logically that is.”

    Oh, Dougie, you really should stop drinking the Breitbart coolaid. Then again, its probably too late anyway to do anything about the climate changes. I am personally hoping that I am gone before the worst of the climate changes happen.

    On the other hand, it is my fervent hope than you and your ilk are around to get a front row seat for the worst of it to come.

  11. Mohammed Khan wrote, “California does not have a drought”

    “This winter, for the first time in a decade, and after five years of a crippling statewide drought, the Yolo Bypass is submerged again.”

    See California’s Drought May Be Over, But Its Water Troubles Aren’t
    Mohammed Khan wrote, “Temperatures are stable in the Arctic, there is still ice”.

    Not true and true, but misleading. When I was last in the Arctic we had -45C with 60km/h winds. They don’t get that any more. Hudson’s Bay had the longest ice-free period ever recorded in 2016. It’s been getting longer steadily for decades. The Arctic average temperature has risen 6C in recent years.

    Mohammed Khanwrote, “There are no countries be swallowed up by the sea”

    The Maldives is disappearing.

    “In 2004, a tsunami swallowed two-thirds of the country. As a result, over 20 islands were permanently erased from the map. The Earth is currently undergoing a climate change of historic proportion, with sea levels rising noticeably from the melting of glaciers and icebergs. If the trend continues, the Maldives will be completely submerged in 30 years.”

    Sea-level is rising because the Arctic and Antarctic ice-shields are melting due to global warming.

    So, you can base your conclusions on falsehood or educate yourself about reality instead.

  12. Mohammed Khan says:

    California does not have a drought, if it does then explain the Orville Dam fiasco.

    Temperatures are stable in the Arctic, there is still ice, none of it has melted drastically. In fact it has been growing at an increased rate, and always comes back never disappearing as some models have predicted.

    There are no countries be swallowed up by the sea. There are no frequent hurricanes. New York was flooded by a hurricane, which is just a localized low-pressure, big deal. Hurricanes happen anywhere along the east coast, I suppose they all should have dykes too?

    Climate models predicted additional intense hurricanes, too. Yet for nearly a decade, the United States has experienced far fewer hurricanes making landfall than the historic average, and those hurricanes that have made landfall have been no more powerful than previously experienced.

    Additionally, sea-level rise has slowed, polar bear numbers have increased, Antarctica is gaining ice, and crop production continues to set records year over year. Each of these points contradicts predictions made in climate models produced by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Wake up? I am VERY wake and can see the bullshit, while you are easily manipulated by CNN, should just go back asleep, but wait, how can you go back to sleep when you are already asleep logically that is.

  13. Kurkosdr says:

    Pic, can you, FOR ONCE, not attempt to derail the conversation?

    I was talking about CO2 used to produce energy/electricity to run the factory and heat the furnace. Why should Trump hold US tractor manufacturing companies accountable for that kind of CO2 emission when the Chinese practically don’t do so for Chinese tractor manufacturing companies?

  14. Kurkosdr wrote, “The hypocrisy lies in the fact you buy Chinese tractors because they are cheaper, without caring about the CO2 footprint of the Chinese companies that produce those tractors”.

    The production of steel is fairly well defined: coal or electricity is used to melt scrap steel, coal is used to reduce iron oxides to produce iron mixed with carbon, air is used to burn away excess carbon and scrap steel is added to the mix to produce the desired alloy. Some CO2 is produced in the process but it’s necessary. It is possible to scrub CO2 from the exhaust but it’s very expensive for the benefit. OTOH, the steel goes into durable goods lasting years, even centuries. All the agriculture of China likely recovers that much CO2 annually.

    The smog in Beijing may develop from exhausts of automobiles and plants caught in the tall buildings. The local government has taken strong measures to deal with a local problem. London, England, had the same problem back in the day when everyone heated with “peat“, renewable pre-coal. That problem was fixed and it didn’t require taxing businesses. They’re even considering banning use in gardens not as a source of heat but compost.

  15. Kurkosdr says:

    Chinese tractor manufacturers cannot admit as much CO2 as they like they have environmental controls that limit what companies do. Including taxing them for what ever they emit.

    So a Chinese tractor company cannot emit as much CO2 as they deem fit. Chinese tractor company is required to explain every single thing they emit why the are emitting it and that there was no other process to avoid emitting

    The Chinese are experts at pretending they care. Theoretically they care about protecting Apple from Chinese iPhone knockoffs. Practically, nah…

    In reality, you can “explain” everything and this is the reason Chinese companies can in practice emit as much CO2 as they want and the reason China is home to the most polluted city in the world (where the smog only allows for a couple of meters of visibility).

    Also, China has no Kyoto targets anymore, aka they have no CO2 targets, so why should the US have CO2 targets?

  16. oiaohm says:

    Kurkosdr there is one big difference in china is that approval to emit or not will be processed in 30 days no matter what. USA has a lot slower approval process. So company pays more in china for emissions yet they can get approvals faster. So USA and Australia needs to sort out the red tape in this regard.

    USA approval can take 12 months+. Waiting that long your competitor can beat you into the market.

  17. oiaohm says:

    When you bought that Chinese tractor, you voted with you wallet: Corporate CO2 emissions don’t matter for you as a buyer, and tractor manufacturers caring about CO2 emissions are at a potential competitive handicap to Chinese tractor manufacturers that can emit as much CO2 as they deem fit.
    Not facts Kurkosdr. Chinese tractor manufacturers cannot admit as much CO2 as they like they have environmental controls that limit what companies do. Including taxing them for what ever they emit.

    So a Chinese tractor company cannot emit as much CO2 as they deem fit. Chinese tractor company is required to explain every single thing they emit why the are emitting it and that there was no other process to avoid emitting it. Its not like the USA rules where you get allocation you stay under that you are fine. If some better method in found in china you don’t upgrade you will not have a factory because China equal to EPA will cease the factory.

  18. Kurkosdr says:

    To put it in words you understand Pogs:

    When you bought that Chinese tractor, you voted with you wallet: Corporate CO2 emissions don’t matter for you as a buyer, and tractor manufacturers caring about CO2 emissions are at a potential competitive handicap to Chinese tractor manufacturers that can emit as much CO2 as they deem fit.

  19. oiaohm says:

    Still, my previous question remains. Why allow Chinese companies to emit CO2 without getting fined and not US companies too?
    This is not true Kurkosdr.
    http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/1/138
    China in fact has carbon taxes. They are higher than the USA Carbon taxs. So its the US companies who are getting to emit CO2 without having to pay equal taxes. So your arguement is backwards.

    There is a on going arguement how high each industry carbon tax should be in China. Please note the lowest China tax on carbon is higher than USA one by a large margin.

    Hence, the CO2 handicap is putting US tractor manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage with Chinese tractor manufacturers.
    This is also bull. Chinese tractor manufacturers of tractors should in a worse position than USA ones. 1) lower taxes in USA 2) less shipping in the USA.

    So how does the Chinese end up a head. All parts of the tractor are made in one area of China. Where a USA tractor might have parts from China, Mexico… Fairly much all over the place. So US tractor manufacturers have a problem of bad processes. So its not taxes it using too much transport even more than China uses to get a tractor to canada. So the low CO2 choice is the China made tractor. Now if the USA tractors were sanely made they should be the low CO2 choice and the lower cost choice for a person in Canada.

    Trump didn’t revert any regulations on cars. He only removed the CO2 handicap on US businesses (a handicap that Chinese businesses do not have)
    Yes this is a lie not based in truth.

    The reason China industry to solar wind and anything not CO2 is the tax in china.

  20. Kurkosdr says:

    The hypocrisy lies in the fact you buy Chinese tractors because they are cheaper, without caring about the CO2 footprint of the Chinese companies that produce those tractors, yet you say Trump should care about the CO2 footprint of US companies.

    Why have one standard when you can have two?

  21. Kurkosdr wrote, “Pig is a hypocrite on CO2 matters”.

    I have a diesel roto-tiller, for pity’s sake! I chose diesel because it’s putting out less CO2 than the equivalent power in gasoline. My house has tons of windows on the south side for solar heating and we use renewable hydro-electricity and geothermal heating. Our previous home used wood-burning heating. We’ve planted hundreds of trees in our yard and more are on the way. I’m converting all our IT to ARM. Our present gas-guzzler is an hybrid. I’m buying an electric car. With my electric car, I’m going to patronize businesses that provide EV charging stations. I do most of my shopping online instead of driving all over the country. I’m going to set up photo-voltaic panels in my garden. TLW switched most of our interior and exterior lighting to LEDs. China is leading the world in PV energy generation. The world is also benefiting from Chinese production of solar panels at very low prices. Where’s the hypocrisy?

  22. Kurkosdr says:

    Pig is a hypocrite = Pog is a hypocrite (autocorrect)

  23. Kurkosdr says:

    Why buy from a country that allows its companies to emit CO2 freely and where the populations is suffering from unseen pollution, instead of buying from more green-friendly countries?

    That smells of Hypocrisy.

    The Pogs of this world will buy from such countries, and Pog’s money is still money companies need, regardless if Pig is a hypocrite on CO2 matters. Hence, the CO2 handicap is putting US tractor manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage with Chinese tractor manufacturers. Trump was smart for removing that potential handicap.

  24. Kurkosdr muttered again, “Why allow Chinese companies to emit CO2 without getting fined and not US companies too?”

    The Chinese are converting to renewable energy at a great rate. They don’t need to fine companies to make that change because the government is actively making that change. USA uses fines to induce change. It’s six of one and half a dozen of the other.

  25. Mohammed Khan wrote, “They are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.”

    I am indeed a scientist and a capitalist and I hate welfare. So, what’s your point? Your thesis is false. Your arguments silly. Your conclusion baseless. I have B.Sc. Honours, M.Sc. and my stock portfolio far exceeded the Trump bump over the last year. I invested in gold stocks.

    I can do maths. If you take billions of barrels of oil and burn it, the CO2 levels rise. We can do the chemical experiments to prove that C is conserved in the process and the vast majority ends up as CO2. We can also measure the scattering cross-secion of the CO2 molecules and prove heats gets trapped in Earth as sunlight enters and infrared light is reflected back. We can measure the levels in the atmosphere and sample the temperatures over the globe. I know for a fact that winters are vastly warmer than when I was a kid simply because the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet and that’s where Canada’s cold air blasts originate. It all makes sense. No bias nor evil intent are needed to come to these conclusions. However, one has to be dishonest to keep pushing oil/coal as the good life in the presence of such facts.

    Kahn also wrote, “There has been no global warming trend, no extended droughts, no cities being flooded to ruins.”

    California had years of drought and had to ration water for years. Temperatures in the Arctic have risen several degrees and the period of ice-free summers has increased. Sea-level has risen to the point some island-nations are disappearing and storm-surges in New York are damaging in the light of more frequent hurricanes of greater severity due to warming of the Gulf Stream. NYC is planning to build a dike … Wake Up!

  26. Deaf Spy says:

    Why buy from a country that allows its companies to emit CO2 freely and where the populations is suffering from unseen pollution, instead of buying from more green-friendly countries?

    That smells of Hypocrisy.

  27. Kurkosdr says:

    Still, my previous question remains. Why allow Chinese companies to emit CO2 without getting fined and not US companies too?

  28. Mohammed Khan says:

    You’re not a scientist.You’re not a capitalist either, your ideologies lie more towards socialism. On the note of welfare, you should be griping about how Canada has recognized Sharia law for Canada’s Muslim minority by sending multiple welfare checks to polygamous Muslim men who raise multiple families in Canada.

    Excuse me, my thesis, my argument? There was no argument or thesis, only facts, facts stated by a United Nation official, as to the exact policy on falsified climate change.

    The rest of your drivel is hyperbole, and avoids what I previously quoted. Your brain is so entrenched in the notion of global warming that you refuse to change. There has been no global warming trend, no extended droughts, no cities being flooded to ruins. The reality is that we’re in an “inter-glacial” period between ice ages (the last major ice age ended roughly 12,000 years ago.) The next ice age is likely a few thousand years in the future, but is apparently inevitable and here you set talking about oh how much warm it has been in the past 50-years.

    The Earth has been much colder and much hotter in the past, it will continue on these cycles for millions of years, till the sun turns into a red giant and vaporizes the planet.

  29. Mohammed Khan wrote, “They are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.”

    I am indeed a scientist and a capitalist and I hate welfare. So, what’s your point? Your thesis is false. Your arguments silly. Your conclusion baseless.

    I can do maths. If you take billions of barrels of oil and burn it, the CO2 levels rise. We can do the chemical experiments to prove that C is conserved in the process and the vast majority ends up as CO2. We can also measure the scattering cross-secion of the CO2 molecules and prove heats gets trapped in Earth as sunlight enters and infrared light is reflected back. We can measure the levels in the atmosphere and sample the temperatures over the globe. I know for a fact that winters are vastly warmer than when I was a kid simply because the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet and that’s where Canada’s cold air blasts originate. It all makes sense. No bias nor evil intent are needed to come to these conclusions. However, one has to be dishonest to keep pushing oil/coal as the good life in the presence of such facts.

  30. Kurkosdr says:

    Solar power is not dirty and it’s not more expensive. The Chinese are investing heavily into solar power.

    But while they are investing in solar power, they can use fossil fuels without facing potential fines for the CO2 they emit and they get the best of both worlds. Why shouldn’t US companies be allowed to do the same?

  31. Mohammed Khan says:

    Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different. They are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

    Doubt me? Read the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer

    “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,”

    So what is the goal of environmental policy?

    “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

    So people like Pogson believe a lie, and when presented with facts, that it is just a scam to scare people into buying into a “wealth redistribution” scheme, they’re brains go into cognitive dissonance and shutdown rational thinking.

  32. Kurkosdr wrote, “Chinese companies are allowed to use the old technology while moving on and this makes their products cheaper”.

    Solar power is not dirty and it’s not more expensive. The Chinese are investing heavily into solar power.

  33. Kurkosdr says:

    That’s the kind of thinking that made the rust-belt rusty, using old, inefficient, dirty technology while the competition moves on.

    Chinese companies are allowed to use the old technology while moving on and this makes their products cheaper (which in turn makes Manitobans like Log buy them), why shouldn’t US companies be allowed to do do the same?

  34. Kurkosdr wrote, “He only removed the CO2 handicap on US businesses (a handicap that Chinese businesses do not have)”.

    That’s the kind of thinking that made the rust-belt rusty, using old, inefficient, dirty technology while the competition moves on.

  35. Kurkosdr says:

    Because it’s the right thing to do like encouraging production of smaller more efficient cars. Would you rather drive a 1950s battleship of a car or a sleek little number like the Solo?

    Trump didn’t revert any regulations on cars. He only removed the CO2 handicap on US businesses (a handicap that Chinese businesses do not have)

  36. Kurkosdr wrote, “Why legislate that potential handicap into law?”

    Because it’s the right thing to do like encouraging production of smaller more efficient cars. Would you rather drive a 1950s battleship of a car or a sleek little number like the Solo? I’m tired of high-maintenance tanks.

  37. Kurkosdr says:

    China has done a lot with hydro-electricity and solar. They get it.

    They have done a lot with coal and other fossil fuels too.

    Anyway, my question remains: Why should the USA hold USAian companies responsible for their CO2 emissions (from manufacturing companies to electricity producers) when China does not do so for Chinese companies? (they MIGHT pretend to, but actually don’t)

    Why legislate that potential handicap into law?

  38. Kurkosdr wrote, “Why the US should be responsible about their CO2 emissions when their competitor, aka China, isn’t?”

    China has done a lot with hydro-electricity and solar. They get it.

    “Since 2013 China has been the world’s leading installer of solar photovoltaics. Solar PV in China is a growing industry with over 400 companies. In 2015, China became the world’s largest producer of photovoltaic power, narrowly surpassing Germany.”

    77gW PV solar capacity in 2016. Solar thermal? 270gW. China is installing 30gW PV per annum.

    USA? PV 40gW, .65% of capacity…

  39. Kurkosdr says:

    -Where was the tractor that Pog imported made in?
    -China

    -Why did Pog chose to buy a Chinese tractor?
    -Because it was cheaper.

    -Does the manufacture tractors in a green manner make them more expensive?
    -Most likely yes (it is why China is one of the biggest polluters and one of the biggest CO2 emmiters on the planet… if manufacturing products in a green manner didn’t make them more expensive, China would be a green paradise by now, instead China uses fossil fuels a lot)

    – Will holier-than-thou Manitobans buy the absolute cheapest tractor available on the market, not caring if it was manufactured in a green manner or not?
    -Sure

    -So… Does producing tractors in a green manner put a USAian company in a competitive disadvantage with the Chinese?
    -Duh (see above)

    -Does regulating that kind of competitive handicap into law put USAian tractor manufacturers into a competitive disadvantage with the Chinese?
    -Yes.

    -Is Trump smart for removing that handicap?
    -Yes

    -Did Pog just got a cognitive dissonance moment?
    -Yes

    Alternatively, Trump could impose a CO2 tax on Chinese products produced in a non-green manner, but then 1) The Pogs of this world would whine about the evil import tax and 2) Good luck regulating the Chinese.

    Why the US should be responsible about their CO2 emissions when their competitor, aka China, isn’t?

  40. Grece wrote, “Well, considering that sales for the Toyota Prius is down, why should I or anyone else buy one?”

    What has Prius to do with Solo? Prius is an hybrid. It guzzles gasoline. If one wants real economy, one goes all electric. OTOH, Prius sold hundreds of thousands of units. What’s not to like about that? In a very competitive environment that’s great. Solo is in a unique environment, all-electric and single-seat. There may not be any competition for years to come.

  41. Grece says:

    Have you shopped for your EV yet? What’s holding you back?

    Well, considering that sales for the Toyota Prius is down, why should I or anyone else buy one?

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/01/toyota-prius-sales-will-plunge-2017/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *