cp is super excited to see that there's no head of FEMA in place as we head into hurricane season.

I'm sure my pony is slow, but what exactly is the basis for Trump's claim that the Paris accord had a disproportionate economic impact on the US.

Probably a pamphlet Bannon strategically placed next to the Oval Office bathroom stall.

Wouldn't he just wipe his arse with it? Or possibly do something random with it like make a paper crown?

So I read that after the the huge iceberg breaks up off Larsen-C there is the possibility that in the future the huge rest off the Larsen-C ice shelf could get unstable and going into the ocean as well which would increase sea level by up to 10 cm. Anyone here with deeper knowledge and how high the probability for that is?

The INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) for all of the different countries are freely available online. I haven't read the USAs document but I have been through 5-6 of them. The EU and Norway have committed to reducing total emissions by 40% relative to 1990 levels. Conversely, India has committed to reducing the emissions intensity of their GDP. by 33-35% In other words, if India's GDP rises above a certain level their emissions could continue to increase. Kenya and Egypt have stated that they need foreign investment achieve to their goals. Kenya want $40 billion, can't remember what Egypt want off the top of my head.

I suppose you could argue that this is unfair on the EU and Norway as they've committed to an outright reduction whereas India, Kenya and Egypt are attaching conditions to their goals. The flip side of this is that the EU and Norway are far more developed and can afford to do more. Trump could be referring to this or he could just be parroting whatever bollocks was said to him whilst he had his breakfast. Chances are it's the latter.

The problem is that so far its all talk. Its nice that Merkel and Co get all the spotlight but according to an opinion piece on Merkel I read this week we haven't done much recently. We might miss our goals for 2020 and even 2030. Fuel consumption is up as well as kerosine. No progress on reducing energy consumption.
This year are elections and so far Merkel and her party hasn't committed to a withdrawal from the use of coal and there seems to be no goals for an accelerated expansion of renewables. There is a lot of fight between CSU and CDU because of the rebuilding of our energy grid to transport energy produced offshore to the south of Germany. And Merkel will always protect our car manufacturing industry. Thats why there is so little progress on electric cars etc because there is no need since we soften all EU regulations on exhaust emissions.

Germany's energy policy is totally flawed. We keep fossil fuels and shut down zero emission nuclear power plants instead.

Looks like I may have been correct with the bit about India's and China' targets being linked to emissions intensity of GDP rather than solely about reducing emissions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40147749

And they still buy nuclear from a plant located 5kms from Germany

Just a populist policy

Csaba,

Duh, right?

It does seem like a lot of these countries are just committing to "scaling back" their fossil fuel use without any action plan.

We need a massive energy innovation breakthrough to get any type of real reduction. I wish that would be the topic of conversation more, and then we can figure out how to to bring that breakthrough to market and scale correctly. 7 billion people and many of them living in rapidly developing parts of the world, we're not just going to "sacrifice" our way to curbing greenhouse gases.

Is it solar+storage, is it nuclear? is it both?

All of these cities and mayors saying they will pick up the slack, what does that even mean really?

It isn't like they can make their own cars and power plants.

Just grid improvements, charging stations, solar deployment? It isn't like they're investing in nuclear power.

There's a lot cities can do. Building codes are just one big thing.

Some ridiculous amount, like 70% or something, of electricity is lost as waste, so I'd assume that there are improvements in things like building codes that could go a long way towards reducing carbon emissions.

It's totally possible for us to hit the targets we need to, we just have to want to do it. But that would involve a bunch of extremely wealthy people losing a whole bunch of money, or at least their expected future cash flows to shrink.

After the nuclear storage mini-disaster in Washington, was it, are we still pretending nuclear is basically as clean and safe as renewables?

Who compared nuclear with renewables?

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/...art_river_home

"In 2013, the bird-watchers of Great Britain traveled to a remote Scottish isle because of reports that a white-throated needletail had been sighted there.

As they focused their binoculars on the bird, which hadn't been seen in decades, it flew straight into the blades of a giant wind turbine."

gg wind turbines...

Lies of omission are still lies

So to sum up:

The bird is rare for that area, but not rare
Wind energy will save more birds than it kills
Lol rara always and forever

remember that time we briefly discussed renewable energy, and the first and only thing you did was express deep concern about bird populations in the midwest that were allegedly being decimated by spinning wind turbines, and i spent 20 seconds googling and found/shared a link to an article about a study that said it's not a problem? and here you are again, going on about this nonsense like you know anything and your worldview can be summed up any other way than "wants to stifle progress and drink liberal tears"

sad and pathetic

just in case anybody didnt have you on ignore already

Most studies do show nuclear as safer and less deadly than solar and wind in terms of deaths per kilowatt hour.

Some people argue costs of nuclear storage are inadequately accounted for but one can make the argument the ability to store and contain basically all of the pollutants is part of what makes nuclear so clean.

Safer until the time comes that a reactor that goes into meltdown can't be controlled.

Those are counted. Nuclear is just so clean during normal operations even outlier events such as Fukushima don't make nuclear less safe overall.