First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Renewable energy is becoming so cheap the US will meet Paris commitments even if Trump withdraws
24064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/22/17


http://archive.is/jbnjd

Research analysts at Morgan Stanley believe that renewable energy like solar and wind power are hurtling towards a level of ubiquity where not even politics can hinder them. Renewable energy is simply becoming the cheapest option, fast. Basic economics, the analysts say, suggest that the US will exceed its commitments in the Paris agreement regardless of whether or not president Donald Trump withdraws, as he’s stated he will.
“We project that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest form of new-power generation across the globe,” with the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia, the Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report published Thursday.
“By our forecasts, in most cases favorable renewables economics rather than government policy will be the primary driver of changes to utilities’ carbon emissions levels,” they wrote. “For example, notwithstanding president Trump’s stated intention to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord, we expect the US to exceed the Paris commitment of a 26-28% reduction in its 2005-level carbon emissions by 2020.”



The Paris Agreement is a scam to redistribute wealth. How can a country like China not have to change their carbon emissions till 2030 and we have to not only shut down plants and also pay developing nations. If we spend the money we would have had to pay with the Paris accords on US infrastructure then we would become even greener and our people would directly benefit from a cleaner environment and more jobs.
32092 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/22/17
to be fair some countries need the money so they can move to the alternatives but that being said....very few i imagine so \o/
24064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/22/17

Ryulightorb wrote:

to be fair some countries need the money so they can move to the alternatives but that being said....very few i imagine so \o/


The alternatives can be and dropping in price. They will naturally move to them especially as prices drop and production increases. Coal might end up becoming a backup power source.
29480 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/22/17
That's good. Cleaner, cooler air is always a good thing. Though all it'll take is one volcanic eruption to undo decades of progress.
32092 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/22/17

Rujikin wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

to be fair some countries need the money so they can move to the alternatives but that being said....very few i imagine so \o/


The alternatives can be and dropping in price. They will naturally move to them especially as prices drop and production increases. Coal might end up becoming a backup power source.


which is great.
24064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/22/17

MysticGon wrote:

That's good. Cleaner, cooler air is always a good thing. Though all it'll take is one volcanic eruption to undo decades of progress.


Really I am more concerned with all the pollutants that coal releases into the air (Mercury, lead, arsenic, VOC's, etc) than carbon for that very reason. I like energy that doesn't have nasty leftovers.

Just wish that wind energy produced power during the day when its most needed instead of at night =/.
25806 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/22/17
There is plenty of money and effort in clean energy in the USA, because the citizens are interested and involved in the industry. Moving the responsibility away from the citizens to government bureaucracy would be a mistake.

Also, we should never pay developing countries, we should be running their development out of business by out-competing their industries so they never get off the ground and start polluting everything. Their viable industry is providing us with cheap bananas, that's all.
24064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/22/17

Kavalion wrote:
Also, we should never pay developing countries, we should be running their development out of business by out-competing their industries so they never get off the ground and start polluting everything. Their viable industry is providing us with cheap bananas, that's all.


So who paid us when we were developing a nation from wilderness? You need the people of the country to take initiative not foreigners from across the ocean.
5558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/26/17

Rujikin wrote:



http://archive.is/jbnjd

Research analysts at Morgan Stanley believe that renewable energy like solar and wind power are hurtling towards a level of ubiquity where not even politics can hinder them. Renewable energy is simply becoming the cheapest option, fast. Basic economics, the analysts say, suggest that the US will exceed its commitments in the Paris agreement regardless of whether or not president Donald Trump withdraws, as he’s stated he will.
“We project that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest form of new-power generation across the globe,” with the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia, the Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report published Thursday.
“By our forecasts, in most cases favorable renewables economics rather than government policy will be the primary driver of changes to utilities’ carbon emissions levels,” they wrote. “For example, notwithstanding president Trump’s stated intention to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord, we expect the US to exceed the Paris commitment of a 26-28% reduction in its 2005-level carbon emissions by 2020.”



The Paris Agreement is a scam to redistribute wealth. How can a country like China not have to change their carbon emissions till 2030 and we have to not only shut down plants and also pay developing nations. If we spend the money we would have had to pay with the Paris accords on US infrastructure then we would become even greener and our people would directly benefit from a cleaner environment and more jobs.


I'm gunna have to agree with you. The USA can use that money in a much better way (investing in our own infrastructure) as opposed to being limited/causing a loss of jobs in the USA.


From Trumps speech, he goes into quite a bit of detail on the issues he has with the responsibility put upon the US and not China and India. He says China doesn't have to reduce emissions at all for 13 years and is free to increase coal (100's of additional plants), yet America is restricted with clean coal. India can double their coal production. Europe can continue coal. Trump says this will simply transfer the utilization of that resource from America to those countries, not helping climate.


The truth is it's an unfair deal for America and essentially is a scam to redistribute wealth in favor of poorer/underdeveloped countries at our cost.


"On top of that, it is estimated that for compliance with the agreement could ultimately shrink America’s GDP by $2.5 trillion over a 10 year period,”

The figure is drawn from a report by Heritage experts Kevin Dayaratna, Nicolas Loris, and David Kreutzer. They concluded that the Paris climate accord would inflict devastating economic costs for practical no environmental benefit.

“Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:

An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent.”


Get em Trump!




Also

we should never pay developing countries
qwueri 
25320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/23/17
Right, because there's no benefit to pushing developing countries past the industrial revolutions at a faster pase, the pollution they generate in said revolutions stays within their borders, and there's zero benefit to US industries to making international trade more energy efficient (or US workers for raising the standard of living of international workers they're competing against).
5558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/24/17

qwueri wrote:

Right... because there's no benefit to pushing developing countries past their industrial revolutions at a faster pace. The pollution they generate through revolutions in progress stays within their borders. There is zero benefit for US industries to make international trade more energy efficient (or US workers for raising the standard of living of international workers they're competing against).


NOPE

Fallacies of Incomplete Evidence are not accepted as a viable answer.

Your cherry picking of the situation has demonstrated an undeniable confirmation bias as the basis of your conclusions.

GO TO JAIL: Go directly to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

PS. Fixed that paragraph 4 U muh illiterate brotha.
runec 
41454 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/23/17
Putting aside that this is a study on future investments from the brokerage firm that brought us the global financial crisis and not, you know, climate scientists:

I'm curious as to how you square "market forces will save us from our mistakes" with "coal should be saved despite failing due to market forces".
qwueri 
25320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/23/17

amejia0 wrote:

NOPE

Fallacies of Incomplete Evidence are not accepted as a viable answer.

Your cherry picking of the situation has demonstrated an undeniable confirmation bias as the basis of your conclusions.

GO TO JAIL: Go directly to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

PS. Fixed that paragraph 4 U muh illiterate brotha.


Do you have any substance to your refutation besides parroting fallacy definitions or mistaking an extended list for a paragraph?
1644 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Canada, Toronto
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/23/17

Rujikin wrote:



http://archive.is/jbnjd

Research analysts at Morgan Stanley believe that renewable energy like solar and wind power are hurtling towards a level of ubiquity where not even politics can hinder them. Renewable energy is simply becoming the cheapest option, fast. Basic economics, the analysts say, suggest that the US will exceed its commitments in the Paris agreement regardless of whether or not president Donald Trump withdraws, as he’s stated he will.
“We project that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest form of new-power generation across the globe,” with the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia, the Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report published Thursday.
“By our forecasts, in most cases favorable renewables economics rather than government policy will be the primary driver of changes to utilities’ carbon emissions levels,” they wrote. “For example, notwithstanding president Trump’s stated intention to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord, we expect the US to exceed the Paris commitment of a 26-28% reduction in its 2005-level carbon emissions by 2020.”



The Paris Agreement is a scam to redistribute wealth. How can a country like China not have to change their carbon emissions till 2030 and we have to not only shut down plants and also pay developing nations. If we spend the money we would have had to pay with the Paris accords on US infrastructure then we would become even greener and our people would directly benefit from a cleaner environment and more jobs.


On the renewable energy issue, the free market provide no incentive to invent environmentally friendly technology because the polluter do not personally bear the cost of pollution. Inventment in renewable energy occur with pollution taxing which force the polluter to bear the cost of their pollution so the renewable energy development actually occur within the mixed economy.
On the Paris Agreement case, I do not think that US withdrawal could had much effect as their private firms establish their plants on the third world with puppet governments to evade the laws. Also, US is only paying the developing nations with high interest loans which benefit US at the cost of the debtor.
35958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 7/22/17 , edited 7/23/17
Hmm. Cool.

Well, on the subject of cleaner reusable energy at least, I am currently 10k away from a 15k down payment to buy a Tesla Model 3.

Might even just wait 2 years and save up 30k for a Model S if I have enough monthly revenue by then to afford it. Still undecided.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.