
Paris climate deal: US and China announce ratification - smb06
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37265541
======
chillacy
We'll see how this turns out, since it seems this agreement

1\. allows each country to set its own reduction goals

2\. has no consequences if a country fails to meet its goals

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Nationally_det...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Nationally_determined_contributions_and_their_limits)

~~~
ams6110
Yes, agreeing to do something is very easy compared to actually doing it.

------
robryan
It is interesting how everyone can pass the blame for emissions. In Australia
there is an argument from some that even though we are the highest polluter by
capita our net emissions are low enough that it doesn't really matter what we
do.

A country like India or China could then turn that around a say if other
countries that have a very high standard of life won't do anything then why
should we.

~~~
rrrazdan
I will still make that argument, why should a poor guy living in isolated
tribal land in India find his dream of basic electricity a bit farther, while
people in Europe can take the moral high ground and still pollute nearly an
order of magnitude than an Indian.

Also the pollution in the last two-three centuries has been primarily First
World led. Tell me how can Im as an Indian, tell the guy that he will have to
wait some more time till we can get him to a basic living standard because
cheaper options to get you there are off the table.

Per capita human emissions should be equal within reasonable bounds of
geographical needs?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
There's what's fair, and there's saving the planet.

~~~
tunichtgut
Dont say "saving the planet". The planet will be here for a long (long) time.
No matter how hot or cold it ll be.

~~~
Pxtl
Fine, saving civilization. Saving the environment. In the case of India,
saving their kids... What's 2 more Celsius going to mean for droughts and
heatwaves in India? Worst-case scenario we're talking about hundreds of
millions f refugees fleeing countries that are no longer suitable for human
habitation.

~~~
gbog
I'd say humans are much more resilient than you think, and Indians probably
even more so, because they are used to hard life.

Or, to say it another way, many parts of India or other countries at this
latitude have never been "suitable for human habitation" compared to e.g.
France and her tempered climate. But humans adapted to this place, and will
adapt to 2 degrees more if needs be.

------
tomohawk
The senate hasn't ratified it, which is required by the constitution.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause)

~~~
guelo
If we're lucky a bunch of climate deniers will be voted out of the Senate this
election and the balance tips.

~~~
kbutler
What is denial?

Believing that it's work 1-5 trillion dollars by 2050 to reduce 2100
temperatures by 0.05C?

Believing that climate models which fail to match past or current trends are
accurate enough to restructure the global economy? (Compare modeled and
measured temperature trends of early 20th and early 21st centuries)

Both sides are guilty of talking past each other, ignoring ("denying")
evidence that doesnt agree with their previous opinions, and overstating the
strength of the evidence they see.

(I tend to fit in the "lukewarm" camp - my reading of the evidence and
scientific research is that the earth has warmed, continues to warm, is
affected by human activities, but that the warming and the human impact are
routinely overstated or ignored by the warring advocates. Much less so by the
actual scientists doing the research)

~~~
i2amsam
What evidence would convince you it is a large problem? Massive dieoff of
coral reefs worldwide? A cruise ship from Alaska to New York?

~~~
kbutler
What evidence would broaden your perspective?

Coral reef recovery in the heat damaged areas since 1998 "massive die off"?
Similar arctic melt and temperatures in early 20th century? Significantly
warmer Greenland temperatures in the last 1000 years?

There is a lot of evidence on both sides that activists actively ignore or
rationalize.

~~~
guelo
Coral reefs: "the current global coral bleaching event is the longest ever
recorded"
[http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/analyses_guidance/g...](http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/analyses_guidance/global_coral_bleaching_2014-17_status.php)

Arctic melt: "there is no precedent as far back as 1850 for the 21st century's
minimum ice extent of sea ice on the pan-Arctic scale"
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2016....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2016.12195.x/abstract)

Greenland: I haven't seen temperature numbers specifically for Greenland but
it probably has to do with the medieval warm period, and we're warmer then
that now.
[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html)

------
smb06
This is great news. China is and needs to be a major player in all climate
change negotiations.

~~~
themodelplumber
What was their position prior to this? What changed to make this happen?
Really curious.

~~~
jdavis703
Environmental stewardship is actually something that economists refer to as a
luxury good --- it's something you'll start purchasing the more disposable
money you have. Which makes sense, if I have to choose between starvation and
air pollution, I'll take air pollution. Now my belly is full, but I can't
breath? Now maybe I'll think about spending some money on cleaner air. That's
why I find the West's scolding of developing economies for environmental
degradation to be hypocritical. If we really care, then we'll give those
countries the money to preserve their environment.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The west doesn't really do more than hand wrong China on the environment, and
why should they? China is basically destroying their country so they can make
cheap junk for the west! I mean, where else can they process rare earth
elements so cheaply? Why China continues to do this at this point is a
mystery, but the west isn't complaining much. Perhaps the CCP is afraid of
moving to a consumer driven economy, people whose lifestyles are raised too
much begin demanding political rights....

Honestly, if China wants to avoid complete environmental collapse, they'll
have to drastically change their ways soon. You can say the west did it and
survived, but the west didn't have 1.4 billion people doing it with the level
of toxicity of a modern economy. The brink China is at now (and India is
approaching) is unprecedented.

~~~
Joof
It's funny because we produce more pollution per capita in the US (even if
China produces more overall).

~~~
ekianjo
Because the level of life of US citizens is much higher on average. The
wealthier you are the more you consume and therefore pollute.

------
agumonkey
Not long ago I saw a documentary about a Chinese entrepreneur that started a
"clean coal" company, by doing a SpaceX, redesigning plants from scratch, he
claimed to be near pollution free (implying other plants pollute only because
of naive careless design, not physics). I wonder if the claims are proven and
if it influenced China decision.

~~~
T-A
I guess he was talking about soot and other aerosols. That's huge for air
quality, but climate change is primarily driven by the fundamental law of coal
burning: C + O_2 -> CO_2. If he managed to reduce the emission of sulfate
aerosols (a likely target, since those are the primary cause of smog and acid
rain) he is actually making the warming problem worse:

[http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/06/common-
climate...](http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/06/common-climate-
misconceptions-why-reducing-sulfate-aerosol-emissions-complicates-efforts-to-
moderate-climate-change/)

------
jwr
This should make #1 on HN. Oh, sure, there are many doubts as to how and when
this will actually be implemented, but still, it's a great step forward. We
are finally starting to do something about the fact, that our grandchildren
will not have a planet to live on, and even our children might be affected.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Not to dismiss the seriousness of climate change, but "our grandchildren won't
have a planet to live on" is a completely unfounded assertion with no roots in
reality. Humans are vastly good at adapting.

~~~
f_allwein
We are currently over using the earth's resources by a factor of 1.5. If
everyone on earth lived like people in the US do, we'd already need five
planets [1]. I wish I could share your optimism, but it seems like nothing
much is done to change this. The Paris agreement is at least a step in the
right direction. Let's hope more will follow.

[1] [http://m.phys.org/news/2009-11-mankind-earth-resources-
alarm...](http://m.phys.org/news/2009-11-mankind-earth-resources-
alarming.html)

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Well, we may or may not be overusing the planet's resources; people have been
saying that since Malthus in 1798, when the world population was less than 1
billion. The fact remains that global food production _per capita_ has been
consistently growing since 1960, at a rate of about 0.5% per year.

However, this is entirely unrelated to climate change caused by CO2 emissions,
which is what the Paris agreement covers.

Unfortunately, the article you cite attempts to conflate the two, and freely
admits that most of their "ecological footprint" is down to CO2 emissions.
This is quite literally comparing apples and oranges, and dressing it up in
fancy language to make it pass peer review.

------
reddog
It hasn't been ratified in the US. The lame duck Obama administration may have
agreed to it, but it still needs to pass the senate _by a two thirds vote_
before it becomes a treaty and binding on the US in any way. I doubt that they
will even bother submitting it.

------
noobermin
Can any climate scientists comment on the 2C degree number and what it
entails?

~~~
shoo
There's a paper from 2014 that frames global warming in terms of global
cumulative CO2 emissions. By that metric we can fix a global cumulative CO2
emission budget that has a decent chance of limiting warming to +2C. As of
2014 we had used 2/3rds of that budget, with the remaining 1/3 of the budget
projected to be used up in 30 years if global emissions continued at the 2014
level.

I find it unrealistic that temperature increase will be limited to +2C, that
would require serious efforts and a change in focus and behaviour that to date
has not been observed.

In terms of the impact, there was a conference in 2009 focusing on +4C
scenarios that might be worth a look at. [2]

(i am not a climate scientist, but there are plenty of articles written by
climate scientists)

[1] -
[https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/2...](https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/20695/Persistent%20growth%20of%20CO2%20emissions%20and%20implications%20for%20reaching%20climate%20targets.pdf?sequence=1)

[2] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Degrees_and_Beyond_Internati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Degrees_and_Beyond_International_Climate_Conference#cite_note-
MOX-4)

------
cesis
It seems bbc can't get math right - increase of 2 degrees Celsium doesn't
equal increase of 36 degrees Fahrenheit

~~~
cel1ne
35.6 degree Fahrenheit then.

~~~
cesis
Wrong. Anyway bbc fixed it by removing any complex Celsium to Fahrenheit
conversions :)

~~~
lobster_johnson
Celsius, not Celsium.

------
codecamper
Meanwhile fslr, spwr, jks, csiq all sit near 52 week & longer lows.

The stock market thinks that solar power won't happen -- or at least the next
year will be rough for solar due to a drop-off in demand.

------
tunichtgut
All these agreements are worthless. The question is, will there be a
technology that prevents earth from heating up from burning fossil fuels.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
We have the technology for large scale carbon capture, that's no problem. The
problem is that carbon capture is pure cost, no gain (measurable on a company
balance sheet).

To solve this, we need a global carbon tax, probably close to $100/ton. For
reference, US emissions per capita is ~17 tons.

~~~
drjesusphd
> To solve this, we need a global carbon tax, probably close to $100/ton. For
> reference, US emissions per capita is ~17 tons.

This seems... remarkably affordable. For the US, this is less than TARP. We
really need to get our act together.

------
gozur88
No deal an American president makes is binding until approved by the Senate.
Wake me up when that happens.

~~~
nikdaheratik
If you'd actually read about this, you would see that the agreement is binding
as it was made within the framework of an existing treaty. However, it may not
be binding on the next administration unless ratified by the Senate.

------
dragonbonheur
Meanwhile Donald Trump promises he'll get the USA out of this agreement when
he gets to be dictator... [0] [http://www.bbc.com/news/election-
us-2016-36401174](http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174)

