China the-real-greenhouse-gas polluter

[Job 33:6]

The dark side of ‘green energy’ and its threat to the environment - Deseret News

What happens to old solar panels, windmills and high tech batteries?

All three have seen increased efficiency, decreased cost, and increased use, particularly over the past decade or two.

There are other forms of clean energy as well, such as hydro, geothermal, nuclear, hydrogen fuel cells, bio decomposition etc.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

However, per capita, the US is the top polluter.

Per capita means nothing, but the general pollution overall that is put out.

 

[Job 33:6]

Per capita means nothing, but the general pollution overall that is put out.

It means a lot. It means that as individuals, we are producing, proportionately, a lot of pollution.

It shows that we aren't investing in clean energy, as we should be.

 

[loveofourlord]

Except that to do so would put the US into an automatic depression as technology isn't ready to go 100% non-fossil fuel energy

except back in reality the oil companies DON"T NEED the money the government gives them, they are already one of the most profitable companies out there. The us is literally paying them to do what they were doing anyway.

 

[loveofourlord]

Another good point. May I remind everyone, climate change is solely caused by the three big emitters.

Smaller countries like mine, will lift our coal exports and not really commit to reducing CO2 emissions. Remember folks, the evil three; the USA, China and India.

if the US and other countries actually do their part to stop polluting and maybe HELP the countries that still need to get away from it, it would help things.

Also many other countries ARE doing their jobs, in Europe a few countries get around 40-50% of their energy from renewable. OTher countries are leaps ahead of the US, even the most maligned china is doing a better job.

 

[loveofourlord]

here is a good reason to get off fossil fuels more then anything else to me. Plastics come from oil, if we run out or oil gets really expensive, where are we going to get things like plastics?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It means a lot. It means that as individuals, we are producing, proportionately, a lot of pollution.

It shows that we aren't investing in clean energy, as we should be.

No it doesn't.

If the nation is producing greenhouse gases like China does from coal powered plants, it doesn't matter how many people they have.

As it is, cities like Beijing have had to shut down because the air pollution was so bad, people couldn't go outside because they couldn't breath.

The US is far ahead of China when it comes to pollution. Yeah, we have more cars on the road, but we are spread out far greater than in China. Also, we're heading quickly toward electric powered cars and even trucks.

We don't have to shut down cities because they air quality is so bad as in some of China's cities.

 

[Job 33:6]

No it doesn't.

If the nation is producing greenhouse gases like China does from coal powered plants, it doesn't matter how many people they have.

As it is, cities like Beijing have had to shut down because the air pollution was so bad, people couldn't go outside because they couldn't breath.

The US is far ahead of China when it comes to pollution. Yeah, we have more cars on the road, but we are spread out far greater than in China. Also, we're heading quickly toward electric powered cars and even trucks.

We don't have to shut down cities because they air quality is so bad as in some of China's cities.

Yes it does.

Just because china, in totality, produces more pollution than we do, doesn't mean that we don't have plenty more work to do in our regulation of environmental contaminants.

You're acting as if because china produces more pollution overall, that america should be let off the hook and doesn't need to bother with cracking down on its own waste.

Just because our neighbor sins, doesn't mean that we are no longer responsible for managing our own sins.

America generates an incredible amount of pollution in all sorts of environmental media. Literally, even right now, something like 1 in 4 Americans lives within 5 miles of a contaminated CERCLA/Superfund site. Which is disgusting, even despite having kindergarteners playing in pools of water impacted by toxic chemicals.

Love Canal - Wikipedia

But let's take the coal industry for example:

coal plants and the burning of coal has produced some 21% of our co2 emissions in 2019.

Waste generators, such as coal plants, are heavily under regulated. Even after issues with the Kingston flyash release which literally buried houses in arsenic laden sludge.

Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill - Wikipedia

Surther studies have also suggested that coal miners are continually subjected to black lung disease. A condition in which shrapnel-like silica fragments get lodged in coal miners lungs and essentially lacerate their lungs from the inside, and eventually kill them.

Coal Worker’s Pneumoconiosis (Black Lung Disease)

Much of our air emissions are coming from these under-regulated (under regulated in storage of waste, under regulated in safety/OSHA requirements and under-regulated in emission generation) fossil fuel producing industries. And it's time for America to take a stance in favor of clean energy and clean resources, and that includes ratcheting down on these "dirty" industries. And that means, being part of the climate accord.

And whether you like the Chinese or you hate them, is completely irrelevant from the question of how we should act, with respect to our own waste issues.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes it does.

Just because china, in totality, produces more pollution than we do, doesn't mean that we don't have plenty more work to do in our regulation of environmental contaminants.

You're acting as if because china produces more pollution overall, that america should be let off the hook and doesn't need to bother with cracking down on its own waste.

I never mentioned letting us off the hook as far as pollution goes, but the facts are, that China produces more planet damaging pollution currently that we do. Yes, we still have to continue to clean up what we mess up so to speak.

However, the Paris Climate Accord, not only lets China off the hook, but because they're still considered a developing country, they'll receive funding to move toward alternate energy. We the US and other Western Developed nations will be paying for China to stop polluting the planet.

BTW, I don't hate China and I worked with engineers from China and even taught one how to drive a car.

However, China does what we don't do and that is, she looks out for China period.

They've been caught cheating on the issue of trade and on pollution itself.

They're still a communist run government.

 

[Job 33:6]

However, the Paris Climate Accord, not only lets China off the hook, but because they're still considered a developing country, they'll receive funding to move toward alternate energy. We the US and other Western Developed nations will be paying for China to stop polluting the planet.

However, China does what we don't do and that is, she looks out for China period.

This is a western initiative to tackle western challenges.

It's for our own national security and resource independence. It's not for China. It's for us. So naturally, we are going to invest in things that benefit us. And we will invest, even if other countries do not.

And honestly, investing in china, who isn't an enemy by any stretch of the imagination, isn't a bad thing. China invests plenty in America as well. No more than it is investing in the acts of any other European country for example.

Now, if we were investing in Iran or north korea, that might be a little different.

The faster the world collectively invests in green energy, the faster America can get out of its own crap shoots with middle eastern wars and oil dependence, and debt from excessively contaminated sites and future environmental issues.

America actually cares about its own environmental policies, and so we rightfully invest in funds of the climate accord.

And if any particular country, of the hundreds that are part of it, aren't handling their fair share, then they will receive criticism and pressure for that. But that's not America's fault, and it doesn't mean that we should throw the whole thing out just because one country (which has hundreds of millions of impoverished people, ie china) is debated on whether or not it is a developing country.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is a western initiative to tackle western challenges.

It's for our own national security and resource independence. It's not for China. It's for us. So naturally, we are going to invest in things that benefit us. And we will invest, even if other countries do not.

And honestly, investing in china, who isn't an enemy by any stretch of the imagination, isn't a bad thing. China invests plenty in America as well. No more than it is investing in the acts of any other European country for example.

Now, if we were investing in Iran or north korea, that might be a little different.

The faster the world collectively invests in green energy, the faster America can get out of its own crap shoots with middle eastern wars and oil dependence, and debt from excessively contaminated sites and future environmental issues.

America actually cares about its own environmental policies, and so we rightfully invest in funds of the climate accord.

And if any particular country, of the hundreds that are part of it, aren't handling their fair share, then they will receive criticism and pressure for that. But that's not America's fault, and it doesn't mean that we should throw the whole thing out just because one country (which has hundreds of millions of impoverished people, ie china) is debated on whether or not it is a developing country.

With China's human rights abuses and their cheating on the trade agreements you still trust them ?

There is no benefit for the US taxpayers to fund China to not pollute nor any other country.

Did you ever wonder why poor nations are reluctant to not pollute unless there is a financial benefit for them ?

Fact of life is, wealthier nations will pollute less because it's in their own best interest.

China has the development and resources not to pollute as they do. But they'll take advantage of the sucker nations like us who are willing to pay them not to do so.

 

[Job 33:6]

With China's human rights abuses and their cheating on the trade agreements you still trust them ?

There is no benefit for the US taxpayers to fund China to not pollute nor any other country.

Did you ever wonder why poor nations are reluctant to not pollute unless there is a financial benefit for them ?

Fact of life is, wealthier nations will pollute less because it's in their own best interest.

China has the development and resources not to pollute as they do. But they'll take advantage of the sucker nations like us who are willing to pay them not to do so.

We aren't giving money directly to china, but rather it goes into a fund that is divided amongst a multitude of nations, which is invested in green initiatives that ultimately benefit our own national goal of accelerating green energy development.

Beyond that, these environmental funds are miniscule in size compared to cash we loan out to far more controversial countries, such as those of the middle east.

For example, we give Saudi Arabia massive financial deals, and yet Saudi Arabia only recently removed a ban on women drivers (human rights issues), all the 9/11 attackers were Saudi citizens (a threat to national security), and they've created a humanitarian crisis with our weapons.

If we can handle massive weapons deals to high risk countries in the middle east, I think we can handle investing a few pennies into china's renewable energy sector.

 

[Job 33:6]

We aren't giving money directly to china, but rather it goes into a fund that is divided amongst a multitude of nations, which is invested in green initiatives that ultimately benefit our own national goal of accelerating green energy development.

Beyond that, these environmental funds are miniscule in size compared to cash we loan out to far more controversial countries, such as those of the middle east.

For example, we give Saudi Arabia massive financial deals, and yet Saudi Arabia only recently removed a ban on women drivers (human rights issues), all the 9/11 attackers were Saudi citizens (a threat to national security), and they've created a humanitarian crisis with our weapons.

If we can handle massive weapons deals to high risk countries in the middle east, I think we can handle investing a few pennies into china's renewable energy sector.

But further, it's one thing to suggest upgrading china to the developed countries list. It's another to suggest that the whole Paris agreement should be thrown out the window because of one country.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

We aren't giving money directly to china, but rather it goes into a fund that is divided amongst a multitude of nations, which is invested in green initiatives that ultimately benefit our own national goal of accelerating green energy development.

We shouldn't be giving money to anyone, especially not the fund which countries like China benefit from.

 

[Job 33:6]

We shouldn't be giving money to anyone, especially not the fund which countries like China benefit from.

Sure we should. It's called investment. It's what America does best. It's how we spread influence.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sure we should. It's called investment. It's what America does best. It's how we spread influence.

Investment, what's the return on the taxpayers investment ?

The fact is, China cheats on all the agreements they've made with climate control and trade.

Call it for what it really is for the taxpayers, a sucker's bet.

 

[Job 33:6]

Investment, what's the return on the taxpayers investment ?

The fact is, China cheats on all the agreements they've made with climate control and trade.

Call it for what it really is for the taxpayers, a sucker's bet.

The return is a world run on clean energy.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The return is a world run on clean energy.

That's a nice thought, but it's not reality as nations aren't led by people of moral values.

Anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm giving up politics for Lent which starts tomorrow, but I'm prepping for it today.

God Bless !

 

[Job 33:6]

That's a nice thought, but it's not reality as nations aren't led by people of moral values.

Anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm giving up politics for Lent which starts tomorrow, but I'm prepping for it today.

God Bless !

I tend to view clean energy as almost an inevitable part of our future.

When we think about energy, what truly has the most energy of any source? Well, the sun.

The sun has so much energy, that it has fed the entire earth with heat for billions of years, long before fossil fuels ever even existed.

The sun of course drives wind through pressure changes and of course solar power directly converts the sun's energy to electricity. The sun drives hydro power through energizing the planets water cycle. The sun even drives the formation of fossil fuels themselves, through energizing processes of rapid burial or by feeding the organics that ultimately make up fossil fuels.

But where does the sun's energy come from? Well, it comes from nuclear fusion. Nuclear energy (fusion or fission) is infinitely more efficient and powerful than any fossil fuel. Well, maybe not infinitely, but drastically more powerful.

And so I think nuclear is an inevitable future world power. And, it's also a clean energy.

But part of advancing clean energy initiatives, that will drive us to the next stage or era of energy technology, begins with having these climate accords and pressing ourselves to investigate these alternative green energies and to ask questions about what alternative options we have.

The climate accord is about more than just solar or wind power. Or more than just cutting carbon emissions. It's about revolutionizing, or perhaps simply modernizing, world energy.

Just like we have modernized airplanes and modernized computers, we can, and I'm confident that we will, modernize and revolutionize green technology. And it starts here.

Backtracking and trying to revive a dying coal industry is just like trying to revive bow-and-arrow weaponry. It's just old, it's dirty, it's inefficient, it's hazardous.

Will we always have coal? Sure, it will be here.

But it doesn't have to be number 1. Nor does oil, nor any fossil fuel. At least not with respect to things like fueling cars or manufacturing industries.

We have naval aircraft carriers that have been running off of nuclear power for decades. We have new research and development in reactors that generate over 80% less nuclear waste by reprocessing spent fuel rods.

Wind and solar have advanced great strides in efficiency and at cheaper costs than fossil fuels. Indeed, renewables and clean energy are actually cheaper than fossil fuels in many places in the world today. And that's not morality, it's just economics. Even in the US, fossil fuels are only cheaper through government subsidies.

The growth of green energy, and the shrinking of fossil fuels is inevitable, not because people want to be "moral", but because it is inevitable that we advance to use of cleaner and more powerful and efficient and cheaper, energy.

And it's only a matter of time before that scale tips in favor of new energy. The climate accord is just the beginning. Tesla electric cars, is just the beginning. Wave reactors by GE-Hitache, are just the beginning.

50 years from now, the world will be a different place. And the question is if we should embrace that, or reject it and turn back to what we think are old faithful, yet depleting and finite, fossil fuels. In comparison to the infinite power of renewables and clean energy.

Fossil fuels don't stand a chance. And it's only a matter of time before everyone gets on board with clean energy.

 

[Job 33:6]

And more on the above, People thought America would reach peak oil back in the 40s or 50s. And since then we have begun use of horizontal drilling which is drastically expanded our ability to extract oil from the Earth. But the truth be told is that these technological advances will only take us so far. If we wanted to be really nice to the oil industry, we might be able to tell them that they have 150 years left of oil to work with.

But of course, as supply shrinks, demand will rise and cost will continue to rise. Oil prices may go down for brief moments as Saudi Arabia and others pump excessive amounts from the ground to lower costs. But ultimately, those gas prices will just keep going up more and more after each year.

And at some point the cost is just going to become too expensive. Well before 150 years from now, where we would actually run out of oil, we will reach a point where it will just be too expensive. I would guess, almost certainly within our life time (assuming we are of a younger generation), we will see fossil fuels get replaced by renewables as top energy sources for America.

Not because it is a moral choice, but because it is an economic conclusion. And this doesn't also include increased conflicts over Middle Eastern sources of oil that would also hypothetically increase as supply depletes.

And these future battles, or arguably these current modern-day battles, or something that adds additional cost to this resource. And it will only get worse.

But renewable sources and green energy, including nuclear energy, has the ability to yield so much energy, so much infinitely greater quantities of energy than fossil fuel, That it is inevitable that people will make the economic choice to adopt them.

All we have to do is wait and watch as this truth unfolds. Or we can stay one step ahead of this truth, and invest and research green energy now. So that when these issues do arise, America will be ready.