If nothing else, I like the message it sends. It's a better message than automakers writing a letter to China asking them to slow down on electric vehicle goals.
What's the point? It means nothing. Brazil signed on just before starting to deforest an area of the Amazon the size of RI. There will be no punitive measures, because it doesn't mean anything.
Exactly. Its just lip service. People dont seem to understand this.
China's plan will reduce carbon emission in city centers. But there were studies saying the manufacturing of EV caused more carbon emissions along the supply chain. If these reports are right, switching to EV does not save the planet but it does reduce local smog (or at least the smog will impact less residents and therefore less visible in media)
Easy to make such a commitment when there's no price tag attached.
No more smoke signals.
Exactly the kind of hollow, pointless gesture that reddit loves.
Are they upholding the treaty or are they just reducing carbon emissions? Upholding the treaty would mean paying money to the Green Climate Fund. Somehow I doubt that they are.
I'd like to read about the manufacturing causing more carbon emissions. Does it cause so much it offsets the reduction realized by the life of the vehicle? Do you have a source?
"Natural" CO2 sources have a distinctive mixture of isotopes -- that is, atomic forms of carbon that are chemically similar by have slightly different subatomic composition.
"Artificial" CO2 sources are primarily fossil sources, which have different proportions of isotopes.
By comparing the atmospheric levels of these isotopes, we can see a clear signal showing that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is man made.
By metaphor, imagine that your bathroom is flooding, and you don't know the source. If you were to put some blue dye in the toilet tank, and then observe that the water on the floor is turning blue, it's safe to say that the toilet tank is the source
We also know that the approximate tonnage of excess CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly equal to the amount of CO2 that would be produced by recorded human activities.
By analogy, this is like spending 16 hours baking pies, observing that the number of pies in your kitchen has increased, and concluding that it is extremely likely that those pies were caused by your activities.
I have personally been upholding all nuclear disarmament agreements my whole life, where's my prize?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)
So when President Donald Trump announced his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations' Paris climate agreement, the Swinomish reacted swiftly and, together with other tribes, publicly committed to uphold the accord.
In the West, where many tribal communities and reservations are on the frontlines of climate change, tribal leaders are determined to move forward on climate action as sovereign nations despite budget cuts, climate denial, and inaction.
Changing the law is an arduous process, so tribes in the U.S. are taking a short cut: working more closely with Indigenous populations from around the world through programs like the United League of Indigenous Nations, which has its own climate program, or the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change.
Reddit before Trump: " How is throwing money at it really going to work?"
Trump is elected and rejects Paris accord.
Reddit now: fuck Trump I love the paris accord. and the ACA.
I swear to god if he made a push to reverse citizens united Reddit would suddenly love the citizens united ruling.
Faith Spotted Eagle got 1 electoral vote in the 2016 election. Wasn't much but at least it was something.
The title says they are upholding the agreement. If they aren't paying money to the Green Climate Fund then they aren't upholding the agreement.
I actually have to explain this? By me saying government it's heavily implied in my post I mean on the Federal level.
When someone is discussing federal policies and says we don't need government policies, it's implies they are talking about those federal programs being discussed. Supporting local policies is completely different than supporting massive, overreaching federal policies.
I don't think Elizabeth Warren is running.
Crazy what you can do with other people's money, I gaurentee a small fraction of reddit has ever lived near a nation/reservation.
Will they also uphold the $1 billion price tag 0bama committed to?
Like I said, I fixed it so you weren't confused. It wasn't ironic, you were just being overly pedantic and dense. I assumed reading the whole post would be sufficient, but apparently not.
As someone who believe in climate change, I'm so glad Trump didn't give into that pointless circlejerk. It's easy to get on your high horse when a massive amount of $$$ isn't being asked from you.
They're all hypocrites. What Trump did caused what should have been happening all along, states and small governments taking it upon themselves to solve the issue. We don't need federal government policies to fix it.
I'm not being racist here but as someone who lives in Northern Canada near a native reserve. They litter more than any other person I've seen and I live in a place full of cultural diversity.
Okay, massive amounts of money was 3B, not 100s of billions as Trump claimed. We also ranked 32nd in terms of contributing to the Green Climate Fund, so let's get off our high horses. You're making a crucial mistake here. You're assuming he left it because it was pointless (it's not, but okay). His intent was to pander to his base. He doesn't care about clean energy, or climate change, he's a known denier. Are you okay with him appointing another climate-change denier as head of EPA. Are you okay with him trying to gut all climate change research? The federal government was the only entity that had the incentive and capability to do that. So no, "muh local government". Are you okay with him killing the Clean Power Plan (action behind the talk)? Or him trying to prop up coal whenever he can?
The Paris Agreement was also not pointless. It was to get everyone to say we're working on it. Sure, some won't, but some will, but it was meant to weaken an argument that says "why should we give a shit about the planet, when they don't?" Honor agreement are very effective. When Trump left the agreement, the world said we're still committed, but their resolve has been weakened, and it will show in their policy making in the future.
I'm guessing making a new car rather than keeping your old one is always going to be worse and using an electric car by charing it with coal electricity is still bad. But a coal power plant is more efficient than gas engine and an electric engine is far more efficient than a gas engine so you should come out on top I think. But maybe building the batteries and stuff like that is way worse than slapping together some steel for the gas car.
Sounded like you were focusing more on semantics just to be annoying
there were studies saying the manufacturing of EV caused more carbon emissions along the supply chain.
why should we discriminate people's carbon emission allowance based on nationality, race, income levels?
This has got Prager University written all over it.
states and small governments taking it upon themselves to solve the issue
We don't need government policies to fix it.
Most of those batteries are actually able to be recycled at this point, iirc.
Not really, reading my whole post completely justifies the point and anyone who doesn't see it lacks critical thinking and common sense. However, I did fix it (by simply adding one word) to help the easily confused.
How do you measure carbon emissions effectively, especially now it is related to money. Say if you plant more trees, do that count as negative carbon emission? What about natural carbon emissions occurred within your territory? Who is going to measure those? What is the ratio of human carbon emission vs natural cause carbon emission and how to reduce the latter?
Quora had a good reply to hat question.
An assessment concluded, that a Tesla cost 15% more CO2 to manufacture, than a ordinary combustion car. And that is because of the battery.
Otherwise you just have to use logic. If the car is manufactured in a country which burns a lot of coal, it will obviously have a higher CO2 footprint than one produced in a country which mainly use nuclear/renewables.
Same applies to the fuel. If a Tesla runs on electricity purely generated by coal, it pollutes roughly like a combustion driven car. If the electricity is generated by renewables/Nuclear, it is obviously a lot cleaner
She's not Native American.
Nice message but thats like Bhutan saying they wont start a nuclear weapons program
also keep in mind that power stations have an intrinsically higher thermodynamic efficiency than internal combustion engines since they operate at a higher temperature. Together with the proportion of low carbon electricity sources, this means that in the US an EV will have roughly half the total life cycle emissions as a gas powered car.
You're basically the guy who spends all day baking, and then asks who snuck all these pies into his house.
That's good and all, but they were never the biggest polluters
climate change is real. The scientist have spoken. (Even Exxon admits it.)You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. glad native Americans are standing up for the land and spaceship earth which we all share.
When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money
How was that an attack ? He's just showing your thesis is not consistent, which is often a sign you're more interesting in opposing than in debating.
They're 'raising awareness', aka doing literally nothing but still being able to smugly pat themselves on the back.
Remember when they used to say that about African Americans?
Unless I'm missing something, most of the top comments seem to be complaining about a lack of enforcing actual policies to tackle climate change.
Pulling out and saying "fuck it, global warming was invented by the Chinese" is hardly going to be supported by people who want tougher action to limit climate change.
How is saying you will do something and then not doing it better than being upfront about not doing it?
Of course they don't have to pay anything.
Free virtue signaling is worth it. It isn't worth it if you have to pay for 30% of the money.