POTUS Signs Executive Order to Cut Govt. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 40%

  • metta

    Posts: 39146

    Mar 19, 2015 9:59 PM GMT
    POTUS Signs Executive Order to Cut Govt. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 40%


    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/19/1371992/-POTUS-Signs-Executive-Order-to-Cut-Govt-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-by-40
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Mar 19, 2015 11:12 PM GMT
    metta8 saidPOTUS Signs Executive Order to Cut Govt. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 40%


    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/19/1371992/-POTUS-Signs-Executive-Order-to-Cut-Govt-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-by-40


    That won't really make much difference.

    China already emits more greenhouse gasses than the U.S. Even if the U.S. eliminated emitting all greenhouse gasses, it would not be sufficient since emissions by other nations are increasing.

    In addition to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we will need to help other nations to do the same whether we think it is our responsibility or not. It is unlikely that that can be done without drastically increasing nuclear power considering that by the year 2100, probably global demand for power will increase by about four times as poor nations increase power generation to lift their people out of poverty. About 90% of that power will have to come from non-CO2 emitting sources. That includes power for heating, cooling, lighting, cooking, transportation, manufacturing, etc.

    Actually, I doubt that CO2 emissions will be reduced sufficiently the reason being that there is inadequate commitment. The resulting climate changes, which have already begun, are likely to cause serious damage to governments and civilizations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2015 11:44 PM GMT
    Maybe when Barack and Michelle travel to the same state on the same day, they can take a single jet instead of 2 jets as they recently did on separate trips in a single day to California.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2015 12:09 AM GMT
    mx5guynj saidMaybe when Barack and Michelle travel to the same state on the same day, they can take a single jet instead of 2 jets as they recently did on separate trips in a single day to California.


    You're right. Good call on the hypocrisy.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 20, 2015 12:42 AM GMT
    This executive order was something he talked about back in 2011. It's an attempt to get a foot in the door for a cap and trade mechanism like the the one that was unmasked as a complete fraud that would have crippled US businesses while producing trillions in profits for the upper 1% of the upper 1% and Goldman Sachs.

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042810-531731-the-10-trillion-climate-fraud.htm

  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Mar 20, 2015 3:21 AM GMT
    maybe he's trying to mask over this fiasco

    20150319_bakkan_0.jpg

    chart: Bloomberg
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Mar 20, 2015 4:17 AM GMT
    O .... and here I thought they were getting rid of 40%of the congress and senate icon_confused.gif
  • metta

    Posts: 39146

    Mar 20, 2015 5:53 AM GMT
    FRE0 said
    metta8 saidPOTUS Signs Executive Order to Cut Govt. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 40%


    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/19/1371992/-POTUS-Signs-Executive-Order-to-Cut-Govt-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-by-40


    That won't really make much difference.

    China already emits more greenhouse gasses than the U.S. Even if the U.S. eliminated emitting all greenhouse gasses, it would not be sufficient since emissions by other nations are increasing.

    In addition to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we will need to help other nations to do the same whether we think it is our responsibility or not. It is unlikely that that can be done without drastically increasing nuclear power considering that by the year 2100, probably global demand for power will increase by about four times as poor nations increase power generation to lift their people out of poverty. About 90% of that power will have to come from non-CO2 emitting sources. That includes power for heating, cooling, lighting, cooking, transportation, manufacturing, etc.

    Actually, I doubt that CO2 emissions will be reduced sufficiently the reason being that there is inadequate commitment. The resulting climate changes, which have already begun, are likely to cause serious damage to governments and civilizations.



    The US & China are working together in regards to climate change

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/11/obama-just-announced-historic-climate-deal-china


    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/fact-sheet-us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change-and-clean-energy-c
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2015 12:36 PM GMT
    TomSOCAL said

    We have a Carbon based economy based on fossil fuels there's no way to change this.



    " there's no way to change this."???

    You assume no technological progress. Why?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2015 5:05 PM GMT
    The technologies are already here but neither political party will embrace them because there's insufficient graft involved:

    Planting Trees:

    Remember those Rain Forests that have been shrinking. We need them to absorb greenhouse gases and produce oxygen.

    Planting trees around houses decreases heating and cooling costs.

    Geothermal:

    The sun doesn't always shine.
    The wind doesn't always blow.
    The waves aren't constant.

    Geothermal energy is constant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2015 3:04 AM GMT
    for all the naysayers out there i have two words:


    TETRAETHYL LEAD
  • jrc2005

    Posts: 74

    Mar 21, 2015 5:58 PM GMT
    He's our best president on the environment in at least 35 years, maybe ever.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 21, 2015 9:36 PM GMT
    Life2Short saidfor all the naysayers out there i have two words:


    TETRAETHYL LEAD


    An excellent argument for such regulations!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2015 10:05 PM GMT
    metta8 said
    The US & China are working together in regards to climate change


    China has some terrible industrial air pollution problems. I think they are waking up to the fact that, whatever the long-term climate change situation, they need to cut down on industrial pollution right now, before it becomes an even bigger environmental health problem. At the moment air pollution is estimated to be killing 700,000 people in china every year. It is the same sort of problem the UK and the US were having in the 1950s, which led to the introduction of clean air acts in the 1960s in both countries.


  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Mar 22, 2015 12:31 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    mx5guynj saidMaybe when Barack and Michelle travel to the same state on the same day, they can take a single jet instead of 2 jets as they recently did on separate trips in a single day to California.


    You're right. Good call on the hypocrisy.


    My sister's husband is very careful to turn the lights of when leaving the room. They installed the most efficient available heating system and water heater. On the other hand, they do a lot of recreational traveling by jet, usually to Europe, so their travels emit far more CO2 than is saved by their other efficiencies. Surely that sort of thing is not uncommon. At least they are vegetarians; a vegetarian diet significantly reducers CO2 emissions.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Mar 22, 2015 12:33 AM GMT
    Life2Short saidfor all the naysayers out there i have two words:


    TETRAETHYL LEAD


    And ethylene dibromide.
  • PE_Mike

    Posts: 75

    Mar 22, 2015 10:42 AM GMT


    My sister's husband is very careful to turn the lights of when leaving the room. They installed the most efficient available heating system and water heater. On the other hand, they do a lot of recreational traveling by jet, usually to Europe, so their travels emit far more CO2 than is saved by their other efficiencies. Surely that sort of thing is not uncommon.

    Most of us care a little, about the planet, and the seemingly unseasonal 'climate change' - its our latter day equivalent of 'talking about the whether', and awfully politically correct.

    But while we regurgitate the pseudo science with absolute conviction, only the blind could not notice:

    (1) the US almost always introduces and merchandizes new technologies to the world for 'first mover advantage', later discovering the "unknown" hazards as it moves on through the product cycle and natural reserves to bring out another cure;

    (2) moralising is easiest when it is comfortable, expedient and low cost.

    We turn a blind eye to the damage done to the planet by producing our cell phone, electric car ('zero emissions'), even powering your PC and internet right now.

    Australians can offset with tax credits by paying hunters to go kill methane producing camels. Corporate American gifted itself with the same set of self serving rules.

    All roundly endorsed and applauded by politicians (whose campaigns they bankroll), as 'progressive'. Well done.