Biden v Trump :: Breathe easy ... while you can

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Axion :

Exclusive: How much CO2 emissions might change under Trump​

Zoom in: The analysis from Carbon Brief, shared first with Axios, is based upon modeling scenarios from two prominent U.S. research groups. It takes into account some, but not all, of Trump's stated plans to roll back Biden's climate policies, such as the Inflation Reduction Act.​

• Carbon Brief concludes that under Trump, the U.S. would generate extra emissions through 2030 that would rival the combined annual CO2 output of both the European Union and Japan.
• The research also notes a stark difference in U.S. emissions reductions through 2030 under the different candidates; the current target under Biden is a 50% to 52% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.
• Under Biden, current policies would get the U.S. close to that goal, at about 43% below 2005 levels by 2030.
• Under Trump, emissions cuts might amount to as little as 28% below 2005 levels by 2030, depending on the extent to which he is able to reverse Biden's climate policies.

Stunning stat: Carbon Brief's report shows that the emissions path during a second Trump term "would negate — twice over — all of the savings from deploying wind, solar and other clean technologies over the last five years" globally.​

Elections have consequences.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

From Axion :

Exclusive: How much CO2 emissions might change under Trump​

Zoom in: The analysis from Carbon Brief, shared first with Axios, is based upon modeling scenarios from two prominent U.S. research groups. It takes into account some, but not all, of Trump's stated plans to roll back Biden's climate policies, such as the Inflation Reduction Act.​

• Carbon Brief concludes that under Trump, the U.S. would generate extra emissions through 2030 that would rival the combined annual CO2 output of both the European Union and Japan.
• The research also notes a stark difference in U.S. emissions reductions through 2030 under the different candidates; the current target under Biden is a 50% to 52% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.
• Under Biden, current policies would get the U.S. close to that goal, at about 43% below 2005 levels by 2030.
• Under Trump, emissions cuts might amount to as little as 28% below 2005 levels by 2030, depending on the extent to which he is able to reverse Biden's climate policies.

Stunning stat: Carbon Brief's report shows that the emissions path during a second Trump term "would negate — twice over — all of the savings from deploying wind, solar and other clean technologies over the last five years" globally.​

Elections have consequences.

Well, the MAGA folks'll tell you that they would really like to save the planet and its atmosphere for their descendants, but not if it means it costs them anything, or that they have to give something up. The kids and grand-kids aren't worth THAT much.

 

[Ponder This]

From Axion :

Exclusive: How much CO2 emissions might change under Trump​

Zoom in: The analysis from Carbon Brief, shared first with Axios, is based upon modeling scenarios from two prominent U.S. research groups. It takes into account some, but not all, of Trump's stated plans to roll back Biden's climate policies, such as the Inflation Reduction Act.​

• Carbon Brief concludes that under Trump, the U.S. would generate extra emissions through 2030 that would rival the combined annual CO2 output of both the European Union and Japan.
• The research also notes a stark difference in U.S. emissions reductions through 2030 under the different candidates; the current target under Biden is a 50% to 52% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, relative to 2005 levels.
• Under Biden, current policies would get the U.S. close to that goal, at about 43% below 2005 levels by 2030.
• Under Trump, emissions cuts might amount to as little as 28% below 2005 levels by 2030, depending on the extent to which he is able to reverse Biden's climate policies.

Stunning stat: Carbon Brief's report shows that the emissions path during a second Trump term "would negate — twice over — all of the savings from deploying wind, solar and other clean technologies over the last five years" globally.​

Elections have consequences.

Fantasy:

Reality:

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, the MAGA folks'll tell you that they would really like to save the planet and its atmosphere for their descendants, but not if it means it costs them anything, or that they have to give something up. The kids and grand-kids aren't worth THAT much.

What I actually here is that AGW isn't a problem.

 

[Balthazzar]

Reductions in Carbon emissions by both parties by 2030. It looks like we are heading in the right direction either way - maybe, depending on other campaign goals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fantasy:

Reality:

And though it is nice to see the total of each country in emissions it is also important to remember the per capita rate. The US and probably Canada as well would be at the top of the charts if one does that.

Oh! I need to correct myself. On a per capita basis the US is not even in the top ten. Canada beats us by quite a bit, but then so does Australia! Okay. they are both big and largely empty countries. Canada gets just a little bit cold in the winder and Australia may get a tad bit warm:

CO2 Emissions per Capita - Worldometer

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions per Capita for each Country in the world

www.worldometers.info

And of course some of the OPEC countries are ludicrous in their usage. But at least I do not have to feel all that bad about US use of fossil fuels.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What I actually here is that AGW isn't a problem.

Not what I hear (note sp.). Who the heck are you listening to?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, the MAGA folks'll tell you that they would really like to save the planet and its atmosphere for their descendants, but not if it means it costs them anything, or that they have to give something up. The kids and grand-kids aren't worth THAT much.

I guess the greenie folks had better get to work on upping the green tech to get on par with fossil fuel.

Not that the majority of greenies actually lead by example anyways.

 

[Pogo]

I guess the greenie folks had better get to work on upping the green tech to get on par with fossil fuel.

Not that the majority of greenies actually lead by example anyways.

Replacing US Coal Plants With Solar and Wind Is Cheaper Than Running Them​

It now ‘unequivocally’ costs less to build new renewable energy projects than to operate existing coal plants, according to a new analysis.

You are rather behind the times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Replacing US Coal Plants With Solar and Wind Is Cheaper Than Running Them​

It now ‘unequivocally’ costs less to build new renewable energy projects than to operate existing coal plants, according to a new analysis.

You are rather behind the times.

Comforting lies are easier to believe than the truth if one hates progress.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not what I hear (note sp.). Who the heck are you listening to?

People I discuss it with.
And not once have I heard...
"The kids and grand-kids aren't worth THAT much."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

People I discuss it with.
And not once have I heard...
"The kids and grand-kids aren't worth THAT much."

Well, then, if they're not, you do what Americans have been doing for a couple of hundred years -- you work and save and try to create a better life for your children. If you are not willing to bear the cost of preserving an atmosphere for them to breathe, which your generation has been party to polluting, I hardly think you're doing that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, then, if they're not, you do what Americans have been doing for a couple of hundred years -- you work and save and try to create a better life for your children. If you are not willing to bear the cost of preserving an atmosphere for them to breathe, which your generation has been party to polluting, I hardly think you're doing that.

Do you have many Maga friends
with whom you discuss this?