Via the Hill – President Trump will pull the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement, according to several reports Wednesday.
Axios first reported that Trump is working with a group led by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt on the exact mechanism of pulling out before announcing his final decision. CBS News also reported that Trump is telling allies about his decision.
The move marks a dramatic departure from the Obama administration, which was instrumental in crafting the deal. It also makes the U.S. an outlier among the world’s nations, nearly all of whom support the climate change accord.
But Trump’s decision fulfills an original campaign promise he made just over a year ago to “cancel” the accord.
Trump tweeted on Wednesday that he “will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days.”
I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017
Trump had been telling close confidants about his decision in recent weeks, Axios reported. But a public letter sent to him last week by 22 Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), helped seal his decision.
The agreement was reached by nearly 200 countries in 2015, the first global climate accord to include that many nations. Each country made its own non-binding pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The Obama administration, which helped negotiate the pact, had promised a 26 to 28 percent cut in the country’s emissions, a pledge that Republicans had slammed as necessitating expensive, job-killing regulations.
Trump, who doubts the science behind climate change, has already begun the process of reversing American climate policies.
In March, he signed an executive order to undo most of Obama’s climate agenda, including a key rule to cut electricity sector carbon emissions, and he has proposed gutting funding to federal agencies that tackle climate change, renewable energy and the environment.
He delayed a decision on the Paris deal until after last week’s Group of Seven (G7) summit in Italy, where foreign leaders pressured him to stay in the agreement.
The White House said Trump was considering the leaders’ opinions on the agreement, but others, led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, characterized the summit more as a six-on-one debate over the merits of the deal, with Trump standing alone.
His decision to leave the deal comes after scores of stakeholders asked Trump to keep the U.S. in the agreement, including businesses, environmentalists, major energy companies, Democrats, a handful of congressional Republicans and some officials in his administration.
Numerous companies and individuals aligned with Trump on other policies have publicly pushed him recently to remain in the agreement, including Exxon Mobil and Cloud Peak Energy. They argued the U.S. needs to stay involved in climate work to have influence over global policy decisions that could impact their bottom lines.
Full report here
OFFICIAL SAYS TRUMP EXPECTED TO PULL US FROM PARIS DEAL
BY JULIE PACE
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is expected to pull the United States from a landmark global climate agreement, a White House official said Wednesday, though there could be “caveats in the language” announcing a withdrawal, leaving open the possibility that his decision isn’t final.
Exiting the deal would be certain to anger allies that spent years negotiating the accord to reduce carbon emissions.
The official insisted on anonymity in order to discuss the decision before the official announcement.
AP Report here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
D’accord!
“Less rules, more sort of guidelines…”
Apte! Un video très apte!
Hey, remember when pirates were called ‘inimici humani generis’, not ‘Mr Vice President‘?
I miss the lucid, Hitchensian moral simplicity of those days.
150,000,000 CARBON CREDITS to the first person to correctly identify the next line from the movie
Over on warmist accuweather.com there’s a poll “Do you believe the U.S. should remain in the Paris Climate Agreement?” here:
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/trump-reportedly-decides-to-pull-us-out-of-historic-paris-climate-agreement/70001809
So far, 50% say “No”, 44% “Yes”, 5% “Undecided”.
Vote early and often!
Now 60% NO, 36% yes, and still 5% undecided. I see a trend here….
PMK
Just voted no. 65% saying no.
It’s close to 70% exit now! I voted exit, or no do not stay.
Congratulations! That is one of the few things where I hoped that Trump would keep his promisses. For the rest I don’t think I have much in common with his ideas, but that is US politics, so I can’t be sure what he really means…
Yes. But. If DT goes down in history as the guy that
showedproved the emperor naked and thta we don’t need to impoverish the third world, our children and theirs’ and us all, right now when we can least afford it, he would rightly and righteously rise in every thinking person’s mind when the veil is lifted and this gigantic, malevolent bsmachine grinds to a halt.We need more. It must be utterly exposed for the fakery it is. If this costs as much as a couple of years of the waste that climate science has created, so be it.
Ferdinand, you will see great benefits in your country, too. If T does simply pull out, the whole carnival will fall to pieces. As you in particular well know, their isn’t enough fossil fuels to put CO2 above 500ppm and even before that, the prices of these fuels will rise substantially. They are needed intrinsically for making petrochemicals and fertilizers (natural gas for nitrates).
Ausgezeichnet!
Gesundheit!
Wunderbar.
I have read – but am not sure of the veracity – that the longest word in modern German has 1,720 letters, describes its subject in considerable detail, and, in English, means ‘Car’.
Or
Auto
(Well, I read it on Filthy Jokes, so there is a real possibility someone was pulling someone-else’s p1s5er [if I may?])
Jawohl, Herr Commandant!
I see notink, I know notink.
noaaprogrammer
Interesting comment.
I note that of the seven most despotic regimes of the 20th Century, USSR, China, Italy, Germany, Spain Cuba and N.Korea, all but one have their roots in socialism.
Every one of them, except N. Korea of course, have converted to a capitalist, largely free trade philosophy and prospered. It’s also notable that Trump is the only one standing up for free trade to ensure workers have access to jobs in the face of the Paris accord which will destroy jobs.
Funny that, capitalism recognises the need for workers, and socialism seeks to subjugate them.
I liked the idea of him submitting it to Congress to be shot down there — respect for Congress, rule of law, and all that. But what a President’s pen giveth, another giveth away.
You mean like Obama did on this or any of the thousands of other end runs?
I agree ! If this is rejected by the Senate it would be politically more difficult for a future President to revive it. Also, there are quite a few Dem Senators from red states that are up in 2018 that really don’t want to have to cast a vote on this.
Too risky. Trump can simply declare it null and void. The party with which the agreement was made is no longer relevant to the equation.
I suspect there are a lot of Republicans who don’t want to be on the record against the Paris agreement. They will be labeled as “anti-science” and there are still a lot of people that believe all of the MSM BS about man made global warming, rising seas, more violent storms, more disease, etc, etc, Having Trump cancel the agreement gets them off the hook. Cowards that they are!
In agreement with Bob. Should the Senate take up the Treaty, it would take 2/3’s to pass it. Mind you, only 22 Senators signed the letter to Trump. I view that as a sign of risk that half of the Republicans are subject to folding under pressure that a ratification debate would bring.
Furthermore, Trump and McConnell don’t need anything else to clutter up the Senate calendar.
Lastly, even if the Senate rejects the Treaty, we have seen plenty of evidence that future Presidents will continue to operate and regulate as if it had been passed. The Kyoto treaty, facing a 95-0 preconference resolution disapproving, was never taken up for ratification by the Senate and today is hardly a dead issue at the EPA.
One hopes that Trump is listening to lawyer Scott Pruitt on how to make the withdrawal legally ironclad and make the terms of Paris Accord irrelevant in future court room proceedings.
I fear goofy Republican Senators who are already blowing their last chance at meaningful dismantling of the economic suicide pact entered into by our former Pres.
I suspect as the White House caused this problem, the White House should end it. Don’t bother the Senate, they’ve got other things to get done.
He gets my vote from this point forward. Where do I send the check?
“It also makes the U.S. an outlier among the world’s nations, nearly all of whom support the climate change accord.”
Given the US contribution to science, culture and money, it’s the rest of the world that’s about to become the pariah.
well….we’re supposed to hand over our money to a bunch of crooks and thieves…who have proven they can’t even run a carbon credit scam…and have our best interests dead last
Latitude,
“we’re supposed to hand over our money to a bunch of crooks and thieves…”
I disagree. That sounds like a terrible idea. As you yourself concede, they’ve shown themselves to be incompetent custodians of cash and (as felons) are unlikely to prioritize US interests.
So no. Thanks but no.
Brad you say “nearly all of whom support the climate change accord.”, hmnmnm not really they support it, but dodge it, knowing the EU and neo-progressives will not hold fellow liberals to account , Like Canadian Liberals signed the Kyoto protocol and did absolutely nothing!
Sun Spot, good point. (It’s more of a Kitty-Genovese-style crime of laziness than anything else.)
Except I was quoting the post.
The US was already the outlier in the amount of money that was to be forked over to the kelptocrats. I like Trump’s version of being an outlier much, much better.
If the Paris Accord had allowed nuclear power to be counted as an acceptable power source, maybe Trump wouldn’t have ditched it.
The green purists won and won until they lost.
The Paris accord does not prevent that…
e.g. China, UK, India, Korea and the UAE all see nuclear as part of CO2 reduction and are building/just built reactors
This is good, it is right that nuclear is part of a country’s energy mix for a number of reasons.
Trump should do something to protect the US nuclear sector from gas-related low energy prices.
The best way for this would be to subsidise the decomissioning related costs which are unnaturally high.
@Griff
It so happens that China and India are also building coal fired plants hand over fist. And so is goody gumdrops Germany which after Frau Dr Merkel decided to close down nuclear and crying crocodile tears over DT last weekend, has been un-mothballing 6 older coal fired plants and building another 8 for good measure, just to keep the lights on. Several of these plants will be burning brown coal, the dirtiest of all coal but a resource Germany has in spades.
It’s a reality check against political grandstanding.
@Phil Salmon, “to subsidise the decomissioning related costs which are unnaturally high. “
Why? To subsidise anything is to go counter to the efficient allocation of capital, to be LESS efficient.
But let’s look more closely at your quote: costs which are unnaturally high.
“Well THERE’s your problem!” Let us not work on subsidy schemes.
Let’s look at what government is doing to make the costs unnaturally high. Industry cannot make progress in lowing the cost of nuclear recycling if the government had forbade any such activity. The government has taken upon itself as a monopoly of how to dispose of spent fuel without regard to maximizing the spent fuel’s value. The only thing the DOE contractors care about is …. continuation of the contract.
h/t Despair.com
Apparently the owners of Three Mile Island nuclear plant just signaled that they need a subsidy to compete with low cost natural gas fired plants. Read this in today’s paper.
They always overplay their hand.
Invest in popcorn futures, for the inevitable meltdown of the Leftists, Greenies, and Warmunists.
It will be an awesome show.
It’s already beginning. The doom and gloom of the left is making for a great comedy… at the moment. Once they get over their melt down it’ll be interesting to see how they (the Left) lash out.
Kathy Griffin’s little stunt just swung another 3 million 2018 mid-term votes to the GOP. They’re like the snake swallowing itself tail-first now.
http://www.fantasy-jewelry.com/product_images/q/562/view_4__71654_zoom.jpg
H/T to Robert Jordan (RIP) and The Wheel of Time
And pop your corn with hydrocarbons!
Agreed! Trump is on the right side of science but the political upheaval should be quite a show.
Make America Great!
Six of the G7 nations just restated their commitment to Paris and urged Trump to do likewise…
Exactly which world nations are going to pull out/reduce their commitment apart from the US?
Griff,
When The USA pulls out, the Paris Accord will become meaningless. Europe isn’t going to pay for this, they don’t have the money. It won’t matter, at that point, who stays in or withdrawls.
Griff
See my comment above about German Paris hypocrisy. Also, the Central European EU countries are in full and open revolt against Paris, something you hear too much this side of the pond.
Griff May 31, 2017 at 7:36 am
Grill you are talking to the wrong people. The Paris accord was made with the previous President. And only him.
You and the “G6” should be going after him for not submitting the agreement to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
Understand this once and for all there is no Paris accord with the U.S.A. Never was.
The European leaders knew how the U.S. system for treaties worked, they should have pressured the previous U.S. President to submit it to the Senate instead of participating in a subterfuge against the American people.
You may as well appeal to a thundercloud for all the good it will do.
michael
Griff: The G7 rely on world trade more than the U.S. does. They want every advantage over the U.S. they can get cost wise and using French-style government support for Airbus and other key sectors. Getting the U.S. to fork over the largest share of redistribution of wealth cash for developing countries but with G7 contractors to do the work is a less advertised goal, but that is exactly what happened in Iraq and elsewhere. They also want to minimize defense spending in their budgets while still calling NATO vital.
It’s not what they say know that matters. That’s just political theater. It’s what they do after that matters.
Mike, perhaps those EU leaders were also convinced that Hillary was a shoe in. Another 8 years of far left wing leadership, and it wouldn’t matter anymore.
I’m waiting for something more official than the word of unnamed sources before breaking out the Champagne.
I agree. I’d like to see the official announcement.
All this time I thought an Accord was a Honda…..
I really like the new Honda Accord Hybrid… Now I just have to figure out how to afford one.
I think you are on to a new slogan for Trump pulling out of this agreement.
Can’t Afford the Accord! 😉
LOL. :))
Will you really save that much money in fuel (if you will save any) by purchasing a hybrid? Have you checked out the cost of a replacement battery pack? An extra 10 mpg doesn’t seem worth the extra cost hybrids incur due to this factor. And they’re certainly not any cleaner due to the high pollution cost of battery production and the smug they produce.
I Came I Saw I Left,
At current fuel prices, the likely answer is ‘No’ (I drive about 50K miles a year so, maybe), I wouldn’t save much money in fuel costs (assuming I could afford the car in the first place). If fuel prices rise north of $3.00 again, the answer is definetly ‘Yes’. And yes, I am well aware of the cost of a replacement battery.
Also, I’m not interested in the car, or any other hybrid, for the ‘green cred’… that’s just stupid.
There is a fun factor to driving them. I rented a Pious once…
Accord is a French car, of course.
And there will be nothing barring those same Businesses, Environmentalists, major energy companies, Democrats, or the handful of Congressional Republicans, nor those officials inhis administration from doing anything personally as they believe. Nothing will prevent them from investing in Wind or Solar, there will simply be no Government investments in such.
Exxon Mobile and Cloud Peak Energy can erect wind farms or solar farms if they wish to, Trump won’t stop them. Just fon’t look for the government handout to do so.
I’d be happy if they stop giving rich phonies $7,500 credits for buying a Tesla!
Hey the rich needs subsidies too 🙂
Tesla, the 21st century version of the “welfare Cadillac”.
Don’t forget the solar roof system at 10K credits and now the house structure with integrated roof and battery charging system for another 25K. But the most important thing to remember is these are tax credits from the bottom line tax due to fund public services and they allow an end run around the alternative minimum tax scheme that blocks the benefit of ordinary deductions.
Tesla stock up today, obviously no fear of the subsidies being purged in the price.
Greenshirts are confident they can outlast DJT.
I don’t see the total war team to make the Paris exit stick. It’s a conventional 80’s economics rebuttal and Reagan, twice the President of past 10 combined, lost the war with greens looking out over the past 30 years.
“Caveats”? We don’t need no stinkin caveats on the exit.
I don’t see the skeptic science team in place, I don’t see the needed purge of governmental Greenshirt operatives.
It’s still a start but looks very shallow in what’s important.
Electric cars will be necessary after about 2050 as fossil fuels decline and prices go up. Ultimately F fuels will be wanted to maintain petrochemicals. Nuclear is going to be the ultimate choice this century, whether liked or not. Engineers will even be making them safer and more efficient – maybe small molten salt reactors for personal use! Or fusion, finally.
Gary, your date is too early by at least 100 years.
It’s really hard to say ‘no’ to other peoples money. Can you blame them?
Regarding those 200 countries or so, I wonder what the recipient/payer ratio is…
True
and they’ll keep on investing in renewables in the US…
and US coal plants, the major CO2 contributors will still keep closing.
If market forces free from govt manipulation, move the US away from coal produced electricity, then so be it.
Griff,
US coal fired plants are closing not because of renewables [favored Green myth, that] but because of cheap fracked gas.
And something the Green blob is missing completely, is that US coal may not be able to retrieve US market share, but instead is now back on the international markets big time – there are 1500 coal fired plants in operation or being built around the world right now which all need, you guessed it, coal, something the US a lot of. That’s a good number of those miners back who voted fro DT back on the job.
Meanwhile two of the US coal majors have come out of Chapter 11. And who’s right now supplying coal to the re-commissioned German coal fired plants – you guessed right again…
Griff May 31, 2017 at 7:37 am
“and US coal plants, the major CO2 contributors will still keep closing.”
Should have checked first. There are new mines opening in West Virginny & Pennsylvania.
did you not think someone would check? Or that someone might have knowledge of new openings? You need to start using your brain I know you have one. Making stupid statements like the one above discredits any other statements you put forth. Check next time before you try to score points with a one liner.
Griff do better okay.
michael
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-17/u-s-coal-mines-are-opening-in-a-year-of-cautious-optimism
One constant with Griff, is that he always assumes that any trend that is going in a direction he approves, can’t change.
For example, the fact that natural gas is currently cheaper than coal will remain true forever.
Great point.
A great argument, Brian A, and one that is too often neglected.
Remaining in the Paris Accord is a forfeit of Liberty and a “trump” card for the regulators, lawyers, and NGO’s. Tearing up the Paris Accord is a return of Liberty for all and a drastic cut in power of those who want to control the lives of others.
Drives me absolutely NUTS how all these writers insist on calling emissions “carbon,” which evokes the image of black, sooty pollution. It’s CARBON DIOXIDE, people!! Colorless, harmless trace gas plants and all other life on Earth needs for food! I wish someone like Judith would write a brief, idiot-proof editorial correcting this; and send it to the AP, NYT, WashPo, etc.
Meanwhile, 10,000 thanks to DJT for keeping his promise to MAGA!!!!!!!!!! :-))
I can’t recall, how much “global warming” would the US allegedly prevent if it cut CO2 emissions by 20%?
In general, how far off is this info that I posted elsewhere regarding this issue? –
“For the record, the climate has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (approx. 1850), there is a “Green House Effect”, and CO2 is one of the Green House Gasses. However, regarding the Paris Accord – “climate scientists” are not in agreement on exactly how much warming of the atmosphere may be directly caused by atmospheric CO2. They say that for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 there may/might be a warming of “X” degrees Celsius. “X”, in the early UN IPCC reports was possibly as high as 4 degrees Celsius but later IPCC reports said it might be 2.5 degrees and the latest might be between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius while even more recent peer reviewed papers show it probably closer to 0.5 degrees Celsius. What this implies it that when the atmospheric CO2 level goes from 250 ppmv (Parts per million by volume), which it generally was in the 1850’s, to 500 ppmv, which it could reach by 2050 or 2060, 0.5 degrees Celsius of any atmospheric temperature increase may/might be attributed to that atmospheric CO2 level change. We are already over 400 ppmv so at best we can only now have an effect on the final 100 ppmv, or less than half of that 0.5 degrees Celsius. Further, the IPCC reports imply that only as much as half of that change might be attributed to human CO2 emissions. Think about that: of the 0.5 degree change, over half of it has already happened (since we are already over half of the rise from 250 to 500) so at best we can only effect half of that: 0.25, and only half of that may/might be human attributed, which is 0.125 degrees. The Paris Accord would have some, but not all, Nations cut up to 20% of their emissions. Therefore, if all Nations cut CO2 emissions by 20%, it may/might limit the warming by a mere 0.025 degrees Celsius by 2050/60, delaying the overall warming by a few years.”
Easily reversed using the lapse rate by wearing higher heels….
So we can adapt to global warming by wearing platform shoes. Does that also require us to bring back disco?
Where’s Janice? I was expecting a John Travolta video after that post.
If the US followed its obligations set forth in the Paris Accord, it would reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.008C…if we were optimistic and continues the obligations beyond 2030 all the way to the end of the century, it would reduce global temperature rise by 0.031C. The entirety of the Paris Agreement would reduce the rise by 0.08C…if we also extended it another 70 years then it would reduce the rise by 0.17C. This assumes no leakage.
@ur momisugly Tucker:
You mean “allegedly” it may/might have that effect on the Global Atmospheric Temperature, don’t you?
Spot on. Plus loads.
Assuming this goes through, I really believe that history may define this as the moment the CAGW bandwagon and all the billions of $/€/£ etc etc cost that go with it ground to a halt. Like Brexit day, the impact will not be immediate, indeed it may take years, but it will be hugely important for governments and people across the world.
I agree. the MOMENTUM of the bandwagon will be lost—and momentum is vital to its success in the near term. If we get a three-year breathing space, warmists will be forced to engage in televised debates with disbelievers, which will move the needle in a skeptical direction among the public.
YES!!!
Thank you, President Trump!
Thank you, Americans, for voting him in!
Now let’s start to make Europe great again too!
I look forward to reading the in-depth articles at the various newspapers of record, featuring climate scientist Dr. James Hansen’s unequivocal support of President Trump’s decision. After all, less than 2 years ago Hansen expressed some reservations about the Paris climate accord.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud
‘Trump is pulling U.S. out of Paris climate deal ‘
“President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They’re deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal — which could take 3 years — or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme…..”
https://www.axios.com/scoop-trump-is-pulling-u-s-out-of-paris-climate-deal-2427773025.html
How can it take five years to leave an agreement that was merely signed by the previous President?
I mean, if that’s all it takes to prevent the next President from acting, why doesn’t Trump just sign a bunch of agreements that will prevent a future Democrat from revoking them for five billion years?
“How can it take five years to leave an agreement” I think that is a misunderstanding, AFAIK, the signatory nations have a limit of 3 years in which to withdraw from the agreement, after signing. This does not mean that a withdrawel takes years to carry out. But the best thing would in any case be to get out of all UN climate change organisations.
But the best thing would in any case be to get out of all UN
climate changeorganisations.— or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme…..”
Be still my fluttering heart. Could it be true? Might we get out of that whole UNFCCC nightmare?
The Palestinians being allowed in gives President Trump all the pretext he needs under U.S. law.
It also makes the U.S. an outlier among the world’s nations, nearly all of whom…
Not nearly….all….all of them get paid
This was supposed to be the biggest money maker for them
Latitude,
And Chine gets a free hand to increase its emissions until 2030 while the US reduces its emissions by 26-28%. Some sweet deal for China.
Of course, China enthusiastically supports COP 21 under such favorable circumstances and India will take the China route as well. So, one-third of the world’s population will be exempt from emissions reductions under COP 21. China and India are the real “outliers” among a growing list of others (Poland, Russia and other eastern European nations).
Smash the camel’s nose and get it out of the tent. link If we let the nose stay in the tent, surely the rest of the camel will follow. Staying in the Paris Accord would just be stupid. The Democrats will eventually control Congress and we don’t want to leave the framework in place that will let them easily impose the green agenda on America. Drain The Swamp.
The United States is the world’s only superpower. It has the political, military and economic might to convince the rest of the world to do what it wants.
The cacophony of greenies reminds me of the squatters living in the antlers of Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose. The squatters brought Thidwick to the verge of death because he was too polite to act in his own interest. Why let the greenies hector us into economic ruin?
Why get involved in the rest of the worlds self destructive religious beliefs (e.g. anthroprogenic climate change). To hell with them. Mr. President, get us out of this insanity.
The opposition media is preparing their outrage attack like pulling a chain saw cord to crank up their ugliness.
They will be hyperventilating while spewing.
Their outrage machine, continuously dialed up to 11, is being tuned out now by pretty much everyone outside the Acela Corridor and the self-righteous Birkenstock smoothie-swilling crowd on the left coast.
Trump is doing what those 95% of counties in red-state America elected him to do–keeping his promises!
+10
I agree Latitude. This “Accord” is and hopefully was about money……borrowed money!
Rather, stolen money.
Just get on and announce it – it will add strength and weight to the eastern European nations that don’t want to see industry, steel manufacture and jobs exported to other countries that will pollute far more than the West.
“Beijing …. has reaffirmed its commitment to meeting its targets under the Paris accord, recently canceling construction of about 100 coal-fired power plants and investing billions in massive wind and solar projects.”
There they go again, telling porkies about China in order to fit their climate narrative. China doesn’t care one whit about “climate change”. They get to have their cake and eat it too by pretending to go along with it, doing what they would be doing anyway, and laughing all the way to the bank watching its competitors sandbag themselves.
“Wind and solar” that exist on paper only, and we all know will never get built because they DON’T WORK.
The Chinese want to grow their economy, and are not stupid.
Right… this didn’t get built then?
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/china-home-worlds-largest-floating-solar-power-plant/
Griff: A 40 MW floating solar system might be the world’s largest of that obscure type, but it is quite small by other standards including the hundreds of coal fired power plants recently built or being completed there. The same goes for their nuclear plants. And 40 mw is small even by utility scale solar standards.
Griff
Time for a cold shower. Greenpeace’s obfuscations notwithstanding, China continues to build coal fired plants at what amounts to 1 per week. 40 Mw of solar is like pissing in the Yellow River – there’s no noticeable change in either flow or color.
“The Chinese want to grow their economy, and are not stupid.”
The Chinese education system has the long school days, tough discipline and regularly heads global league tables. For this bunch of little ones there is much more to it than the three Rs
https://youtu.be/iDZIriLSjT8
Here ya go Griff
https://www.techly.com.au/2017/05/31/china-worlds-largest-floating-solar-farm/
Doesn’t seems so impressive really does it
Peter
Interesting find…but this could be the money quote
I am curious just how much of that proposed U$360B of proposed expenditure was to come from the US Klimate Kash that China was hoping to get by then
“Beijing …. has reaffirmed its commitment to meeting its targets under the Paris accord,”
I’ll bet Beijing is reaffirming its commitment.
Beijing’s commitment = Produce as much CO2 as you want until 2030.
Yeah, I would reaffirm that, too, if I were Beijing.
“The White House said Trump was considering the leaders’ opinions on the agreement, but others, led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, characterized the summit more as a six-on-one debate over the merits of the deal, with Trump standing alone.”
Yeah, everybody else is really concerned that the US is involved to foot the bill.