Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday November 09 2019, @07:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the making-progress dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Carnegie Mellon University researchers have found that current forecasts call for the U.S. electric power sector to meet the 2020 and 2025 CO2 reduction requirements in the Paris Agreement—even though the U.S. has announced its withdrawal—and also meet the 2030 CO2 reduction requirements contemplated by the Clean Power Plan—even though it has been repealed.

Despite the absence of a national policy aimed at reducing CO2 emissions, the U.S. is ahead of schedule to meet the short-term and mid-term goals of both the Paris Agreement and the Clean Power Plan, according to a recent viewpoint article published in Environmental Science & Technology.

"A year ago, it looked like our ability to meet these larger carbon reduction targets would have required more proactive steps, such as new regulation or new incentive programs," said Jeffrey Anderson, lead author of the paper and Ph.D. candidate of Engineering & Public Policy (EPP). "However, as renewable energy costs have fallen and are projected to continue decreasing even further, we are now well on the path to achieving even the 2030 goals in the Clean Power Plan."

Based on an analysis of projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these carbon reductions will be met without any additional legislative or regulatory activity, said David Rode, faculty of CMU's Electricity Industry Center. The team also included EPP professors Haibo Zhai and Paul Fischbeck, also a professor of Social & Decision Sciences.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Sunday November 10 2019, @02:34PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 10 2019, @02:34PM (#918595) Journal

    I love how you employ the very tactics you ascribe to me.

    I don't share your love for how hard you're projecting here. It's telling here that you aren't willing to defend your assertions about the urgency and harm of climate change, but you are willing to point a bunch of junk links to myths about anti-intellectualism (pro-tip: those links fall prey to the same anti-intellectualism that they claim to care about).

    Meanwhile actual warming and secondary effects like sea level rise are far short of predictions (particular when one considers effects from the ongoing end of the last glacial period are lumped in), and harm of climate change is grossly, repeatedly, and consistently exaggerated. Warming exists, but we have bigger problems that the obsessive focus on climate change is harming.

    But then what would be the point of trying to understand non-groupthink positions, right?

    My take is that you, like most of the movement, ran out of reasonable arguments some time ago. Blaming your opponents for the weakness of your own arguments and evidence is pretty standard fare for climate change debate.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Redundant=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Redundant' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0