SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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also meet the 2030 CO2 reduction requirements contemplated by the Clean Power Plan—even though it has been repealed.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.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Monday November 11 2019, @12:49PM (3 children)
And I find your reading comprehension skills ... interesting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @01:46PM (2 children)
Feel free to elaborate if you think you have any particular insight. I'm quite happy to change my views in light of evidence that contradicts my biases or misunderstandings, unlike most. So a few questions:
1) You suggest, quote, "the article takes some pains to indicate these are long term effects -- the 2030s and beyond." Where at?
2) You seemingly do not consider the statement "governments have [until 1999] to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control." as suggesting a tipping point. How, then, do you interpret it?
3) The article states, "The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees [by 2019]". That presumably was a best case scenario of solving climate change before the not-a-tipping-point deadline he mentioned. Needless to say we not only did not solve emissions before his not-a-tipping-point deadline, but dramatically increased emissions. The real temperature rise since then was less than a degree (regardless of whether we measure in C or F). How do you reconcile this?
I anxiously await your enlightenment.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:55PM (1 child)
LMAO. Your bias is that you know better than the vast majority of scientists all over the world -- and yet you'll be swayed by an anonymous comment on the Internet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @05:33PM
As you go back in our history it's quite remarkable how often we collectively adapt unbelievably awful ideas. It was less than a century ago that the brightest minds in this nation were all vocally advocating for government driven eugenics. It's pretty easy to see that this is an absolutely idiotic idea, even if only because of the inevitability of abuse. Yet nonetheless it happened and indeed we were a major inspiration for a young German artist who would come to power some time later.
Why did that happen? Nearly all of top tier academia was fully supportive of eugenics, including Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, etc. And all of the old money philanthropists - Carnegies, Rockefellers, etc- were also fully in support of it. And needless to say the government was full on board with having the right to choose who can and cannot reproduce. Even though government driven mandatory eugenics is clearly an awful idea - people became afraid to speak for themselves out of social pressure. It become very much the tale of The Emperor's New Clothes [wikipedia.org]. And this wasn't like some far gone time hundreds of years ago - this was happening as recently as about 80 years ago. The only thing that really changed our trajectory was that aforementioned German artist. Social pressure is powerful, and dangerous.
The only way to avoid such scenarios happening in the future is for each person to think for themselves. And indeed you do risk being wrong - such is life. But cowering under appeals to authority is precisely how so many awful things have happened in our past. Even look more recently than eugenics and the "scientific consensus" was that leaded fuel was safe. Everybody knew lead was dangerous, but "science" claimed leaded fuel was safe. It was just a little bit of lead in it, after all. Those who chose to think for themselves and made every effort to avoid exhaust so much as possible, regardless of the "scientific consensus", would have been quite wise - and indeed there were plenty who did just that.
---
So yes, give me a stark raving fool and the world's most brilliant man. If the stark raving fool can present a more compelling and logical argument than the world's most brilliant man, then I would be more than happy to adopt the argument of the fool. And so here is your chance! Presumably if you never thought you could convince me of anything you would not have engaged in this discussion to begin with. So, again, I await your enlightenment with bated breath.