SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
One of the world's largest polluters has signed onto the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:
India, one of the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters, has ratified the Paris global climate agreement. Under the deal, India has committed to ensuring that at least 40% of its electricity will be generated from non-fossil sources by 2030.
[...] The Paris deal is the world's first comprehensive climate agreement. It will only come into force legally after it is ratified by at least 55 countries which between them produce at least 55% of global carbon emissions. Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced last month that India would ratify the agreement on 2 October, the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi, the leader of the struggle for independence from Britain.
Also at the UN News Centre, NPR, and DW.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:25AM
Start a hamburger craze and suddenly all the greenhouse gas emitters mysteriously become lunch.
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:24PM
That would lead to commercial cattle farms and more cattle. It'll have the opposite effect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:46PM
Spoken as someone who clearly does not understand supply and demand....or humour...
Oooo...even I felt the heat from that burn.....
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:11AM
Let's look it up (electricity, unless specified)
(2013)
1.2PWh Gross
750kWh/capita
220TWh transmission losses
Breakdown (2013)
697TWh black coal
170TWh brown coal
142TWh hydro
80TWh other renewables
65TWh natural gas
34TWh nuclear
23TWh oil
(Currently about 21% non-fossil, so they need another 256TWh to reach the goal)
Worth to note is that BP expects demand in india to increase 117% by 2035.
(If all their current and planned nuclear builds finishes they will reach their goal currently, and the 2030 target if all their proposed builds finishes)
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:24AM
They'll want to deter both Pakistan and China.
[...] India is estimated to have produced approximately 520 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, sufficient for 100—130 nuclear warheads; however, not all of the material has been converted into warheads. Based on available information about its nuclear-capable delivery vehicles, the authors estimate that India has produced 80—100 nuclear warheads. [...] It will need more warheads to arm the new missiles it is currently developing. In addition to the Dhruva plutonium production reactor near Mumbai, India plans to construct a second reactor near Visakhapatnam, on the east coast. India is building an unsafeguarded prototype fast-breeder reactor at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research near Kalpakkam (about 1,000 kilometers or 620 miles south of Visakhapatnam), which will significantly increase India's plutonium production capacity once it becomes operational.
-- (doi: 10.1177/0096340212451431) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists July/August 2012 vol. 68 no. 4 96-101 [sagepub.com] (PDF)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @01:58PM
Someone needs to contain China, now that it holds USA by the balls.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:38PM
Well, another use for Pu is as a driver/seed in a thorium-reactor (or any breeder) - which India has stated it plans on doing.
Might also be worth pointing out that india has put 14 of their reactors under safeguards in the last seven years - 12 of those has online-refuelling... And they still have enough non-safeguarded capacity for it to be silly to worry about more production reactors..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 04 2016, @11:35AM
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:28PM
OK anonymous Internet poster. Your compelling case devoid of any citations or hard data convinced me that all the countless scientists are not only wrong, but also manipulated by some grand puppeteer.
Glad we had this talk
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:07PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:52PM
WHO THE FUCK CARES?!
This a bullshit non-binding treaty being used for propaganda.
It will make no difference to what countries do. NONE.
Either they have an existing program, or not.
My country NZ (along with every other country) got a "100% pass" on the last kyoto and we voted in a Tory government which completely gutted our emissions scheme; made the taxpayer pay for polluters and bought fraudulent carbon credits with the money;Exempted our famers totally which are 50% of our emissions; fast tracked deep sea oil exploration; Reversed a decision to prevent any new non-renewable power plants;etc etc
And this will be no different. Its bullshit.
Let's all just accept the fact that our earth "society" is too apathetic, too corrupt and too lazy to fix this and just begin bracing ourselves for the consequences.
Anything else is a sick parody of rational behaviour.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @01:00PM
"Climate Change" my arse. There is no climate change. This is "Global Warming" rebranded, which in turn was the sequel of the "Ozone Hole" fantasy.
Brought to you by the Powers That Be (tm), so you curl like a ball, scared in front of your screen for you and your kids and await further instructions.
Not to mention the cultivating of the illusion to the Indian population that "if you sign shiny 'agreements' with the prosperous US, you may just one day become as rich as we are".
Don't buy into this crap, people. It's all about control. Those clowns have no power over you, if you don't give them any.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:10PM
Here is the thing. Oil has been burned in industrialization of early nation-states. The whole middle east has been destabilized to achieve that. But now rest of the world is catching up to the idea of nation-state and the idea of nationalization, we need to establish another metric of betterment. We have "burned oil" to invent Tesla. Now we need to ban old cars and make others agree to our 'agreement' otherwise we will keep destabilizing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:04PM
> Climate Change" my arse. There is no climate change. This is "Global Warming" rebranded,
You are right. But not the way you think. "Climage change" was the republican rebranding of Global Warming to make it seem less serious.
Proof: Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy (2003) [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Tuesday October 04 2016, @11:17PM
http://cphpost.dk/news/business/buoyant-vestas-heading-back-to-india.html [cphpost.dk]
Unfortunately there's no detail as to how much India is hoping to bring on-line.