Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by charon on Saturday June 03, @06:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the balance-shifting dept.

The Guardian reports:

The European Union has rejected Donald Trump's offer to renegotiate the Paris climate agreement and pledged instead to bypass Washington to work with US business leaders and state governors to implement the historic accord's commitments.

Less than 24 hours after the US president announced his decision to withdraw from the 2015 agreement and strike a new, less ambitious deal with the rest of the world, Brussels declared its outright refusal to engage in such talks.

EU officials will instead cut out the White House to deal directly with the US states and major corporations, many of whom have already pledged to live by the terms forged in Paris.

China vows to partner with the EU on clean energy.

But Beijing and Brussels have been preparing to announce their intention to accelerate joint efforts to reduce global carbon emissions.

According to a statement being prepared before an EU-China summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, the new alliance will say they are determined to "lead the energy transition" toward a low-carbon economy.

The EU's climate commissioner, Miguel Arias Cañete, told the Guardian: "The EU and China are joining forces to forge ahead on the implementation of the Paris agreement and accelerate the global transition to clean energy."

Let's not wait for the guy with the awkward handshake anymore.

That's the gist of documents, seen by the Financial Times*, about the upcoming EU-China summit this Friday in Brussels.

Cooperation on the deployment of electric cars, energy efficiency labelling, and scientific research into green innovation. Further increasing the share of renewable energy, by boosting interconnected power networks. Setting up a scheme for emissions trading in China, with an eye of coupling that scheme to the pioneering EU version. Money to fund developing countries' climate plans.

"The increasing impacts of climate change require a decisive response", the joint statement reads,"Tackling climate change and reforming our energy systems are significant drivers of job creation, investment opportunities and economic growth."

* EU and China strengthen climate ties to counter US retreat. Financial Times, Wednesday May 31, 2017. [Paywalled]


Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Reply to Article

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.
(1)
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @06:53AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @06:53AM (#519760)

    Let's go to war with Eurasia and Eastasia.

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday June 03, @07:03AM (4 children)

    I'm completely convinced that the savings will be significant. The most-effective way to implement it would be to refactor commonly used libraries like glibc.

    glibc's qsort() routine was written in the early nineties. It is single-threaded. Even if no power is saved you'd get a significant speed improvement if you used multiple cores for a parallel sort.

    In general, CPUs have lots of cores but it is uncommon for developers to use them effectively. The one case where they help is on servers, that can handle a single-threaded transaction on just one CPU. But for user interface software, where the user only cares about the frontmost application, it is uncommon to use more than one core.

    Yeah, multithreaded coding is difficult but then so is singing on the street. Deal.

    --
    we have a ... crazy person (MDC), that regularly posts more coherent and interesting things than do these racist trolls
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @07:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @07:16AM (#519765)

      https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/16/it_electricity_use_worse_than_you_thought/ [theregister.co.uk]

      Even if you cut IT energy use in half IT would not affect the climate much.

      Also if all of the cores are running, the machine is probably using more power. So your idea does not improve the current situation for consumer computing, where the machines are idling most of the time, and your idea means nothing for datacenters or supercomputers which are already parallel.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @08:26AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @08:26AM (#519773)

      We already have rockstar automation AIs that refactor our code for us. We call them optimizing compilers.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @09:26AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @09:26AM (#519780)

        But poorly written code that is run through an optimizing compiler is analogous to polishing a turd.

      • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday June 04, @03:34AM

        the most I've ever gotten out of one is ten percent.

        --
        we have a ... crazy person (MDC), that regularly posts more coherent and interesting things than do these racist trolls
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 03, @07:21AM (16 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday June 03, @07:21AM (#519766)

    That is about as close as any politician or group of politicians will get to outright flipping Drumpf two backwards Vs on the world stage. I bet the dumb bastard doesn't even realize it, too.

    • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday June 03, @08:27AM

      by MostCynical (2589) on Saturday June 03, @08:27AM (#519774)

      No, he'll be all miffed they didn't tell him what a great guy he is.
      Everything else was just him reacting. He really is the king of dummy spits.

      --
      (Score: tau, Irrational)
    • (Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday June 03, @08:29AM (11 children)

      by jmorris (4844) <reversethis-{gro.uaeb} {ta} {sirromj}> on Saturday June 03, @08:29AM (#519775)

      Wait until he reminds States and especially grandstanding mayors that foreign policy ain't for them. A State can't enter into a Treaty with a foreign power at all and any sort of agreement less than a Treaty still requires the consent of Congress. Now do you think Trump is going to play the "wink wink nudge nudge" game Obama was letting Blue States get away with and ignore laws? Do you think Congress is likely to (not sure if it needs to be veto proof) muster a majority to give them a waiver? There is a reason Obama never considered submitting this thing as a real treaty, something that would have made it much harder for a future POTUS to reverse. You guys seeing the downside to Pen and Phone Presidenting yet?

      Oh no, it is you who are sadly mistaken... about a great many things.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday June 03, @08:47AM (6 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 03, @08:47AM (#519777)

        A State can't enter into a Treaty with a foreign power at all and any sort of agreement less than a Treaty still requires the consent of Congress.

        It'll be enough for the willing states to raise the cost of license for coal mining/oil drilling and impose local CO2 emission taxes, while reduce the cost of doing business for enterprises operating in renewables. Furthermore, the state as an entity may participate in emission trading schemes and, possibly, gain some money for the budget - especially states with low industrial operations will be well positioned and in need for extra funds.

        All the above perfectly withing the rights of each state, no treaty required.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @11:08AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @11:08AM (#519800)

          It'll be enough for the willing states to raise the cost of license for coal mining/oil drilling and impose local CO2 emission taxes

          ...to turn into Red states after the next election. :)

          Or do you believe voting public would willingly be paying more for less, while the neighbors across the state border don't?

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 03, @12:32PM (4 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 03, @12:32PM (#519825)

            Or do you believe voting public would willingly be paying more for less, while the neighbors across the state border don't?

            You see, the public is a strange creature: they'll be gladly paying more if they earn more.
            With businesses in renewable moving in the state (you noted the "and major corporations, many of whom have already pledged to live by the terms forged in Paris.", right?), it may just happen for the public there to earn more.

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday June 03, @01:28PM (3 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 03, @01:28PM (#519842) Journal

              You see, the public is a strange creature: they'll be gladly paying more if they earn more.

              Whew, that's quite the unfounded hope. I can point to a number of green initiatives that have done the opposite (like Germany's Energiewende, US subsidies of corn-based ethanol, shifty carbon cap and trade markets, and dumping many billions across the developed world on costly renewable energy schemes), but I'm having trouble thinking of a case where making our energy or food supplies more costly (or any of the other (un)intended consequences) allowed us to earn more.

              With businesses in renewable moving in the state (you noted the "and major corporations, many of whom have already pledged to live by the terms forged in Paris.", right?), it may just happen for the public there to earn more.

              It just might, but it won't. I bet the states which don't bother will also more easily transition over to renewable energy at a later date due to their stronger economies.

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 03, @01:54PM (2 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 03, @01:54PM (#519850)

                (or any of the other (un)intended consequences) allowed us to earn more.

                Export the technology. Like in "Money to fund developing countries' climate plans."
                See? Acciona [wikipedia.org] already exported technology to you.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 03, @03:21PM (1 child)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 03, @03:21PM (#519877) Journal
                  How does that support your assertion? For example, the Wikipedia link states that Acciona was the primary owner of Nevada Solar One, the only project specifically mentioned by name on the Wikipedia page, a solar thermal project that's roughly twice as expensive per watt generated as solar cells.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @09:33PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @09:33PM (#519990)

                    It sold you the technology. Early adopters and all that, but it made money from you.

                    In June 2014, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts announced it was taking a one-third stake in the international energy business of the company, at a cost of €417 million ($567 million).

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Nuke on Saturday June 03, @08:58AM (2 children)

        by Nuke (3162) on Saturday June 03, @08:58AM (#519778)

        You don't need a treaty with foreign powers to reduce your carbon emissions; you can just do it. If these mayors are going to discuss their carbon emissions with China or Brussels then it is indeed political gesturing. In a way, that is Trump's point; any nation can make its own decisions. A nation might even want to reject the Paris Accord because they think it does not go far enough.

        This is a misconception that many Bremainers have here in the UK. They are like : "OMG, after Brexit we are going to have to return to pounds and ounces, feet and inches, pecks and bushels!". They even think that people voted Brexit because that is what they wanted and expected. But there is nothing to stop any nation adopting international standards to whatever extent they wish, without being involved in an international agreement or giving their right arm to do it.

        • (Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Saturday June 03, @10:41AM

          by purple_cobra (1435) on Saturday June 03, @10:41AM (#519795)

          This is a misconception that many Bremainers have here in the UK. They are like : "OMG, after Brexit we are going to have to return to pounds and ounces, feet and inches, pecks and bushels!". They even think that people voted Brexit because that is what they wanted and expected.

          Yet some proportion of the electorate - and the elected, though they might well be playing to the gallery - wants just that; witness the fools that are arguing about the colour of our passports. Personally I have more important things to occupy my time than the colour of a bit of cardboard.

        • (Score: 2) by VanessaE on Saturday June 03, @01:09PM

          by VanessaE (3396) <vanessaezekowitz@gmail.com> on Saturday June 03, @01:09PM (#519837) Homepage

          A nation might even want to reject the Paris Accord because they think it does not go far enough.

          ...which makes the decision-makers of that nation monumentally stupid, incompetent, malicious, greedy, or some combination of these, because guidelines that "don't go far enough" can still be extended later to go that much farther.

          There's nothing wrong with taking small, incremental steps towards a solution so long as progress doesn't slow down (and a solution is reached before it's too late). It's not as if the Paris Agreement is the only climate change accord that will ever be enacted.

      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 03, @03:01PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday June 03, @03:01PM (#519871)

        Hey, dipfuck, the individual states don't need to actually sign any treaty, they just need to see what the targets were and voluntarily adapt their industrial output to them. Nothing illegal about that, no signatures required, just plain ol' States' Rights. Don't you get an instant (if still microscopic...) hardon whenever someone mentions States' Rights?

    • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday June 03, @10:09AM (2 children)

      by zocalo (302) on Saturday June 03, @10:09AM (#519787)
      It is, but it's also a potential first move in a major realignment of the global balance of power away from the US. *Everyone* thinks of how to maximise the benefits for themselves, even in climate deals like this, and given half a chance there's nothing more that China, the EU, India, and other sizeable economies like the rest of the BRICS would like than to increase their own economic standing at the expense of the rest. Sure, countries are still going to need the US' machinery, grain, oil, and other exports (at least for now), but I'm not going to be at all surprised if we start seeing a lot of more co-operation in other areas built on the back of this, with the US mostly getting the short end of the stick. Given how insular the US' political stance is becoming under Trump, I doubt he's going to notice that either.

      I just feel sorry for Canada - if that scenario plays out to its ultimate (and highly unlikely) conclusion they're going to be pretty isolated up there with, and with a pretty screwed up nation on their borders... Maybe they should start thinking about building a wall or something. :)
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @10:56AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @10:56AM (#519798)

        We've already have a spike in the number of people entering illegally [www.cbc.ca] from the US since Trump was elected.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 03, @02:57PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday June 03, @02:57PM (#519870)

        Oh yeah, agreed on all counts except the wall thing. This not only lost the US a tremendous amount of face, it lost us potentially trillions in trading opportunities. This is where the economy of the next several decades is going, and Dumpfasaurus dumbfuckus there just refused to get on the bus. What an idiot.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @10:33AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @10:33AM (#519792)

    Trump didn't say he wanted a less ambitious agreement. He said he wanted one that's better for the US. I see his point. If you look at the CO2 numbers, any reduction by the US will be a drop in the bucket compared to increases by China and India, whose emissions growth is largely unaffected by Paris. Why should the US voluntarily put on an economic straight jacket? That kind of regulation is anathema to the GOP, and US emissions have been declining anyway.

    By signing these non-treaty agreements without sufficient political backing, both Clinton in Kyoto and Obama in Paris have made the US look bad.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by zocalo on Saturday June 03, @11:47AM (5 children)

      by zocalo (302) on Saturday June 03, @11:47AM (#519811)

      If you look at the CO2 numbers, any reduction by the US will be a drop in the bucket compared to increases by China and India, whose emissions growth is largely unaffected by Paris.

      Not necessarily [google.co.uk], at least based on per capita figures which is probably the fairest comparative assessment available at the link. China is putting a huge amount of effort into cleaning up its act - especially in solar and hydro - and is widely expected to start reducing its emissions soon, if it hasn't actually done so already - there's a long way to go, but they're committed to getting there, and even more so now. India is also investing heavily in clean energy - mostly solar - and has already flatlined its emissions in the most recent data. The US meanwhile, was already trending sharply downwards, and has been since 2007 - true, it's not enough to wipe out the combined figures of the much larger populations of China and India, but every little bit helps, especially if China and India can sustain some significant reductions as they continue to transition away from carbon fuels.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
      • (Score: 1, Troll) by Nuke on Saturday June 03, @11:59AM (1 child)

        by Nuke (3162) on Saturday June 03, @11:59AM (#519816)

        The most effective way that China and India could reduce their emissions is to reduce their populations.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04, @09:06AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04, @09:06AM (#520152)

          Coming from someone with your handle, that statement seems even more unsettling than usual.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 03, @01:42PM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 03, @01:42PM (#519846) Journal

        and is widely expected to start reducing its emissions soon

        It's interesting how insistent people are on portraying a short trend as a long term one. This could be a real, long term change in Chinese policy, but I'll believe it in ten years, maybe five, if it's a really big drop. Right now, however China is replacing old coal power with new because their levels of pollution threaten the government's control of society. At some point, they'll run out of inefficient, high polluting old plants to replace. Then I think we'll see a resumption of their CO2 emissions growth.

        • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday June 03, @02:22PM (1 child)

          by zocalo (302) on Saturday June 03, @02:22PM (#519864)
          Absolutely agree that the jury is still out on China - and on India too for that matter. Sure, they might be politically committed and investing heavily *now*, which is what lies behind that expectation, but this time last year so was the US and look how that panned out (I suspect Trump's hopes of changing the course of industry are about as realistic of Cnut's with the tide though). Five years should be enough to see whether this is the start of a longer term trend for the Chinese though; that'll put them into the middle of next Five Year Plan, which will provide a much better idea of just how committed they are. They certainly want to make the bulk of the world's solar panels, but if they end up exporting most of them rather than using them for domestic power generation projects (or even private domestic installations) then they'll definitely hit a wall once they run out of old-style coal plants to replace.
          --
          UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @04:09PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @04:09PM (#519894)

            Keep in mind that official statistics coming out of China are also not trustworthy. AFAIK there are no independent monitors, which is another reason the Paris Agreement was bad for the US.

  • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Saturday June 03, @02:45PM (2 children)

    by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 03, @02:45PM (#519869)

    "EU officials will instead cut out the White House to deal directly with the US states"

      I can't recall it exactly as it has been a long time since I last read the Constitution, but isn't that illegal?

    • (Score: 2) by its_gonna_be_yuge! on Saturday June 03, @04:19PM (1 child)

      by its_gonna_be_yuge! (6454) on Saturday June 03, @04:19PM (#519897)

      I can't recall it exactly as it has been a long time since I last read the Constitution, but isn't that illegal?

      No.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @05:54PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @05:54PM (#519926)

        Uh... Yes it is illegal. The relavent text from section 10 specifically parts on agreements, treaties, and foreign powers...

        No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

        No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

        No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @04:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @04:30PM (#519900)

    China's commitment [c2es.org] seems rather modest compared to the positive press they are getting. And Communist Parties have a long history of lying about statistics. CO2 emission is likely to be no exception. It's informative to see how much love they are getting from US and EU media, rather than the healthy skepticism they deserve.

    And let's not forget that the EU will keep driving millions of cancer-causing Diesel cars, compared to the US which is getting them off the roads.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @09:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @09:21PM (#519987)

    You people will never learn it seems. Drivel (and I have never used the word for anything but this phenomena in the last couple years):"the guy with the awkward handshake" is making your "side" look unappealing . It is amazing how this keeps happening.

(1)