Home | About | Donate

US to Fail Paris Emissions Pledge Without 'Fundamental Change': Report


#1

US to Fail Paris Emissions Pledge Without 'Fundamental Change': Report

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

The U.S. is on track to miss its 2025 emissions reduction pledge agreed to in the Paris climate accord last year—because it doesn't have the proper policies in place to meet the target, according to new research.


#2

"The problem is we built our economy on fossil fuels, there's no way around it," he said. "What we need to do is simply change how our economy works. And that's not something that's easy to do in any shape and form."
--David Bookbinder, Environmental Lawyer

Let's also note that the more inefficiently those fuels are burned the more money the energy companies and banks make under the current "economic" paradigm. What is needed is one big energy/economic etch-a-sketch!


#3

This was a very good article until right at the end when it became an anti-Trump, pro-Hillary screed.
This country's failure to live up to Obama's word proves once again that the fossil fuel industry is in charge of our energy policy.
Electing Hillary will do little or nothing to change that.


#4

Not a good sign that the US likely will not be able to make its 2025 targets that it agreed to in signing the Paris document. And that is to limit increased global temps to about 3.5 degrees C - what implementation of all of the changes globally will lead to.

Climate simulations (climateinteractive.org) demonstrate that significant change must be front-end loaded to have the kind effect on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in order to meet the actual goals set forth in the Paris agreement (well below 2.0 C.

We got our work cut out for us. yet out system is not geared for making large sudden changes.


#5

Unlike in China or Russia which can turn on a dime.
I suppose that's why Hillary keeps picking fights with them.
To discredit in the minds of Americans whatever they have to say on a variety of subjects.


#6

And that's why it's so important to keep Democrats in the Big Chair. If the other corporate party wins, they'll expand offshore drilling, tell us about clean coal, let massive oil spills go uncleaned by BP, pipe garbage that Canada doesn't want to deal with across our watersheds and sacred lands, and promote fracking worldwide. We must defeat Trump because he Might do what the Democrats Are Doing.

Or, we could catch the clue and see that our only choice is Stein/Baraka.


#7

One candidate is at least making promises which will absent activism, will probably fall by the wayside, but with vigorous organizing and activism, the candidate can be forced to keep at least a few of them - or end up looking like she is betraying her supporters. The other candidate is promising to do exactly the opposite of any action on global warming, so the activists would need to force the president to totally change his mind and betray his supporters.

Which would be the easier task?

Consider the modest actions so far on the part of Obama regarding the Standing Rock Sioux/Dakota Access Pipeline. Now consider how this issue will be treated by Trump. Which is better?


#8

Dr. David Wasdell, in a 2015 report (p. 16) http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Harsh%20Realities.pdf, stated that the "implicit" (or "committed") warming is now 6.2 degrees Celsius. Thus, talk of even a 2 degree increase is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS!!


#9

Of course the federal government can't do it. But the states can. Emissions reductions largely depends on the efforts in 50 states. With about 30 states having Republican governors who would expect it be accomplished. Too many people in key positions do not believe in climate change. The same voters who elected these governors may elect Trump. If he is elected expect US emissions to soar as increased coal burning seems to be high on his agenda.


#10

So, what?


#11

The United States has spoken with a forked tongue since it became a nation.

Cheating and lying is the US system in a nutshell.


#12

"the world has 17 years to get off fossil fuels entirely to prevent reaching the even more lenient 2°C warming threshold."

That's an odd way to put it. It's not so much lenient as simply our way of ignoring the hundreds of millions of people and uncountable other beings who will die because we didn't bother to keep the heat rise under 1.5°C under preindustrial temperature.


#13

It is actually very easy for the US to meet these targets with the following policies:
1)Stop the endless Wars wasting $1 Trillion per year, consuming 6% of huge US oil usage and
with the Pentagon spewing forth more greenhouse emissions than any other institution on Earth
2)Transition IMMEDIATELY from Auto Addiction to Green Transit
Ie restore the Green Transit cuts to 150 US Transit systems made in 2008 mostly to pay billions in interest rate swaps to the bailed out bankster
Restore the Federal funding for OPERATING Green public transit in place for decades under both Republicans and Democrats until Reagan. This would be the biggest help for restoring lost transit
service in the 150 Towns and Cities
Impose an oil tax as proposed by Obama - this is actually more politically expedient than an increased gas tax - since 70% of US oil usage goes to Auto Addiction this would automatically make driving more expensive and discourage it. It would also zap the Pentagon's 6% oil usage
End all oil subsidies
End all new oil and gas drilling on public lands
Build High Speed Rail but also just RESTORE 100 MPH Rail like the Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland Rail proposed by Obama but rejected by Gov Kasich and his Auto Lobby DOT head Jerry Wray
Provide ELECTRIC shuttles to connnect to electric Rail hubs
Instead of Rails to Trails wasting existing Rails, build Rails of all sorts along Highway Medians - any Trails along restored Rails would be ancillary to restoring Rail service
Infill development on Shopping Mall parking lots with Green Transit access instead of Auto Addiction
For a full outline see the "Victory Plan" of The Climate Mobilization :
The Victory Plan