• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

...U.S. leading all Paris Accord signatories in emissions reduction.. (1 Viewer)

litebeam

litebeam

Well-known member
Interesting take on the U.S. emissions...a single take, but noteworthy.

It's unlikely this information will be posted anywhere else given the mainstream media's hatred of DJT. And it will likely be attacked here by various partisans for partisan reasons.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/08...paris-accord-signatories-emissions-reduction/

And to think a mere 18 months ago the naysayers here at BF were weeping and nashing their teeth bemoaning the end of the world aka 'Conservation in the Trumpecene.'
 
Insofar as Washington (as opposed to general trends in the economy) had anything to do with our “leading the world” in emission reduction last year (if indeed we did) it was because of Obama-era policies and regulations, not to anything Dumbo has done. Just the opposite in fact since his practice from day 1 of his “presidency” has been to roll back environmental protections of all kinds in the interests of big coal and other polluters and there no reason to suppose he won’t continue doing so for whatever little time he remains in office.

All this is so blindingly obvious that I’m astonished you couldn't figure it out for yourself. To avoid future embarrassments, you’d do well not to put your trust in tabloids.
 
Last edited:
fugl said:
Insofar as Washington (as opposed to general trends in the economy) had anything to do with our “leading the world” in emission reduction last year (if indeed we did) it was because of Obama-era policies and regulations, not to anything Dumbo has done. Just the opposite in fact since his practice from day 1 of his “presidency” has been to roll back environmental protections of all kinds in the interests of big coal and other polluters and there no reason to suppose he won’t continue doing so for whatever little time he remains in office.

All this is so blindingly obvious that I’m astonished you couldn't figure it out for yourself. To avoid future embarrassments, you’d do well not to put your trust in tabloids.
Click to expand...

"Presidency" says it all.

Embrace the seethe....
 
Hello,

Please do not discount Trump's new rules for coal fired generating plants, which could result in 1,400 deaths:
New Rules for Coal power plants

Economically, coal is no longer viable. Shale gas and renewables, wind and solar, are already competitive. Trump's championship of coal is wasteful. Attempts to favor coal may be overstepping executive authority.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood
 
Pinewood said:
Hello,

Please do not discount Trump's new rules for coal fired generating plants, which could result in 1,400 deaths:
New Rules for Coal power plants

Economically, coal is no longer viable. Shale gas and renewables, wind and solar, are already competitive. Trump's championship of coal is wasteful. Attempts to favor coal may be overstepping executive authority.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood
Click to expand...


"Which could result in 1,400 deaths." Hmmm.
Could, might, may, sources say, scientists think, expects speculate....more hyperbolic crap, plain and simple.
Statements such as these are why "An Inconvenient Truth" is such a fraud.

Many of us aren't big fans of coal use when there are better alternatives like natural gas, but clean coal burning technology has come a long way. It has it's place.
Thanks for bantering, Arthur.
 
Hello Litebeam,

Indeed, no one can accurately predict how rules allowing existing coal fired plants to continue, without upgrading, might affect public health. However, those rules proposed by the Trump administration are about letting plants continue without upgrading, so deleterious effects are likely. I suspect that cleaner coal might not be as economical as natural gas and alternative fuels. One way of confronting global warming from greenhouse admissions may be building far more energy efficient homes and buildings.

Unlike some, I do not decry natural gas and nuclear power. Both are probably better than coal and oil burning. The French have been very successful in using nuclear for electricity, but they were not spooked by Three Mile Island.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
 
Last edited:
Now it’s the turn of car-emission standards—

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...pJobID=1461888749&spReportId=MTQ2MTg4ODc0OQS2

“If the proposed rule is finalized, the U.S. would have weaker fuel-economy standards than the European Union, South Korea, India, Japan, China, and even Saudi Arabia. And it’s not that all these countries—note the inclusion of Saudi Arabia—have made reduced oil use a top priority. . .”.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Tanny
Dr Manjeet Singh's Malasian patch revised
Replies
5
Views
18K
christineredgate
christineredgate

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top