Politics Democrats vent but can't stop Trump from leaving Paris climate agreement

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
trailblazer18 said:
OK, so from what I have read about all of this, a summary of my understanding...

This agreement has emission goals, that are set by each country, but you don't actually have to keep them. There is a financial commitment that the US will significantly fund, plus each participating country will contribute. IF each country keeps the goals they set, it is still debatable on how this will affect the temperature increase rate (I saw debatable because I have seen the numbers vary), but will definitely slow the rate.

Can anyone verify if my summary is on the right track? I don't want opinions just if this is close to the facts.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

I'd add that for this kind of agreement to be law of the land, it has to be voted on by the Senate and pass with a 2/3 vote (see Article II, Section 2 of the constitution). The Kyoto Treaty was voted on by the Senate and failed 97-0.
 
Pulling out of the Paris Accords is largely just of symbolic value for Trump, but it doesn't actually make a lot of difference. The US is already on a path to reduced emissions that Trump can't prevent. While Trump will do his best to keep existing coal plants open, new ones aren't really being built because they're not very economically beneficial. So as coal plants close naturally, new ones aren't replacing them. Trump rolled back Obama's federal standards for car emissions, but California has retained their stricter ones and car companies need to meet those standards to sell cars in California. Car companies aren't going to stop selling cars in California, nor are they going to develop different cars for California. So, by and large, car companies will end up meeting California's standards.

And the rest of the world, notably China, plans to stick to the agreement. The US just looks silly, but nothing of substance is really changing. The major progress was forging a world consensus and plan of action. Trump can't turn back that progress, nor can he really turn back the progress in the US. He can just slow it very, very slightly.
 
Minstrel said:
Pulling out of the Paris Accords is largely just of symbolic value for Trump, but it doesn't actually make a lot of difference. The US is already on a path to reduced emissions that Trump can't prevent. While Trump will do his best to keep existing coal plants open, new ones aren't really being built because they're not very economically beneficial. So as coal plants close naturally, new ones aren't replacing them. Trump rolled back Obama's federal standards for car emissions, but California has retained their stricter ones and car companies need to meet those standards to sell cars in California. Car companies aren't going to stop selling cars in California, nor are they going to develop different cars for California. So, by and large, car companies will end up meeting California's standards.

And the rest of the world, notably China, plans to stick to the agreement. The US just looks silly, but nothing of substance is really changing. The major progress was forging a world consensus and plan of action. Trump can't turn back that progress, nor can he really turn back the progress in the US. He can just slow it very, very slightly.
Click to expand...
At least here when you think Trump is being a dipshit you have valid points. The California car emissions is likely a good point.

They may have to add expensive equipment to California only vehicles or add that to all their cars so we'll pay more. Who knows?
 
So to follow up on my understanding of all this...

A lot of states and large companies still want to move forward and meet the tighter emissions standards (sounds great), and pulling out of the Paris Agreement won't affect that, but it does open the possibility that environmental regulations are eased, which could potentially lead to higher emissions, but not necessarily. It seems the bigger deal about pulling out is not actually about lowering emissions (but this point is used on the face of the argument because it sounds better), but actually about not working with the rest of the world, which in turn could cause issues. Correct?
 
Minstrel said:
Pulling out of the Paris Accords is largely just of symbolic value for Trump, but it doesn't actually make a lot of difference. The US is already on a path to reduced emissions that Trump can't prevent. While Trump will do his best to keep existing coal plants open, new ones aren't really being built because they're not very economically beneficial. So as coal plants close naturally, new ones aren't replacing them. Trump rolled back Obama's federal standards for car emissions, but California has retained their stricter ones and car companies need to meet those standards to sell cars in California. Car companies aren't going to stop selling cars in California, nor are they going to develop different cars for California. So, by and large, car companies will end up meeting California's standards.

And the rest of the world, notably China, plans to stick to the agreement. The US just looks silly, but nothing of substance is really changing. The major progress was forging a world consensus and plan of action. Trump can't turn back that progress, nor can he really turn back the progress in the US. He can just slow it very, very slightly.
Click to expand...
And in fact it's part of the pact that the earliest the US would actually withdraw is one day after the 2020 election. So it's quite possible that nothing will happen. But the point was to say "fuck you" to the rest of the world, apparently in part because Macron was smack talking about The Handshake. Probably the worst thing that will happen is a bunch of thinkpieces interviewing ex-coal miners saying they still love Trump even though the opioids took Emmy Lou and they can't get no healthcare no more.
 
Minstrel said:
Pulling out of the Paris Accords is largely just of symbolic value for Trump, but it doesn't actually make a lot of difference. The US is already on a path to reduced emissions that Trump can't prevent. While Trump will do his best to keep existing coal plants open, new ones aren't really being built because they're not very economically beneficial. So as coal plants close naturally, new ones aren't replacing them. Trump rolled back Obama's federal standards for car emissions, but California has retained their stricter ones and car companies need to meet those standards to sell cars in California. Car companies aren't going to stop selling cars in California, nor are they going to develop different cars for California. So, by and large, car companies will end up meeting California's standards.

And the rest of the world, notably China, plans to stick to the agreement. The US just looks silly, but nothing of substance is really changing. The major progress was forging a world consensus and plan of action. Trump can't turn back that progress, nor can he really turn back the progress in the US. He can just slow it very, very slightly.
Click to expand...

Much of what you say is correct. Except for the part where you imply that Trump is trying to prevent reduced emissions and turn back progress. That has nothing to do with why he pulled out of the Accord. It does make for a good liberal talking point though.
 
Denny Crane said:
I live most of the time in the Palm Springs area. I cannot get any Solar company to install solar on my roof, even if I were willing to pay cash for it. They say it's a horrible deal without the electric company subsidizing most of the cost.
Click to expand...
I call bullshit on this. Prove to me that you have contacted all of these. And that's a bare minimum. There will be hundreds of freelance guys who would take cash to do it. Also, as soon as the Tesla battery becomes available in the next couple of years you can go off-grid.
 
Minstrel said:
Pulling out of the Paris Accords is largely just of symbolic value for Trump, but it doesn't actually make a lot of difference. The US is already on a path to reduced emissions that Trump can't prevent. While Trump will do his best to keep existing coal plants open, new ones aren't really being built because they're not very economically beneficial. So as coal plants close naturally, new ones aren't replacing them. Trump rolled back Obama's federal standards for car emissions, but California has retained their stricter ones and car companies need to meet those standards to sell cars in California. Car companies aren't going to stop selling cars in California, nor are they going to develop different cars for California. So, by and large, car companies will end up meeting California's standards.

And the rest of the world, notably China, plans to stick to the agreement. The US just looks silly, but nothing of substance is really changing. The major progress was forging a world consensus and plan of action. Trump can't turn back that progress, nor can he really turn back the progress in the US. He can just slow it very, very slightly.
Click to expand...

Except for all the money we would have shelled out to other countries as part of the pact, you have it right.

The consequences are at least significant savings in our budget, and ideally a good chunk of deficit reduction.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
I call bullshit on this. Prove to me that you have contacted all of these. And that's a bare minimum. There will be hundreds of freelance guys who would take cash to do it. Also, as soon as the Tesla battery becomes available in the next couple of years you can go off-grid.
Click to expand...

I called 4 or 5 and got the same story. The power company pays wholesale rates for power generated and sells it at retail rates. The $.06/kWh difference makes Solar a money losing proposition. They won't even spec out a system to run the A/C during the hottest time of the day.

The choice is basically a $400 electric bill vs. a $400 loan payment on the solar equipment PLUS $200 electric bill. I told them I was willing to pay this, just because I could then run my A/C at 73 instead of 80 during the day. They said "absolutely not, we won't even consider it."

Without massive subsidies, solar makes no fiscal sense at all.

Two companies I called first were Renova solar and SolarCity. I've called Renova 4 times now over the past year and a half and got the same rejection.
 
Denny Crane said:
Without massive subsidies, solar makes no fiscal sense at all.
Click to expand...
This was true a few years ago. Even you must know that it's not true any more. What utilities companies are afraid of is people going off grid (which they will, in droves, the minute you can buy batteries for your house, which Tesla is building factories to make) so they are increasingly moving to discourage solar. If you were a real libertarian instead of just a confused anti-liberal you would be angry about this and would be RUSHING to get out of the control of monopolistic evil corporations.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
This was true a few years ago. Even you must know that it's not true any more. What utilities companies are afraid of is people going off grid (which they will, in droves, the minute you can buy batteries for your house, which Tesla is building factories to make) so they are increasingly moving to discourage solar. If you were a real libertarian instead of just a confused anti-liberal you would be angry about this and would be RUSHING to get out of the control of monopolistic evil corporations.
Click to expand...

You appear to have no clue.

I gave you the actual $numbers, specifically what the cost and payout of power generated and the payment on the solar setup. And that's including a 30% of the cost SUBSIDY by the feds. This was true two weeks ago when I last called.

I'm not anti-liberal, I'm anti-establishment/anti-authoritarian/anti-statist.

I'm more liberal than you are, and by a lot.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
as soon as the Tesla battery becomes available in the next couple of years you can go off-grid.
Click to expand...


I would love to go off the grid. But when the wife is running the oven , I have the 7500 watt planer running, and the well pump kicks in, I am screwed unless install a 12000 watt genset supplement.
This all cost more than my power bill for the rest of my actuarial life pulse 9 years. Assuming I had the Tesla batteries. Currently I use deep cycle batteries in the boat, with a diesel charging system as there is no friggin way to get it done with solar.

I like this! Let's talk science and math!
 
MarAzul said:
I would love to go off the grid. But when the wife is running the oven , I have the 7500 watt planer running, and the well pump kicks in, I am screwed unless install a 12000 watt genset supplement.
This all cost more than my power bill for the rest of my actuarial life pulse 9 years. Assuming I had the Tesla batteries. Currently I use deep cycle batteries in the boat, with a diesel charging system as there is no friggin way to get it done with solar.

I like this! Let's talk science and math!
Click to expand...
You ask him scientific questions and he can respond only with other people's tweets....GO!
 
Denny Crane said:
I called 4 or 5 and got the same story. The power company pays wholesale rates for power generated and sells it at retail rates. The $.06/kWh difference makes Solar a money losing proposition. They won't even spec out a system to run the A/C during the hottest time of the day.

The choice is basically a $400 electric bill vs. a $400 loan payment on the solar equipment PLUS $200 electric bill. I told them I was willing to pay this, just because I could then run my A/C at 73 instead of 80 during the day. They said "absolutely not, we won't even consider it."

Without massive subsidies, solar makes no fiscal sense at all.

Two companies I called first were Renova solar and SolarCity. I've called Renova 4 times now over the past year and a half and got the same rejection.
Click to expand...
you should contact Solar Johnny in Nevada County Cal....he's powered the Whole Earth Festival for decades with Solar....a friend of mine had his house completely solar outfitted and is off the grid for about 7K.....your contractors reflect your real estate prices down there...I bought my half panel from the city solar field...cost 1500 bucks.....saves me 20 bucks a month from my old electric bill.....I pay 72 dollars a month in electric bills....I also kept shade trees that keep the house cool in the summer...you're getting fleeced from your story....there are millions of successful solar projects throughout the country...it's a good thing
 
Denny Crane said:
Without massive subsidies, solar makes no fiscal sense at all.
Click to expand...
a century ago there were only 2000 miles of paved road in the country...many thought the automobile made no fiscal sense then either...the grid needs upgraded and you'll see improvement in green energy distribution. I'm happy with my solar investment and may go completely off the grid in a few years
 
riverman said:
you should contact Solar Johnny in Nevada County Cal....he's powered the Whole Earth Festival for decades with Solar....a friend of mine had his house completely solar outfitted and is off the grid for about 7K.....your contractors reflect your real estate prices down there...I bought my half panel from the city solar field...cost 1500 bucks.....saves me 20 bucks a month from my old electric bill.....I pay 72 dollars a month in electric bills....I also kept shade trees that keep the house cool in the summer...you're getting fleeced from your story....there are millions of successful solar projects throughout the country...it's a good thing
Click to expand...

For just the cost of the panel alone, your break-even is 6+ years. If you had labor cost equal to the cost of the equipment (which is typical, or even more is typical), then you're looking at 13+ years.

Invested at 5% over 13 years, your $3000 turns into about $5700. That's more than enough ($37/mo over 13 years) to offset the $20 you think you save per month.
 
Denny Crane said:
I called 4 or 5 and got the same story. The power company pays wholesale rates for power generated and sells it at retail rates. The $.06/kWh difference makes Solar a money losing proposition. They won't even spec out a system to run the A/C during the hottest time of the day.

The choice is basically a $400 electric bill vs. a $400 loan payment on the solar equipment PLUS $200 electric bill. I told them I was willing to pay this, just because I could then run my A/C at 73 instead of 80 during the day. They said "absolutely not, we won't even consider it."

Without massive subsidies, solar makes no fiscal sense at all.

Two companies I called first were Renova solar and SolarCity. I've called Renova 4 times now over the past year and a half and got the same rejection.
Click to expand...

This story isn't making a lot of sense. Are you claiming there is no amount of money you can pay anyone to install solar on your house? That's obviously bullshit.

You can buy the equipment and hire a contractor to do it.

If you are willing to pay $10M, I will do it. Ok, really I'll pay HCP minimum wage to do it, but I'll supervise.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
That's more than enough to offset the $20 you think you save per month.
Click to expand...
I could save more but to me...it's not just about the money...my example is that it's affordable if you're interested
 
riverman said:
a century ago there were only 2000 miles of paved road in the country...many thought the automobile made no fiscal sense then either...the grid needs upgraded and you'll see improvement in green energy distribution.
Click to expand...

I would call Hydrogen a green energy fuel. You could grow spinach with your emissions. Perhaps solar with become useful and non intrusive. But the Paris agreement that was never ratified
by the Senate does nothing to make any of this happen.
 
barfo said:
This story isn't making a lot of sense. Are you claiming there is no amount of money you can pay anyone to install solar on your house? That's obviously bullshit.

You can buy the equipment and hire a contractor to do it.

If you are willing to pay $10M, I will do it. Ok, really I'll pay HCP minimum wage to do it, but I'll supervise.

barfo
Click to expand...

These companies simply refuse, period.

I offered to pay cash. The last salesman said, "you sound like you know what you're doing, I'll see if I can't get a quote on something for you. He called back in 10 minutes saying it's company policy to not install any system to any customer of IID due to the lack of retail subsidy."

Now, I probably could order the materials online and hire roofers and whoever else are required to install the thing, but nobody's standing behind that.
 
riverman said:
I could save more but to me...it's not just about the money...my example is that it's affordable if you're interested
Click to expand...

Then don't argue that it's cost effective. It's not.
 
MarAzul said:
I would love to go off the grid. But when the wife is running the oven , I have the 7500 watt planer running, and the well pump kicks in, I am screwed unless install a 12000 watt genset supplement.
This all cost more than my power bill for the rest of my actuarial life pulse 9 years. Assuming I had the Tesla batteries. Currently I use deep cycle batteries in the boat, with a diesel charging system as there is no friggin way to get it done with solar.

I like this! Let's talk science and math!
Click to expand...
without knowing your utility company's programs I can only suggest a hybrid system, shop on the grid utilizing 240-720 v0lts whatever your planer/shop requires maybe even 3-phase, and small solar, for home. the new tesla batteries are extremely efficient. our home system which includes all electrical appliances including central air conditioning. our system which covers only 1/2 of one side of our roof generates over 5kws. the batteries are for storage during dark and for times when demand out strips production. with tax credits and utility byback of excess power payoff of $28,000 system /5 years
 
lawai'a said:
with tax credits and utility byback of excess power payoff of $28,000 system /5 years
Click to expand...

The taxpayers and the utility customers are providing you with a huge subsidy.

Without those subsidies, your payoff might exceed the life of the batteries and panels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top