Washington State's 'Clean Cars 2030' Bill, ban sale of ICE vehicles

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redneck

“disingenuous”

Really...???

Using your Co2 numbers

China 1,397,897,720 people x 8 = 11,183,181,760 tons Co2 and increasing

India 1,339,330,514 people x 1.9 = 2,544,727,976.6 tons Co2 and stable (maybe)

USA 330,425,184 people x 16.1 = 5,319,845,462.4 tons Co2 and contracting

The USA is retiring coal plants.

China is building them.

Yes, it is disingenuous so start counting carbon emissions now and ignore 100 years of massive carbon use by rich countries. Carbon built-up in the atmosphere is cumulative.

Yes, it is disingenuous to tell people that are using 1/2 the carbon that you are using the you will not commit to carbon reduction unless they do the same.

Originally Posted by redneck

And

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...s-in-the-2020s

Did you read this article? It is a really good one.

1. Yes, China built a huge amount of coal power plants during the 12th 5 year plan. They were make-work projects. Even as China continues to add coal fired power plants their utilization of that generating capacity is falling - down to 49% in 2019. China built a lot of power plants and is building more but is using less than 1/2 of the installed capacity.

2. Power plants only burn 54% of the coal consumed in China. China still uses a huge amount of coal in very inefficient ways. People heating their houses and cooking their food on coal stoves. Apartment buildings and businesses have inefficient and polluting coal boilers.

China has a goal to electrify heating and cooking. To replaced thousands of individual coal stoves with one power plant that burns coal much more efficiently and cleanly.

You can actually build coal power plants and reduce emissions at the same time if that power plant is replacing coal burned by individual households and businesses.

From the article:

One driver of higher capacity targets is the expected electrification of building heat and industrial energy needs, which are often currently supplied by highly polluting small-scale coal-burning. This point has been emphasised by the chief director of the National Energy Administration (NEA).

Replacing direct coal use with gas and electricity has been an important pattern in recent years, in part due to efforts to tackle local air pollution. Energy security concerns are likely to mean further emphasis on electricity rather than gas as the substitute.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

Yes, it is disingenuous so start counting carbon emissions now and ignore 100 years of massive carbon use by rich countries. Carbon built-up in the atmosphere is cumulative.

Yes, it is disingenuous to tell people that are using 1/2 the carbon that you are using the you will not commit to carbon reduction unless they do the same.

The Chinese government is inferior in that it assumes omniscient and benevolent bureaucrats can understand enormously complex things and then formulate the best strategies.

We're in a cold war competition with several nations; China foremost. US history is chalk full of various moral failings and tragic blunders, but it has notable and unique successes. Demanding an the unconditional surrender of Japan and then allowing them to remain a sovereign nation is among those brilliant feats.

What I'm getting at is that if CO2 emissions is important enough to the major players of the world, they will need to cooperate on US terms. Unilateral decarbonization is at least as foolish as unilateral nuclear disarmament. Paris Accord type limp-wristed gentleman's agreements aren't going to cut it.

If CO2 emissions aren't worth threat of bloodshed, then how big of an issue is it? I'm not dismissing the issue as unimportant, and I'm not advocating for violence; but I am saying that there's a disconnect between the two. Ready, fire, aim is not the correct order of operations.