Jump to content
BigSqwert

The environment thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 2, 2017 -> 08:44 AM)
China is still considered a developing country, and their Gini index is fairly close to the US'em. Their per capita GDP doesn't meet developed country definitions.

 

The idea behind giving developing countries assistance is that the developed countries have already gotten to reap the benefits of building their economies in cheap, dirty energy and that it's in everyone's best interest to help these developing countries to modernize and expand with cleaner technologies.

 

Pence:

 

 

Yeah it sure is a mystery why "the left" cares about a serious problem that is already having global impacts that will only get worse.

 

And it's not so much "the left" as it is "the entire rest of the world," unless that was a tacit admission from pence that the GOP is a radical party that's to the right of literally every other country on the planet.

Just about every conservative group globally believes in climate change, well except for the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When your entire political philosophy is based on what will annoy liberals this is what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 2, 2017 -> 09:16 AM)
When your entire political philosophy is based on what will annoy liberals this is what happens.

Someone's up to date on Pod Save America. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 2, 2017 -> 12:26 PM)
Someone's up to date on Pod Save America. :-)

 

I actually am not, but unlike healthcare or immigration that they make some attempt at a policy based viewpoint, they made no pretense with this. It was all about they think this is important so we will do opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mike-bloomberg-l...-173310008.html

 

Apparently Bloomberg/NYC, Jerry Brown, Silicon Valley, Washington State...all prepared to do an "end around" to circumvent Trump

 

 

 

Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is organizing an effort by governors, mayors, business leaders and other private citizens to make sure that Americans play an active role in the Paris Agreement — with or without the federal government.

 

Bloomberg, the founder and CEO of the media and financial company Bloomberg LP, announced late Thursday that he will lead a group in supporting the efforts of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to help countries fulfill their commitments to the Paris climate accord.

 

“Americans are not walking away from the Paris Climate Agreement,” he said in a statement. “Just the opposite — we are forging ahead. Mayors, governors, and business leaders from both political parties are signing onto a statement of support that we will submit to the UN — and together, we will reach the emission reduction goals the U.S. made in Paris in 2015.”

 

If successful, this will be the first time U.S. citizens, local and state officials circumvented the federal government to negotiate an agreement with the United Nations.

 

As part of this effort, Bloomberg Philanthropies and other groups plan to donate up to $15 million to the U.N.’s Climate Secretariat to account for the funding it stands to lose as a result of President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from Paris Agreement.

 

Bloomberg recently co-authored a book with former Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope titled “Climate of Hope” about their belief that cities, businesses and citizens can win the climate change battle, with or without help from Washington.

 

...

 

This nascent project has already attracted the support of 100 companies, 30 mayors and four governors. Many companies have already made individual statements condemning Trump but were waiting for him to finally make a decision before deciding what to do collaboratively.

 

“We’re still signing people up. We’re going to spend the weekend doing a lot more recruiting,” Pope said. “I think we will have at least 10 and maybe as many as 20 states and hundreds of cities.”

 

 

 

So, fwiw, the US has already contributed about $3 billion of $10 billion so far earmarked for the UN Green Fund.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-offi...-224829653.html

 

White House basically has no clue what they actually would want to change or renegotiate about Paris Agreement.

 

Looks like reporters are using the Mark Cuban Bluff/Gambit of asking for specific details from the admin since all they put out are vague generalizations about what specifically is so harmful to the US as an individual signee and how it should theoretically be improved/made more favorable.

 

 

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-wont-a...-192109667.html

Dems fighting state by state battle against Trump imposing national policy on those who want even tougher standards than Paris Accords...Ten states right now, number could potentially rise to around 30.

 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/01/j...ia-china-239035

Jerry Brown defies Trump on world stage, California will seek climate change negotiations directly with China

 

All the states with Democratic governors (by GDP per capita, along with relevant GDP country comparison)

 

1. District of Columbia

2. New York (Mexico)

3. Connecticut (Uzbekistan)

5. Delaware (Oman)

9. Washington (Austria)

10. California (Italy)

11. Minnesota (Thailand)

16. Colorado (Malaysia)

17. Virginia (Poland)

18. Oregon (Iraq)

19. Hawaii (Syria)

20. Louisiana (Israel)

22. Rhode Island (Finland)

23. Pennsylvania (Swizerland)

29. North Carolina (Norway)

 

39. Montana (Tunisia)

49. West Virginia (Azerbaijan)

 

1A. Alaska...Independent (Croatia)

 

That basically leaves Trump governors for 6 Massachusetts (Argentina), 8 New Jersey (Sweden), 12 Maryland (Venezuela), 13 Texas (Spain), 14 Illinois (Netherlands) and North Dakota (fracking state)...along with Michigan, Ohio, Florida.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp...m=.c130ee25b9de

But there's another divide exposed by the election, which researchers at the Brookings Institution recently discovered as they sifted the election returns. It has no bearing on the election outcome, but it tells us something important about the state of the country and its politics moving forward.

 

The divide is economic, and it is massive. According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America's economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country's economic activity last year.

 

Clinton, in other words, carried nearly two-thirds of the American economy.

 

Here's how the researchers, at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, visualized that. You can see immediately what's going on: With the exceptions of the Phoenix and Fort Worth areas, and a big chunk of Long Island, Clinton won every large-sized economic county in the country.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp...m=.c130ee25b9de

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words....pro-environment progressive states, governors, mayors/municipalities, multinational corporations can all come together and basically create their own even tougher environmental standards than the Paris Accords.

 

 

The entire world GDP is between $70-80 trillion per year.

 

USA at $18.6 trillion and China at $11.8 trillion with roughly five times the population.

 

0.64% * 18.6=$11.9 trillion

 

So basically Trump can do little to stop the equivalent of the second lagest economy of the world (already within the US) from fighting back against his environmental policies.

 

That only leaves Trump with $6.7 trillion.

 

California GDP alone is $2.6 trillion, along with New York at $1.44 trillion. Those two get you fairly close to all the Trump states. Texas is actually second at $1.65 trillion, but the Bush Family is clearly no fan of Trump. Add those three, you get $5.7 trillion in economic activity.

 

 

 

 

Jerry Brown and the governors of New York and Washington said they would establish a coalition of states committed to upholding the Paris accord, while 27 California state senators sent a letter to Brown, urging him to convene a climate summit with “like-minded states and subnationals from around the world, to ensure that we continue to charge ahead without forfeiting all of our historic progress to date.”

 

California has long served as a model on climate change policy, sharing extensive regulatory experience with bureaucrats abroad. Severin Borenstein, an energy economist at University of California, Berkeley, said, “What California does isn’t just sort of closely watched. In some cases, it is just photocopied into other states and other countries.”

 

“The absence of a real federal policy has created a vacuum, a hunger overseas for what are Americans doing on climate change. And into that hunger, Jerry Brown offers a menu,” said David Victor, professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego, and author of the book “Global Warming Gridlock.” “He’s just kind of nominated himself. But I think that’s the nature of the business.”

 

In his feud with Trump, Brown has been aided by the president’s myriad domestic controversies and low public approval rating – and by the freedom a governor can exercise in his final term.

 

When he last visited China, in 2013, California was emerging from a budget crisis and Brown devoted much of his attention to trade-related concerns. This time, he is expected to focus almost exclusively on climate, participating in a global climate summit and meeting with high-level Chinese officials, possibly including President Xi Jinping.

 

Gov. Jerry Brown, America's unofficial climate change ambassador in the Trump era, heads to China

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac...0601-story.html

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly what I predicted would happen if Trump pulled out of the agreement, and it's the reason I wasn't totally bummed about him doing it. This will now actually create MORE of a push towards renewables than we already had. The same phenomenon that has inspired and motivated the progressive movement. Give it a common enemy, and a common threat, and the whole world will move even FASTER towards fighting climate change than they were going to before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, let's see those states come up with the remaining $7 billion or whatever the amount was. Once California tries to go to its single payer route for insurance they wont have money for a pack of gum, much less any climate stuff. My whole big complaint here is the money. It's one thing to send LNG to some s***holes so they can stop using coal. Send food to a nation having problems feeding its people. But we send them money, you never know how much gets siphoned off at every stop along the way. The UN has a very bad history of this. Hell, every government has a very bad history of this. It's always about the money. States are free to curb their emissions all they want. They don't need a signature on some piece of paper to do that. Have at it! My objection is always that we end up sending ungodly amounts of money to unaccountable people where it gets stolen and misused. Invest in solar! Explore for more natural gas! Keep phasing out coal! (Phasing out, not stopping cold turkey) Keep researching nuke power! Capitalism will get us there once someone figures out a way to make money, without stealing it from other governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 09:06 AM)
Sure, let's see those states come up with the remaining $7 billion or whatever the amount was. Once California tries to go to its single payer route for insurance they wont have money for a pack of gum, much less any climate stuff. My whole big complaint here is the money. It's one thing to send LNG to some s***holes so they can stop using coal. Send food to a nation having problems feeding its people. But we send them money, you never know how much gets siphoned off at every stop along the way. The UN has a very bad history of this. Hell, every government has a very bad history of this. It's always about the money. States are free to curb their emissions all they want. They don't need a signature on some piece of paper to do that. Have at it! My objection is always that we end up sending ungodly amounts of money to unaccountable people where it gets stolen and misused. Invest in solar! Explore for more natural gas! Keep phasing out coal! (Phasing out, not stopping cold turkey) Keep researching nuke power! Capitalism will get us there once someone figures out a way to make money, without stealing it from other governments.

 

The point of the $3 billion (out of $10 total) the US has contributed isn't the biggest issue here...it's the common commitment of all the countries of the world to work in this particular issue and share strategies/best practice, like California is doing with China and vice-versa. Do you really think it will be hard for all the billionaires in Silicon Valley, Oregon and Washington, or New York State/NYC to come up with this money?

 

Nope. Michael Bloomberg alone has already committed $15 million from his own private foundation...none of it will come from US states that are running significant budget deficits. But the money is there. Heck, venture capital firms are willing to invest hundreds of billions in innovative clean/green tech concepts.

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pent...E9AH0LQ20131118

US Pentagon waste

 

Not to mention $30-60 billion waste/fraud/corruption/embezzlement during the Iraq War alone.

 

Foreign Aid is always less than 1% of the budget. The majority of the assistance is private as opposed to government.

 

 

 

In fiscal year 2014, the U.S. government allocated the following amounts for aid:

 

Total economic and military assistance: $43.10 billion

 

Total military assistance: $10.57 billion

Total economic assistance: $32.53 billion

of which USAID Implemented: $17.82 billion[4]

Usage of money for support Edit

 

Aid from private sources within the United States in 2007 was probably somewhere in the $10 to $30 billion range. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimated that net private grants from the United States to developing countries totaled $12.2 billion that year.[5] A private think-tank, the Hudson Institute, gave the following figures for U.S. private assistance for 2004.

 

Category Amount[6]

Total U.S. Private Assistance $71.2 billion

Foundations $3.4 billion

Private and Voluntary Organizations (e.g., NGOs) $9.7 billion

Universities and Colleges $1.7 billion

Religious Organizations $4.5 billion

Corporations $4.9 billion

Individual remittances to family members $47 billion

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN Reporter Jim Acosta Slams EPA Chief On Climate Change Denial

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cnn-reporter-jim...-201832741.html

 

Earth to Trump: F**k You!’ President’s Paris Climate Pact Withdrawal Inspires Amazing Headlines

https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-trump-f-k-...-144934581.html

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-stil...-204101485.html

 

He has called it an “expensive hoax” invented by the Chinese. He has denied it exists, denied that he denied it exists, and also managed to say humans share “some” of the blame for its existence.

 

“He” is President Donald Trump, and “it” is climate change ― a subject White House officials apparently avoid discussing with him, lest anyone ask them about where he stands on the issue.

 

 

 

Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris and Chair of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, urged Mr Trump to reconsider his “short-sighted” decision.

 

“The years to 2020 will be crucial in determining if the worst effects of climate change can be avoided,” Ms Hidalgo wrote in an editorial for Newsweek. “American leadership on this urgent challenge is needed now more than ever.”

 

However, she added that regardless of Mr Trump’s action, “the great cities of the world, in particular the 12 American C40 cities, remain resolutely committed to doing what needs to be done to implement the Paris Agreement”.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These cities and states are vowing to stick to Paris accord

 

The governors of California, New York and Washington State created the United States Climate Alliance to convene states upholding the Paris Agreement.

 

States

Governors who have proclaimed their continued support for the accord include:

 

Charlie Baker, Massachusetts. (Republican in bigly Democratic state)

Jerry Brown, California

Kate Brown, Oregon

Andrew Cuomo, New York

John Hickenlooper, Colorado

David Y. Ige, Hawaii

Jay Inslee, Washington

Dannel P. Malloy, Connecticut

Terry McAuliffe, Virginia

Gina M. Raimondo, Rhode Island

 

"California will resist this misguided and insane course of action," Brown said in a prepared statement.

 

Cities

A group of mayors said they "will adopt, honor, and uphold the commitments to the goals enshrined in the Paris Agreement."

The group includes:

 

Mayor Martin J. Walsh, Boston

Bill de Blasio, New York City

Rahm Emanuel, Chicago

Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles

Jim Kenney, Philadelphia

Mitch Landrieu, New Orleans

Ed Murray, Seattle

Sylvester Turner, Houston

READ THE FULL LIST, LETTER HERE

 

http://www.4029tv.com/article/these-cities...-accord/9966980

 

 

https://mic.com/articles/178859/french-pres...roll#.r8aJKPWGx

Waiting for Trump to tweet back at Macron after getting trolled with video and almost having his hand broken in long handshake

 

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 10:28 AM)
The point of the $3 billion (out of $10 total) the US has contributed isn't the biggest issue here...

Oh but it IS the point. If the framework was not fitted with enforcement mechanisms, what good is it? We can still do things as a country without having to commit to sending boatloads of money for people to steal. Fracking reduces our need for coal. The gas it also produces is cleaner than other sources. Pure capitalism has helped to clean things up some already. Where did that $3 billion go? For $3 billion we can adopt an African country and turn around their whole power grid, dig new wells and teach sustainable farming. but instead it will find its way into luxury travel and food for whatever directors will be in charge of this clusterf***, money will be skimmed off at every transaction, the countries in need of help will have various leaders either stealing money directly or by having 'friends' get lucrative contracts for stuff they don't deliver. It's always about the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 11:57 AM)
These cities and states are vowing to stick to Paris accord

 

The governors of California, New York and Washington State created the United States Climate Alliance to convene states upholding the Paris Agreement.

 

 

States

 

Governors who have proclaimed their continued support for the accord include:

 

Charlie Baker, Massachusetts. (Republican in bigly Democratic state)

Jerry Brown, California

Kate Brown, Oregon

Andrew Cuomo, New York

John Hickenlooper, Colorado

David Y. Ige, Hawaii

Jay Inslee, Washington

Dannel P. Malloy, Connecticut

Terry McAuliffe, Virginia

Gina M. Raimondo, Rhode Island

 

"California will resist this misguided and insane course of action," Brown said in a prepared statement.

 

Cities

 

A group of mayors said they "will adopt, honor, and uphold the commitments to the goals enshrined in the Paris Agreement."

 

The group includes:

 

Mayor Martin J. Walsh, Boston

Bill de Blasio, New York City

Rahm Emanuel, Chicago

Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles

Jim Kenney, Philadelphia

Mitch Landrieu, New Orleans

Ed Murray, Seattle

Sylvester Turner, Houston

READ THE FULL LIST, LETTER HERE

 

http://www.4029tv.com/article/these-cities...-accord/9966980

Awesome! See, they didn't need to sign any piece of paper to do good. They didn't have to send $7 billion to foreign entities to waste to do good. keep it up. But when the electric bills triple and you have occasional power blackouts, just remember, your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad we took the lead here. Took some balls. Now let's fix the climate the right way, whatever that is. As a climate activist myself, I feel like the Paris Agreement just kicked the can down the road.

 

The CEOs of the major energy companies are pissed because the money won't be as easy and the idiots are mad because they think this means "pollute, pollute, Trump hates the Earth." Such idiocy.

 

We can do better than "let's each put a filter on a smokestack", which was basically what this deal was. Always hated it, and I'm Mr. Environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 07:09 PM)
I'm glad we took the lead here. Took some balls. Now let's fix the climate the right way, whatever that is. As a climate activist myself, I feel like the Paris Agreement just kicked the can down the road.

 

The CEOs of the major energy companies are pissed because the money won't be as easy and the idiots are mad because they think this means "pollute, pollute, Trump hates the Earth." Such idiocy.

 

We can do better than "let's each put a filter on a smokestack", which was basically what this deal was. Always hated it, and I'm Mr. Environment.

Great post Jerksticks. Folks, here is "Mr. Environment" who thinks the Paris Agreement "kicked the can down the road." He "always hated it." So once again over-reaction to Trump who has said he wants to re-negotiate the USA's participation. Jerksticks knows this issue and realizes we have to DISCUSS this to "fix the climate the right way, whatever that is."

 

The national reaction to Trump's decision like Conway said is "hysterical." As in hysteria. Folks should listen to Jerksticks and CALM DOWN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 02:20 PM)
Great post Jerksticks. Folks, here is "Mr. Environment" who thinks the Paris Agreement "kicked the can down the road." He "always hated it." So once again over-reaction to Trump who has said he wants to re-negotiate the USA's participation. Jerksticks knows this issue and realizes we have to DISCUSS this to "fix the climate the right way, whatever that is."

 

The national reaction to Trump's decision like Conway said is "hysterical." As in hysteria. Folks should listen to Jerksticks and CALM DOWN.

:lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 07:21 PM)
:lol:

Please respond to Jerksticks' post. My feeling is he is gonna KILL on this issue since he's an expert on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rest of the world has already told Trump to f*** off and said they're not renegotiating. Abandoning a global agreement that almost every country in the world signed on to while not offering any actual criticisms of the agreement and having your entire administration shot through with climate denialist isn't taking leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 06:58 PM)
The rest of the world has already told Trump to f*** off and said they're not renegotiating. Abandoning a global agreement that almost every country in the world signed on to while not offering any actual criticisms of the agreement and having your entire administration shot through with climate denialist isn't taking leadership.

We have an expert on this thread in Jerksticks and nobody wants his opinion? Hmmm. I'll bite. Jerksticks, please tell me more about how the Paris accord fails and tell me about your concerns of the future? And answer this Q: Was Trump smart in doing what he did? Or was it a bad move?

What is your opinion of the latest glacier breaking off?

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/antarctica-...king-off-2017-6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (iamshack @ May 31, 2017 -> 10:50 AM)
Honestly, it is just the way the industry is going anyways. While it is hard to sort of deconstruct all the different factors that have led to the massive transition to solar and wind resources (climate change, gov't subsidies, economics, abundant natural resources, etc), the transition requires certain complimentary fossil fuel resources until the time that storage is economic on a utility scale. The nature of solar and wind, both in the times when they are most abundant, and in the fact that they are intermittent resources, requires complimentary resources which can ramp up and down quickly or come online quickly. I am not engineer, nor expert in coal technology, but the current technology limits natural gas resources as the resources with these attributes. Therefore, since more and more solar and wind is coming online, utilities and regional transmission operators have sought to balance this influx of renewables with fast-performing natural gas resources, not coal.

 

There are a LOT of things going against coal right now, other than just politics. It's just becoming an outdated technology.

 

This is spot on, particularly the bolded. Batteries right now are often used to firm transmission to keep older transmission systems going longer. When we get to the point that batteries are able to store wind/solar/hydro power on a utility scale, it's a gamechanger. Then we really will be 100% renewable generation. Though I suspect some gas peaker plants would still be there just in case.

 

It's the reason why I won't be sad if my career heads more toward battery development. Cutting edge stuff. I also think utility solar is going to overtake wind, at least in rate of newly installed capacity.

 

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 08:36 PM)
Shack, I was talking to some pg&e folks today who were saying that California is "over generating" largely on solar and wind and as a result there aren't a lot of calls for power from fossil plants, even natural gas. That seem accurate from your end?

 

Shack is more familiar with California's markets than I am (I mostly work in MISO, which is basically the upper Midwest), but that would seem accurate. Even here, there's been coal plants that have barely operated in 2017.

 

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 10:10 AM)
Pretty solid read on the havoc that higher renewable penetration is having on worldwide electric grids and energy markets.

 

I blame Farmteam.

Ha! I missed this post originally. I agree with most of the article. The entire way we generate and deliver electricity is changing, and there will be growing pains. Given our respective employers, you may take a darker view of this than I do :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 1, 2017 -> 06:36 PM)
Shack, I was talking to some pg&e folks today who were saying that California is "over generating" largely on solar and wind and as a result there aren't a lot of calls for power from fossil plants, even natural gas. That seem accurate from your end?

They are swimming in solar! You've likely heard of the duck curve, which is a phenomenon caused by misalignment between the timing of the consumption of electricity in California and the production of electricity in California. As you might imagine, solar production is greatest across the afternoon hours of the day. Unfortunately, these hours do not represent the strongest consumption of electricity, as many people are in communal areas, such as the workplace or schools. Solar starts decreasing in the early evening, right when everyone leaves these communal places and returns home, turning on their tv's, their lights, their ovens, etc. So the peak consumption for electricity coincides with the period when all this solar generation drops off a cliff, basically. This requires other resources, particularly those that can ramp up quickly, to be available - these are usually natural gas combined-cycles and peakers.

 

But to your question, natural gas has definitely been a victim as solar and wind often become the marginal cost resource, particularly during daylight hours. Many natural gas plants are simply not running, and some have basically been completely mothballed. My utility recently tried to purchase a large natural gas combined-cycle plant in Arizona and was denied by the public utility commission, despite the rock-bottom price.

 

It isn't going to get any better, either. There are tens of thousands of MWs worth of solar and wind projects in the queue in various stages of development. It is why some of the other western states are gobbling up California solar energy during the day, as it is better for them to give it away than to curtail it.

Edited by iamshack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 11:09 AM)
I'm glad we took the lead here. Took some balls. Now let's fix the climate the right way, whatever that is. As a climate activist myself, I feel like the Paris Agreement just kicked the can down the road.

 

The CEOs of the major energy companies are pissed because the money won't be as easy and the idiots are mad because they think this means "pollute, pollute, Trump hates the Earth." Such idiocy.

 

We can do better than "let's each put a filter on a smokestack", which was basically what this deal was. Always hated it, and I'm Mr. Environment.

Why do you think this will result in more stringent requirements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-latam-li...m-idUSKCN0WH1BZ

Article about lithium, the "white petroleum," mines in Chile, Argentina and Bolivia

 

What is the progress of the brine-based lithium field in Wyoming that was discovered in 2013?

 

http://business.financialpost.com/midas-le...ry-demand-rises

Declining lithium prices, rising demand for batteries

 

 

Tesla’s gigafactory is the 900 pound gorilla in the room, when it comes to production of lithium-ion batteries — or so CEO Elon Musk would have us believe. Musk’s pursuit of a domestic solution to the problem of relying on Asian battery manufacturers to supply the power modules to his automobile products inspired his decision to build his gigafactory, which he envisions as a way to bring battery production costs down.

 

But his isn’t the only “giga” scale factory that will be hoovering world lithium supply. There are major battery production plans on the drawing boards of other multi-national heavyweights like Samsung, LG Chem, Sanyo, Primearth EV Energy (a joint venture between Toyota and Matsus***a in Japan), and A123 Systems.

 

When all these major manufacturers are taken into account, the current estimates for future lithium demand— currently in the range of an additional 100,000 tonnes per year — might look a little light.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×