Pres. Obama and Jinping strike deal on carbon emissions

[knapplc]

 

 

 

 

 

 

They're separate issues. Tying them together makes utterly no sense, and China has no reason to change their wages laws even if we did.

 

This whole thing is a red herring. I can't even imagine how the two got connected.

 

I don't believe I was the one that connected them.

 

 

You were. Tenth post in this thread is the first to bring jobs into the discussion.

 

I was talking about environmental regulations causing job loss in the US due to other countries not giving a crap.

 

Wages are a completely different part of the job problem. Carl asked me which was a bigger problem and he and I have been discussing it since.

 

 

The job problem has nothing to do with emissions. That's the point that refutes the assertion in post #10:

 

"So, we put more regulations on our industry and probably increase the cost of our electricity to our industries. China is allowed to keep building crappy manufacturing facilities that can manufacture cheaper than we can due to these regulations. American public demands cheaper and cheaper crap from Walmart (who will buy them from China). We lose more and more jobs to china. Everyone looks at those big mean evil American business owners and blames them for all the problems in the world."

 

My point was, we are going to lose jobs to China regardless of whether we have a zero-emissions policy or no curb on emissions at all. Emissions have 0.00% to do with why we lose jobs to China. Remove emissions from the equation and those jobs do not come back to America.

[BigRedBuster]

Here, let's start over. Why don't you state exactly what you're claiming in your following post. Take your time, make it clear.

I spelled it out in post #10 which ONLY was discussing environmental regulations as it pertains to raising the cost of manufacturing in the US. This statement doesn't ignore wages but it doesn't include them either. They are two exclusive problems that take different routes to fixing but both need fixed to bring large numbers of manufacturing jobs back.

 

In post #11 Carl asked me "Isn't wages a bigger factor".

 

In post #13 I acknowledged Carl's question and said that both are a problem and he and I have had a nice conversation about it since.

 

For some reason after that, you started claiming I'm Fox News or something. I have no clue what got you all worked up.

[EbylHusker]

With or without the increased emission reduction for the US by 2030, we're still going to have issues with losing jobs to developing nations. That's been going on a long time and is tied to far more things than just environmental controls and costs. Upping the emissions reduction isn't going to make a dramatic impact on figures like that. But work can be done domestically to further encourage corporations to stay here, not to mention growth in sectors that aren't at nearly as much risk of going overseas, etc. The end result is that we're not going to screw middle class jobs by strengthening the reduction by 2030.

[carlfense]

I thought scientists said we're past the point of no return anyways.

I don't know. I'm not a scientist, man.

[EbylHusker]

You're still parroting Fox News. That's their line of bullsh#t. You may not be getting it from Fox News, but it's still Fox News levels of utter bullsh#t.

 

Edit - Keep in mind I've never been speaking about wages. The environmental emissions reductions stuff linked to the collapse of the middle class through overseas job loss is straight up Fox News bullsh#t. Once again, you may not get it from them, but that is one thing they push, so you are siding with them. Ouch.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

 

I thought scientists said we're past the point of no return anyways.

 

I don't know. I'm not a scientist, man.

But a projected emissions peak in 2030 is not as soon as many scientists have said would be needed to keep alive a goal, agreed to by governments at talks in Copenhagen in 2009, of trying to keep greenhouse gas concentrations below levels likely to cause the average global temperature to rise 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the preindustrial average.

 

Virtually no country has done enough to help achieve that goal, but China, the biggest emitter, is crucial to any attempt to stay close to that commitment.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/world/asia/climate-change-china-xi-jinping-obama-apec.html?referrer=

[carlfense]

 

 

I thought scientists said we're past the point of no return anyways.

I don't know. I'm not a scientist, man.

But a projected emissions peak in 2030 is not as soon as many scientists have said would be needed to keep alive a goal, agreed to by governments at talks in Copenhagen in 2009, of trying to keep greenhouse gas concentrations below levels likely to cause the average global temperature to rise 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the preindustrial average.

 

Virtually no country has done enough to help achieve that goal, but China, the biggest emitter, is crucial to any attempt to stay close to that commitment.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/world/asia/climate-change-china-xi-jinping-obama-apec.html?referrer=

 

[knapplc]

Does anyone think it's a bad thing that we got China to cut emissions? Prior to this deal, they were never going to. This is good progress, right?

[EbylHusker]

As for the point of no return, I would say there is enough uncertainty in climate science and prediction to not know for sure. There are some who believe that, and others who do not. It's clear we're having an impact, there really isn't any scientifically based doubt on that. But where the point of no return might be and when we mgiht reach it is a totally different tangle. I'd say the uncertainty is high enough that it's worth attempting to curb reductions for no other reason than we may still be able to come in under the point of no return. Not to mention, it can always get worse than what is predicted if we don't do anything.

[carlfense]

Does anyone think it's a bad thing that we got China to cut emissions? Prior to this deal, they were never going to. This is good progress, right?

It's a bad thing if it's good for Obama's legacy.

[BigRedBuster]

Does anyone think it's a bad thing that we got China to cut emissions? Prior to this deal, they were never going to. This is good progress, right?

Getting China to cut Emissions is FANTASTIC.

 

But....that's not what this has said.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Fox News has nothing to do with this thread. If that's all you have to fall back on, then, I guess I don't have anything else for you.

 

 

 

You're still parroting Fox News. That's their line of bullsh#t. You may not be getting it from Fox News, but it's still Fox News levels of utter bullsh#t.

 

Edit - Keep in mind I've never been speaking about wages. The environmental emissions reductions stuff linked to the collapse of the middle class through overseas job loss is straight up Fox News bullsh#t. Once again, you may not get it from them, but that is one thing they push, so you are siding with them. Ouch.

Have a nice day.

[Creighton Duke]

This is an interesting development and I'm not sure what it suggests, especially on China's part. Will they start exporting production to other countries, thus maintaining the same economic output, but not incurring the associated pollution? Will they slow down the industrial growth and focus on other sectors? Are they counting on technological advances that will be developed in the next 15 years (although within the next 10 would seem to be necessary) to help control the pollution?

 

Maybe they are finally starting to see the effects of the pollution on the current population. I know that so many "shocking" statistics are inflated, but I read somewhere that living in Beijing is like smoking 20 cigarettes each day. The city populations are the more affluent or the more able-bodied workers in that economy whereas the rural population contributes much less; how can they keep their rate of production up when the lifespan of the most productive members of society is (hypothetically) drastically shorter than the average?

 

...as I said, very interesting development...

[BigRedBuster]

This is an interesting development and I'm not sure what it suggests, especially on China's part. Will they start exporting production to other countries, thus maintaining the same economic output, but not incurring the associated pollution? Will they slow down the industrial growth and focus on other sectors? Are they counting on technological advances that will be developed in the next 15 years (although within the next 10 would seem to be necessary) to help control the pollution?

 

Maybe they are finally starting to see the effects of the pollution on the current population. I know that so many "shocking" statistics are inflated, but I read somewhere that living in Beijing is like smoking 20 cigarettes each day. The city populations are the more affluent or the more able-bodied workers in that economy whereas the rural population contributes much less; how can they keep their rate of production up when the lifespan of the most productive members of society is (hypothetically) drastically shorter than the average?

 

...as I said, very interesting development...

Interestingly, they have started this already. Increase in manufacturing in Indonesia (for instance) is in large part due to China outsourcing manufacturing.

[NUpolo8]

Ebyl, you make good points but you're the angriest sounding guy I know.

Man I would not trust anything China says. Their record of not being truthful about anything related to their production is quite consistent. In that they're always being deceitful.

This is true, but you have to have agreements, right?I expect their government will be no less weasely in their attempts to circumvent the law than companies here are and have always been with regard to any regulation. Only the state/company barrier is a little hazy over there.

Having done business both with businesses here who are "weasel" like to circumventing the law and the Chinese government, which dictates and controls how things are done in that country with the exception of three places, I'd take the American businesses.