U.S. to push ahead on climate pact before Trump takes over: Kerry - Polidicks

"clean coal" what does that even mean, it's like saying "honest politician"

[QUOTE]Donald Trump, who calls global warming a hoax and has promised to quit the Paris Agreement[/QUOTE] Can Trump even do this as president? I'd think that something like that would have to go through Congress to get revoked.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;51366702]Can Trump even do this as president? I'd think that something like that would have to go through Congress to get revoked.[/QUOTE] thankfully congress is republican-controlled now

[QUOTE=Judas;51366718]thankfully congress is republican-controlled now[/QUOTE] Even so it's merely majority Republican. There's still plenty of Democrats and independents to help offset and not all Republicans are climate change deniers as well. I don't think Congress would overturn something like that.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;51366702]Can Trump even do this as president? I'd think that something like that would have to go through Congress to get revoked.[/QUOTE] [quote]The international law requirements are somewhat complicated. One of the reasons Obama helped usher the deal into force early this year is because that meant that any country that was a party to the agreement couldn’t leave until it completed a four-year withdrawal process. Michael Wara, an environmental law professor at the Stanford Law School, said Trump could use his office to issue an executive communication removing the United States from Paris, but even if he did that, the United States would still be a party for four years and could be subject to its legally binding procedural commitments. If the United States failed to meet its obligations, which are being negotiated starting now at the U.N. climate conference underway in Marrakech, Morocco, it would be breaking international law. The United States could take a shortcut and exit the UNFCCC, a move that could be likely, given Trump’s criticisms of the U.N. body. That could be done in one year rather than four, and would result in leaving Paris, as well. Or Trump’s administration could send observers to monitor negotiations but not participate in them and refuse to carry through on Obama’s nationally determined contribution pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions 26 to 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025.[/quote] [url]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-trump-simply-withdraw-u-s-from-paris-climate-agreement/[/url]

[QUOTE=r0b0tsquid;51366559]"clean coal" what does that even mean, it's like saying "honest politician"[/QUOTE] With IGCC you can get coal emossions down to the same level as gas. People like to call gas clean so IGCC is 'clean' coal. Alternatively there is carbon capture and sequestration.

Basically it's just slightly-less dirty coal. [editline]13th November 2016[/editline] But that's not as easy to sell to congressmen.

he'll be taking jobs away from china so that will mean going from factories with no emissions standards to -some- emissions standards so under him the carbon count will still go down

The fate of the whole human race could quite possibly rest in the hands of John Kerry and what he is able to achieve in the next two months.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51367577]The fate of the whole human race could quite possibly rest in the hands of John Kerry and what he is able to achieve in the next two months.[/QUOTE] That's a bit extreme Unless Trump is like hah fuck coal we gon' use BITUMEN

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51367609]That's a bit extreme Unless Trump is like hah fuck coal we gon' use BITUMEN[/QUOTE] Extreme in the short run, but for the long term survivability of our planet and the uncertainty in continuing to pollute the atmosphere without end? I'm not so sure.

Here's how clean coal works: [img_thumb]http://www.rmcmi.org/images/default-source/default-album/Clean Coal Technology_img_2.jpg?sfvrsn=0[/img_thumb] When you burn coal, you aren't just producing carbon dioxide. Sulfates and nitrates are also produced and are what lead to acid rain. Various techniques filter these byproducts out (and some are being designed to capture CO2 as well) so you aren't just pumping black smoke into the air. The [I]logistical[/I] problems with clean coal technology is that people burn coal because its cheap, and by adding the filters to ensure clean air, you raise the price of burning coal. Similar to energy storage with renewables, carbon sequestration (injecting carbon dioxide into the ground) is promising but again adds to the cost of using coal as an energy source and incentives are necessary (other than clean air is good for you) for companies to adopt it. The upside to coal (ignoring costs) is that it is a rapid response energy provider. This means if everyone demands heating during the winter, the coal plants can go to full power relatively quickly to meet the demands, and come down quickly as well. The same is true for natural gas plants, which again is why I don't believe coal will be able to compete. I don't believe coal will be able to compete economically with natural gas for the economics alone. Coal is cheap when it is burned recklessly like during the Industrial Revolution, and even if the EPA gets abolished I don't think American citizens would tolerate having their breathing air be a dumping ground for coal ash and soot, and I don't believe coal companies want the bad PR that comes with blackened skies.

To be honest, the best energy right now and that should be used instead of "clean coal" is nuclear. However, I do hope that in the future solar can be taken more seriously and replace nuclear. Until then, nuclear is the most efficient and relatively clean.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51367668] I don't believe coal will be able to compete economically with natural gas for the economics alone.[/QUOTE] It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. The larger reason why coal is going down isn't because of regulation but because other options are cheaper.

Obama has nearly 2 months to sit trump down several times and tell him why having new york under water is bad for business. I don't think he will be that against it. Trump is pretty impressionable I would imagine.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51367913]Obama has nearly 2 months to sit trump down several times and tell him why having new york under water is bad for business. I don't think he will be that against it. Trump is pretty impressionable I would imagine.[/QUOTE] But once Obama leaves office, he'll be surrounded by oil, coal and other such tycoons in his cabinet.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51367939]But once Obama leaves office, he'll be surrounded by oil, coal and other such tycoons in his cabinet.[/QUOTE] Eh, yeah, but what can I say, I'm grasping at straws here. Maybe Obama will show trump a polar bear crying and convert him, who knows.