The entire point of the “agreement” was exactly as Krugman described it- the “elimination” of the China excuse. I am as cynical as they come, but this so-called breakthrough agreement raises cynicism to a new level. Anyone with an IQ over 85 literally knows the Chinese will do whatever it was the Chinese were going to do, agreement or no agreement. The intellectuals pretending at taking the Chinese at their word are grubering.
Bob, the MJ blogpost is ambiguous, but does not clearly suggest that your critique could not be applied to it. Krugman stays ambiguous about whether your critique could apply to his blogpost until his last two sentences, if by “action” he means comprehensive, broad-ranging, immediate, and concrete action that would cause significantly higher effective costs for American firms and consumers using fossil fuels. If he does mean that, your critique definitely applies to him; if not, Krugman remains Krugman-y.
If populations remain stable, then the USA will be emitting about 14 tonnes CO2 per person per year if they meet their target. China in 2011 emitted 7.2 tonnes per person. If China meets its target, a realistic extrapolation (by eye) of the current trend, flattening off by 2030 would mean they were emitting about 10-11 tonnes per person. China’s peak emissions per capita would be about half the peak USA emission (20t/person in 2000). If China then reduced emissions it may always remain below USA per capita emissions.
If China did not reduce emissions it may end up with the same per capita emissions as peak USA ones, and that would probably be bad for us all. Will China cut emissions if the USA is far wealthier, emits more per person and does not cut its own emissions? How can we get China to reduce emissions if the USA does not?
The entire point of the “agreement” was exactly as Krugman described it- the “elimination” of the China excuse. I am as cynical as they come, but this so-called breakthrough agreement raises cynicism to a new level. Anyone with an IQ over 85 literally knows the Chinese will do whatever it was the Chinese were going to do, agreement or no agreement. The intellectuals pretending at taking the Chinese at their word are grubering.
*grubering*.. haha
Bob, the MJ blogpost is ambiguous, but does not clearly suggest that your critique could not be applied to it. Krugman stays ambiguous about whether your critique could apply to his blogpost until his last two sentences, if by “action” he means comprehensive, broad-ranging, immediate, and concrete action that would cause significantly higher effective costs for American firms and consumers using fossil fuels. If he does mean that, your critique definitely applies to him; if not, Krugman remains Krugman-y.
I’m starting a new diet on Monday.
Well done! Didn’t even specify which Monday, which is double-plus points!
Yancey,
Do you think now, Joseph’s girl friend has to drop the “Joseph isn’t dieting as well, so why should?” excuse?
@ Joseph
Sorry! No offense meant to you or your girl friend/wife!
*so why should I*…
Yancey, forget my comment. I misunderstood you above..
You should give up drinking and swearing like I’m intending to, in an aspirational way.
I don’t think that would help. It is just a matter of thinking properly about what the other one meant before starting to write..
Besides drinking is too much joy/fun to give up if done within reasonable limits of course.
😉
So China agreed to continue to increase carbon emissions until 2030-sh… maybe.
And the U.S. agreed to decrease carbon emissions to 26%-28% below 2005’s 9 year old emission levels.
Do I have that right?
If populations remain stable, then the USA will be emitting about 14 tonnes CO2 per person per year if they meet their target. China in 2011 emitted 7.2 tonnes per person. If China meets its target, a realistic extrapolation (by eye) of the current trend, flattening off by 2030 would mean they were emitting about 10-11 tonnes per person. China’s peak emissions per capita would be about half the peak USA emission (20t/person in 2000). If China then reduced emissions it may always remain below USA per capita emissions.
If China did not reduce emissions it may end up with the same per capita emissions as peak USA ones, and that would probably be bad for us all. Will China cut emissions if the USA is far wealthier, emits more per person and does not cut its own emissions? How can we get China to reduce emissions if the USA does not?