Defying Trump, California Signs Cooperative Deal With China



Climate Change

California Governor Jerry Brown

Despite Trump’s recent decision, California looks to China as a partner in combating climate change.

It’s only been days since U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to withdraw from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, and California Governor Jerry Brown hopped on a flight to China to work on green partnerships and future deals with the country.

Brown met with Chinese President Xi Jinping and signed an unofficial agreement to further cooperation related to green technology. This agreement also involves increasing trade between California and China, regardless of the new administration’s beliefs and regulations on the matter.

The California governor planned his trip at precisely the right time to attract attention from the press. Many skeptics took to social media to ridicule Brown, and some went so far as to say that California should leave the U.S. and become part of China. Meanwhile, others praised the state’s efforts, and referred to the governor as the new “negotiator of climate change for the U.S.”. Brown told the media:

“The world is not doing enough. We are on the road to a very negative and disastrous future, unless we increase the tempo of change.”

“The president has already said climate change is a hoax, which is the exact opposite of virtually all scientific and worldwide opinion. I don’t believe fighting reality is a good strategy.”

“We (California) have the most aggressive environmental rules and the most far-reaching greenhouse gas regulations, so we are a living reputation of President Trump’s Rose Garden speech, whereby we are reducing greenhouse gasses. We’re on the move, and that’s, I think, the mark of America to the world.”

During Brown’s China visit, he attended an international summit for green energy, and met with members of a coalition dedicated to fighting climate change.

Reports mentioned specific talks between Brown and members of the coalition that dealt specifically with battery technology and China’s electric automakers.

Sales of New Energy Vehicles in China – April 2017

Currently, China leads the world with more than 750,000 passenger electric vehicle deliveries (more than 1 million when including commercial vehicles, eBuses, etc), and has a target of 800,000 sales in 2017 (although some early legislative hiccups is making reality look more like ~500k for this year).

The country also has put an electric vehicle mandate quota on their automotive industry that calls for an 8% plug-in market share of total sales for 2018, 10% in 2019 and 12% in 2020.  We should note there is a one year/delay waiver for missed ZEV targets in 2018 put in place by China to assist struggling non-Chinese automakers comply – but 2019 targets still need to be hit, as well as making up for any deficit in 2018.

Brown has since been working to create his own similar U.S. Climate Alliance coalition that will uphold the Paris agreement in California, and all other states that choose to join.

Source: Reuters, Capital Public Radio

Categories: General

Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

128 Comments on "Defying Trump, California Signs Cooperative Deal With China"

newest oldest most voted

Jerry Brown for President, anyone???


President of Cascadia, when CA/OR/WA secede at some point in the next ten years.

There’s some precedent about this whole secession thing. I’m not altogether familiar with it but the resolution of the movement coccurred sometime around the early 1860’s. Didn’t work out, as I recall…

The actual resolution didn’t occur until the mid-1860s.


When Sherman’s army marched through GA, they dug up the railroad tracks and melted them on makeshift fires so that they can hang the warped rails on trees as a warning and a reminder that the infrastructure is just gone. All of the broad/russian gauge tracks that were in the south at the time were gone forever and would be replaced by the northern standard gauge.

Fans of transportation infrastructure should take a moment to read how history treats transportation infrastructure in the midst of a political crisis.

The last time States tried peaceably seceding, I don’t think it ended that well for them, even though that was the explicit agreement with them when they joined in the first place.

Absolutely NOT!!! He should actually care about the environment right here, at home in California, but he doesn’t. Look no further than his idiot twin tunnels… er, I mean “water fix” that he is doing his best to ram through before the door hits him in the ass. The California Delta is on life support now with the San Joaquin river being in the top ten of America’s most polluted rivers and his water grab scheme that would complete his daddy’s legacy, will finish off the delta for good. The upside is though, giant agribusinesses will get to export more almonds and pistachios to China and building developers in So Cal will get to build even more housing tracts with all the cheap clean water!! Yea!!

Make NO MISTAKE, Jerry Brown is a classic old school politician and knows how to manipulate a susceptible electorate. Backroom deals out of the public eye are his specialty. This little trip is all about grandstanding and getting his name out there, plus there are a great many big corporations located here in California that very much want to make nice with China. That’s the real reason for this little expedition.

Just so everyone knows, the pact between California and China has to be unofficial and voluntary. States can’t make private deals with other countries, only the federal government speaking for the entire U.S can do that.

Jerry Brown is walking a fine line. In the end, the west coast has always been different compared to the rest of the U.S. At worst, this could lead to secession.

I was under the impression that individual states already behave like separate countries in the US,

Just ask Tesla !

What do you mean?

Tesla can’t sell cars in many states because of dealership protection laws

The good thing about the franchise dealership laws is that each state has a different law pertaining to them. All that Tesla has to do is take the issue to federal court which supersedes states powers. If it wins the right to sell direct in federal court, every U.S will be legally required to abide by the ruling.

None of Governor Monnbeams misconceptions are true. Warming is beneficial. More CO2 is beneficial. Study the facts and don’t be taken in by the greatest scam of scientism in the history of mankind.

Yes, of course warming and CO2 are actually helping our planet Shawn…

Nurse, nurse! We have an escapee who needs his meds!

You are wrong.

I could agree with you,

But then we would both be wrong !

You also have to look at other factors. CO2 is beneficial to a certain point and only for some plants but then it affects other ares where it is not good. It’s no secret that 280ppm CO2 is the best for our atmosphere and not over 400ppm where we are currently. First the planet gets greener and then it develops into a desert.

By that logic, entire planet would’ve been one big desert when CO2 level was 10 time what it is today. It wasn’t; it was lush green with lots of walking oil (dinosaurs).

As I often mention, it’s not the absolute level of CO2 or warming, because there have been periods in the past far warmer and far more CO2. It’s the rate of change that is the abnormal.

“It’s the rate of change that is the abnormal.”

Exactly. Climate change isn’t actually anything to care about IF you don’t mind that it will cause humanity enormous problems in the future, potentially wiping us out completely. However, nature itself and the universe at large will continue as usual. It will just adapt as it has always done, with or without humans. So if you are a misanthrope it would make sense to not care about CC.

CC won’t cause “huge problems” for humanity, at least not in next 100 to 200 years. If we don’t have planes, trains, automobiles, we might have issues. Or not; sea level rose almost a foot in 100 years from 1900, yet we hardly noticed. But we have the technology now, and that means even better to deal with CC.

One shining example I point to is Israel. As a desert country, they are the bread-basket of the region with their agriculture. If bunch of Jews surrounded by countries that want to wipe them off the map can do it, the world as a whole has nothing to fear from CC.

But we have everything to worry about from extremist terrorism and North Korea.

If the only yardstick you care about is the stark, black-or-white survival of the human species, then you should be equally indifferent to North Korea’s nuclear brinkmanship, or to terrorist attacks. Neither are in danger of wiping out our species.

Personally, I think living in a world with such diverse things as rain forests, elephants, coral reefs, and even cheetahs is worth making an effort at preserving. If the only goal is survival of the human species, then all we need is ocean plankton (which provides most of the oxygen in the atmosphere), a few food crops, and possibly one or two food animals. (Humans need at least a few vitamins, such as B12, which an entirely vegetarian diet does not provide.) You write as if you don’t care if every other species in the entire world dies off, so long as the human species survives.

The problem is that would reduce human life to stark existence, and therefore meaningless. Humans need art, culture, and a world full of natural diversity, to live life to its fullest; for life to have meaning.

Yes, but oil did not, at least in any meaningful extent, come from dinosaurs. It mostly came from algae, I believe. Trees turned into coal. Dinosaurs mostly rotted on the spot and turned back into carbon dioxide.

I’m playing popular terminology of “Dino juice.” Scientifically, you are correct; much of it is plant matter. But dead dinos fed the plants, so it’s not totally incorrect.

“By that logic, entire planet would’ve been one big desert when CO2 level was 10 time what it is today. It wasn’t; it was lush green with lots of walking oil (dinosaurs).”

Only if everything else was the same. But it wasn’t. The theory is that there were giant insects at the time because the amount of oxygen in the air was also greater. Such giant insects could not live today.

And at any rate, as has already been said, the real problem — the cause of the current ongoing mass extinction event — is the rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, so rapid that plants and animals don’t have time to evolve to adjust to the change. That’s probably one of the major causes, perhaps the primary cause, of why (to cite just one of the more obvious examples) most or all of the coral reefs in the world are dying off. If the change was more gradual, the successive generations of coral reef polyps would have more time to adjust to the changing environment.

Isn’t it amazing how science have given you the entire modern world, computers, running water, electricity, cars, clothes, safe to eat food and drink, the Internet and so on but suddenly when science comes up with something you don’t like all of a sudden it’s all fake and a huge conspiracy!

Thank you!

That’s the biggest irony about science deniers posting to the internet; they’re confidently using advanced technology based on the very science they’re denying. The technology they use to access and post to the internet is what they’re using to deny the value of that very science! Adding to that irony is that the internet is developed from ARPANET, which was created to let scientists easily exchange data.

It is, of course, a very deep irony to which science deniers are utterly blind.

If you’re going to deny the value of science, then using the internet to do so shows everyone how deeply ignorant you are regarding both science and the internet.

to Shawn Marshall,

IMO any posts that question the scientific consensus of climate change should be deleted by the moderator.

There should be no discussions on whether or not it is happening only what approach should be taken to fix the problem.

Who died and made you King? That is the policy at Green Car Reports, which is why I’m no longer there. Fortunately, Jay Cole likes enough of my other comments that he tolerates a minority view here.

Looking over all the comments, I find it VERY INTERESTING that, a few years ago, there was over 99% trust in the ‘AGM Construct’. Now, the percentage seems to be finally decreasing.

georgeS you are old enough to remember the covers on Time Magazine, etc. that showed the “Scientific Concensus” was that EXTREME COOLING was going to wipe out Civilization.

Complication to that scheme was the global cooling from 1940-1974 ended. Perhaps in your younger years you didn’t pay attention to anything to do with ‘Science’.

Don’t you think georgeS has just as much right to express his opinion as those people whose comments were deleted from the Green Car Reports forum?

Or is it only people who you agree with who have the right to free speech? 😐

He’s talking about restricting speech. The rest of my comment went over your head. DUH.

They’re taking about restricting speech on a private platform to enable conversation. I completely agree with them.

Discussion on the validity of anthropogenic climate change in 2017 are just a waste of time and distraction from the hard work of addressing climate change.

Such ignorance can so easily drown out and chase off useful discussion​.

I’m sure there’s a flat Earth forum somewhere which would be happy to have such discussion. (Assuming they don’t think climate change denialism is too crazy for them). 🙂

As far as viewpoints go, and if numbers of people make things right, then you must be part of the Flat earth society.

See my response to Dan below. 9 out of 10 here hold the minority scientific view, and Mr. Marshall is in agreement with the “Scientific Consensus”.

Some scientists hypothesized in the 60’s and 70’s that aerosol particles high in the atmosphere from coal burning and factories were cooling the climate over industrialized nations, and somehow that is supposed to invalidate the whole concept of CO2-induced warming? Those findings were sound, and in fact, pollution from China today is still believed to partially counter global warming. Not enough, though, and even then, those same scientists were already positing that CO2 emissions would soon overwhelm the cooling effect of aerosol pollution, which is exactly what we are observing today.

The science of climate change is based on 19th century discoveries, without which a host of technologies today would simply not work. While “putting it all together” in order to precisely predict the climate decades from now may be hard, given the complexity of the earth system, there is simply *zero* doubt in the scientific community (those people who study the climate and publish their findings) that more CO2 warms the planet, and the rate of change is too fast for ecosystems to adapt. We are heading for trouble.

georgeS :”…IMO any posts that question the scientific consensus of climate change should be deleted by the moderator….”

Since I’ve just proven that the true “SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS” of 31,000 Scientists has shown that there is NO detrimental climate change impact due to increased CO2 or CH4, in fact there are environmental BENEFITS – means that 9 out of 10 other commenters here are going to have all their comments deleted since they are at odds with the TRUE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, including all of yours?

I don’t think Jay Cole will go for that.

I like that term “Scientism”.
I am a Scientismist, who knew?
Where do we have meetings?

you said “scientism”.

That gets you an automatic classification of “high school flunky” suffering from the Dunning-Kroger effect.


Now, go off and read some Ken Ham posts.

It’s the “Dunning-Kruger Effect”.


I agree! Just look what it did for the people of Venus.

+ infinity

If there was any justice in the world, that would end the argument with the remaining few who are so willfully ignorant that they still deny the reality of climate change. (Not the causes of that change, just the claim that there isn’t any.) Every argument on that subject.

Mr. Marshall, in one sense you are brave to repeatedly bring up this topic in this forum.
I myself do on occassion, but as an EV advocate on my 5th EV, obviously I’m around people whose feathers are easily ruffled.

You can mention that a Nobel Laureate physicist and the originator of the “Weather Channel” (in other words, not generalists but people having a technical familiarity with the topic) have both mentioned everything here is a scam, when the real issue is wealth transfer controlled by the money center banks – witness one of the Loudest Mouths against Trump has been Lloyd Blankfein.

Therefore Gov Moonbeam’s working vacation in China seems to be more as some of the other commenters here have mentioned – mainly big Agribusiness and Real Estate deals.

Makes sense in a way. California State isn’t quite as bad as Illinois, but they need to increase their fiscal health sooner rather than later.

If climate science were a scam, it would have to involve all the world’s major scientific organizations, thousands of scientists, across dozens of disciplines, all coordinating their findings, over decades of research. It would have to control the media. It would have to continuously coerce tens of thousands of people, mostly intelligent and rational people, working is highly competitive fields, and motivated by fame far more than by greed. It would have to quash dissent before it makes a peep.

I don’t think it’s tenable for any reasonable person to hold such belief. Far more likely is the cynical truth that FUD is being spread over the science by a much smaller clique of vested interests (financial and/or ideological), in order to preserve their hold on resources. We’ve seen this already with the tobacco industry. Sometimes, it’s even the same people who are involved, and the fact that we are falling for it once again is really depressing.

Exactly the same thing can be said about Lee Harvey Oswald, and the fact that he himself was shot on T.V. AT A POLICE DEPT. Or ESTEEMED Senator Arlen Specter who proffered the ‘magic bullet theory’ where a bullet can stop in mid air and change direction all on its own. Of course one was supposed to ignore the ‘extra’ shots heard on a policeman’s dicta-belt which were ‘accidentally recorded’. Or that 3 steel skyscrapers, hit by 2 planes would immediately collapse at essentially free-fall speed, leave no human remains larger than a finger-nail, and still have a charred driver’s license intact of the supposed perpetrator. Or have molten steel for a month after the collapse. When the WTC 1 and 2 were built to withstand 3 simultaneous jumbo-jet (707) perferations, due to the top mounted Hat-Truss in each building. Or that the Head UL tester was fired after decades of faithful testing due to the fact that he couldn’t simulate the building falling in agreement with the polemic. The American Public, sorry to say, is so insouciant that they believe whatever they are told to believe. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) stated a “NEW PEARL HARBOR”… Read more »

If someone HONESTLY believes worrying about their “Carbon Footprint”, or believes what you exhale and plants use for Food is a “DANGEROUS POLUTANT”, you might find the following almost 10 year old news article extremely ILLUMINATING.

The “Scientific Consensus” is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what 9 out of 10 here currently believe, prior to reading this link:

Relax people, Shawn forgot to take his pills. He will be just fine tomorrow…

I don’t think so. (Not failing to recognize your joke; just looking past it.)

Using the made-up word “scientism” is a pretty strong indication of an extreme case of willful ignorance about real science, a condition not correctable by merely taking the right medications.

Shawn Marshall said:

“Study the facts…”

Clearly you have not. Your post reads like something out of the Dark Ages, like the Roman Catholic Church denouncing Galileo Galilei because they didn’t like his assertion that the Earth orbits the Sun, and not vice versa.

It is astonishing and frightening that fact-based reasoning is under attack in the 21st century. Shawn Marshall’s remarks are a perfect example of that. People like him would drag us down into a second Dark Ages.

Pushni is my new hero.

er, ” Pushmi”

Paris required US to pay the largest share of trust fund (about 30%) while India and China who pollute just as much pay far less. This is the main reason why Prez Dump pulled out.

What CA did with China is nothing like Paris. If there’s no money involved in paying other countries, I doubt Dump would’ve pulled out, either.

More I read about Paris, the worse it sounds. We’re talking about 0.2 degree by 2100, and that amount would be made in less than a decade. Assuming 2 degree in 100 years, 10% is 10 years. But we’re likely to be more than 2 degrees, and lot more CO2 forcing even with Paris, so actual time to make up 0.2C would be far less.

For much less than 10 year savings, it would cost the planet trillions of dollars, and the trust fund is to be spent on all sorts of nonsense instead of focused on research that would make lasting impact. Simple fact is, only meaningful spending is to find non-polluting energy source cheaper than fossil fuel. Once this happens, fossil fuel will die away via the invisible hand, no Paris or trust fund needed.

Wait a minute…an average American has a gas guzzler an average Indian and Chinese does not. So how can INDIA and China pollute as much as America?

G,transportation is only part of the equation. Manufacturing, production of steel and concrete and other sources all add up to a huge part of CO2 emissions.
I don’t think India is in the top 3, but depending on how you count the emissions, China has produced around twice what the US produces for the past 5 or 6 years. But on the other hand, the US has been a leading green house gas emitter for decades while China was small potatoes for much of that time.
Sorry if your post was meant to be sarcastic. I took you literally.

On top of that, China and India are allowed to emit far more going forward.

Compare what the US, China and India have emmitted since, say 1850, or 1900 and come back discuss here how unfair the “deal” is to the US…

Then calculate what shit it would be if China and India had the same per capita CO² emissions as american citizens today and come back discuss more.

Americans just want to hold on to their gargantuous lifestyle, whatever that means for the rest of the world (and for themselves, but this they will only learn the hard way). Bunch of selfish ignorants for the most part….

“Bunch of selfish ignorants for the most part”

More true of developing nations like China and India demanding that developed nations pay more. They squandered their opportunity to use fossil fuel in the past, so now they want the developed nations to pay for it.

We can afford more and should of course pay more. It is very simple you pay and do what you can according to ability, not absolute numbers.

You hit the nail on the head. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is communist mantra, and that’s what Paris ended up becoming. US has no intention of participating in global communism.

The alt-right has a finely honed ability to describe cooperation, altruism, and doing something for the benefit of all, rather than just the few, as if all of those are somehow bad things.

If you want to know why divisiveness and tribalism have gotten so bad in the USA, and why gridlock is so bad in Washington, look no farther.

Instead of calling people names, which alt-right seem to have become equivalent of a Nazi, argue on points. But when kids are out of points to argue, they inevitably turn to “you’re a poopyhead”.

Paris was bad for US and wasting everyone’s money while doing practically nothing for climate except for few years of delay. There’s nothing in it about lasting impact such as more nuclear power, because that would mean money would have to go to developed nations for research.

If you want to argue this, bring it on. Otherwise, keep calling me “poopyhead”. That works great to make your point.

You nailed it Pushmi.

Cut right to the root of the problem.

No s***, they are developing countries. And they are putting in a lot more effort and money.

That a rich and developed country is hiding behind that instead of doing it’s part is just sad, very sad.

You are like the rich kids who expect a Ferrari on their 16th birthday and cries, kick and scream if they get a Bentley instead. That little egoistical cry baby that everyone wants to slap some sense into.

Typical of commies. If something doesn’t go his way, first thing he wants to do is violence on others.

The reason First World nations are (except the US now) paying into helping China and India is purely selfish. If we let them go down the same dirty path we did then the planet dies.

Stick to cars Sparky; history and goepolitics are not your forte’.

Planet dies? Even as FUD, that’s stretching it. Planet will survive long after humans are gone.

It seems you are too deep into “climate change is going to doom everything” cult. Sometimes, it’s good to go outside your comfort zone and find out about the real world.

Sparky said:

“Sometimes, it’s good to go outside your comfort zone and find out about the real world.”

If there is any one of the Usual Suspects here who needs to take that advice, it’s you yourself.

I have. I’m no fan of Prez Dump, yet I took the time to see what this Paris hoopla was about at the risk of having something I agree with him. In this case, I agree with him. Logic and facts trump over ideology, even if that’s very uncomfortable.

This was such a sweetheart deal to the US and other established economies, that you’d have to be an idiot to sign on as another country. We were so good at negotiating it, that we got China and India to sign on! Insane!

It took an orange monkey and the Russians all of 30 seconds to unravel it. Ugh.

Ziv I was being literal, the average Indian and Chinese citizen does not live in an air conditioned home with 2 tv’s, washer/dryer, 2 computers, mobile device, hair dryer, water heater, refrigerator, stove, microwave , blender, vacuum cleaner, Wi-Fi, stereo system, surround sound, gaming console, landline, indoor and outdoor lighting. Bottom line we Americans are energy hogs don’t live in denial.

Please speak for yourself. If you are profligate in your energy consumption, any ‘energy taxes’ should be on YOU not ME.

My household consumption is right in line with European per capita averages; pretty good considering I live in a Cold Climate.

You’re the exception and thank you for polluting less.

The sleight of hand comes from comparing grapes to watermelons.
The 1200 citizens of China produce slightly more CO2 than the 300 Million citizens of USA. The USA produces almost 4 times as much per person as does China.
Using this logic, Lichtenstein gets great praise for being a country with such low emissions.

Should have said 1200 million citizens of China.

Education cost a fortune, but not providing education cost many fortune.
It’s the same with climate, changing or trying to change thing faster, will cost a big bundle of money, but doing nothing will cost much more.
Beside that moving faster to sustainable means would revitalize the economy in a way that it’s much needed.
I see a win-win situation and nothing to lose.
The biggest loser is in the white house tweeting jab at everyone.
This man is just down K.O.

Paris is like paying Cal Tech Tuition for getting an associate degree in underwater basketweaving in community college. If you’re paying Cal Tech tuition, the least you can do is to get a degree from lesser Cal Tech of the East (aka, MIT), even in underwater basketweaving.

Buying gasoline for gas guzzler is supporting Venezuelan strong man Maduro.

This I agree. Every country that produce lots of oil are messed up except that pesky little Scandinavian country. Just look at Canada; you can’t even say “he” to a male and “she” to a female without risking jail.

To repeat, Sparky:

“Stick to cars Sparky; history and goepolitics are not your forte’.”

You obviously have no idea the gender pronoun law Canada recently passed.

Way to make your point to argue mine: stick to cars. That’s about the level of argument from most (all?) those who argue for Paris: it’s our religion, don’t you dare question it.

Maybe you should fuse some of your thought.
Because spark ignite fire.
Your certainty isn’t making anyone believe what you’re saying without a more sustained reflexion.
I’m glad you have conviction, I wish you had evidence.

Bill C-16. You can be hauled off if you use the wrong pronoun, and someone accuse you of “genocide”, even if you haven’t.

C’mon, I call mister, lady, miss, bro or whatever I feel apply, and it fit without a shim.

Nobody has ever been offended, and I will continue has it is.
If someone like to be call otherwise, they just say so and I do.
It just doesn’t matter to anyone I know.
Yes, I live in Canada.

Yes and no. In absolute money yes the US is the biggest contributor. On a per capita basis the US isn’t even among the top 10.

Considering the US has spent or committed at least $5 trillion to defend oil interests in the middle east, the $3 billion the US promised to the green climate fund isn’t really that huge.

Just because “defense” is waste doesn’t justify even more waste. $3B would pay for large part of fusion research, which the US shut down last year. Heck, that can even be used as lobbying and education effort for modernizing nuclear power.

If the money is going to something meaningful, fine. But just throwing it to some third party to make hydro plant in another country only to stave off same level of climate change for less than 10 years if everything goes perfectly (which it won’t) is total waste.

That money is going to poor countries being able to install renewable energy, which not only combats climate change but also brings many millions of poor people out of poverty. That is not in any way a waste.

Simple fact is, Paris will only result in delaying the inevitable by less than 10 years (best case, 25 years). That is waste of money. Instead of spending on delay, far better is to use it for sustained reduction, which Paris isn’t addressing at all.

When you see these climate change solutions, ask the question, will this merely delay the inevitable or sustained solution? If it’s just a delay, it’s a waste.

No that is not a fact at all. Paris isn’t the be-all end-all of course but it is one important step to be made. More steps can certainly be made but just because Paris doesn’t single-handedly solve the issue doesn’t mean it’s useless.

By “requiered” you really mean that is was voluntary to pay. And by capita it was a fairly small number anyway, beaten by a number of countries.

Why should the US make an effort while the rest of the world is…. doing more.

Lazy uneducated egoistic hillbillys (those pulling out and working against the world and the environment).

Point is that US must pay more than higher polluting countries like China and India.

If it’s voluntary to pay, and we have no intention of paying, why put up a facade of staying in? Dump did right by pulling out. Indeed, I suspect many (most?) of those countries will end up polluting far more, just like Kyoto.

World is not doing more than US. US cut more CO2 than many countries that signed Kyoto. Sure, many other countries give lip service, but US delivered. Results matter more than yap.

The point is that the US has put way more CO2 in the atmo than anyone else, this has negative effects on other countries which have basically been victimized, so its only fair for us to contribute more to help them.

Seems like the “America first” crowd doesn’t understand basic morality like “if you harm someone else, you should help make up for it”.

Which countries have been “victimized” by CO2?

Victimized? They had every opportunity to use fossil fuels in the past. They didn’t due to their ineptness.

Next, you’re going to blame the poor of the world on US, and that everyone in US should only make $1/hr? Oh right, many often do!

SparkEV said:

“Point is that US must pay more than higher polluting countries like China and India.”

Once again, you choose an “alternate facts”, alt-right view of reality. Nobody said the U.S. “must” do anything here. The level of commitment was voluntary by every country involved.

And as I said, if it’s voluntary and US has no intention of keeping the agreement, there’s no point in staying in in. Also as I said, that’s what Kyoto ended up becoming, which Paris will, too.

So what are the alternate facts here? The fact that US decided to be honest and pull out instead of staying in and not going along for the charade?

“We’re talking about 0.2 degree by 2100…”

It’s more like 0.9 K ( out of 4.2 K. You can’t trust Donald or his sources to get numbers right.

According to 2015 MIT paper, it was 0.2C.

But even 1C out of about 4C means little. At current level of warming, that’s 25 years. If we ever get to 4C level of CO2, warming would be even more, and it would be far less time before that is more than made up. Why even bother spending any money to buy few years when that money can be better spent in guiding the invisible hand.

Everyone agrees it’s not enough, but it’s a start.

The best way to guide the “invisible hand” is with a carbon tax, but that’s still politically impossible.

Carbon tax? Only reason to call for more tax is if you’re happy with what the government is doing with your tax money. Most people aren’t happy.

The best way to guide the invisible hand is to make non-polluting sources of energy cheaper, not to make existing energy more expensive and give to war-happy politicians.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax would be nice. Reduce individual income taxes by a gazillion dollars and replace it by a gazillion dollars of carbon taxes.
(exact numbers are left to someone with more knowledge of economics than I)

The problem with tax is that politicians skim a little off the top. In case of CA roads, they skimmed so much that they passed another tax increase for the roads, which they will again skim plenty more for other things.

With carbon-tax, you can be sure that they will use it to make more bombs and find excuses to drop them in foreign countries.

Yes, Spark EV has drank the Koch kool aid as reiterates their’s and Bannon’s/Trumpster’s fake “America First” alternative facts:

(link – NewYorker)

Make a point instead of saying I drank something. Fact is, Paris is nothing more than Kyoto with US having to foot big chunk of the money that will be used by someone else for benefit of another. And like Kyoto, many (most) countries will exceed what they promised while US cut far more closer to what we would’ve agreed.

I doubt Kochs would call for funding for fusion research or for more advanced nuclear power. For now, only nukes can make meaningful, measurable change in CO2, not some nebulous verbal diarrhea like Paris and Kyoto.

The point is, Sparky, that you call on others to “go outside your comfort zone and find out about the real world” while simultaneously showing your own political opinions are so narrowly limited to the extreme alt-right that you appear to think Fox News is too liberal. Not to mention your previous repeated comments describing people using mass transit as disease-carrying vermin with filthy, disgusting personal habits.

You are someone who very clearly needs to get out more.

Do you have a point to make, or is your entire argument poisoning the well?

SparkEV said:

“Paris required US to pay the largest share of trust fund (about 30%)…”

More “alt-facts” from the “alt-right”.

The Paris Accords are entirely voluntary on the part of every nation signing them. If the U.S. negotiated its position with other countries, then that’s a good thing. It’s called “negotiation” and “cooperation”. Unlike the view from the alt-right, those are actually positive, useful human behaviors which let people come to agreements.

Since the Paris Accords are voluntary, the U.S. presidential administration could, if it found it necessary, adjust the U.S.’s voluntary compliance to adjust to a new reality.

But wannabe dictator El Trumpo wasn’t interested in the reality. He was just interested in grandstanding to his political base by unilaterally withdrawing from the Paris Accords. El Trumpo claims this was “putting America first”, but in the eyes of the world, he has put America last… and not for the first time, either.

Only the alt-right sees the entire world as a bitterly contested zero-sum game in which no person and no nation can ever gain an advantage by cooperating with another. The concept that “everybody wins” by cooperation is a subject on which the alt-right is willfully ignorant.

“negotiation” and “cooperation” … “voluntary”

If only they worked, we’d all be singing Kumbya by campfire instead of having so many wars. Fact is, this isn’t the first time Paris-like thing’s been tried. They fail. It’s crazy to do the same thing over and over, knowing that it doesn’t work.

To effect change you need cooperation or coercion. Virtually every other nation on Earth came together to fight for the future of this great planet.

Trump has a different plan for us.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

I heard of a lot of other states claiming “We don’t need Trump, we can do better for a cleaner future…..blah blah blah…..”

My first thought was, why the he11 weren’t you doing that when the US was in the Paris accord????

Idiot politicians, just want to get their names out there. They probably won’t do cr@p either.

SparkEV, I admire your courage here. This is a tough sell to people who haven’t read the Paris agreement but are convinced that not signing it is somehow catastrophic. Tony Seba’s wild prognostications aside, the developed economies (and the US in particular) will in fact continue to make excellent progress in market-driven ways. PV is getting cheaper, way cheaper, and at some point even without the ITC it will make sense. Same with batteries: (though not at the pace so many are claiming is real and insensitive to raw mat’l costs) the progress is good enough to stay on an encouraging path of transport electrification. We keep finding available NatGas, and even if you don’t like burining the stuff the final 275GW of coal capacity in the US will further diminish as a result. The reliability of Wind generation is good enough to get to 40% capacity factors in some locations. All good, and none of that needs a wacky multi-national binding agreement to continue. Here are China’s (non-binding) commitments under the agreement: – Peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak earlier; – Lowering carbon dioxide intensity (carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP)… Read more »
realistic said: “SparkEV, I admire your courage here. This is a tough sell to people who haven’t read the Paris agreement but are convinced that not signing it is somehow catastrophic.” I’m not sure how much “courage” it takes to copy and past alt-facts from Breitbart, the Drudge Report or El Trumpo’s tweets. More like willful ignorance of actual facts. But I agree with the few moderates, drowned out by the roar of voices on the far right and the far left, who say that the Paris Accords aren’t all that important. Just like the prior Kyoto Accords, it’s more lip service by the nations involved than any actual commitment. Just as with the Kyoto Accords, the agreement will be — to quote Shakespeare — “more honored in the breach than the observance”. In my opinion, the real value of the Kyoto/Paris Accords is it shows that nearly the entire world is united in a recognition of the danger of CO2 emissions to the entire planet, and a recognition of a compelling need to do something about it. The very public rejection of that principle by wannabe dictator El Trumpo is what’s important here, not the actual withdrawal from an… Read more »

“Just like the prior Kyoto Accords, it’s more lip service by the nations”

That’s what I said, so you’re agreeing with “alt-right” fact? Kyoto was a charade, and Paris will be, too. There’s no point in US sending $3B to be spent in pointless work that would do practically nothing for climate. Even if money isn’t sent, there’s no point in putting up a facade when we have no intention of keeping the promise.

What’s with all of the ‘alt-right’ crap? Some guy gets online that is capable of intelligently debating a subject, so he must be alt-right?

You must be on a different forum. All I see here is climate denialism. That’s about as right as you can get without arguing for genocides against “others”.

Nick: “All I see here is Climate Denialism.”

Yup, as I’ve just shown by listing the 31,000 TRUE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, anyone who believes more CO2 is bad for them is in UNSCIENTIFIC Climate Denial. Now me, I’m on the side of the Plants and the Planet.

Has anybody read Gov. Brown’s remarks?

Of course not! All that matters is that he’s “resisting Trump”, whatever the hell that means.

Well, here’s the kicker:
“We welcome any Chinese technology that will help us achieve these goals. We have a very tall hill to climb and we want to introduce clean technologies as quickly as possible. We need a great leap forward.”


For those unfamiliar with this, one of the most sweeingly cruel and inhumane movements in the last century, done merely for the sake of proving a point of political and economic theory, I suggest you look it up. It’s generally defended by the apologists with the notion “to make an omelet, ya gotta break a few eggs”. Only the sad truth always is: there never is an omelet, just broken eggs.

Really, this tone-deaf reference would be like Trump saying we need a Final Solution. But who cares… long live the Paris Treaty!!!

I certainly agree that using the phrase “great leap forward” in the context of an agreement with the Chinese does show an unfortunate ignorance of Chinese history on the part of Governor Jerry Brown. But Googling a bit, I see he’s quoted as using the same phrase in a 2013 interview about school funding (link below).

Perhaps he did not intend to suggest a parallel with the “Great Leap Forward” program in China, which became an enormous disaster.

However, Realistic, your attempt to equate that disaster with the Nazi Holocaust is rather disingenuous. The intent of the Nazi “Final Solution” was widespread genocide, pure and simple. Contrariwise, the intent of the Great Leap Forward was to transform a largely agricultural economy into an industrial one. It wasn’t that the intent was evil or bad, it was that the implementation was so utterly disastrous that it resulted in starvation by millions, not to mention a shrinkage of the Chinese economy.–and-california/2013/02/05/2e9ba24c-6fcb-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html?utm_term=.287b74558f77

SparkEV, even though I am not replying to your post, I am 100% in agreement with you. You are having to defend your beliefs to folks that care more about the world then they do about their own country. I believe these are the new fashion liberals that are developing powderkeg of today’s politics at home.

I don’t not agree with everything that Donald Trump says/does but the man is pro-U.S.A and is looking to improving his country, not other country. If you new age liberals truly believe in a global world and economy, the globe wouldn’t be separated by borders and different countries.

Stupid autocorrect messed up a lot of my comment, please excuse the grammatical errors.

LMFAO, Trump is “looking out to improve his country”???

Trump is looking out for Trump and his corrupt business empire and his swamp-dwelling buddies plain and simple.

He will go down as the most imcompetent and corrupt President in history.

Yeah, the best thing El Trumpo could do to improve the country is to resign effective immediately.

“He will go down as the most incompetent and corrupt President in history.”

He doesn’t have any real competition in that regard. By comparison to El Trumpo, “Tricky Dick” Nixon looks like a paragon of virtue.

Very glad to see this. This isn’t just lip service on the part of California’s governor, either. If California was an independent nation, its GDP would place it 7th in the world.

* * * * *

In a perfect world… well, in a perfect world nobody as inept and unfit for office as wannabe dictator El Trumpo would ever have been elected as President.

But in a slightly more perfect world than this one, California would replace its border signs with ones reading “Welcome to California / ‘The Donald’ can kiss our collective ass!”


Way to go President Brown!

It’s nice to see the Socialists & Communists getting along.

I am an EV fan because as an Electrical Engineer I think it is a welcome technology to compete with a limited resource. With small, modular, fail safe nuke plants distributed around the country we would not have any emissions except water vapor and we wouldn’t need to build transmission lines. We could easily supply all the future electric car load.

The scientific evidence that CO2 is beneficial is overwhelming – we are presently at near starvation levels and 2 or 3 times the present levels would be very good. The earth has been warming for over 150 years. CO2 does not even correlate to temperature in global history. The recent correlation is incidental to the past warming but even that is broken. There is no scientific proof of any kind that increased CO2 causes warming – none. There is no scientific proof that warming is harmful. The earth has been warmer in several epochs in the fairly recent past geologically speaking. The Vikings enjoyed it immensely as did ancient Rome. EVs will compete as a competent technology and not as some magic dragon to slay the chimera of global warming.

You sound like an intelligent person who’s​ been Hoodwinked by a very impressive misinformation campaign.

You can escape if you want to. I hope you do.

Nick – before accusing others of being hoodwinked perhaps you should make sure that you have not been hoodwinked yourself. In a forum such as this, the only thing that will sway people’s minds is WHAT DO THE MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS BELIEVE? (Its possibly not the best of proofs, but its all that people here will believe – for me thats good enough). Supposedly, “2500 of the world’s top scientists believe in man-made global warming”, and that CO2 is a “Dangerous Polutant”. Before picking apart that ‘2500 Scientists’ number, let me merely state that 31,000 Scientists (9,000 of which hold Doctorates) have voluntarily (they’re not paid to stick their necks out) signed a petitition that shows what most people believe here is a fairy tale. Mr. Marshall is merely restating the TRUE “Scientific Consensus”. Click on this link, then look at the names in alphabetical order, or peruse them by State. If you are nervous about the names, click on ‘Q & A’ to discover their vetting process. There is also a quite rigorous (at least as far as the CO2 statements go) 12 page position paper. I myself differ with Shawn Marshall in that I’m quite leary of a… Read more »

For reasonable people here are a number of recent papers that may quell any hysteria you feel about the earth being incinerated by the addition of 1 molecule of Co2 in 10,000 – a magnificent thermal effect if true – hah!

I just browsed through a handful of the papers linked on that site and none of them deny global warming at all. What they are arguing for are small corrections to what we already know.

It is interesting to me, that in the “Madness of Crowds”, people en masse are totally swayed, yet “Come to their senses one by one”.

This issue applies here more than any other.