Home Tags Posts tagged with "carbon emissions"

carbon emissions

Image source Wikipedia

The US has become the first nation in the world to formally withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

President Donald Trump announced the move in June 2017, but UN regulations meant that his decision only takes effect today, the day after the US election.

The US could re-join it in future, should a president choose to do so.

The Paris deal was drafted in 2015 to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change.

It aims to keep the global temperature rise this century well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5C.

The delay is down to the complex rules that were built into the Paris agreement to cope with the possibility that a future US president might decide to withdraw the country from the deal.

Previous attempts to put together a global pact on climate change had foundered because of internal US politics.

The Clinton administration was unable to secure Senate backing for the Kyoto Protocol, agreed in 1997.

So in the run up to the Paris climate talks, President Barrack Obama’s negotiators wanted to ensure that it would take time for the US to get out if there was a change in leadership.

Even though the agreement was signed in December 2015, the treaty only came into force on November 4,2016, 30 days after at least 55 countries representing 55% of global emissions had ratified it.

No country could give notice to leave the agreement until three years had passed from the date of ratification.

Even then, a member state still had to serve a 12-month notice period on the UN.

So, despite President Trump’s announcement in June 2017, the US was only able to formally give notice to the UN in November last year. The time has elapsed and the US is now out.

While the US now represents around 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, it remains the world’s biggest and most powerful economy.

So, when it becomes the only country to withdraw from a global solution to a global problem it raises questions of trust.

US Issues First Written Notification on Paris Climate Change Agreement Pullout

G20 Final Agreement Acknowledges Donald Trump’s Withdrawal from Paris Climate Change Deal

Barack Obama: Paris Climate Deal Is World’s Best Chance

For the past three years, US negotiators have attended UN climate talks while the administration has tried to use these events to promote fossil fuels.

While on the campaign trail, Joe Biden said he would seek to re-join as soon as possible – if he was elected President.

Under the rules, all that is required is a month’s notice and the US should be back in the fold.

However, even if the US chose to re-enter the agreement, there would be consequences for being out – even for a few months.

President Trump made leaving Paris a key part of his election platform in 2016, tying it into his vision of a revitalized US with booming energy production, especially coal and oil.

Donald Trump’s perspective on the Paris agreement was that it was unfair to the US, leaving countries like India and China free to use fossil fuels while the US had to curb their carbon.

Image source: Pexels

For more than a century, fossil fuels have been the source of the world’s power. The only thing about it is that it has been harming the environment in the process, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, carbon emissions, and climate change. And as more and more people become aware of the harmful impact of fossil fuels, they’re looking into safer, alternative energy sources to do their part in helping the environment.

Unfortunately, in their efforts to make positive changes, it’s going to lead to misconceptions in conducting research. This can then sway decisions, and that’s okay… It’s natural to have questions about how renewable energy works and why it’s the better option over fossil fuels because if you’re going to make the switch, you need to understand what you’re switching to.

There are, of course, different ways to generate renewable energy, so it’s understandable to want to know if solar power is the best way to generate clean energy over hydropower or if making the switch really will save on your electric bill… But in searching for answers to those questions, you’re also going to run into mistruths and falsehoods that simply aren’t true…

As you know, you can’t believe everything you see or read online, so to set the record straight, if you’re planning on switching to renewable energy or just considering it, here are some common misconceptions you want to avoid.

Misconceptions About Renewable Energy to Avoid

1. Renewable Energy Sources Can’t Provide Enough Electricity For Your Needs

There is a great concern among skeptics that wind and solar energy can’t meet the world’s growing needs for electricity, especially during certain seasons and times of the day. Well, the funny thing about this particular skepticism is that wind and solar power are infinite resources that can be used all the time; non-renewable sources are actually deteriorating in supply.

According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), not only is renewable energy feasible but it’s making the grid more reliable as well. In fact, the US could reach an 80% renewable energy penetration rate by 2050. So to say that renewable energy can’t provide enough electricity to meet the world’s needs is pure blasphemy.

2. Renewable Energy is Expensive

One of the biggest draws to switching to renewable energy is because it lowers your electric bill! Why else do you think people are having solar panels installed on their roofs? To speak further on that, people who aren’t able to have solar panels installed are still able to reap the benefits of renewable energy simply by switching to alternative electricity.

People in Texas are switching electricity providers and are now able to find the least expensive energy rates in TX. It’s cheap because it’s a natural resource that doesn’t require any manmade efforts. People don’t have to invest millions of dollars for the sun to rise or for the wind to blow, therefore, renewable energy is a great way to not only help the environment but also lower your electric bill.

3. Renewable Energy Kills Birds

It’s been said that clean energy kills birds, and that’s just not true. Now, it’s important to note that wind turbines have caused some bird deaths by flying into the turbines but not the way people are making it out to be. According to the National Audubon Society, bird deaths are more likely due to cats, tall buildings, and the greenhouse effect of excessive pollution.

4. Renewable Energy Isn’t a Reliable Source

This myth is more so directed towards solar and wind energy. The theory is that because sun and wind can’t be produced around the clock that it isn’t reliable. Well, this is where people go wrong. Wind and solar energy actually go hand-in-hand.

Wind speeds tend to pick up at night and solar energy is produced during the day but just because they’re not sources that are produced around the clock doesn’t mean that they’re unreliable. Things like batteries and other energy storage sources have made wind and solar energy very reliable sources, giving you the flexibility to use the power whenever you need it.

So, just because the wind isn’t blowing or if the sun isn’t visible to you, that doesn’t mean your house will shut down. Both wind and solar energy are abundant sources. Biomass, hydropower, and geothermal are energy sources that indeed do produce electricity around the clock.


Just before New Year’s Eve – easily the booziest holiday of the year – New York State uncovered a litany of insurance laws that effectively outlaw the practice of ride sharing. This comes at a devastating loss to a vast group of people, from app owners, who are losing a significant area of service, to regional drivers, who lose another opportunity to earn cash, to riders, who no longer have a fast, convenient means of transport.

Around the country, city and state legislatures are beginning to question whether ridesharing is safe. However, users of ridesharing apps consistently clamor that the service is the transit of the future. Fortunately for business owners, drivers, and ride share users, it seems that ride sharing is indeed a smart and safe means of transportation, and it should continue to be as policies and technologies develop.

Ride Sharing Engenders Road Safety

The more cars there are on the roads, the more chances there are for disastrous collisions. The simple concept of probability is why automobile accidents are so much more common than plane crashes: While there are at most about 5,000 planes, the global number of cars and trucks has already surpassed 1 billion. On average, there are over 3,000 deaths and 50 million injuries on the road every day, so every automobile is a potential health hazard.

Ride sharing helps cut down on the number of cars on the road, decreasing congestion, and limiting the possibilities for harmful collisions. In fact, ride sharing is particularly popular amongst the intoxicated, which means communities that allow ride sharing business to operate are likely to have fewer drivers under the influence. Inarguably, providing intoxicated people an alternative to driving home drunk and high is a significant boon for the ride sharing service.

Some regions are concerned less with overall road safety and more with individual security of passengers. For example, Austin was among the first cities to pass legislation mandating extensive criminal background checks for ride share drivers in the hopes of reducing the likelihood of kidnapping, theft, or assault on passengers. Yet, emerging studies on the issue have found that risks to passengers are no greater than they are in traditional taxis; if anything, their cashless payment system and digital documentation lower the risk of violent crime.

Ride Sharing Is More Sustainable

Additionally, fewer cars and more ride sharing is a remarkable win for the environment. As concern over climate change climbs, more citizens are becoming interested in any way they can cut down on their environmental impact. Carpooling has long been touted as one of the best ways to reduce carbon emissions, but rarely have carpooling initiatives found much success. Ride sharing is effectively paid carpooling since users are riding in a shared vehicle instead of driving their own. Ride sharing requires less fuel and emits fewer pollutants than the most likely alternative – everyone driving a private vehicle – which is unequivocally good for the environment.

Some ride sharing companies have even more progressive plans for sustainable services. For example, RideCell has developed software to help ride sharing businesses build their apps, but thanks to a partnership with BMW, the company might become a pioneer of autonomous fleets in the coming years. Autonomous vehicles are dramatically more efficient than human drivers for a dozen reasons, including their superior engines and their attention to fuel use. Though the widespread use of driverless cars often raises more questions about safety, it is likely that autonomous fleets will have less environmental impact than traditional automobiles.

Ride Sharing Is a Smart Market

Ride sharing has always been by and for the people. Long before startups like Uber and Lyft developed apps to facilitate (and profit from) the service, citizens and cities built their own low-tech ride sharing organizations to combat traffic and other harmful effects of commuting.

Though businesses have built ride sharing into a larger market, it is still largely controlled by average people. Not only do users choose whether they will ride share or not, but they also decide when they need a ride and which app to use.

Meanwhile, drivers have control over their vehicles and their routes, and they can even decide whether they will accept a certain passenger. It is this degree of individual power that has allowed ride sharing to nearly overtake other forms of transit. Cities can hardly expect citizens to accept the prohibition of ride sharing when it promises such outstanding opportunities for growth.

World leaders have agreed a deal attempting to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2C after two weeks of negotiations at the climate change summit in Paris.

The global pact is the first to commit all countries to cut carbon emissions.

The agreement is partly legally binding and partly voluntary.

Earlier, key blocs, including the G77 group of developing countries, and nations such as China and India said they supported the proposals.

President of the UN climate conference of parties (COP) and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said: “I now invite the COP to adopt the decision entitled Paris Agreement outlined in the document.

“Looking out to the room I see that the reaction is positive, I see no objections. The Paris agreement is adopted.”

As Laurent Fabius struck the gavel to signal the adoption of the deal, delegates rose to their feet cheering and applauding.

Nearly 200 countries have been attempting to strike the first climate deal to commit all countries to cut emissions, which would come into being in 2020.

President Barack Obama was among the first world leaders to tweet his congratulations, describing the deal as “huge”.

The chairman of the group representing some of the world’s poorest countries called the deal historic, adding: “We are living in unprecedented times, which call for unprecedented measures.

“It is the best outcome we could have hoped for, not just for the Least Developed Countries, but for all citizens of the world.”

Paris Agreement key measures:

  • To peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and achieve a balance between sources and sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century
  • To keep global temperature increase “well below” 2C (3.6F) and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C
  • To review progress every five years
  • $100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020, with a commitment to further finance in the future.

Ahead of the deal being struck, delegates were in a buoyant mood as they gathered in the hall waiting for the plenary session to resume.

Laurent Fabius was applauded as he entered the hall ahead of the announcement.Paris Agreement climate change deal

Earlier, French President Francois Hollande called the proposals unprecedented, while UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on negotiators to “finish the job”.

However, the celebratory mood has not been shared among all observers.

Nick Dearden, director of campaign group Global Justice Now, said: “It’s outrageous that the deal that’s on the table is being spun as a success when it undermines the rights of the world’s most vulnerable communities and has almost nothing binding to ensure a safe and livable climate for future generations.”

Some aspects of the agreement will be legally binding, such as submitting an emissions reduction target and the regular review of that goal.

However, the targets set by nations will not be binding under the deal struck in the French capital.

Observers say the attempt to impose emissions targets on countries was one of the main reasons why the Copenhagen talks in 2009 failed.

In 2009, nations including China, India and South Africa were unwilling to sign up to a condition that they felt could hamper economic growth and development.

The latest negotiations managed to avoid such an impasse by developing a system of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).

In these, which form the basis of the Paris agreement goal of keeping global temperature rise “well below” 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels, nations outline their plans on cutting their post-2020 emissions.

An assessment published during the two-week talks suggested that the emission reductions currently outlined in the INDCs submitted by countries would only limit global temperature rise by 2.7C.

A new Ice Age is due to start within 1,500 years, according to Cambridge University scientists; but, due to human carbon emissions, the lethal “big freeze” could be put off.

Scientists at Cambridge University say that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere could actually insulate against a catastrophic ice age which would see glaciers advance over Europe and North America.

They admit that we would be “better off” in a warmer world – but caution that this is “missing the point”.

In an article published in Nature Geoscience, Cambridge University paleoclimatologist Luke Skinner says that even if carbon emissions stopped today, levels would remain elevated for at least 1,000 years, and stored heat could prevent the next Ice Age from happening.

Instead, things would cool down, but not quite so severely.

Thanks to elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the earth would not experience “glaciation” (periods of severe cold where glaciers advance).

The current level of carbon dioxide is 390 parts per million. Scientists believe that level would need to drop to 240 parts per million to allow glaciation to take place.

“It’s an interesting philosophical discussion. Would we better off in a warm world rather than a glaciation? Probably we would,” says Dr. Luke Skinner.

“At current levels of CO2, even if emissions stopped now, we’d probably have a long interglacial period,” he says.

“Interglacial” periods are warmer periods between periods of glaciation.

The last ice age ended 11,500 years ago, and scientists debate over when the next one is “due”.

The cycle is dictated by tiny variations in Earth’s orbit around the sun.

Ice ages are marked by glaciers advancing over continents. At the peak of the last ice age, large areas of Europe, Asia and North America were covered in ice.

The effects of glaciation on human civilization would be catastrophic.

Dr. Luke Skinner says: “This is missing the point, because where we’re going is not maintaining our currently warm climate but heating it much further, and adding CO2 to a warm climate is very different from adding it to a cold climate.”