Obama and Xi Jinping announcement: a huge step for climate action? Or a backward step?

Date Published:

Obama is currently a ‘lame duck’ president with a hostile senate, and approval rating that suggests a likely hood the next US president may well be a republican.

In Australia when the less conservative party took a position to take steps to address climate change, it became a call to arms for conseratives opposed to any action on climate change.  The conservatives moved from favouring an emssions trading scheme, to effectively opposing any real action.  Then the conservative won power and there was an unwinding of steps to address climate change.

Similarly in the US, Obama taking steps on climate change will almost certainly galvanise those in the republican party who are most doubful about human actiivy driving climate change.   In could become a key platform of the republicans to abandon the very plans announced by Obama.

Of course, the key stategy from Obama to avoid this is to allow the counter position that unwinding Obama’s targets could leave the republicans with a policy that suggests China is more sophisticated that the US.

The initiative by Obama in his current position IS dangerous because of the risk of a backlash, but with China on board it also could possibly work.  Which was will things go? Only time will tell.

[TheChamp-Sharing]
[TheChamp-FB-Comments]

Table of Contents

Categories

Why Hydrogen Cars are not the future, and EVs are here to stay.

After friend told me “I am not interested in electric cars, because I will wait for hydrogen cars”, I did the research, and found that such a future no longer makes any sense and will never happen. It turns out that hydrogen cars were never desirable and only viable if EVs remained impractical. Hydrogen vehicles have now been surpassed for charge times and range and they were only ever anexpensive to build and operate, higher emissions, limited interim stop gaps, for the time until we reduced the limitations of battery EVs.

Read More »

Wealth & Happiness Vs Population: Does Farming Humans pay?

The powerful and the wealthy know that increasing population is good for the economy as measured by GDP, but what does this “farming humans” approach achieve for the population themselves?

The larger the population, the greater the power from being leader, but it turns out that, if anything this leads to less individual wealth and happiness. Countries are a finite size with finite resources. Having more people means, on average, a smaller share each. Of course, everyone’s share isn’t equal, and those with enough wealth, can still even grow their share, leaving less for everyone else.

It is not just politicians who benefit at the expense of the masses, as the larger the population, the greater the GSD for big business and stock market indices, and the greater the wealth for wealthiest, so all the boxes are ticked for those with the greatest influence.

Read More »

Discover more from One Finite Planet

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading