Senate bill requires US to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...quires-us-to-reach-net-zero-emissions-by-2050 (Archive)

-Article start-

A group of mostly Democratic senators has introduced a bill that would require the U.S. to phase out carbon emissions by 2050, placing their faith almost entirely in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to carry out the process.

The Clean Economy Act, led by Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Tom Carper (D-Del.), would require the EPA to chart the course for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, 2030 and 2040, reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

“Today’s legislation I’m offering centers our country on [an] aggressive and I think achievable path to net zero greenhouse gas emissions no later than later 2050,” Carper said in a call with reporters. “This is the quickest way we can, I think, jumpstart government-wide climate action by encouraging agencies to use the tools that they already have.”

The bill is the first major piece of climate legislation to be introduced in the Senate this year, rolling out alongside similar efforts still developing in the House.

House Democrats have released a more than 600-page discussion draft of their bill, envisioning the same target but with detailed efforts for reducing emissions from utilities, transportation and infrastructure to reduce emissions on an economy-wide scale.

Carper said his bill would be an easier lift than that of his House colleagues.

“It’s a much more comprehensive bill,” he said of the House version, but his version has a broader backing from environmental and labor groups, as well as the business community.

Carper also defended the choice to rest decarbonization with the EPA, which under the Trump administration has rolled back a number of environmental regulations, including ones on coal-fired power plants that experts say could hasten climate change.

“There are a lot of good people EPA,” he said, while noting a number of senate Republicans who have been more active on climate issues.

Though Carper’s bill has the backing of a number of major environmental groups, a small handful have said that it is not aggressive enough.

“We need binding emission reduction targets, in line with what climate justice and historical responsibility demand, far sooner than 2050," environmental group Friends of the Earth wrote in a statement. "Unspecified interim targets are ill-suited to our moment of climate emergency and put too much faith in future administrations."

-End of article-

So this is basically Green New Deal: Senate edition? Good luck, I guess
 
"Yeah, we fly everywhere either first class or on private jets, live in mansions and somehow make tens of millions of dollars on our $200,000 a year salary, but we're gonna need you to drive golf carts and live in dormitories and eat bugs because that's progressive. :smug: "
 
This is just pure show piece BS. There is no chance it passes so they do shit like this to say "see we care unlike reubliKKKans". They might as well propose legislation to set up a tap dancing school on the moon by 2021.
 
This is impossible.
  • Every living being releases carbon.
  • They don't support nuclear reactors because muh meltdown.
  • They won't hold third world countries responsible.
  • They won't hold rich people responsible.
 
Energiwinde: not gonna happen US edition

I wonder if they used the same bullshit wishful thinking fantasy studies to make this work on paper too. Or is it just a "pass this because better" thing like Green New Deal.

God, I can't wait for this renweable shit to fall on it's ass so people can focus on developing reasonable energy solutions. Ones that obey the laws of physics would be nice.
 
From my reading it doesn't sound like much of a plan. Basically they say "X industry reduce your carbon output by X%, or you have to buy a carbon credit/pay a fine"
 
As much as I'm all for progress in our energy network, how about you actually give more grants and attention to science to make the solution before passing a bill that is so far in the damn future we might be dead of war/plague by then.
 
I've said this more than once..In order to achieve a carbon neutral society, it's gonna take untold millions of acres of private land for wind and solar farms. Nuclear Energy be like, hey fucktards, Iook I'm over here!!
 
How about if we invent the tech before we mandate it. Huh? Good idea?
I don't rightly understand the tech myself, but we were supposedly doing that under Bush where we financed carbon traps and trying to convert it into recycled fuel. Then Obama wanted to put it on things you can actually see like solar panels and windmills. I'm not sure what Trump is up to, last I heard he liked nuclear but I doubt he kept up with that.

Basically if this group would put money in the bill to refinance carbon traps then we likely could reach a point we have net-zero emissions.
 
As much as I'm all for progress in our energy network, how about you actually give more grants and attention to science to make the solution before passing a bill that is so far in the damn future we might be dead of war/plague by then.
Because the ones that stand even a remote chance of working aren't their preferred flavor of carbon-neutral. They want impossible shit like battery capacity that scales exponentially forever, solar panels that work in the dark, and wind turbines that operate at 110% efficiency.

They would rather mess around with those expensive baubles that make them feel good rather than shoot for the big hulking industrial scale power that is actually needed. Changing society to fit their envisioned energy paradigm is the goal, not innovating a workable solution.
 
Meanwhile China still the globe's highest polluter.

That might be taking care of itself! I mean after they are done burning all the bodies...that is going to cause some pollution upfront.

So the DNC galaxy brains think they are going to be able to use this as campaign fodder do they? Drumpfler and the republicucks don't want YOU to have clean air and water!

Good luck with that...morons.
 
A bill no doubt proposed by the same people lobbying for candidates who, despite having three debates all of which covered evironmental energy concerns, never once mentioned nuclear or hydro. We have plenty of tech to provide insanely cheap and very clean energy that don't involve cutting down every tree in the nation to lay cheap chink paneling and concrete spires, but you can't start wars to get yourself re-elected if you stop using Middle Eastern oil. The cost and availibility of power directly correlates with quality of life and it's unendingly frustrating knowing almost every economic and environmental problem facing the first world today could be solved by overnight if the Senate would stop investing their personal funds into foreign oil stocks.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo