pollution Paris health France A year in Paris is as bad for your health as smoking 183 cigarettes

It's like you're not even trying any more.

In 1950s London they managed to significantly improve the smog situation whilst greenhouse gas production increased for another 25 years.

In Paris they seem to have a particulates pollution issue despite a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions nationally.

The Paris Accord is all about carbon dioxide reduction at a national and global level, it does not attempt to address local particulates pollution. Current GOP policy appears to be both an increase in carbon dioxide and the repealing of legislation which reduces particulate emissions.

 

Where there's smoke there's fire and where there's smog there's "greenhouse gases".

 

You really aren't trying are you.

To repeat.

The Paris Accord is all about carbon dioxide reduction at a national and global level, it does not attempt to address local particulates pollution. While AGW deniers can enjoy a "Hurr, hurr" moment at the news of Paris' particulates pollution, as usual they're doing absolutely nothing to help the situation and much to make the situation worse elsewhere.

 

I don't need to try very hard because your argument is so weak.

Where there's smoke there's fire and where there's smog there's "greenhouse gases".

 

And yet you don't seem to be able to attempt to refute it. Heck you haven't even managed to have a decent try at the strawman version you created.

The purpose of the Paris Accord is to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions nationally and globally. Given that local diesel particulate emissions don't fall under the remit if the Paris Accord, Paris' issues with diesel particulates is not a failure of, or indication of the pointlessness of, the Paris Accord.

I also said that that Carbon Dioxide was not a component of smog. The link to National Geographic you so kindly provided confirmed that.

You've now moved the goalposts and claimed that levels of smog are tied to levels of greenhouse gases. I provided two examples where the local level of smog and level of greenhouse gas emissions were moving in opposite directions.

Then again, I'm not sure what your point is. If you are of the opinion that Paris needs to take more urgent action to address diesel particulate emissions then I agree with you. I think they should keep the most polluting vehicles out of the city, increase incentives for zero emissions vehicles, further subsidise public transport to encourage people to leave their cars at home and improve pedestrian and cycle access and wherever possible separate them from motor vehicles. I doubt whether many US conservatives would support too many of those steps.

 

Guess you missed the part in the NG link where they associated greenhouse gases with automobiles exhaust and you must be the only one in the green world that thinks there is no link between the two. As I said earlier fine with me, can we end the talk that driving big gas guzzlers warms the planet now?

 

Yet you can take steps to reduce diesel particulate emissions which will actually tend to drive up carbon dioxide emissions (switching to less fuel efficient petrol vehicles that produce fewer particulates).

Again, Paris' issue with diesel particulate emissions is not a failure of the Paris Accord. You can have a major smog issue in a location where carbon dioxide emissions are comparatively low.

There are two separate issues, both of which need addressing IMO.

Overall reduction in the production of greenhouse gases - something the Paris Accord at least attempts to tackle whereas the US seems to be headed in the other direction.

Addressing local particulates pollution, something beyond the remit of the Paris Accord but something requiring urgent attention - something the Paris authorities seem to be doing but are facing opposition from conservatives in France.

 

Do you realize that the US is the only country that reduced it's C02 output over the last decade us america? Do you realize France increased theirs?

 

The US has reduced carbon dioxide emissions over the last decade but then again so have plenty of other countries:

The UK's have reduced 23% in the last decade.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-carbon-emissions-in-2017-fell-to-levels-last-seen-in-1890

Not true. Over the past decade they are down around 20%. They were 3.8% higher than target the last year for which there are figures but that still represents a drop in the total number.

 

Yes, The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing Carbon Emissions

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapie...es-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#5d7d4cd53535

Yes, worthless piece of paper.


"Global carbon dioxide emissions surged to record levels the year after the landmark 2016 Paris climate agreement was signed.

Energy-related emissions climbed 1.4 percent to 32.5 gigatons in 2017, the International Energy Agency reported yesterday in its annual survey of global carbon levels. The increase is the equivalent of adding 170 million cars to the road, the agency said.

The uptick—coming on the heels of the major international climate deal—signals an abrupt end to several years of stagnant emissions growth and raises questions about the world’s commitment to reducing carbon levels."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ns-rise-after-paris-climate-agreement-signed/

 

Your claim wasn't that the US was the leading country in Carbon Dioxide emissions, it was that it was the only one - a claim that is demonstrably false.

Furthermore you made another false claim that French emissions had increased over the last decade.

You are correct that the United States has had the largest absolute drop of any country but then again on a per-capita basis (at an 18% reduction) it lags well behind most of Western Europe (where emissions have dropped more than 20%).

And the reason for a lot of this drop (at least according to the Forbes article) ? A move away from coal as a fuel source for electricity generation towards gas - a trend that President Trump has pledged to reverse.

 

The Paris accord is rather pointless but not for the reasons you likely think. Any attempt at this point is simply too little and far too late as our planet has moved beyond the tipping point and Methane release has begun from permafrost and ocean sediments. Though significantly less long lived Methane will make CO2 seem like a fresh breeze and ocean albedo is about to flip in the polar regions.

Basically....all we can do now is buckle up for a rough ride.

 

The US leads the world in reducing it's C02 output and as I showed with my link since the signing of the worthless piece if paper in Paris by France and everyone else C02 output is increasing.

 

Yes, if we're talking about total emissions and not per-capita. Please remember that these figures relate to the period 2006-2016 one in which there was a major recession (indeed the figures for Carbon Dioxide reduce significantly before rebounding the next year) and Obama-era energy policy

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions

President Trump has vowed to reverse this policy and burn more coal which will tend to increase Carbon Dioxide emissions.

Also palpably untrue.

It is true that global emissions went up but not every other country had an increase, most Western European countries had a decrease.


edited to add...,

And all of which has absolutely nothing to do with particulate pollution in Paris

 

Quote of trump saying he will reverse policy of using more natural gas please.

 

More accurately, he wants to use more coal which will either lead to less of other fuels being used (for the same amount of electricity being generated) or just more emissions.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...steps-boost-coal-nuclear-plants/#.W3wyJuhKg2w

and...

https://www.ft.com/content/df106312-a3b7-11e8-8ecf-a7ae1beff35b

 

He wants to get the government off of coals neck and let them compete in the free market. As far as any tiny increase in C02 that may result from that I truly don't care since I'm not in the cult.

 

That's no true at all. As the articles show, he wants to distort the free market in order to ensure that coal continues to be used to generate electricity even though it's financially disadvantageous to do so.

Most analysts think that he will be unsuccessful and that cost pressures, and the free market, will have their say and that coal will continue to decline as a fuel source for electricity generation.

What's not clear to me is why people want to pay more for their electricity than they have to in order to keep using a dirty and inefficient fuel source when there is a plentiful supply of natural gas, cheaper, more efficient and cleaner. I get that people may want to pay a premium to get their electricity from renewable sources but paying billions to keep burning coal makes no sense.

 

The free market is distorted now with policies meant to kill coal. Trump just wants a level playing field.

 

No he doesn't, he wants to skew the market in favour of coal - or at least that's the consensus of the those involved in the market - as the articles I linked clearly state.

 

The article is bias. The fact us Trump wants to remove hurdles put up by Obama meant to kill coal. Let coal compete on a level playing field and may the best man win.

 

That's just your opinion and I think your pro-Trump, anti AGW bias is clear to everyone.

IMO the Japan Times article is an un-editorialised report of the proposed legislation together with a series of quotes from a variety of standpoints.

No, it goes far beyond that. He is planning to compel grid operators to buy energy from more expensive coal and nuclear plants.

Levelling the playing field would be to apply the same environmental rules to coal and gas plants - oh wait, that's already the case, instead he wants to change the environmental rules to favour coal plants but even that isn't enough. Even with the changes to environmental legislation, coal still isn't economically viable.

President Trump is directly interfering in the market to the financial detriment of the consumer.

 

Ho hum. Once again source and exact quote please.

 

For goodness sake, the Japan Times contains a clear reference.

It was a directive from President Trump to (then) energy secretary Rick Perry.

The Associated Press obtained a copy.

https://www.apnews.com/ac33e072baa2...mmediate-steps'-to-boost-coal,-nuclear-plants

 

For goodness sake it's an opinion piece with no direct quotes like I asked for