GCC: C40 Cities: urban consumption-based emissions must be cut by 50% by 2030, 66% for high-income areas; buildings, foo

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
GCC:
C40 Cities: urban consumption-based emissions must be cut by 50% by 2030, 66% for high-income areas; buildings, food, transport, clothing, electronics, appliances, aviation
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/06/20190616-c40.html

A report released by C40 Cities finds that consumption-based emissions from nearly 100 of the world’s big cities already represent 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Without urgent action, those emissions are projected to nearly double by 2050.

The new research, The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World, was produced in partnership with Arup and the University of Leeds, and cautions that urban consumption-based emissions must be cut by at least 50% by 2030 in order to maintain the possibility of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5°C.

When combined with firm city efforts to reduce local emissions, this would allow cities to deliver 35% of the emission savings needed to put them on a path to 1.5 °C, according to the report.

High income areas, which generate the bulk of emissions, need to cut their emissions much faster—two-thirds by 2030. The research suggests that if nations, business, cities and citizens take ambitious climate action over the next 10 years, cities will be on track to reduce their emissions in line with a 1.5°C world.

Twenty-seven C40 cities have already peaked their production emissions—those emitted locally. However, the C40 network represents one-quarter of the global economy, and 85% of the emissions associated with goods and services consumed within their boundaries are imported from elsewhere.

The place to start is with those who consume the most, the report says. To reach the reductions needed, high-income urban areas must reduce the climate impact of consumption by two-thirds within the next decade, while rapidly developing economies must adopt sustainable consumption patterns as they continue to grow.

The report explores six sectors where the world’s cities can take rapid action to address consumption-based emissions: food, construction, clothing, vehicles, aviation, and electronics. There is significant potential to cut consumption-based emissions in these sectors. . . .
Much more. direct link to report:
THE FUTURE
OF URBAN
CONSUMPTION
IN A 1.5°C
WORLD
C40 CITIES
https://c40-production-images.s3.am...Main_report__20190612.original.pdf?1560421525
 
That article and anyone who proposes or believes that anyone can reduce emissions by 60% has been drinking too many jugs of paint thinner.

The path to improving the environment is a slow process that will happen in an organic (HAHA) way. Not by the government or anyone trying to control our citizens with their idea of what Utopia should be... More Later.
 
powersurge said:
That article and anyone who proposes or believes that anyone can reduce emissions by 60% has been drinking too many jugs of paint thinner.

The path to improving the environment is a slow process that will happen in an organic (HAHA) way. Not by the government or anyone trying to control our citizens with their idea of what Utopia should be... More Later.

My idea of a Utopia isn't very specific, but I don't want rivers that catch fire in it. I am OK with the government stopping people from dumping random trash, oil, tar, chemicals and such into rivers.
 
powersurge said:
That article and anyone who proposes or believes that anyone can reduce emissions by 60% has been drinking too many jugs of paint thinner.

The path to improving the environment is a slow process that will happen in an organic (HAHA) way. Not by the government or anyone trying to control our citizens with their idea of what Utopia should be... More Later.
Exactly. Drinking or huffing, maybe both.
The large majority of voters refuse to pay more than $10 per month to fix climate change.
For some one to reduce CO2 emissions 60% is going to take a lot more than driving an electric car and pretending like your **** doesn't stink. Doing so will cost a lot more than $10 a month.
 
Oilpan4 said:
The large majority of voters refuse to pay more than $10 per month to fix climate change.
The cost of "unfixed**" climate change is WAYYYY more than $10 a month. At some point the trumpers and repukes will catch on.

Speaking of AGW denialists and the 'AGW is a hoax' contingent, I'm waiting for you to post your opinion of the earth's climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm.

** itself a statement of ignorance. There is no "fix." There is less severe and more severe.
 
Let's say I'm convinced.
Now change the minds of around 20% of the 68% of voters who refuse to pay more than $10 per month to fix global warming.
Turns out the enthusiasm really drops off when it's time to open wallets.
Not wanting to pay $10 a month to fix global warming tells us most people are not that worried about it and it's not that high on their priority list.

Are you saying 68% of voters are republican?

What do I think about the atmospheric CO2 doubling?
Like the vast majority of registered voters I am not concerned enough to want to give up $10 per month to fix it.
I hope the planet continues to warm.
How's that AGW denial?
I would pay the $10 a month if that meant that I never had to hear about it again for that reason alone.
 
Oilpan4 said:
powersurge said:
That article and anyone who proposes or believes that anyone can reduce emissions by 60% has been drinking too many jugs of paint thinner.

The path to improving the environment is a slow process that will happen in an organic (HAHA) way. Not by the government or anyone trying to control our citizens with their idea of what Utopia should be... More Later.
Exactly. Drinking or huffing, maybe both.
The large majority of voters refuse to pay more than $10 per month to fix climate change.
For some one to reduce CO2 emissions 60% is going to take a lot more than driving an electric car and pretending like your **** doesn't stink. Doing so will cost a lot more than $10 a month.

There are things government can do, but demanding "X% reduction by 20XX" is mostly mental masturbation. The most effective role for government in these matters is vigorously fostering research to improve clean technology such that it becomes the most effective choice, instead of a forced choice.
 
Nubo said:
Oilpan4 said:
powersurge said:
That article and anyone who proposes or believes that anyone can reduce emissions by 60% has been drinking too many jugs of paint thinner.

The path to improving the environment is a slow process that will happen in an organic (HAHA) way. Not by the government or anyone trying to control our citizens with their idea of what Utopia should be... More Later.
Exactly. Drinking or huffing, maybe both.
The large majority of voters refuse to pay more than $10 per month to fix climate change.
For some one to reduce CO2 emissions 60% is going to take a lot more than driving an electric car and pretending like your **** doesn't stink. Doing so will cost a lot more than $10 a month.

There are things government can do, but demanding "X% reduction by 20XX" is mostly mental masturbation. The most effective role for government in these matters is vigorously fostering research to improve clean technology such that it becomes the most effective choice, instead of a forced choice.
That sounds reasonable to me.
 
Oilpan4 said:
What do I think about the atmospheric CO2 doubling?
Like the vast majority of registered voters I am not concerned enough to want to give up $10 per month to fix it.
That is not what I asked. Provide a number (or range with confidence interval) for the climate sensitivity for that doubling.

Do you understand the question ?
 
I understand. It's another obvious red herring from our resident red herring master baiter.
 
Oilpan4 said:
I understand. It's another obvious red herring from our resident red herring master baiter.
So which is it ? You are too cowardly to state your opinion, or too cowardly to admit ignorance ? Why do you call climate sensitivity a red herring ?

Or how about you, @powersurge ? As another trumper I want to hear your considered opinion on this question. Supporting references are always welcome.
 
If the election was held tomorrow I would vote for biden, if I had voted I 2016 I would have voted for Bernie if he was the nominee.
There's no way I would have voted for hillery.
I probably would have voted for trump just because of what the dnc did to bernie.

Really don't care about the climate sensitivity number. Does that mean I don't get to join your suicide cult?
 
Oilpan4 said:
Really don't care about the climate sensitivity number. Does that mean
It means you are either pathetically ignorant or a fool.

But sure, tell us WHY you do not care about the climate sensitivity number. Start off by explaining its meaning and why it comes up when discussing AGW.
 
I honestly don't care.
So change my mind.
Unlike you I'm not closed minded and actually willing to listen to other people.
 
I'm asking you. You are clearly the supreme intellectual of the forum.
Sell it to me , make me want it.
 
Oilpan4 said:
I'm asking you. You are clearly the supreme intellectual of the forum.
Sell it to me , make me want it.

As you wish:
It is a poor idea to be an idiot if you can avoid it.


---
However, we are making some progress here since you are admitting abject ignorance.
That brings up a new question: why do you have an opinion about anything AGW related when you do not have a clue ?
 
So that's all you got?
If you don't want to know it your an idiot?
That tells me all I need to know about you and the global warming sensitivity number.
There is no compelling reason to know, exactly as I predicted.
You need to work on your sales pitch a little.
It might turn people off to wanting to do anything to help fix global warming.
 
Oilpan4 said:
If you don't want to know it your'e an idiot?
I corrected your English in the name of 6th grade literacy.

Idiot will do but fool is probably more apt.
I use idiot to mean mentally retarded, or stupid in the vernacular.

The idiocy is to have an opinion about AGW absent an understanding of climate sensitivity.

You check off both boxes.
 
Back
Top