Biden hosted the Online Leaders Climate Summit at the White House on April 22. More than 40 global leaders were invited to attend the summit. In his opening speech, Biden announced that by 2030, the United States will cut its carbon emissions by 52% compared to 2005. This is double the emission reduction target during the Obama administration. Biden said this will enable the United States to achieve a net-zero emissions economy no later than 2050. When Biden released its new emission reduction targets, it only disclosed its vision, but did not release specific plans, budgets or legislative proposals.

On the 22nd, the leaders’ climate summit hosted by the United States was held in video format. On the first day Biden took office, he rejoined the Paris Agreement and listed climate issues as four priorities. And intends to re-lead the advancement of the world’s climate issues. The Biden administration hosted the online leaders climate summit this time and invited the leaders of 38 countries, including China and Russia, as well as the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council. These 38 countries include 17 countries that account for 80% of global carbon dioxide emissions, as well as the countries most vulnerable to climate change. The Biden administration hopes to declare to the world that the United States will regain its dominance in global climate governance. But the reality is that the United States has accumulated too many debts in the field of climate. It has not yet proposed new nationally determined contributions. It has not given an explanation on how to make up for the four-year action gap of the previous government withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, and it has not delayed the green climate for a long time. The fund’s debts are covered. Europe did not buy it. French President Macron and German Prime Minister Merkel coordinated their positions with China in a small-scale video conference before the US summit. In his speech at the opening ceremony of the conference, Biden announced the expansion of the US government’s emission reduction commitments: by 2030, reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 50% to 52% compared to 2005, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Biden’s plan has been questioned by the US media. The Wall Street Journal believes that the Bush administration has withdrawn from the “Kyoto Agreement” to the Trump administration withdrew from the “Paris Agreement”, the United States has been repeatedly on climate issues, causing many The country doubts the promises it has made. House Republican Leader McCarthy said: “Americans do not need arbitrary commitments, nor do they need a Democratic’command and control’ approach. This approach may weaken our economy without solving the real problem of global emissions. “The Republican Party does not support emissions reduction, and the United States has too many variables. The world’s largest carbon emitters are China (103.57 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year), the United States (54.14 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year), India (22.74 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year), and Russia (years of carbon dioxide emissions) 16.17 million tons), Japan (12.37 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year), Germany (7.99 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year). The EU’s goal is to reduce emissions by 55% in 2030 compared to 1990 levels. Achieve “net zero emissions” of greenhouse gases by 2050. Developed regions such as the United States and the European Union actually reached the highest peak of carbon emissions in the 1990s, and these years have themselves been in the process of slowing down carbon emissions. China is the world’s largest carbon emitter, and its goal is to reach its peak carbon by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. It takes 60 years from Europe’s carbon peak in 1990 to the 2050 carbon neutral target. China’s commitment to achieve carbon neutrality from carbon peak to carbon neutrality is much shorter than the time taken by developed countries. It requires China’s hard work. my country’s carbon dioxide emission curve has tended to grow steadily since 2012, and the growth rate of emissions has declined, and the total carbon emissions have been reduced for two consecutive years in 2015 and 2016. Although my country’s carbon dioxide emissions have rebounded slightly since 2017, the growth rate has been far lower than the level before 2012. The growth rates of carbon emissions in 2017 and 2018 were only 1.4% and 2.3%, respectively. In 2019, China’s carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) dropped by 45.8% in total compared to 2005. my country has already fulfilled the goal of reducing China’s carbon intensity by 40%-45% by 2020, which was promised to the international community in 2009, compared with 2005. . China’s energy production and utilization methods have undergone major changes, and a multi-wheel-driven energy stable supply system has basically formed, and energy conservation has been comprehensively promoted. China’s renewable energy investment has exceeded US$100 billion for five consecutive years. In the past ten years, the area of ​​forest resources has increased by more than 70 million hectares. In the past two decades, 25% of the world’s new forest area has come from China. In 2020, clean energy will account for 23.4% of total energy consumption, an increase of 8.9 percentage points from 2012. The cumulative installed capacity of hydropower, wind power, and solar power generation ranks first in the world. A complete industrial chain of clean energy equipment manufacturing such as hydropower, nuclear power, wind power, and solar power has been established to strongly support the development and utilization of clean energy. Carbon neutrality has no less impact on countries and industries than any great change in history. China not only insisted on fulfilling its promises, but also launched the “China Plan” to help the world successfully achieve carbon neutrality, the Global Energy Internet. The so-called Global Energy Internet refers to clean energy + UHV + smart grid. Help the world and various countries plan the “nine horizontal and nine vertical” global backbone power grids. The Global Energy Internet Development Cooperation Organization was established in March 2016. If mankind wants to make the economy take off further, it must get rid of the constraints of fossil energy and turn new energy and renewable energy into a perpetual motion machine for human economic development. A global power supply network can truly help countries overcome their energy supply difficulties and balance the uneven distribution of energy in the world. UN Secretary-General Guterres highly recognized the role of the Global Energy Internet. He has participated in activities hosted by cooperative organizations many times and said that building a global energy Internet is the core of human sustainable development and the key to global inclusive growth. Liu Zhenya, former chairman of the State Grid Corporation of China, current chairman of the Global Energy Internet Development Cooperation Organization, and chairman of the China Electricity Council, said that this strategic vision is quite epoch-making. The energy Internet built on the basis of UHV will not only become a weapon for China to achieve carbon neutrality, but also the key to global carbon neutrality. This is determined by the characteristics of global new energy. China has proposed a worldwide solution. With the advancement of carbon neutrality, the “Chinese solution” of the Global Energy Internet will surely be accepted by more and more countries.

zhiwo

By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
helpmekim
5 months ago

When the United States proposed the moon landing plan, its national strength was in full swing. Where is the space station in the past 15 years? Who wouldn’t dare to shout in the United States over the years. The new crown is okay at first, then wear a mask obediently, and then wave after wave of dead people. Then wait for the vaccine, the vaccine will come out, still continue to die. This will also say that to achieve a net-zero emission economy in 2050, let’s talk about the domestic new crown first. We are obviously very reliable. Step by step, propose a plan, implement the plan, and complete the plan. When we say we want to go to the moon, we go to the moon, and when we say we want to gather the lunar soil, we gather the soil. We have proposed a 30, 60 strategy, where carbon peaks in 30 years and carbon neutral in 60 years. From the strategy proposal, various plans, industry development outlines, and five-year plans have been released one after another. Being carbon neutral, zero emissions, and coping with the global climate crisis. We are confident and brave to take responsibility. And the United States has nothing to say. People can’t live in their dreams, and they must be down-to-earth. Some strategic plans and plans for the implementation of carbon neutrality and carbon neutrality in China In September 2020, China proposed that carbon dioxide emissions will reach the peak by 2030 and strive to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. And in January 20201, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment issued the “Guiding Opinions on Coordinating and Strengthening the Work on Responding to Climate Change and Ecological Environment Protection”. In February 2021, the “Administrative Measures for Carbon Emission Trading (Trial)” was officially implemented in April 2021. , “Notice on Wind Power and Photovoltaic Power Generation Development and Construction Relevant Matters in 2021 (Draft for Solicitation of Comments)” officially released the opinion draft, stating that in 2021: National wind power and photovoltaic power generation stations account for 11% of the total electricity consumption of the society. In 2025 Up to 16.5% In April 2021, the “Guiding Opinions of the National Development and Reform Commission and the National Energy Administration on Accelerating the Development of New Energy Storage (Draft for Solicitation of Opinions)” is publicly solicited for comments

heloword
5 months ago

Analyzing the industry in the United States, you cannot look at what the president or his staff say, but what big companies do. The logic of the operation of the whole society is to call on the leader. If the company thinks it is OK, it will go to the donkey; if the company thinks it is OK, it is not a big problem to find a lawyer and think tank. If a few large companies engage in hydrogen storage, wind power, solar energy, and large-scale capital expenditures, then is the so-called specific plan of the United States. Of course, the enterprise side does not play virtual, and if you can’t see the attractiveness of real money and silver, you will not enter the market. The affected shale oil companies are also not vegetarian. Who does not have a team in Washington? So this matter can only be said to be a process that takes a long time to play. Biden gave a direction, but the people underneath never said otherwise. In addition, the leaders of the United States only need to talk about a plan that is more than 10 years old and listen to it. Maybe it really benefits the country and the people. The next president will come up with Xiao Gui and Cao Sui to implement the policies of the previous president. However, if it is done, who do you say is the credit? The party is not monolithic, let alone the president of another party. It is even more impossible to follow. This is not the same as when we say that to reduce production capacity, we must reduce production capacity. Not to mention enterprises, the governors of each state can’t handle it. This matter cannot be pushed forward without combining taxation and subsidies with other policies such as real money and silver. The new energy and traditional energy I mentioned above also require the government’s top-level design to truly change the balance of power, lifting one and suppressing one. Taxes and finances, if the president of the United States has the final say, it will not be the United States. So when the summit is here, you always have to speak, and you can’t just talk about taxation and fiscal policies. You have to throw a slogan first. On the contrary, we have to reduce emissions and carbon neutrality. Success doesn’t have to be with me. Therefore, the concept of “carbon neutrality” this year must be closely followed and repeated. Of course, in specific industries, it is important to note that relatively mature growth companies such as batteries are very different from those that are still in the application exploration period such as hydrogen energy. Mature growth companies still depend on performance, while new technologies that have not been rolled out mainly depend on imagination and technical analysis. Remember.

helpyme
5 months ago

Let’s take a look at what China is saying: achieve carbon peak in 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality in 2060. Isn’t it obvious that Biden mentioned this? Just like the Soviet Union had to deal with the American Star Wars plan, the United States had to accept it, otherwise its propaganda values ​​would be completely scrapped. Although the United States secretly discharges nuclear waste water and supports Japan’s random discharge on the table, it is not a blatant breach of its own values. If there is no value backing, the United States will really have to say goodbye to hegemony. It can’t do it. But as a developing country, China actually says that it will achieve carbon neutrality in 60 years. Wouldn’t it be too wrong for the United States to say anything more? Everyone will wonder if you can do it. So the face is still needed, you have to chase it, just… chase it for ten years. Let’s set it aside for auction. But does the United States have the ability to engage in a “net zero emission economy”? No, his sleeping king is like a candle in the wind, the ruling system is in chaos, and the economy and politics are mixed together to make peace. What is the United States doing? Can’t do it, it’s a face-saving project from the beginning, unless the Sleeping King wants to go faster. Naturally, there is no such thing as a specific plan. Wait a minute, it will be around by 2049.

sina156
5 months ago

Since my country released the 2060 carbon neutral plan, it has aroused widespread response from the world. A vote of European and American countries, for fear that we have seized the opportunity of environmental protection, have also launched their own so-called “targets.” However, in reality, these “targets” are, in fact, blunt. These countries are nothing more than: you must not let you occupy the moral high ground. I give you the whole standard higher. However, in fact, 16 years have passed since the “Kyoto Protocol”, and European and American countries have made no progress in environmental protection and emission reduction. If there has been no progress in the past 16 years, will there be progress in the next 20-30 years? The country with other people’s electoral system has a magical weapon. At that time, it won’t be realized. If you change the party, the responsibility is the predecessor’s, and it has nothing to do with me. I set another goal to reduce carbon emissions to zero in 10 years. As for who will be in power 10 years from now, whoever stepped on the horse will know.

yahoo898
5 months ago

I have an idea for Biden, just change the name of the United States or split it up. Without the United States, the emissions of “America” will naturally be zero, and the goal will be perfectly achieved. And by the way, I can still take away the 28 trillion (100 trillion in a few years later) arrears. Isn’t it beautiful? In addition to this method, the other is to modify statistical methods and conceal data. Congress does not approve these tricks. They are not tall enough to be worthy of Biden with his own halo.

leexin
5 months ago

The United States can’t do it. The U.S. system is an outdated social system of the Roman era. It is unable to achieve even simple tasks and small goals such as controlling the epidemic. We simply cannot imagine that the U.S. can coordinate operations across states and regions, formulate emission reduction plans, and pass questions. The review of the responsibility system did not achieve the planned consequences. Under the current political system of the United States, government officials at all levels are basically laymen leading experts. The president who relies on elections will assign official positions to allies who support them and investors who contribute money. Whether or not they will become officials is not a matter of consideration. . You won’t be held accountable if you’re bad, because you wouldn’t be a president. If the president can work for four years, he will spend four years as an intern; if he can be re-elected, he will take another four years to formally try it out. It is impossible for any company to find someone who knows nothing about the company’s industry to be the president and general manager; however, the president, governor, mayor, and even the major executive heads of the United States are basically laymen. It’s very rare to be an expert. For example, Li Mengran, the former Chinese mayor of San Francisco, has been a city government administrator all his life and is completely expert. So when he became the mayor, he has a lot of political achievements, because he knows what to do and is very familiar with the operation of the city government. Brown, the former governor of California, was two governors in the 1970s. Then he made a comeback nine years ago and became governor again. He is very familiar with driving and making California a lot of surpluses. It is a pity that such expert leaders are very few. What we often see is a fool like Chuan Jianguo as the head of government. Another reason why the United States can’t do it is that each administration of the United States only has a four-year term, and each successive term is only eight years. From now to 2050, how many governments will be experienced, and will the next government accept it? This is completely uncontrollable. For example, the previous government, Chuan Jianguo, directly invalidated all the promises of the United States to control carbon emissions and control climate change. Therefore, the United States cannot do what it claims. Unless Bai Zhenhua says it will be achieved within four years, there will probably be a chance to implement it.

greatword
5 months ago

I know that scolding the United States is a key political traffic password, and the United States should be scolded and suspected, but some basic facts must be clarified before scolding. You can’t get the basic facts wrong like many answers. The United States is not without specific plans. Anyhow, an intermediate time goal was mentioned, but there was no specific measure. Biden promised that the United States will strive to reduce carbon emissions to 50−52% of 2005’s by 2030. First of all, Biden this time put forward a further goal than Omaba. It turned out that the 2015 target was to reduce by 26 to 28% by 2025 compared to 2005, but the current target is still a step further. Secondly, the United States has not made no progress in the past ten years. In 2017, it has been reduced by about 10% from the peak in 2007. New energy star companies such as Musk have also been born. Although it is very hip on the federal side, at least the Democratic states are still very active in promoting emissions reduction. Biden also has his own initiatives, and I have simply translated some of the new government’s climate policy directions. Although it is difficult to say how much it can be implemented, it cannot be said that Biden has no measures at all. Going back to this summit, it was originally a meeting of determination and continued to copy Obama’s work for the 2014 climate summit held in New York. No matter how much Biden denies it, it looks like Obama is second and nothing new. At the summit, each country only has a few minutes to speak, and there is no time to elaborate on specific plan goals. China also only mentioned the goal of reaching the peak of coal by 2025, more to express its own ideas and determination. Even so, what Biden said is too vain. I completely agree with everyone’s criticism that Biden can only represent half of the United States at most. Whether these facilities can be implemented, how much compromises must be made, and what changes will be made when the ruling party changes. Uncertainty. The long-term strategy of climate change should be given to a country that is good at planning to organize and lead it!

loveyou
5 months ago

This question reminds me of Buchanan and his book “Democracy in a Deficit”. Of course, for the United States, this climate summit is basically “Environmental Protection in a Deficit”, or-the climate in a deficit. . What’s more interesting is that Biden’s remarks reminded me of Buchanan’s rational principles for economic man. When faced with political commitments, he was not so rational. Buchanan’s original principles were: First, compared with economic activities, political activities have greater uncertainty, which makes it difficult to rationalize behavior, and it is even difficult to give a definition of rational behavior. Second, compared with economic activities, people bear much lighter responsibility for the results of activities in political activities, so it is unlikely to make rational comparison calculations. This means that political promises sometimes do not require rationality, because after the promises do not fulfill the results, there is no need to bear responsibility. Therefore, in order to win support, please voters, show personal and national capabilities, etc., politicians’ promises are actually nothing. Usefulness, I sometimes think, if Biden wrote the speech himself, he might remember some after he finished speaking. If he didn’t even write the speech himself, I’m afraid that he would forget the previous speech after he finished speaking. What did you say. Therefore, it is best to forget the promises made by American politicians. Because the original Kyoto Protocol and Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement are actually the norm for American politicians. Public choice theory needs rationality in economics, but does not need rationality in politics. It is based on the rationality of economic man and the rationality of individual egoism. Anyway, political promises can be promised as long as they are beneficial to themselves. Since they are not realized, they do not need to bear responsibility. There is no punishment, and of course you can just talk about it. Buchanan argued that Keynesian theory does not benefit well under a democratic system, and the cost is high, so he hopes that the principle of fiscal balance will return, and proposed that tax rates and expenditure rates can be used as a means of fiscal balance. The only interesting thing is that after Bi came on stage, he picked up Keynes again, not knowing whether he wanted to be Roosevelt or Nixon. For Biden’s predecessor, who brought countless talk shows to the people of the world, Buchanan seemed to have recovered at the time. By initiating a trade war, increasing tariffs on foreign trade, and greatly reducing taxes on domestic companies, he achieved fiscal balance. . It is a pity that the last new crown has pushed the deficit to a new height. Now Biden has set aside the chaos and made a big turn of 180 degrees, running wildly under the budget deficit. The deficit is the confidant of the United States. When the deficit keeps rolling upwards, no one knows where the impulse for public choice in a democracy is heading. In this context, environmental protection and climate are also political commitments.

strongman
5 months ago

Here to borrow the evaluation of teacher Shen Yi (not the original words): Don’t substitute the United States for China’s governance capabilities! If the United States is so strong, it will be invincible, okay? Now it is China’s turn to challenge it? China has planned its own development program and plans to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. In order to show off his “leading the world” style, the US shouldn’t be too much ahead of 10 years, right? As for how to do it, the U.S. emperor still has self-knowledge, because knowing his “country on wheels” would definitely not be able to do it… In fact, what is behind environmental protection? In a documentary made by Chai Jing when the smog was the worst in China, I remember a scene where it seemed that a chimney was blasted somewhere. The leader at the scene said: Chai Jing, this was blown up for you. Chai Jing specially cut this shot in, and achieved her goal. If I remember correctly, the public opinion on the Internet at that time seemed to be an overwhelming curse. For some grassroots governance, we don’t do too much interpretation. We can only say that if you know about poverty alleviation work, or even just read information about poverty alleviation, you should have your own ideas. Obama said before that if everyone in China lived like the American imperial life, it would not work; now Harris said that in the future the American imperialism will fight for water resources; these are all on a large scale, in fact, our modern society The organizational structure has governance boundaries. Environmental protection is the boundary.

stockin
5 months ago

The United States is being held back by China. After all, the most important contradiction in the world now is the competition between China and the United States. As a Western co-owner, the United States has always used environmental issues as a weapon to suppress developing countries led by China. Now China has preemptively announced its carbon neutrality plan, and has taken the lead in environmental protection issues. What can you tell the United States to do at this time? Ignore China’s plan directly? Isn’t it being fired by China with environmental protection issues every day? Should we directly respond to China’s initiative? Then Biden can’t be chopped up by the Americans? Just make a promise now, but how to do it will at least guarantee that this government can temporarily obtain the qualifications of equal dialogue with China on environmental protection issues. As for what to do with the subsequent governments, it has nothing to do with the old Biden. In Biden’s opinion, maybe China will collapse in 2022? Then there will be no question of fulfilling the promise.

11
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x