Trump's war on the environment

[David Horn]

(05-08-2017, 03:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-08-2017, 01:13 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN is reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency is firing scientists.  They mention that these are technical positions rather than political positions, thus it is not traditional to fire and replace them on a presidential change of power.

Actually, these aren't employees at all; they're consultants.

And why is that?  On yeah, Reagan began the downward trend of federal employee headcount, but that only made it necessary to hire consultants and contractors.  These folks should be employees, but they are so much less protected from the vagaries of politics when they aren't.  Is there some point that we finally admit that the plan to shrink the government is merely an attempt to neuter it?  Can we continue to supplant scientific inquiry with political opinion and still thrive as a nation?

Note the attack on tenure has similar origins.  The powerful don't want to be contradicted, and are wiling to pay to make it so.

[Eric the Green]

Email to me from League of Conservation Voters:

Eric, we just delivered a massive blow to Donald Trump! Thanks to your calls and emails, the Senate just voted, 51-49, to stand up to the oil and gas industry and say hell no — you can’t have a free pass to pollute our air and spew dangerous methane pollution into our atmosphere!

This is a huge win for our health, our clean air, and our climate, and shows that President Trump’s plans to unravel hard-won environmental protections are not a foregone conclusion. We thank each and every senator who stood up against big polluters today and defended commonsense safeguards from methane pollution.

This victory was made possible by all of you! This successful vote in the Senate is the result of months of hard work making your voices heard to your senators. LCV members signed more than 60,000 petitions, flooded Senate offices with thousands of calls, and filled the streets during the Peoples Climate March, with hundreds of thousands of us marching across the country for protecting our environment and acting on climate.

Methane pollution is one of the biggest contributors to climate change. Keeping President Obama’s methane rule in place will prevent a huge amount of toxic methane from getting into our air and further damaging our climate. It is proof that we can defeat Trump and his anti-environment, pro-polluter agenda! The resistance is working!

But the fight is far from over — the Paris Climate Agreement hangs in the balance, and the EPA budget is still on the chopping block. Let’s celebrate, take pride in what we’ve accomplished together, and get ready for the continued fight.

Thank you so much for all you do!

Sincerely,

signature

Gene Karpinski
President
League of Conservation Voters

[Eric the Green]

This list isn't entirely accurate or complete (Boozman is from Arkansas, not Alaska); here's the complete list: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017...-donations

The other 3 retrograde pro-pollution senators are:
Jim Risch, Idaho
Ted Cruz, Texas
David Perdue, Georgia

These senators are all from red states, of course.

Included in the article is the known support they get from fossil fool barons.

No other developed country has fools like these in their government in such abundance.

[Eric the Green]

California engages the fight with Trump over climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/us/ca...hange.html

LOS ANGELES — The environmental ministers of Canada and Mexico went to San Francisco last month to sign a global pact — drafted largely by California — to lower planet-warming greenhouse pollution. Gov. Jerry Brown flies to China next month to meet with climate leaders there on a campaign to curb global warming. And a battery of state lawyers is preparing to battle any attempt by Washington to weaken California’s automobile pollution emission standards.

As President Trump moves to reverse the Obama administration’s policies on climate change, California is emerging as the nation’s de facto negotiator with the world on the environment. The state is pushing back on everything from White House efforts to roll back pollution rules on tailpipes and smokestacks, to plans to withdraw or weaken the United States’ commitments under the Paris climate change accord.

In the process, California is not only fighting to protect its legacy of sweeping environmental protection, but also holding itself out as a model to other states — and to nations — on how to fight climate change.

“I want to do everything we can to keep America on track, keep the world on track, and lead in all the ways California has,” said Mr. Brown, who has embraced this fight as he enters what is likely to be the final stretch of a 40-year career in California government. “We’re looking to do everything we can to advance our program, regardless of whatever happens in Washington.”

Since the election, California has stood as the leading edge of the Democratic resistance to the Trump administration, on a range of issues including immigration and health care. Mr. Trump lost to Hillary Clinton here by nearly four million votes. Every statewide elected official is a Democrat, and the party controls both houses of the Legislature by a two-thirds margin. Soon after Mr. Trump was elected, Democratic legislative leaders hired Eric H. Holder Jr., the former attorney general, to represent California in legal fights with the administration.

But of all the battles it is waging with Washington, none have the global implications of the one over climate change.

The aggressive posture on the environment has set the stage for a confrontation between the Trump administration and the largest state in the nation. California has 39 million people, making it more populous than Canada and many other countries. And with an annual economic output of $2.4 trillion, the state is an economic powerhouse and has the sixth-largest economy in the world.

California’s efforts cross party lines. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who served as governor from 2003 to 2011, and led the state in developing the most aggressive pollution-control programs in the nation, has emerged as one of Mr. Trump’s biggest Republican critics.

Mr. Trump and his advisers appear ready for the fight.

Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency chief, whom Mr. Trump has charged with rolling back Obama-era environmental policies, speaks often of his belief in the importance of federalism and states’ rights, describing Mr. Trump’s proposals as a way to lift the oppressive yoke of federal regulations and return authority to the states. But of Mr. Brown’s push to expand California’s environmental policies to the country and the world, Mr. Pruitt said, “That’s not federalism — that’s a political agenda hiding behind federalism.”

“Is it federalism to impose your policy on other states?” Mr. Pruitt asked in a recent interview in his office. “It seems to me that Mr. Brown is being the aggressor here,” he said. “But we expect the law will show this.”

In one of his earliest strikes, Mr. Trump signed an executive order aimed at dismantling the Clean Power Plan, President Barack Obama’s signature climate policy change. Much of the plan, which Mr. Trump denounced as a “job killer,” was drawn from environmental policies pioneered in California.

Mr. Brown has long been an environmental advocate, including when he first served as governor in the 1970s. He has made this a central focus as he enters his final 18 months in office. In an interview, he said the president’s action was “a colossal mistake and defies science.”

“Erasing climate change may take place in Donald Trump’s mind, but nowhere else,” Mr. Brown said.

The leadership role embraced by California goes to the heart of what has long been a central part of its identity. For more than three decades, California has been at the vanguard of environmental policy, passing ambitious, first-in-the-nation measures on pollution control and conservation that have often served as models for national and even international environmental law.

“With Trump indicating that he will withdraw from climate change leadership, the rest of the global community is looking to California, as one of the world’s largest economies, to take the lead,” said Mario Molina, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist from Mexico who advises nations on climate change policy. “California demonstrates to the world that you can have a strong climate policy without hurting your economy.”

The Senate leader, Kevin de Leon, introduced legislation this month that would accelerate, rather than retrench, California’s drive to reduce emissions, requiring that 100 percent of retail electricity in the state come from renewable sources by 2045. Mr. de Leon said it was “important that we send a signal to the rest of the world” at a time of what he described as “blowback” from Washington.

Mr. Schwarzenegger, who tangled with Mr. Trump after the president mocked him for receiving low ratings as his replacement on “The Apprentice,” described Mr. Trump’s environmental policies as a threat to the planet.

“Saying you’ll bring coal plants back is the past,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “It’s like saying you’ll bring Blockbuster back, which is the past. Horses and buggies, which is the past. Pagers back, which is the past.”

He said California had shown it could adopt aggressive environmental policies without hurting the economy. “We’re outdoing the rest of the country on G.D.P.,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said.

Even before Mr. Trump took office, California’s tough regulatory rules had stirred concern among business leaders, who said it had increased their costs. They warned that the situation would become worse if California stood by its regulatory rules while Washington moved in the other direction.

“We’re very concerned about that,” said Robert C. Lapsley, the president of the California Business Roundtable. “If we are 1 percent of the problem, and we have the most far-reaching climate policies on the planet while all the other states are slowing down because Washington is slowing down, that is going to create an absolute imbalance.”

“Washington will create a less competitive environment for California businesses here because businesses in other states will not have to meet the same mandates,” he added. “There is no question that businesses are going to move out.”

The precise contours of this battle will become clear in the months ahead, as Mr. Trump’s environmental policies take shape. For now, the critical questions are whether the United States will withdraw from the Paris agreement, an international compact to reduce greenhouse pollution, and whether the Environmental Protection Agency will revoke a waiver issued by President Richard M. Nixon that permits California to set fuel economy standards exceeding federal requirements.

Revoking the waiver, which was central to a policy that has resulted in noticeably cleaner air in places like Los Angeles, would force the state to lower its tough fuel economy standards, which are also intended to promote the rapid spread of electric cars. As they stand, the rules would force automakers to build fleets of cars that would reach 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

California is preparing for a legal challenge. “You have to be concerned when anybody talks about going backward,” said Xavier Becerra, the state attorney general. “In this case we think we have a strong case to be made based on the facts and the history.”

Mr. Trump is already moving to weaken federal auto emission standards that were influenced by California’s tougher standards. Automakers, who met with the president in the Oval Office days after he assumed the presidency, have long complained that the standards forced them to build expensive electric vehicles that consumers may not want.

And the companies have lobbied for years to stop the federal government from allowing California to set cleaner tailpipe regulations than the rest of the nation, arguing that the double standard necessitates building two types of cars. In Detroit, those companies see President Trump as their best chance for finally ending onerous California car requirements. But in the meantime, over a dozen other states have adopted California’s auto emissions standards — and Mr. Brown is betting that the sheer size of that market will be enough to make the Trump administration reconsider any effort to roll back the California waiver.

“Because we’re such a big part of the car market, and places like New York and Massachusetts are tied in with the U.S., our standard will prevail,” he said.

Beyond pushing to maintain its state climate laws, California has tried to forge international climate pacts. In particular, Mr. Brown’s government helped draft and gather signatures for a memorandum of understanding whose signers, including heads of state and mayors from around the world, pledged to take actions to lower emissions enough to keep global temperatures from rising over two degrees Celsius. That is the point at which scientists say the planet will tip into a future of irreversible rising seas and melting ice sheets.

That pact is voluntary, but California, Canada and Mexico are starting to carry out a joint policy with some teeth.

California’s signature climate change law is the cap-and-trade program. It places a statewide cap on planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions, and then allows companies to buy and sell pollution credits. The California measure was the model for a national climate law that Mr. Obama tried unsuccessfully to have passed in 2010.

Given the setbacks in Washington, California environmental officials are working with Mexico and Canada to create what is informally called the “Nafta” of climate change — a carbon-cutting program that spans the region.

“Canada’s all in when it comes to climate action, and we’ll partner with anyone who wants to move forward,” said Catherine McKenna, Canada’s environment minister.

Already, California’s cap-and-trade market is connected to a similar one in Quebec, now valued at about $8 billion, and the Province of Ontario is linking with the joint California-Quebec market this year. Climate policy experts in Sacramento and Mexico City are in the early stages of drafting a plan to link Mexico with that joint market.

In April, a delegation from California traveled to Beijing to meet with Chinese counterparts to help them craft a cap-and-trade plan. “We have people working in China, in their regulatory agencies, consulting with them, speaking fluent Mandarin, working with the Chinese government — giving them advice on cap and trade,” Mr. Brown said.

The Clean Power Plan was central to the United States’ pledge under the 2015 Paris agreement, which commits the nation to cut its emissions about 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. Now that Mr. Trump has moved to roll back the plan, it will be almost impossible for the United States to meet its Paris commitments.

That has resonated powerfully in China. The heart of the Paris agreement was a 2014 deal forged by Mr. Obama and President Xi Jinping of China in which the world’s two largest economies and largest greenhouse polluters agreed to act jointly to reduce their emissions.

Gov. Jerry Brown of California, attending a climate meeting at the United Nations last year. “We may not represent Washington, but we will represent the wide swath of American people who will keep the faith on this,” he said. Credit Mary Altaffer/Associated Press
“China is committed to establishing a cap-and-trade this year, and we are looking for expertise across the world as we design our program — and we are looking closely at the California experience,” said Dongquan He, a vice president of Energy Foundation China, an organization that works with the Chinese government on climate change issues.

Mr. Brown recently met with the prime minister of Fiji, who will serve as chairman of this fall’s United Nations climate change meeting in Bonn, Germany, which aims to put the Paris agreement in force, with or without the United States. The governor said he planned to attend as a representative of his state.

“We may not represent Washington, but we will represent the wide swath of American people who will keep the faith on this,” he said.

[Eric the Green]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/clima...pe=article

<B>Bucking Trump, These Cities, States and Companies Commit to Paris Accord</B>
By HIROKO TABUCHI and HENRY FOUNTAINJUNE 1, 2017

Representatives of American cities, states and companies are preparing to submit a plan to the United Nations pledging to meet the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions targets under the Paris climate accord, despite President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement.

The unnamed group — which, so far, includes 30 mayors, three governors, more than 80 university presidents and more than 100 businesses — is negotiating with the United Nations to have its submission accepted alongside contributions to the Paris climate deal by other nations.

“We’re going to do everything America would have done if it had stayed committed,” Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor who is coordinating the effort, said in an interview.

President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement drew immediate reaction from big-city mayors, governors and Congress members.

By redoubling their climate efforts, he said, cities, states and corporations could achieve, or even surpass, the pledge of the administration of former President Barack Obama to reduce America’s planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions 26 percent by 2025, from their levels in 2005.

It was unclear how, exactly, that submission to the United Nations would take place. Christiana Figueres, a former top United Nations climate official, said there was currently no formal mechanism for entities that were not countries to be full parties to the Paris accord.

Ms. Figueres, who described the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw as a “vacuous political melodrama,” said the American government was required to continue reporting its emissions to the United Nations because a formal withdrawal would not take place for several years.

But Ms. Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change until last year, said the Bloomberg group’s submission could be included in future reports the United Nations compiled on the progress made by the signatories of the Paris deal.

There are 195 countries committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions as part of the 2015 agreement.

Still, producing what Mr. Bloomberg described as a “parallel” pledge would indicate that leadership in the fight against climate change in the United States had shifted from the federal government to lower levels of government, academia and industry.

Mr. Bloomberg, a United Nations envoy on climate, is a political independent who has been among the critics of Mr. Trump’s climate and energy policies.

Mayors of cities including Los Angeles, Atlanta and Salt Lake City have signed on — along with Pittsburgh, which Mr. Trump mentioned in his speech announcing the withdrawal — as have Hewlett-Packard, Mars and dozens of other companies.



Paris City Hill was illuminated in green on Thursday in opposition to President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Buildings in New York City, Boston and elsewhere around the world joined in. Credit Christophe Petit Tesson/European Pressphoto Agency

Eighty-two presidents and chancellors of universities including Emory & Henry College, Brandeis and Wesleyan are also participating, the organizers said.

Mr. Trump’s plan to pull out of the Paris agreement was motivating more local and state governments, as well as businesses, to commit to the climate change fight, said Robert C. Orr, one of the architects of the 2015 Paris agreement as the United Nations secretary-general’s lead climate adviser.

On Thursday, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York and Gov. Jerry Brown of California, all Democrats, said they were beginning a separate alliance of states committed to upholding the Paris accord.

“The electric jolt of the last 48 hours is accelerating this process that was already underway,” said Mr. Orr, who is now dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. “It’s not just the volume of actors that is increasing, it’s that they are starting to coordinate in a much more integral way.”

The United States is about halfway to its 2025 emissions reduction target, Mr. Orr said. Of the remaining reductions, the federal government — through regulations like gas mileage standards for vehicles — could affect about half.

But in a draft letter to António Guterres, the United Nations secretary-general, Mr. Bloomberg expressed confidence that “non-national actors” could achieve the 2025 goal alone.

“While the executive branch of the U.S. government speaks on behalf of our nation in matters of foreign affairs, it does not determine many aspects of whether and how the United States takes action on climate change,” he wrote.

“The bulk of the decisions which drive U.S. climate action in the aggregate are made by cities, states, businesses, and civil society,” he wrote. “Collectively, these actors remain committed to the Paris accord.”

Cities and states can reduce emissions in many ways, including negotiating contracts with local utilities to supply greater amounts of renewable energy, building rapid transit programs and other infrastructure projects like improved wastewater treatment. Similarly, corporations can take measures like buying renewable energy for their offices and factories, or making sure their supply chains are climate-friendly.

Governor Inslee said that states held significant sway over emissions. Washington, for example, has adopted a cap on carbon pollution, has invested in growing clean energy jobs and subsidizes electric vehicle purchases and charging stations.

“Our states will move forward, even if the president wants to go backward,” he said in a telephone interview.

How americans think about climate change in six maps:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017...-maps.html

America’s biggest corporations have been bracing for the United States to exit from the Paris climate accord, a move executives and analysts say would bring few tangible benefits to businesses — but plenty of backlash.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York and two other governors are starting a separate alliance of states committed to upholding the Paris accord.

Multinational companies will still need to follow ever-stricter emissions laws that other countries are adopting, no matter the location of their headquarters. Automakers like Ford Motor and General Motors would still need to build cars that meet stringent fuel economy and emissions standards in the European Union, Japan and even China, not to mention California.

American companies also face the wrath of overseas consumers for abandoning what has been a popular global agreement — customers who could buy more Renaults instead of Chevrolets or Reeboks instead of Nikes.

“Pulling out of Paris would be the worst thing for brand America since Abu Ghraib,” said Nigel Purvis, a top environmental negotiator in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a consulting firm.

“Mars stands by the Paris Climate Agreement,” said Grant Reid, the chief executive of Mars. The company, best known for its candies, remained committed, he said, to achieving “the carbon reduction targets the planet needs.”

It was unclear from Mr. Trump’s announcement what commitments the United States would honor in the Paris accord, which include contributions to the operating budget of the accord’s coordinating agency, the framework convention.

But Bloomberg Philanthropies, Mr. Bloomberg’s charitable organization, is offering to donate $14 million over the next two years to help fund the budget should it be needed, a spokeswoman said. That figure represents the United States’ share, she said.

Jackie Biskupski, the mayor of Salt Lake City and a Democrat, said her administration had recently brokered an agreement with the local utility to power the city with 100 percent renewable energy by 2032.

Global warming is having a significant impact in Utah, she said, especially on water availability and quality. “We feel very strongly that we have an obligation to make sure we keep moving in the right direction on this issue,” she said.

“We really have to make choices that reflect our long-term goals, that really address long-term issues of today,” she added.

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

(06-06-2017, 12:32 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-06-2017, 11:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

And yet China continues to belch emissions from coal burning. All those wafer fabs they have? Are mostly coal powered. Gotta love it.

Meanwhile in Europe wind farms are now being shut down and dismantled. Too much negative ROI. A complete financial disaster. The US has a better record for wind. We seem to have a better knack for knowing how to fit wind into our grid. Our wind farms are less loss making than the ones in Europe. A few are even slightly in the black.

And yet with all the so-called failures which skeptics assume have happened in Europe, they remained committed to going green. With Trump's betrayal, they have decided to speed things up. They will succeed, and we will fail, because a dufus got "elected" to be our so-called president. Once China gets all those solar plants and panels working, of course, then they won't need coal to power their wafer plants. The skeptics always make these absurd demands on the "warmists:" if you don't need fossil fuels, then let's see YOU do totally without them now. And if China still burns coal, then their conversion to solar is bunk. No, THAT is bunk. Transitions don't happen by waving a magic wand; it takes time, and it takes government support too.

[Eric the Green]

(06-06-2017, 07:44 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-06-2017, 02:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-06-2017, 12:32 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-06-2017, 11:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

And yet China continues to belch emissions from coal burning. All those wafer fabs they have? Are mostly coal powered. Gotta love it.

Meanwhile in Europe wind farms are now being shut down and dismantled. Too much negative ROI. A complete financial disaster. The US has a better record for wind. We seem to have a better knack for knowing how to fit wind into our grid. Our wind farms are less loss making than the ones in Europe. A few are even slightly in the black.

And yet with all the so-called failures which skeptics assume have happened in Europe, they remained committed to going green. With Trump's betrayal, they have decided to speed things up. They will succeed, and we will fail, because a dufus got "elected" to be our so-called president. Once China gets all those solar plants and panels working, of course, then they won't need coal to power their wafer plants. The skeptics always make these absurd demands on the "warmists:" if you don't need fossil fuels, then let's see YOU do totally without them now. And if China still burns coal, then their conversion to solar is bunk. No, THAT is bunk. Transitions don't happen by waving a magic wand; it takes time, and it takes government support too.

China would rather ship their crappy solar panels to the US and Europe. Meanwhile they burn coal for their own needs. It's cheap. It's easy. And even though they are not as endowed with coal as the US, heck, they get it easily from the Aussies. And if the Aussies raise prices or try to make a tougher deal? I mentioned previously Beijing's Surge for the Strait of Malacca. I digress. The Chinese can stand up a coal fired power plant in mere months. What's not to like if you are China?

Ask the ghost of Stan Ovshinky, and the employees who worked for him, about how the Chinese destroyed the US PV device industry.

China is building solar plants and stopping coal plants. Their solar panels are fine; they are being used here to good effect. They are moving; in the USA, only blue states and cities are moving. I hope that's enough for now, until we can get the pests out of our government.

[David Horn]

(06-06-2017, 07:44 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Ask the ghost of Stan Ovshinsky, and the employees who worked for him, about how the Chinese destroyed the US PV device industry.

True innovators rarely get the rewards they deserve, because, frankly, they are so far ahead of the curve that their patents run dry before the money train arrives.  I can't think of a more perfect example than Stan Ovshinsky.

[Eric the Green]

(06-07-2017, 01:05 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-07-2017, 11:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-06-2017, 07:44 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-06-2017, 02:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-06-2017, 12:32 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: And yet China continues to belch emissions from coal burning. All those wafer fabs they have? Are mostly coal powered. Gotta love it.

Meanwhile in Europe wind farms are now being shut down and dismantled. Too much negative ROI. A complete financial disaster. The US has a better record for wind. We seem to have a better knack for knowing how to fit wind into our grid. Our wind farms are less loss making than the ones in Europe. A few are even slightly in the black.

And yet with all the so-called failures which skeptics assume have happened in Europe, they remained committed to going green. With Trump's betrayal, they have decided to speed things up. They will succeed, and we will fail, because a dufus got "elected" to be our so-called president. Once China gets all those solar plants and panels working, of course, then they won't need coal to power their wafer plants. The skeptics always make these absurd demands on the "warmists:" if you don't need fossil fuels, then let's see YOU do totally without them now. And if China still burns coal, then their conversion to solar is bunk. No, THAT is bunk. Transitions don't happen by waving a magic wand; it takes time, and it takes government support too.

China would rather ship their crappy solar panels to the US and Europe. Meanwhile they burn coal for their own needs. It's cheap. It's easy. And even though they are not as endowed with coal as the US, heck, they get it easily from the Aussies. And if the Aussies raise prices or try to make a tougher deal? I mentioned previously Beijing's Surge for the Strait of Malacca. I digress. The Chinese can stand up a coal fired power plant in mere months. What's not to like if you are China?

Ask the ghost of Stan Ovshinky, and the employees who worked for him, about how the Chinese destroyed the US PV device industry.

China is building solar plants and stopping coal plants. Their solar panels are fine; they are being used here to good effect. They are moving; in the USA, only blue states and cities are moving. I hope that's enough for now, until we can get the pests out of our government.

Eric have you ever been involved in high tech manufacturing in China? Chinese PV gear is not fine. It's crap. But, unscrupulous contractors love them some China Price and pocket the difference. The person or firm who got suckered into paying for the junk PV gear will be sorry 10 years (or less) after installation.

What counts, it seems to me, is what's happening now, not what one person experienced with some other chinese technology years ago.

There's no point in this field to go by personal impression and nationalist feelings. The facts are what counts when it comes to climate change and alternative energy.

Here's one website I found that sheds some light. There are others.

http://www.solarpowerbeginner.com/chines...anels.html

(quote 

According to the New York Times, China now has the manufacturing capacity to produce over half of the world's solar panels. The sheer size of the Chinese solar industry means that we need to break things down if we're going to get any meaningful results.
Let's split the Chinese solar companies into two groups:

1. "The Big Three"
   
   • Suntech
     
   • Yingli
     
   • Trina Solar
     
   
   
2. "The Others"
   

[*]
Suntech is no less than the largest solar manufacturer in the world. When you buy Suntech solar panels, therefore, you will also be purchasing the peace of mind that comes with a 25 year warranty backed by the biggest player in the industry.
Note: The 25 year warranty guarantees power output, but Suntech has also extended their limited product warranty from five to ten years.
Suntech also offers a high efficiency version of their solar panels known as Pluto panels.

Yingli Solar is another giant Chinese solar company. According to Businessweek, Yingli is the world's sixth largest producer of solar cells and solar panels. This means that Yingli is also a vertically integrated solar company (The company not only manufactures solar panels but also produces the raw polysilicon and the solar cells used in the modules).
Yingli stands behind their products with the same ten and twenty five year warranties that Suntech offers.
Yingli has also come out with a high end panel called the Panda Module. This panel is a high efficiency monocrystalline offering.

[*]Trina Solar is another big, vertically integrated Chinese solar company. Trina also offers the same 10 year product warranty and 25 year power warranty we saw with the other big players.
Trina has also announced a premium line of high efficiency solar panels based on their so-called "Honey" technology.
All three of these companies have been around for over a decade and have established themselves as major players in a very competitive market. In other words: They're a pretty safe bet when you're looking to spend some dollars on solar power.
Also, with the "Pluto", "Panda", and "Honey" panels from these companies, you can get premium Chinese solar panels without having to worry about "premium Chinese" being an oxymoron.

[*]So we've looked at the good, now what about the not-so-good?

[*]Trying to name different companies that are producing low quality Chinese solar panels won't help much since those companies could close their doors tomorrow with others taking their place. Instead you should remember to follow these basic rules when considering purchasing solar panels (or anything else):

• Find out how long the company has been around
  

• Talk to others who have purchased the company's products
  

• Look for a warranty (and try to make sure the company will be around to answer to it)
  

[*]
This general advice holds true because buying solar panels from China is really the same as buying them from anywhere else. There are reputable companies producing high quality goods and there are fly-by-night companies that might be out of business long before their warranties expire.

[Eric the Green]

Scientific American looks at how China rose to dominance in the solar power industry.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-industry/

[Eric the Green]

http://wearestillin.com/

WE ARE STILL IN

Open letter to the international community and parties to the Paris Agreement from U.S. state, local, and business leaders

We, the undersigned mayors, governors, college and university leaders, businesses, and investors are joining forces for the first time to declare that we will continue to support climate action to meet the Paris Agreement.

See website.....

[Odin]

X, your ideas about the quality of Chinese manufacturing about about 15 years out of date.

[Eric the Green]

https://www.facebook.com/camanpour/video...014085370/

[Eric the Green]

(06-08-2017, 10:38 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-08-2017, 06:30 AM)Odin Wrote: X, your ideas about the quality of Chinese manufacturing about about 15 years out of date.

No, it's literally only 15 minutes out of date, as I live this dream daily.

A dream???? This issue is not about dreams; it's about facts, as surely as we can get them.

[Eric the Green]

(06-08-2017, 01:49 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-08-2017, 12:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-08-2017, 10:38 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-08-2017, 06:30 AM)Odin Wrote: X, your ideas about the quality of Chinese manufacturing about about 15 years out of date.

No, it's literally only 15 minutes out of date, as I live this dream daily.

A dream???? This issue is not about dreams; it's about facts, as surely as we can get them.

Eric surely you are familiar the the colloquial expression "living the dream" to describe something that is completely FUBAR?

Or is that too much of an Xer-speak thing ... too snarky and sarcastic for you to be familiar with it?

Yes, AFAIK "living the dream" is a positive statement that you are living out something you wanted in your dreams.

I first learned about FUBAR in a human potential seminar when a trainer applied the name to me. That was when I was 30 years old.

[Eric the Green]

Congratulations to these states for doing what's right.

[Galen]

(06-09-2017, 10:37 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-09-2017, 07:00 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(06-08-2017, 01:49 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Eric surely you are familiar the the colloquial expression "living the dream" to describe something that is completely FUBAR?

Or is that too much of an Xer-speak thing ... too snarky and sarcastic for you to be familiar with it?

Yes, AFAIK "living the dream" is a positive statement that you are living out something you wanted in your dreams.

I first learned about FUBAR in a human potential seminar when a trainer applied the name to me. That was when I was 30 years old.

One might also say "good times" when in the midst of a complete clusterfuck. I was in a meeting today where that was uttered and it was not a celebration.

Eric the Obtuse finds Xer snark and sarcasm to be difficult concepts and so doesn't recognize it.  For one thing, they require at least a rudimentary sense of humor and irony which I see no evidence of him possessing.  Then again his understanding of science and technology seem to be at seventeenth century level so I really wouldn't expect much from him.

[pbrower2a]

(06-14-2017, 03:24 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-09-2017, 10:37 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-09-2017, 07:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-08-2017, 01:49 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Eric surely you are familiar the the colloquial expression "living the dream" to describe something that is completely FUBAR?

Or is that too much of an Xer-speak thing ... too snarky and sarcastic for you to be familiar with it?

Yes, AFAIK "living the dream" is a positive statement that you are living out something you wanted in your dreams.

I first learned about FUBAR in a human potential seminar when a trainer applied the name to me. That was when I was 30 years old.

One might also say "good times" when in the midst of a complete clusterfuck. I was in a meeting today where that was uttered and it was not a celebration.

Eric the Obtuse finds Xer snark and sarcasm to be difficult concepts and so doesn't recognize it.  For one thing, they require at least a rudimentary sense of humor and irony which I see no evidence of him possessing.  Then again his understanding of science and technology seem to be at seventeenth century level so I really wouldn't expect much from him.

I was warned in a college composition class that satire looks easy, but is quite difficult to make work. Even at that, many competent people simply don't get it as intended. So it is with people with Asperger's  Syndrome even if they are brilliant; they may see the vileness but not the humor. In my case, it almost takes physical comedy (Charlie Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy, Monty Python, Chespirito) to make me laugh.