So I was feeling pretty down about climate recently, but for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, this totally warms my heart.
We Are Still In
We Are Still In
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
We Are Still In (United States / Paris Climate Accord)
- Thread starter Skotty
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy USA
Reciprocity
Active Member
I wonder how the "We Are Still In" people are going to raise the 100B/Year then 300B+/Y after the first 5 years. Interesting question I think.
Here is a better idea... let me know what you think:
Poll: $100 Billion - Elon or Green Fund?
Its really a question of Capitalism vs Socialism.
Here is a better idea... let me know what you think:
Poll: $100 Billion - Elon or Green Fund?
Its really a question of Capitalism vs Socialism.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
It is a question of abject stupidity and ignorance ... and not.
Does Elon Musk and Tesla strike you as your most feared stereotype ?
Reciprocity
Active Member
Reciprocity
Active Member
I dont have many fears and dont really think of things in terms of stereotypes. But its really hard to know what you are asking.
Since you dont like my poll, can you at least explain how this new band of Cities and States are planning on funding the UN Green fund. Shouldnt be a problem to scrape together enough taxpayers to front the 100B/Year for the next 5 years and 300B+/Y after that. I mean, there is a lot financially healthy cities in that list, should be no problem. Maybe people will just contribute. I honestly think they would be better off buying $TSLA stock, but im not very smart and I fear some stereotypes or something.
Thanks, it is encouraging to realize that most people in America support the Paris Agreement (it is not a treaty!) and that many states and local governments will continue to do the responsible thing and work to reduce carbon emissions, just as Tesla and many other major American companies are doing.
Ignorance and fear will not stop America from doing the right thing.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The obvious way would be by saving the money currently spent on foreign oil, the expanded military to protect the oil fields and shipping, and to fend off the fossil fueled international terrorism. And if that arithmetic is too politically incorrect for you, add in the cost of mitigation and natural disasters from AGW.
I know, I know ... all "socialist" arguments
Canuck
Well-Known Member
No it's not. Saying that shows an ignorance of both capitalism and socialism because they are not mutually exclusive, as you posit above.
In fact, capitalism relies on socialism to be prosperous. We need an educated population (education to grade 12 is socialism), we need roads to get our products to market (infrastructure is socialism), we need medical services to ensure our workers are healthy and productive, and I could go on and on.
"Socialism" just means:
Whereas "Capitalism" means:
All of the things I cited above are owned and regulated by the community as a whole (except medical services in the US which have an aspect of socialism in the Affordable Care Act that may be extinguished in favour of tax cuts for the wealthy). The US currently has a light dose of socialism in health care, whereas single payer health care is a heavier dose of socialism, as we have in Canada.
Unless you want private industry building all roads and charging users for the ability to use every road, and also building schools and charging you for each class your child attends (as opposed to charging taxpayers equally), then you also believe in socialism but you just don't know it. You could still argue the extent to which socialism should apply but to say Capitalism vs. Socialism is the test is wrong since they operate together, unlike Communism vs. Capitalism.
Issues surrounding the environment and global warming are right up there with education and health care, as requiring a heavy dose of socialism, at least in my view.
these are tired old liberal cliches. the us exports as much energy as it imports.
safeguarding oilfields is part of the commitments made to safeguard the nation's allies. safeguarding freedom of commerce on the seas is an obligation that benefits the US and the world's economies.
come up with fresher rhetoric.
Today I heard A. Gore admit on TV the Paris agreement would not have made any difference .... but "we would be sending a message" (or some such quote).
Elsewhere, I read the Paris agreement would reduce the global temperature fractions of 1 degree.
For that little world benefit ... we are going to give Billions of US dollars to other countries?
Elsewhere, I read the Paris agreement would reduce the global temperature fractions of 1 degree.
For that little world benefit ... we are going to give Billions of US dollars to other countries?
Canuck
Well-Known Member
You're already giving billions of US dollars to other countries. Do you take the position that first world countries should provide no foreign aid to third world countries? If so, we will agree to disagree. Here's a list of the top 20 foreign aid contributions as a percentage of gross national income in 2015:
-
Sweden – 1.40%
- Norway – 1.05%
- Luxembourg – 0.93%
- Denmark – 0.85%
- Netherlands – 0.76%
- United Kingdom – 0.71%
- Finland – 0.56%
- Switzerland – 0.52%
- Germany – 0.52%
- Belgium – 0.42%
- France – 0.37%
- Ireland – 0.36%
- Austria – 0.32%
- Canada – 0.28%
- New Zealand – 0.27%
- Australia – 0.27%
- Iceland – 0.24%
- Japan – 0.22%
- Italy – 0.21%
- United States – 0.17%
Returning to the Paris Climate Accord, as the New York Times reported, the U.S. has promised to supply up to $3 billion in aid for developing nations by 2020 to help them meet their emissions-cutting goals. That aid is part of a collective pool called the Green Climate Fund, as Trump says, which is administered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, according to the Paris Agreement. While $3 billion may sound like a lot of money to most people, for the United States government, which took in some $16.5 trillion in GDP last year, it’s a pretty paltry sum. And it isn’t even an annual contribution. As of May, the U.S. has kicked in a third of its $3 billion pledge to the fund, according to the Washington Post.
Hopefully, this puts in perspective what we are doing to our children's future.
Last edited:
US contribution was set at $3 billion. I need to get better verification, but sources so far indicate this is total, not per year. Therefore, your numbers are exaggerated by over 100x what the real amount was.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...mp-paris-green-climate-fund.html?mcubz=0&_r=0
Reciprocity
Active Member
Total funding is set to be 100B, you know that you can invest in the US stock market when you dont live in the US right?
Reciprocity
Active Member
I am totally fine with the government gutting funding for oil. That is really not at all what the question was. Who would do better with the money, Elon the Capitalist or the UN? Go..
Canuck
Well-Known Member
So it went from "100B a year" in your poll here:
"Who would best utilize 100B a year to save the Environment?"
To:
Not surprisingly, none of your numbers are factual.
"Who would best utilize 100B a year to save the Environment?"
To:
Not surprisingly, none of your numbers are factual.
It's not like we are just randomly throwing money in the air for them to grab. And it's only 3 billion for a good cause. The defense budget increase Trump wants is over 50 billion dollars per year. That means these climate projects we would pay for equal roughly 6% of a single year increase in the proposed defense budget that was already well over $500 billion per year. The US exists on the planet, so if we are going to spend $550+ billion per year protecting the US, it might not be a bad idea to spend a few billion protecting the planet the US requires as well. It's our planet, and we should defend it.
Knowing the actual numbers matter. Imagine a girl scout troup wants to do some safety projects in your neighborhood. It's nice, but you don't really want it. The neighborhood will charge you $100 per year for it. No wait! Correct that. It's a one time 3 dollar charge. Big difference. Are you not going to give the girl scouts 3 dollars? Likewise, I fully support having a solid defense department. But when you look at the numbers spent in context to other programs and other countries, the desire to spend another $50+ billion a year on it quickly loses it's appeal.
Reciprocity
Active Member
Sorry, total fund is set to 100B/Year growing to 300B+ per year in 5 years.
Edit: From that rightwing organization NPR:
So What Exactly Is In The Paris Climate Accord?
$100 Billion
"To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year," NPR's Christopher Joyce reports.
But that amount is identified as a "floor," not a ceiling.
"Developed countries won inclusion of language that would up the ante in subsequent years," he explains, "so that financial aid will keep ramping up over time."
Last edited:
I'm still researching to get facts straight, but there appears to be truth in that there might would be additional commitments of money at a later date if the agreement were to be followed, so it's not just 3 billion one time, but 3 billion for now, and to be reevaluated at some later date where presumably there would be additional commitments if the agreement was continued. But you tend to characterize it as if the US was itself responsible for a full 100 billion per year, which is obviously not the case.
Reciprocity
Active Member
Never meant it to be the case, foreigners can invest in $TSLA as well. The point of the exercise was to compare UN Green Fund socialism vs good old American grit and capitalism. There can be more then one right answer to a problem. Both could be right, but I'm putting my money and support behind Tesla and Elon.
Similar threads
- Article
