Trump pulls out of Paris climate deal

[kort677]

According to the expert scientists, most of us died a couple of decades ago from overpopulation. The world could not feed 5 billion people, we would starve. Oddly, starvation is not as common today as a leading killer as it was back then.

what ever happened to global cooling or the hole in the ozone?
in a few years this global warming craze will morph into another cataclysmic event.
I hate to get into conspiracy theories but right now the biggest threat to mankind is political in nature.

 

[McRat]

Do you really think that labelling people helps the discussion and helps your message to get heard?

Labeling is all the rage. It's all I hear in the media and government. Folks are defined entirely by their wealth, race, intelligence, location, religion, gender, etc.

According to anti-election folk, I'm an uneducated dolt who is a racist and I demand a Theocratic form of government. I hate the environment and will destroy it if allowed, and I want all people who are not heterosexuals to be arrested. Of course I'm a hardcore misogynist as well.

That's my official 'branding' by the new Left. The fact not one single stereotype out of those talking points is actually true is not important.

I treat the new Left with just slightly less contempt as they treat other Americans. I see them as an anti-social, racist, and destructive force in society. And that is being generous. They are the worst thing that happened to America since tetraethyl lead in gasoline.

 

[kort677]

I think hillary coined the catch all term of deplorable.
don't people remember this famous line?
"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. "
Barack Obama

 

[bhzmark]

You must be Republican then?

Good example of how many republicans converse like they are 12 yrs old and its impossible to have an intelligent policy discussion with most of them. No unicorn posting on this thread, that's for sure.

One exception/unicorn is Bret Stephens, formerly Wsj now nyt. His recent articles conceding that human caused climate change does exist, but just skeptical of the evidence that any of the programs being pushed now will actually have any measurable effect. He does make some good points. Wish there were more like him who actually engage with the policy and science to elevate the discussion.

 

[kort677]

Good example of how many republicans converse like they are 12 yrs old and its impossible to have an intelligent policy discussion with most of them. No unicorn posting on this thread, that's for sure.

it's impossible to give any credibility to anyone who's thought processes allow for generalities like this. it's on the level of all xxxx's like watermelon

 

[Xolt]

Every country deal under the agreement is different just as every nation has different natural resources. Trump is not anti-environmental as many like to portray him. The mentality by many without analyzing the facts is that if Obama did it and Trump doesn't it must be wrong or simply "whatever Trump does it must be bad". How many of those who comment on this or leave their snarky remarks, just to fit in with other commenters, have actually read the terms of the US deal, not just listened to slanted news reports, but actually researched and read it? By not signing the US has the option to utilize the natural resource hand it was dealt. You may argue how we use our resources but using them doesn't mean we will abuse those resources. We always have the option to use our resources with respect for the environment as other Nations use and abuse their resources under their different portions of the agreement.

 

[rainforest]

is that so? what was he accomplishments? what was platform other than to continue the obama legacy? she was a severely flawed person and as bad as some claim trump is she was unable to beat that inexperienced, "crazy" man.

I would like to offer a rebuttal, but we better keep this thread on topic. Not sure how I could relate Hillary to Tesla. Lol

And relax - don't let liberals get you worked up too much. We should start a new thread for Republican Tesla owners!

 

[PAULL]

Politics in america and abroad are working perfectly, we all remain divided . . .
:/

 

[Doug_G]

This thread is toxic. Closing it now.

 

[oktane]

Not all Americans support the Paris Agreement. It's popular to be anti-Trump and feel guilty as an American. Many of us are pro-America and do not want Europe dictating what we do. We know Paris to be an unfair agreement in many ways. That doesn't mean we're against the environment. It just means we're not going to be guilted into paying India and China trillions in taxpayer money for an agreement with questionable returns (0.3F in 100 years).

Only those who believe in socialism, wealth distribution, the media, or American guilt, want this. Ask most Americans for details about the Paris Agreement, or how much it costs tax payers, and they won't know or care - since they're not paying into it anyway. Typical liberal attitude, is to pledge other people's money for causes only they believe in, then riot and cry about it when the general public disagrees with their sense of moral self-righteousness.

Like I said, those of you upset by America not being in the agreement - do your part. Please donate 5% of your NET WORTH to India or China to keep polluting, and pat yourself on the back. If you aren't willing to do this, you're a hypocrite. Please don't post anything anti-American unless you put your money where your mouth is. As for me, I don't agree with the Paris agreement I'm keeping my money in America.

 

[SageBrush]

It just means we're not going to be guilted into paying India and China trillions in taxpayer money

Explain

 

[mspohr]

Not all Americans support the Paris Agreement. It's popular to be anti-Trump and feel guilty as an American. Many of us are pro-America and do not want Europe dictating what we do. We know Paris to be an unfair agreement in many ways. That doesn't mean we're against the environment. It just means we're not going to be guilted into paying India and China trillions in taxpayer money for an agreement with questionable returns (0.3F in 100 years).

Only those who believe in socialism, wealth distribution, the media, or American guilt, want this. Ask most Americans for details about the Paris Agreement, or how much it costs tax payers, and they won't know or care - since they're not paying into it anyway. Typical liberal attitude, is to pledge other people's money for causes only they believe in, then riot and cry about it when the general public disagrees with their sense of moral self-righteousness.

Like I said, those of you upset by America not being in the agreement - do your part. Please donate 5% of your NET WORTH to India or China to keep polluting, and pat yourself on the back. If you aren't willing to do this, you're a hypocrite. Please don't post anything anti-American unless you put your money where your mouth is. As for me, I don't agree with the Paris agreement I'm keeping my money in America.

Normally I try to not respond to name calling trolls but I thought I'd try a little education to see how it goes.
India and China.
These countries have contributed much less pollution to the environment over the past 100 years than the US. They are the two countries who are doing most to switch to renewables. India will be building more renewable power than the entire current US energy grid. (Financed by government and private sources... none of your precious tax dollars.) Same with China which has cancelled all planned future coal plants and is closing hundreds of old inefficient coal plants. China is the world leader in installing solar and wind power. India will ban the sale of fossil cars by 2030. China is subsidizing electric cars and leads the world in adoption of electric vehicles.
China is contributing funds to developing countries to help combat climate change (not taking funds).
The US has contributed more to global CO2 than any other country so therefore should do more than any other country but it is doing much less. The US has pledged (not paid) US$9 per person to the fund. Other countries such as Sweden, Japan, the UK have pledged much more.

 

[kort677]

Explain

read the text of the accords

 

[mspohr]

read the text of the accords

Well, you clearly haven't read the text.
China gets nothing, nada, definitely not "trillions". (China is actually contributing money.)
India may get something but the with a total US pledge of $3billion (only $400 million actually paid), it will be substantially less than "trillions".

Ironically, it's probably only a matter of time before other countries slap a carbon tax on US exports which will cost us a lot more in the long run.

 

[oktane]

Normally I try to not respond to name calling trolls but I thought I'd try a little education to see how it goes.
India and China.
These countries have contributed much less pollution to the environment over the past 100 years than the US. They are the two countries who are doing most to switch to renewables. India will be building more renewable power than the entire current US energy grid. (Financed by government and private sources... none of your precious tax dollars.) Same with China which has cancelled all planned future coal plants and is closing hundreds of old inefficient coal plants. China is the world leader in installing solar and wind power. India will ban the sale of fossil cars by 2030. China is subsidizing electric cars and leads the world in adoption of electric vehicles.
China is contributing funds to developing countries to help combat climate change (not taking funds).
The US has contributed more to global CO2 than any other country so therefore should do more than any other country but it is doing much less. The US has pledged (not paid) US$9 per person to the fund. Other countries such as Sweden, Japan, the UK have pledged much more.

Good info but the entire premise is flawed. So what if we have polluted in the last 100 years, surely we shouldn't feel guilty about inventing the technology the whole world enjoys today? Are you suggesting we should be penalized for our past success before we knew about possible global warming? Do you think we would have polluted 100 years ago if we had cheap solar cells, nuclear, etc?

What matters to me is the next 100 years. Why should other countries be allowed to pollute and have lower standards than us for the next generation, thereby making our businesses globally uncompetitive? Why should we be the ones paying for other nations when money is needed at home?

Why should I care what citizens of other countries have pledged? They are socialist nations, at least right now we are not. You may want us to become a socialist nation, I do not know. That's certainly not what I want.

I have no guilt about our great country, but it sounds like you do.

 

[Festerfeet]

Good info but the entire premise is flawed. So what if we have polluted in the last 100 years, surely we shouldn't feel guilty about inventing the technology the whole world enjoys today? Are you suggesting we should be penalized for our past success before we knew about possible global warming? Do you think we would have polluted 100 years ago if we had cheap solar cells, nuclear, etc?

What matters to me is the next 100 years. Why should other countries be allowed to pollute and have lower standards than us for the next generation, thereby making our businesses globally uncompetitive? Why should we be the ones paying for other nations when money is needed at home?

Why should I care what citizens of other countries have pledged? They are socialist nations, at least right now we are not. You may want us to become a socialist nation, I do not know. That's certainly not what I want.

I have no guilt about our great country, but it sounds like you do.

If you set aside the damage already done then look at the damage before by done now and in the future then the metrics for the US don't exactly look great.

The US is producing greenhouse gasses at a much higher rate than either India or China when looked at on a per capita basis. Surely you aren't cross just because they both have a much larger population than the US?

 

[RayW]

Short answer: Trump is an idiot and a majority of Americans did not vote for him.

 

[oktane]

Short answer: Trump is an idiot and a majority of Americans did not vote for him.

And your point? The USA is not a democracy where the majority rules. We are a constitutional republic wth an electoral college. There are many benefits as evidenced by this recent election. Go back to civics 101.

If Trump is such an idiot, perhaps you should do a better job for us all in 2020.

 

[DiamondHands]

I'll just leave this here
Paris Agreement: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

 

[McRat]

The typical American does worry much about the UN Climate Agreement. The ones who know 45% of the monies actually paid by signatories so far came from the US are probably against it. The ones who live their lives based on 5 word headlines probably want to US to remain a signatory.

The whole issue comes down to marketing. It's not a 'Paris Agreement', that is just a common propaganda technique called rebranding. It is, and it remains, a purely UN function. The UN is normally against American interests while at the same time demanding American money.

The United States of America has developed most of the green technologies and emissions controls and remains a world leader in ecology. Regardless of what you might have read in the papers, we are not removing our catalytic converters tomorrow or taking all our PV, Wind, and NG powerplants off-line this week. They will continue to improve.