We Are Still In (United States / Paris Climate Accord)

[Xenoilphobe]

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.

It won't be any of these cities.
Bankrupt Cities, Municipalities List and Map

 

[SageBrush]

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.

Are you by any chance talking about the Tesla and Elon that I know, beneficiaries of state, federal, and CARB support ?

 

[Reciprocity]

Are you by any chance talking about the Tesla and Elon that I know, beneficiaries of state, federal, and CARB support ?

Mouse nuts I say...

So that means we (the people of the world) should give the UN up to $2 trillion over the next 10 years? I mean who do they answer to? Has the UN ever had corruption, rhetorical question alert... At least if California does some shady things with carb funds they can be prosecuted. Once that money goes into the black box that is the UN and gets disbursed with zero accountability from the countries receiving the funds.

Your argument also justifies why I think Tesla and Elon would be a better place for people's money. Instead of supporting this crappy unbinding Accord. Invest in Tesla instead and I assure you Elon will do more to decarbonize the world faster and more efficiently and be answers to us the stock holders and the SEC and Amber Heard of course.

Having said that even Elon has said the fed, state and carb funds are "mouse nuts" (guys words) and we agree all incentives from government should be removed from Green, ethenol and big oil and I agree. I also agree that we need a revenue neutral carbon tax that insentives decarbonization. Key word being revenue neutral, not a new tax but replace an existing tax. When you do this, people and business will do things to offset their carbon footprint to pay less on taxes. The other upside to this vs something like a gas tax, it that it does but impact the poor disproportionately. If you increase the gas tax to fund carb, you crush the poor who can't afford EVs and who's transportation is a large portion of their income. With a revenue neutral carbon tax, you would get bipartisan support.

Let's all agree decarbonization is a great idea, it doesn't mean we have to agree on the best way to get it done.

 

[SwTslaGrl]

I guess all in the "We Are Still In" movement supports Tesla direct sales, solar and storage to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy?

 

[Doug_G]

I've moved a bunch off topic partisan politics, posts running afoul of Godwin's law, etc. to Trump pulls out of Paris climate deal

 

[Uncle Paul]

Don't believe that Trump has anything against the Paris Agreement, except that it is a bad financial deal for the USA.

If some other people are willing to step up, and pay the expenses that Trump considers unfair, I would imaging that he would be all for the agreement.

If it becomes a good deal for the USA, I would imaginge that Trump would be more than happy to continue with the goals of reducing emissions, but it would need not be a burden on our taxpayers or put US companies in a competitve disadvantage.

 

[Skotty]

Don't believe that Trump has anything against the Paris Agreement, except that it is a bad financial deal for the USA.

If some other people are willing to step up, and pay the expenses that Trump considers unfair, I would imaging that he would be all for the agreement.

If it becomes a good deal for the USA, I would imaginge that Trump would be more than happy to continue with the goals of reducing emissions, but it would need not be a burden on our taxpayers or put US companies in a competitve disadvantage.

That's called letting other people pull your dead weight. Welfare for conservatives, and a failure to understand that money is not the only thing in this world that has value. That's kind of harsh maybe, but that conservative viewpoint seems to be gaining steam, and I think it's important for conservatives to realize that making the world a better place does not go against conservative principle, as the many conservatives in the House Climate Solutions Caucus would likely attest. If Paris is a bad deal, finish out the current commitment and adjust it at the next reassessment.

 

[SageBrush]

Let's all agree decarbonization is a great idea

Coal ?
So far as I know, that is the only trump proposal put forth.

Your summary of the Green fund is disingenuous. You could not care less what other countries contribute, and it's a fair guess you could not care less what America contributes -- only what you contribute.

But let's go with the US for fun: 100B of US taxpayer money to leverage 99.9T of world capital to decarbonize the world.
I'm still waiting for you to estimate the costs of damages and mitigation from your do-nothing policy.

 

[Reciprocity]

Coal ?
So far as I know, that is the only trump proposal put forth.

Your summary of the Green fund is disingenuous. You could not care less what other countries contribute, and it's a fair guess you could not care less what America contributes -- only what you contribute.

But let's go with the US for fun: 100B of US taxpayer money to leverage 99.9T of world capital to decarbonize the world.
I'm still waiting for you to estimate the costs of damages and mitigation from your do-nothing policy.

Huh? If you are going to make up numbers, Why not a gazillion dollars. I never said 100B US, I said the funds would be best directed to Elon. Tell me this, if the UN had the 2 trillion dollars they want over 10 years tomorrow, what would they sirens it on? Who has that many solar panels and wind turbines and batteries available? No one, especially batteries. Transport is the biggest contributer to emissions so who is going to build the EV and semis and buses. Are the lots full of these just waiting for UN money?

You have completely lost your senses with this 99 trillion thing. Have any proof?

 

[SageBrush]

You have completely lost your senses with this 99 trillion thing. Have any proof?

No "proof," but that is the cry of the denialist.

Start your reading here, a Citibank analysis based on research from the Univ. of Oxford.
They estimate a 70 Trillion dollar loss to world GDP from business as usual, aka the trump plan.

You can spin until you are blue in the face, but this all comes down to one simple point:
trump makes "sense" if you discount the risk of AGW to zero, and it is foolhardy in the extreme if you accept mainstream analysis.

Building EVs does not do SQUAT unless they are powered by a clean grid.

 

[kort677]

You have completely lost your senses with this 99 trillion thing. Have any proof?

facts and reality are the left's kryptonite

 

[McRat]

No "proof," but that is the cry of the denialist.

Start your reading here, a Citibank analysis based on research from the Univ. of Oxford.
They estimate a 70 Trillion dollar loss to world GDP from business as usual, aka the trump plan.

You can spin until you are blue in the face, but this all comes down to one simple point:
trump makes "sense" if you discount the risk of AGW to zero, and it is foolhardy in the extreme if you accept mainstream analysis.

Building EVs does not do SQUAT unless they are powered by a clean grid.

So put your faith in today's banker's opinions when it comes to truth? Even when truth is not profitable for them? You are certainly more generous than many folk are.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.html?_r=0

PS - EVs used in heavily polluted urban areas relocates and disperses the concentrations of noxious gases, and improve human health. That's not 'squat'.

 

[Shock-On-T]

Don't believe that Trump has anything against the Paris Agreement, except that it is a bad financial deal for the USA.

If some other people are willing to step up, and pay the expenses that Trump considers unfair, I would imaging that he would be all for the agreement.

If it becomes a good deal for the USA, I would imaginge that Trump would be more than happy to continue with the goals of reducing emissions, but it would need not be a burden on our taxpayers or put US companies in a competitve disadvantage.

Nah, he's said on record that he thinks climate change not man made. The video below is him saying so, about 12 months ago.
I'd say his motives for pulling out are rather less pure than sparing the beloved taxpayer any hardship.

 

[Skotty]

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

To swing back around to where this started, here's the deal for anyone who doesn't support the ideals of the Paris accord in the United States:

1) The rest of us will do it without you.
2) Any family or offspring that succeed you will reap the benefits of our efforts that you were unwilling to provide.
3) To those family and offspring, you're welcome.

 

[kort677]

3) To those family and offspring, you're welcome.

what benefits are you referring to?
the minimal lessening of rising temperatures?
or could it be the emptying of the US treasury
or is it giving up our sovereignty to a UN based panel?

 

[essmd]

Without getting too political, I fully support the decision to pull out of the Paris Accord, since as many have mentioned we would have "hemorrhaged" ridiculous amounts of money for no proven gain tof any significant environmental benefit, just another World Charity.

Say what you want about Trump, he knows a "Bad Deal" when he sees it, while Obama could not care less about the financial stability of the country for which he was president... I hope history will reflect him (Obama) as being one of the most worthless presidents in U.S. history, but it probably won't.

So much for not getting too political...

 

[Shock-On-T]

Without getting too political, I fully support the decision to pull out of the Paris Accord, since as many have mentioned we would have "hemorrhaged" ridiculous amounts of money for no proven gain tof any significant environmental benefit, just another World Charity.

Say what you want about Trump, he knows a "Bad Deal" when he sees it, while Obama could not care less about the financial stability of the country for which he was president... I hope history will reflect him (Obama) as being one of the most worthless presidents in U.S. history, but it probably won't.

So much for not getting too political...

If the goal is to reduce emissions as cheaply as possible, the Paris Accord is a great deal.

Basically, the best bang-for-your-buck is to spend the money on countries that are too poor to clean up their act on their own. And since we all use the same sky, you're actually fixing your own problem by proxy.

However, if human CO2 emissions aren't contributing to climate change, then the Paris Accord would be a total waste of time and a "bad deal" for everyone.

Trump is on record saying he doesn't believe human CO2 emissions are contributing to climate change, so that pretty much explains his decision. If he really thought emission reduction was necessary, he'd be all over the Paris Accord.

 

[hockeythug]

I liked the mysterious "green climate fund" the best. Nobody said who would control it or where the money would go. I would assume it was going to go to build a fancy new headquarters in the EU somewhere.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

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?

I'd like to see a source for that. Every account I've read pegs the amount pledged at $3 billion and the amount given so far at $1 billion.

Obama Just Took One Final Step to Fight Global Warming – Mother Jones

We already give $2-3 billion a year in foreign aid through the Economic Support Fund. The only difference is that some of it was given to the UN climate fund instead of some other organization.

 

[Reciprocity]

I'd like to see a source for that. Every account I've read pegs the amount pledged at $3 billion and the amount given so far at $1 billion.

Obama Just Took One Final Step to Fight Global Warming – Mother Jones

We already give $2-3 billion a year in foreign aid through the Economic Support Fund. The only difference is that some of it was given to the UN climate fund instead of some other organization.

I posted the NPR article in several threads including probably this one. I suggest you use the search to find it. I've moved on, because we are no longer subject to the Accord.