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

[omgwtfbyobbq]

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.

We were never legally bound to the accord, which is the point. Claiming that we would have to give hundreds of billions a year to a voluntary, non-binding agreement is a big old red herring.

President Obama pledged $3 billion and ended up giving $1 billion. You can use that fact in a reasonable manner. Anything else is a pure alternative fact.

 

[Reciprocity]

We were never legally bound to the accord, which is the point. Claiming that we would have to give hundreds of billions a year to a voluntary, non-binding agreement is a big old red herring.

President Obama pledged $3 billion and ended up giving $1 billion. You can use that fact in a reasonable manner. Anything else is a pure alternative fact.

I have never limited my opinion to the US. My assertion was that the money would best be used to fund Tesla. All of it, not just the US money. The UN won't just waste/lose or money. People all the around the world can invest in Tesla. If they really care about the environment, they can do something by investing in Tesla. Good day sir.

 

[Skotty]

Today, my wife and I commit to our own Paris Pledge in doing our part to support climate action and meet the objectives of the Paris agreement.

Our pledge, it's objectives, and progress towards those objectives are provided publicly here: Paris Pledge - Cari and Scott

Anyone interested in pledging their own support can do so through IAmStillIn (make sure you agree to terms and conditions before signing).

 

[hockeythug]

We were never legally bound to the accord, which is the point. Claiming that we would have to give hundreds of billions a year to a voluntary, non-binding agreement is a big old red herring.

President Obama pledged $3 billion and ended up giving $1 billion. You can use that fact in a reasonable manner. Anything else is a pure alternative fact.

$1 billion he had no authority to hand over. Unless he used some of the money from his justice department slush fund that was extorting companies.

 

[wdolson]

As I understand it, the $1 billion came out of the US's foreign aid fund. This was essentially foreign aid.

As an aside, most Americans have no clue the percentage of the US budget that goes to foreign aid. It's tiny, and this was a relatively small slice of that:
Most people clueless on U.S. foreign aid spending
http://www.politifact.com/global-ne...most-people-clueless-us-foreign-aid-spending/
Most See U.S. Foreign Aid As A Bad Deal for America - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[renim]

Although there are many difference between the Kyoto agreement and the Paris agreement.

Paris essentially is about bringing in the limits to CO2 production at developing nations (India / China etc) in exchange for $100 billion each and every year to be funded into the developing nations by the developed nations.
" developed country Parties to scale up their level of financial support, with a concrete road map to achieve the goal of jointly providing USD 100 billion annually by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation" Paris Agreement (All language versions)

To raise a commitment from a Kyoto level to a Paris level, also decides / Resolves transfer of wealth, some rough figures
USA contributes about 22% of UN running costs, exclude of developed countries, USA contribute of 30-33%
so expected USA contribution would be about $33 billion annually

USA federal tax receipts are about $3 trillion, so Paris agreement is about 1% of USA tax receipts. To fulfil one's own Paris agreement really requires funding an overseas entity with about 1% of ones of tax (and 1% of the company's taxes owned in investments).

essentially to fulfill Kyoto, put solar on your own roof, but to fulfill Paris, put solar on someone else's roof.