Slashdot Mirror
Trump Announces US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord (reuters.com)
It's official. President Donald Trump announced today that the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, following through on a pledge he made during the presidential campaign. Trump said the Paris agreement "front loads costs on American people. In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States," the president said. "We are getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair. And if we can, that's great." Trump said that the United States will immediately "cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord" and what he said were "draconian financial" and other burdens imposed on the country by the accord.
This means that Elon Musk will leave Trump's Business Advisory Council. On Wednesday, Musk said he did "all he could to advise directly to Trump." (Update: Elon Musk is staying true to his words. Following the announcement, Musk tweeted, "Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.")
Twenty-five companies, including Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google, HP, Microsoft, Salesforce, Morgan Stanley, Intel signed on to a letter which was published on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal today arguing in favor of climate pact.
Update: Former president Barack Obama said the U.S. "joins a small handful of nations that reject the future."
Also, the New York Times points out that despite Trump's public statements, the U.S. can't officially leave the Paris climate agreement until 2020.
This means that Elon Musk will leave Trump's Business Advisory Council. On Wednesday, Musk said he did "all he could to advise directly to Trump." (Update: Elon Musk is staying true to his words. Following the announcement, Musk tweeted, "Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.")
Twenty-five companies, including Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google, HP, Microsoft, Salesforce, Morgan Stanley, Intel signed on to a letter which was published on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal today arguing in favor of climate pact.
Update: Former president Barack Obama said the U.S. "joins a small handful of nations that reject the future."
Also, the New York Times points out that despite Trump's public statements, the U.S. can't officially leave the Paris climate agreement until 2020.
The agreement dozen cost a single cent. It's only an agreement of good will, with no consequence for polluting countries.
We get to join Nicaragua and Syria in not being part of the Paris Climate Accord. And Nicaragua didn't sign it because they think it doesn't go far enough.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Between California regulations, consumer-driven conservation, the increasing market for electric cars, and the price drop in renewable energy, aren't Americans on track to seriously cut CO2 emissions anyway?
Finding God in a Dog
he was pulling out as well
Blue states should get together and promise internationally to try to keep the spirit of the agreement alive in their respective states. While it may not be constitutional to make formal agreements, at least token pledges can be given.
Time to leave the troglodytes in the dust; they will drag us backward if we let them set the agenda. And they are an embarrassment to the USA.
Table-ized A.I.
There's some analysis suggesting that the US being out of any agreements like this will allow the other 194 countries that "believe" in science to be more aggressive on emission targets, and that on net might be a positive result. The US could then get its act together if and when we stop electing Republican idiots, which could happen as early as 2020.
God, to think DT makes GWB look intelligent and wise....
This is why the USA has destroyed the world in growth and power. Looking at the market and economies, it seems to continue to do so.
The next President can just opt right back in, and the US has given every other country on Earth a head start on renewable energy tech.
Really, the only downside is increased CO2 emissions hastening the effects of global warming. Oh and I guess job losses and your country being a laughing stock, if you're an American.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Can't really blame a guy for following through with his campaign promises.
You can blame all the people that voted for him though. When climate change costs your nation money, you ought to sue the US and others for damages. I suspect international courts in 20 years will be really receptive to the idea when willful ignorance played such a big part in the US's choices around climate change denial.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Trump ran on this position.. I'm not surprised he's doing this... Like him or not, you have to admit that he generally tries to do what he promises...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
He made thousands of promises during his campaign and has broken or walked back from most of them (and of course the wall would bankrupt our country). This might be the first one he has actually accomplished. I can't say based on his track record so far that the devastation that will come from it is at all outside the normal range for his actions.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Yeah, fuck the future! Fuck the planet! Fuck humanity! Our industrial corporate overlords need moar profits now! Management level and the politicians sucking up to them can build their bunkers with drugs and hookers to be safe in while the rest of the world goes to shit!
Kind regards,
the GOP, represented by the Donald who just Trumped your ass.
Put up sanctions against us. Seriously. It would be entirely justified and then some. The world puts sanctions on countries for merely looking at certain countries the wrong way, and we're basically attacking all of you, and all your children, and all your children's children.
The areas of the country that realize climate change will be hurt by such sanctions, sure, but we didn't do enough to prevent this. Plus, it'll punish the red states that gleefully thumb their noses at the rest of you more. Deserved.
If you put sanctions on us and refuse to buy shit from us or trade with us, that drives down the amount of carbon we put in the air. It'll hurt us now, but that's better than letting us ruin shit.
Sanctions didn't really stop the spread of communism, despite many decades of trying, but I'm willing to bet that it could be effective in trying to prevent the spread of climate change.
Please, fuck us up economically. It's the only way we'll change and we deserve it now.
The Paris agreement was not going to do anything anyway - so why stick with it?
Trump could not lose by withdrawing from this meaningless symbol - it will have no ill effect for the climate, and in the meantime (as you will see from the comments here and elsewhere) it will drive his detractors even more insane than they already were, and they state they were in was pretty far gone.
If you truly want to help the climate figure out how to act and help in real ways, rather than sign a meaningless document that will provide no real change other than making you feel good about yourself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Must be a slow news day with no important going on.
Every country that remains a signatory under the Paris Accord, and upholds its respective commitments, has the right to impose unilateral tariffs on the USA to cover the economic and social impacts resulting from the USA's impacts on the climate.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Can't really blame a guy for following through with his campaign promises.
Why not? He said "piss off" to his constituents on plenty of other topics, such as Nafta or his hard stance on China. This is simply the willful ignorance of a single man. Individual voters can at least say they voted for him for other reasons and climate change wasn't a litmus test for them, but Trump has no excuse.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
The government being in the Paris agreement or not is totally independent of the U.S. leading in renewable energy development, which will continue to be true.
If for no other reason than Musk...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It was a bad treaty that did nothing to curb global warming. It was just a money grab that would never have been ratified.
Obama knew it was crap when he signed it, but he is a pandering weasel.
Trump doesn't believe the environment is something that ought (or needs) to be protected. He's also a fucking idiot who will never be convinced he wears no clothes when his gut tells him different. Now can we have something that we don't know?
"Fuck my economy while I watch"
I am beginning to understand why the right has been calling you "cucks".
The countries that are doing something about climate change should implement trade sanctions against the USA.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Trump Will Announce US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord
I'm not surprised, It's the one big thing he can do quickly to fulfil a campaign promise and stick it to the 'libruls' where he does not have to deal with congress, the constitution or the judicial system. He can just pull out of the Paris Accord and declare a glorious victory, temporary balm for a bruised ego. Meanwhile China stands by on the sidelines with plans for a $900 billion fund to invest in overseas energy and infrastructure projects and watches approvingly as the US shoots it self in the foot by abandoning any leading role it may have in the development of clean energy tech. Same for Germany which is in the middle of doing the exact opposite of what Trump plans to do and will along with China probably be a world leader in renewable energy tech if by the time Trump is done takign a machete to the US clean energy tech sector. So, folks! It's amateur hour at the White House for the 132nd day in a row!
Well, when your competition includes James Buchanan, you need to do something to distinguish yourself. #shootthemoon.
And if a President doesn't follow through on his campaign promises? He's still attacked.
I'm glad I'm not President, half the [unreasonable] people would be pissed off one way or another.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
So you think a giant wealthy country's reduced demand for renewable energy tech will have no negative effect on their own renewable energy industry? Will Elon personally buy all the solar roofs and electric cars needed to make up the shortfall?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Let's be honest: the next time a Democrat is president they will probably either join the Paris accords, or adopt policies that align with the accords anyway. This is what American has turned into: our politics are so partisan that pretty much the first thing a new party administration does when they take office is to overrule or counteract policies of the previous administration (except of course for policies that erode away our rights in the name of "national security"). America is running around in circles (and wasting trillions of dollars in the process) while the rest of the world passes us by. And the sad thing is a lot of Americans are cheering as it happens.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
And he's it.
Willfully comply to the provisions in the accords? Nothing stops them from doing so. Also they could require their vendors, partners, and suppliers to comply as well or not do business.
Fake politicking by signing on to something that you know is going to die and help your business is fake. If they really believed in it, they could just do it themselves. You know, that whole lead by example thing.
I love how often we see "something will be announced soon!" announcements these days. I mean I guess it gives people who are powerful enough to get a quick line to POTUS a last-second chance to change his mind but in the vast majority of cases where that doesn't happen, it just seems kind of redundant and weird. At least to me.
Twenty-five companies, including Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google, HP, Microsoft, Salesforce, Morgan Stanley, Intel signed on to a letter which was published on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal today arguing in favor of climate pact.
Never has there been a better reason to do it, in my opinion. :D
In all honesty, however, if these companies so badly want something I'm immediately suspicious of their intentions.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Trump desperately needs to hand the nationalists that put him in the White House a victory. Any victory. This is it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Do you really think that the Paris climate deal was the major reason that American consumers decided to install rooftop solar or buy electric or hybrid vehicles?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
And if a President doesn't follow through on his campaign promises? He's still attacked.
I'm glad I'm not President, half the [unreasonable] people would be pissed off one way or another.
But in cases like this, you will piss off half the unreasonable people and 100% of the reasonable people.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
If the Republican Congress is going to let this happen, they need to be fired.
A baby boomer is ruining everything for every other generations following his.
why do politicians prioritize bathroom issues over climate change if it's such a big issue
Trump just got Democrats and (some) Republicans to agree about an issue to do with environmentalism: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... It must be freezing in hell.
By itself, no, but it's the first link in a chain of government incentives that ends with subsidies for renewable energy and EVs, and those absolutely do make a difference in people's purchases. Tesla sales aren't going to eat dirt tomorrow, but the effects will eventually hit the consumer, and they will be long-lasting. There will be as much lag as fixing this as there is in breaking it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If the Paris accord set the same standards per person for all countries, it might have been ok. It lets countries set their own standards. China (that fresh are bastion) and India claim "emerging economy" status and belch out back smoke. It puts ridiculous chains on the US.
Make it a level field and we might want to play.
When air quality was getting rid of Sulfuric Acid and Particulate Soot, I was on board. When you are trying to get rid of CO2, not so much. When you just want a big cash grab from the US because of ridiculous CO2 targets, GET LOST!
The earth will warm and eventually be eaten by the sun.
Get over it.
Ah, but the Energy Secretary, Rick Perry, has something to say about that. He's going to re-level the playing field so that traditional fuels have an advantage again over nascent renewable technology. So we won't have the financial help with our innovation.
It's not the first time an unwelcome trump has polluted the air.
Stabilizing the world population be far more effective to reducing pollution. From what I've read, the world population grows at the rate of a moderate size city of 200,000+ being added every day! Or to put it another way, like adding another city of Philadelphia every week! One is enough, but that's another topic entirely.
The lack of discussion nor taking serious steps in reducing population growth, shows how strong the human primal instinct is to reproduce regardless of the consequences.
And to make matters worse, reducing population growth could be devastating to some regions due to political and religious reasons unless it was done equally across all countries and cultures. Hopefully, society figures out a way to reduce population, otherwise nature eventually will in a brutal way.
In short, zero population growth will reduce pollution far more effectively. Simple as that.
But in cases like this, you will piss off half the unreasonable people and 100% of the reasonable people.
reasonable = people who agree with me
Half? It's a lot higher than half.
No matter what type of nationalist you are/aren't, you're an idiot if you do not want to take sane feasible measures to reduce potential human contributions to global warming.
People can quibble about nuances of the deal but folks, we have one planet. This self-destructive, childish, race to the bottom of the barrel "well if they can do it, we should too" mentality blows my mind. It's short-term thinking, not long term, though I'm not surprised.
The government being in the Paris agreement or not is totally independent of the U.S. leading in renewable energy development, which will continue to be true.
Bingo. Watch Tesla put up a few tens of millions of solar roofs and technological innovation will accomplish that which government treaties could never hope to.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Yeah, it was the tax credits and government incentives that helped push these technology forward. Without the government help, we wouldn't have gotten the economies of scale to make the price competitive. When Georgia cut the state incentive to buy electric cars, the market for electric cars in the state evaporated.
The planet will be fine. It will only be sad for PEOPLE and other creatures that made this planet blue, green and vibrant. Die offs have happened before, and why should we be different? At least the Dinos didn't pilot the Asteroid to the planet.. but we ..(sentient creatures) ... participate in .. no wait... drive the process that causes our own demise. Thanks alot Mr T.
All Trump is managing to do is alienate our allies. If he is dismantling anything it is America. The rest of the world, which is 96 % of the world's population will go on without us if necessary.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Why not? He said "piss off" to his constituents on plenty of other topics, such as Nafta or his hard stance on China.
Getting rid of NAFTA and pissing off the Chinese costs his buddies money. This take nothing out of his friend's pockets.
Of course it's just one more reason for the rest of the woerld to hate us, but there's no shortage of that these days.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Agreed. There are much better ways to help the environment. Nuclear should be where our money is spent. Liquid-metal cooling and other design advances greatly reduce the chance of a meltdown. I read this earlier today: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31...
All the companies in favor of a non-binding climate agreement are all tech or finance.
> Individual voters can at least say they voted for him for other reasons . . .
It should have been clear to individual voters 18 months before the election that this guy was unfit for office. Certainly by 12 months. Or 6 months.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
[citation needed]
"rationalwiki.org" lmao
What are you going to do about it?
Between the extensive gerrymandering, the corporate ownership of both the "Democrats" and "Republicans" and the general bias against third parties, there's really no way that the average American citizen has any voice in the Federal government.
Until and unless We The People take matters into our own hands, I see no real reason for us to even discuss the actions of the nation's "leaders".
Once more, I refer you to my signature.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
The US has long threatened peace and stabiliy across the world. Now it threatens envionmental catastrophe too. It is now time to introduce a strong sanctions regime against our common enemy.
The US bowed out of a group hug. That's about all the teeth the Paris agreement had. It was as multilateral voluntary agreement with no teeth. Pardon me if I have to "so what" for a moment. Folks, it wasn't all that great to begin with. If you are serious about saving the world from a climate disaster perhaps it's time to consider ideas that might actually work instead of these ridiculous multilateral efforts that are toothless or doomed from the start.
How about this, tech exists to run fuel cells backwards. It uses electricity to combine water and CO2 to produce methane. If one was to build a giant nuclear reactor in the middle of nowhere, you could begin aeroforming the planet by extracting the CO2 into methane and replacing liquid fossil fuels with a carbon-neutral alternative until the world more fully abandons the ICE engine. That sounds a lot more realistic than 150 countries all agreeing on a climate deal with real teeth.
http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/36300000/Nelson-Muntz-image-nelson-muntz-36388753-1000-1000.png
If the US can't risk a trade war with China, why do you think Europe could risk a trade war with the US?
Sanctions against US, that will inevitably will lead to retaliation, will be God's gift to Russia and China. There won't be Western Civilization left standing when this all plays out.
Here's another idea, why not keep our money and spend it on developing natural gas and reducing the cost and danger of nuclear by undoing the regulations that prohibit fuel rod recycling. That would do more for reducing CO2 emissions than throwing our dollars into a U.N. black hole ever will.
You unveil your intense ignorance with each sentence. There are no costs mandated by the Paris Climate Agreement. It was non-binding and had no ramifications if we didn't uphold our end of the bargain. It is hard to not just spout expletives when responding to your comment since it shows such an immense lack of knowledge and the belief your ignorance should be considered in public policy.
No part of the US Climate Action Plan included sending money overseas. It was about investing in industries and technologies so we could reduce our damage to the planet while being leading innovators in the fastest growing energy sector in the world. Stop reading Breitbart and get your head out of your ass.
If any of your proposed solutions could reduce carbon emissions while not damaging the environment even more in other ways, then sure they should be considered. The Paris Climate Agreement didn't stop us from building nuclear plants or developing natural gas.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The US is basically surrendering its global leadership. It will probably rejoin any climate accords within the decade, but it will cease to have the ability to negotiate their terms. Trump is the harbinger of the US's eclipse. The EU and China will take over the global leadership, for better, and sadly, for worse.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
He should have read the contract, withdrawal will only be effective 4 years after notification.
At that time he will be either in a dementia home for billionaires or in jail.
Oh fuck off. Nuclear is almost the expensive way to produce power there is. What is this obsession with nuclear? It only makes sense when you're prepared for massive amounts of taxpayer subsidy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
For the true Trumpians, today is a day to celebrate doing something great.
For everyone else, it will bury the lead story about Comey testifying, and giving back the Russian spy residences. Misdirect, mislead, profit!
It's a the TEA Partier subset of the Republican party that threw us of the rails.
We have a segment of our population composed mostly of old white conservative men who are on a steady diet of talk radio and Fox News. As a result, they are uninformed and the facts they have about the issues are complete horseshit. They have this delusional World view that isn't based on reality but on a what some professional trolls tell them: Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, and a few others that are complete bullshitters and say crap to keep those people listening.
What's really pathetic is that those people are not capable of realizing that they are being bamboozled. I happen to know a few - and one of them has a BS ME from Texas A&M. And you can put the facts under their noses and they'll just ignore it as being from "Mainstream liberal biased" media. They are beyond reason. The only that can be done is let them die in their ignorance.
Fortunately, they are old and will die off soon. We can only hope that we can fix the damage they have and will cause.
That sword cuts both ways.
If the agreement is truly a meaningless symbol, then sticking with also will have no effect.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
This entire scenario is a giant nothing burger and is demonstrative proof that this is purely a political treaty with no real science behind it because not one, NOT ONE of the defenses for staying in is to give concrete evidence of what parts of the envrionment will be saved or what these actions will do. It's all hand wringing and political pontificating to deflect from real world issues that the rest of the worlds leaders (including former President Obama) FAIL to resolve.
The treaty is not enforceable in the US as congress never (and will not) ratify it.
If Obama and Tim Cook and Elon Musk are so damn concerned about the fate of the world they can put their energies AND MONEY towards climate change as much as they want. As it is, they ALL make token efforts and pat themselves on their back for spending other people's money to solve problem they are concerned about.
I, for one, applaud a return to rationality in terms of governmental action towards concrete results.
When climate change costs your nation money, you ought to sue the US and others for damages. I suspect international courts in 20 years will be really receptive to the idea when willful ignorance played such a big part in the US's choices around climate change denial.
Heh. International courts. How many nukes do they have?
I propose we fund the US entirely by taxing non-US citizens. Well, OK, technically it would be tribute, not tax, but it would be fun.
Who am I kidding: in a few years we'll elect a democrat who will give $1 trillion in reparations ($900 billion of which will mysteriously end up going to bankers, of course).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The Paris Accord is non-binding. Agreeing to a binding resolution would have required the approval of the Senate, which the Obama administration knew wasn't going to happen with Republicans in control. Meanwhile, the U.S is abandoning coal and using more natural gas, pursuing more electric cars, more wind and solar energy, etc.
Pulling out of the Paris Accord is nothing more than a meaningless gesture to appease the hard-core rightwing factions who are opposed to anything and everything that might actually be good.
Nice link. The author of the article self-admittedly represents oil and gas companies and his sole link to the "devastating" costs of the agreement is a "report" issued by the Heritage Foundation.
Sigh.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
reasonable = people who agree with me
When 100% of the countries invited to be part of the Paris Climate Agreement felt the agreement was either worth signing or didn't go far enough to curb emissions, its safe to say you can objectively say what the reasonable opinion is. There are no other world leaders ignorant enough to do what Trump did, we have the worst one. Even North Korea ratified it.
You are objectively wrong on this one.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
In what way is the Paris accord scientific, exactly? Were you aware that the changes proposed in the actual agreement bring us nowhere near the 2C goal? In fact, implementing all of the changes in the agreement leads to a ~0.05C cooling by 2100 compared to business as usual using the IPCC models (95% of which over-predict warming as observed to present date). Source:http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises The rest of the 2C goal assumes as of yet unspecified regulations/changes. In other words, the cost of committing to Paris accomplishes just about nothing. Pulling out of Paris accord is a fantastic idea. Why would you want to take our shitty economy and chop it's balls off to the point it collapses so you can pay extra taxes? Why not spend that money on natural gas expansion, fixing our infrastructure, researching more efficient green power sources, you get the picture. You and everyone else needs to face the fact that green energy will NEVER compete until it is a good investment. That is the revolution we need, once we have that the world will no longer have to subsidize and will actually BEG for more green power. Until then, what you need to do is go to China and tell their emerging middle class they can't have cars, manufactured goods, energy, and all the other things that come with fossil fuels. Then go to India and tell them the same thing. Then go to Africa and tell them the same thing. Etc. Because if they don't buy in, you're pissing in the ocean. You just need to be patient: cheap green power will come, look at the solar cost learning curve. Module cost decreases by 20% per doubling of installed capacity. This will be the trend that ultimately causes a green revolution, not Paris. Solar will be cheaper than conventional power in a few years - decade maybe. Until then, good riddance to the Paris accord. Next we need to figure out storage, but that's still a ways off.
And what is "it really is". Virtually every climatologist states CO2 emissions are increasing surface and ocean temperatures. We're already seeing the direct verifiable signs of that warming, and it will only get worse. Even without US in the Paris agreement, demand for oil is steadily shrinking, so all that really happens now is the US gives up any say on future targets, and will have to rejoin the international community on future agreements with little power save to accede to whatever the EU and China have decided. And for what? For a resource that's value is dwindling, and will never recover? For a decade or two more before oil's value is so low that it's not worth pumping out of the ground? So the Koch Brothers and a few Trump cronies can make a few more bucks, and meanwhile the very people that voted for this halfwit are the ones that get screwed the most?
Oil is dying. Natural gas will follow. Fossil fuels are the past, and good riddance, and the US will regret this for decades to come. But this is how empires die, I suppose, once morons can get to the top of the heap, what's left?
Let's imagine in ten years, when new trade agreements, particularly with large trading blocs, start demanding CO2 reductions as part of any favorable access? Let's try to imagine how much this will cost US manufacturers over the coming decades? Do you think the EU-China climate bloc is just going to let the US off the hook for paying for their towards a carbon-less future? The US will pay, and it will pay dearly, and I hope when the time comes, everyone remembers that it was the sociopaths and morons of the Republican Party, and that payback may come sooner than people think when SCOTUS starts disemboweling gerrymandering and some of these so-called "red states" start turning blue.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Trade sanctions are difficult to put in place. Choosing non-US alternatives is what I will do when possible.
Trump can always withdraw from those too.
sorry, idiot, it doesn't work that way
I mean, how could he not? Its so unfair, EVERYONE else is signing up for it and promising to follow the same recommendations. It doesn't give the US any favoritism or advantage over them, so its just too unfair for the USA....
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
> [citation needed]
1. Trump alienating our allies is headline news lately.
2. If he's not dismantling the "globalist octopus", then what is he dismantling?
3. Google "US Population", about 321.4 million. World population is 7 Billion. So the rest of the world is about 95.4 %, sorry I said 96 %.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Where does this drivel come from? There is no way you actually believe this, otherwise that is just some incredible willful ignorance. The U.S. was already half way towards their goal of reducing emissions. This has a net effect of slowing the warming that we are already seeing. On top of that we didn't see this crazy job loss that Republicans keep talking about.
On top of all of this, with the EPA being gutted with hundreds of regulations being rolled back to the era of lakes catching on fire we're going to be rushing towards the climate change models faster than ever.
While it is certainly not the end of the world, it is certainly going to hurt many millions of U.S. citizens let alone the hundreds of millions of people that live near the oceans.
It astounds me that China can agree to this with a billion people and much worse legacy power but somehow we can't do it. We are actually forcing China and Russia into leadership positions and seeding our own which we've had since the end of WWII.
Any deal that puts the majority of the burden on a single country (us) without even requiring anything of China or India should be scrapped in its entirety.
Get the polluters in chief under control - China and India. They are the worst polluters on the planet, by a yuuuuuuge margin.
It's worth reiterating to doubters out there, that the biggest problem with climate change is that it's a giant prisoner's dilemma. It's like a large collective weight to carry, and the fewer people agree to help lift it, the harder it is to lift -- and the easier it is to justify doing nothing. This is not a problem that can be solved by a few individuals planting trees or even giving up their car. But if we all put in goodwill and agree to do something, we actually don't individually have to do that much. The incentives will kick in and it will be profitable to keep our standard of living with green energy. But it will never happen unless we are willing to take the first step.
Even if the agreement doesn't go far enough, it's even worse to see that we can't even promise what little it asks. I doubt anything stronger would come around, not until the underlying philosophy of the governing party changes.
you are one stupid fucktard
You unveil your intense ignorance with each sentence. There are no costs mandated by the Paris Climate Agreement.
Actually, the Paris agreement required developed countries to provide *at least* $100B per year by the year 2020...
Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year , taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries; Recognizes the importance of adequate and predictable financial resources, including for results-based payments, as appropriate, for the implementation of policy
approaches and positive incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks; as well as alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of
forests; while reaffirming the importance of non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches; encouraging the coordination of support from, inter alia, public and private, bilateral and multilateral sources, such as the Green Climate Fund, and alternative sources in accordance with relevant decisions by the Conference of the Parties;
Have you read the agreement?
It is completely unhelpful to attack all Americans. Why should Americans want to work with people with attitudes like your own?
These climate accords notoriously been ineffective, whether it's Paris or Kyoto. Just because the United States has been a terrible polluter, should not be a license for China and India to do the same for awhile. The Paris Climate Accord is actually pretty weak and doesn't do nearly enough. The United States, Europe, China, India, Brazil, and the rest of the world, must all do their fair share to address climate change and carbon pollution.
The problem is that Trump isn't genuinely interested in reducing pollution and doesn't accept that humans are causing climate change. However, a majority of Americans do believe that people are causing climate change. A majority of Americans do want us to reduce carbon pollution.
China produces more carbon pollution than the United States, though the United States is second on the list. Shouldn't China be doing more to reduce their carbon emissions, too?
You mean like you bitches did for the previous 8 years with no facts to back it up?
Ever notice that it's the bad Presidents that can't keep their mouth shut after they leave office? Carter is by far the worst. Others should be careful.
I suspect international courts in 20 years will be really receptive to the idea when willful ignorance played such a big part in the US's choices around climate change denial.
The notion of listening to "international courts" is a slippery slope. Is some 3rd world country going to sue for one hundred trillion dollars and get it - maybe. Politics can drive such absurdities. However I think much of the US will say come and try and take it.
Nuclear is the most expensive and most dangerous power. Solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, gas, coal, etc. (everything).
Burning natural gas creates CO2 (in case you didn't know) and the methane leaks are 30 times as damaging to the climate as CO2.
The US is the greatest contributor to global warming so it should pay the most to clean it up.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Not to mention most of his constituents are brainfucked morons who don't understand science or anything remotely looking like the future. They're still stuck on bullshit ideas like coal being a good thing.
You environmentalists just assume man made global warming is a certainty and there is no reason to discuss facts or the science.
You people seem to be dead set on giving the ruling class what they want while pretending you are saving the world, you are either colossally stupid or evil on a level that i cannot understand.
It is like your brain turns off the second after the word septic is heard you refuse to listen to anything you disagree with you are worse than politicians.
Why does every program about global warming show the spring thaw in the arctic or antarctic is that science to try to convince people in warm climates that that happens year round?
Btw keep making extreme global warming claims you are loosing the masses with every wish that does not come true because that's what they are wishes for population reduction.
The planet is warming and has been for 200+ years and if the opposite was true you people would still shit on the cleanest countries with your blame game.
Actually, the Paris agreement required developed countries to provide *at least* $100B per year by the year 2020...
And if we don't do it, what is the penalty? If you can find that in the agreement you get a gold star, because you would then know more than I do about it.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I'd been thinking, like so many others, that Trump was in Vladamir Putins' pocket, either directly or indirectly, but now I'm starting to think that maybe that was misdirection; Trump might in fact be in Chinas' pocket. "How?", you say? Because I'd already been reading that some countries have started looking to China for leadership on environmental concerns, since it was becoming obvious that the current U.S. Administration wasn't going to be doing that anymore, and in fact would be turning back the clock on much climate-related legislation and action. Trumps' plan to 'Make America great again' appears to be amounting to 'Turning back Americas' calendar to the 1940s' and sticking it's head in the sand on many issues.
Moving forward Trumps' so-called 'America first' protectionism policy will continue to alienate even long-standing and steadfast allies of the U.S., and he will, apparently, finish the job started by the Bush family of traitors so far as alienating every nation on Earth and ceasing to be a World Leader in any sense of the word. The only hope we have is that current FBI and Senate investigations will find enough traitors in the White House to invalidate the entire Administration -- including that Dominionist, Pence. The U.S. would be better off at this point with the Speaker of the House in the Oval Office. Sadly all of this might take a year or more to happen and who knows how much more damage this pussy-grabbing Cheetoh-haired clown can do in the meantime. At least in 2020, when we have an opportunity to get someone (hopefully) more competent and trustworthy to do the job, we can then start the process of mending fences and apologizing profusely for all the utter stupidity. Sadly I may not see the world reputation of the United States repaired before I'm dead, there's quite a lot of it.
Meanwhile I sure hope all of you who voted for Trump enjoy unhealthy air, unhealthy tap water, more and more strange extreme weather, floods, droughts, unhealthy food, etc, because that's the administration you all voted for. Guess it'll Make America Great Again for Oncologists at least.
The only reason those companies care is that they are probably losing government subsidies and tax breaks related to the Accords.
That Tesla character is just walking away in a huff because he worries he will lose the government subsidies on his little cars and solar panels. If his products had to sell on merit at full cost, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
China and India do not have any obligations until 2030. According to MIT, this agreement will result in up to a 5 C temp rise by 2100. We should implement renewables and improve our energy efficiency on our own and lead through technology innovation, not rely on symbolic sham words that do not accomplish anything.
A FAR greater impact will be had by halting industrial investment and consumption of products in/from countries that do not have stringent environmental regulations on emissions NOW. Yes, industrialized countries are large historic emitters. That doesn't mean we should continue deploying those polluting methods in areas where environmental protections are nonexistent.
MIT source: http://news.mit.edu/2015/paris-commitments-insufficient-to-stabilize-climate-by-2100-1022
Seriously. Losing Elon Sucks is no big deal. His company really is making money anyways.
What happens when the remaining signatories to the climate accord decide to implement a 5% carbon tax on all products imported from countries that are not substantially meeting their obligations under the deal. One man's climate treaty is another mans trading block. I don;t care if we're in or out provided that we're making substantial efforts to clean up our environment, but if we're out then we don't get to say how the block operates.
Nullius in verba
America was not always being laughed at. It's true that some people get laughed at occasionally because of their small "hands", but that does not extend to the international diplomatic stage. So try to get over that particular insecurity.
Because now you have a real insecurity to worry about. The rest of the world will now be both laughing at and thinking of creative ways to economically punish the USA, because of its leaderships' small brain.
Headline: America withdraws into isolated hide-and-seek "safe place". Rest of world does not bother to look for it.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Do you think the EU-China climate bloc is just going to let the US off the hook for paying for their towards a carbon-less future? The US will pay, and it will pay dearly...
You're funny. You count China as if they are a bastion of green glory. I suspect that you are aware of just how bad their pollution is. Yet somehow you give them a pass. The sooner the US pulls out of various accords and agreements the better. If we were to focus on getting our situation right instead of worrying about everyone else we would be much better off. Somehow I think that when the supercop leaves the world will go back to fighting - and then and only then might they miss the US.
Well, yes. But it's non-binding! So clearly the Grand-poster is in favor of just lying to the rest of the world. Keep agreeing to this arrangement until the invoice comes, and then just say no?
Now how is that any different from being honest and just getting out?
That sword cuts both ways.
If the agreement is truly a meaningless symbol, then sticking with also will have no effect.
Except for the $100B/year developed countries pledged to help other countries avoid deforestation....
I suppose now other countries are on the hook for this and not the US...
The Earth is even more scorched now than it was yesterday. Oh whatever shall we do?
Hopefully, instead, we will implement a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS/SERVICES based on what state/nations the worst CO2 comes from. All that needs to happen is that we need OCO3 to have precise (not necessarily accurate; just precise is what is needed) measurements between states/nations, along with normalizing based on emissions / $ GDP. With this, America raises the tax on the emissions/$GDP. This will force all nations to drop their emission over time, or lose their export market. In addition, it will benefit those nations that have low emission / $ GDP.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Should be pretty easy, with everything being made in China these days...
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
... really, I don't. USA just handed the keys of the world to the EU and China (and probably tying together the possible next biggest world power - China - with the institution that aggregates a number of countries that are seen as the most honorable and moral in the world, EU, and China will happily role with it), and pretty sure that that power combined will make USA pay one way or the other (either commercially or politically because the geopolitical center just moved out from US this past months).
So I'm just waiting for this clown-president to end his term because it will be glorious, the most glorious end of term any has ever seen... it will be bigly, I have great surety.
This treaty was never a treaty. It was an agreement between Obama and the other countries. If he wanted anything he did to last he should have gone through the Senate as the constitution dictates. I realize there would have been pushback to say the least by the GOP but you don't get to ignore the constitution just because it is inconvenient.
It's worth saying that carbon emissions were going down before the Paris accord, and will likely continue downward after today. In the end, it won't matter that much outside of the symbolism of the thing - we need to basically stop carbon output altogether tomorrow in order for a real difference to be made.
I suggest you lead the way by quitting your job, selling your house/car, and living in a box.
So I guess trumpy put the climate in the corfoffin?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
So much butthurt here.
Your point is that we should have honored the agreement by ignoring the agreement?
n/t
1. Trump alienating our allies is headline news lately.
Give the guy some credit. At least he didn't try to give Angela Merkel a backrub.
Someone had to do it.
Well, yes. But it's non-binding! So clearly the Grand-poster is in favor of just lying to the rest of the world. Keep agreeing to this arrangement until the invoice comes, and then just say no?
Or as part of the ongoing negotiations about how we reach the $100 billion mark, we put forth arguments about other things we are doing which would allow us to not put money towards the $100 billion. Perhaps we invest more than any other country in clean energy technology instead. There are plenty of ways we as a country can show we are serious about climate change without giving money to other countries if that was really the problem.
But in reality this figure is just a scapegoat used by children who want to pretend climate change is not a problem worth trying to fix. Trump just wants to pull out and it grasping at straws to find excuses some people are stupid enough to listen to.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Looks like someone needs to learn who is really in charge.
Trump is the new King Canute. He believes his words can command nature itself.
No sig today...
> And if we don't do it, what is the penalty?
There isn't one.
And that hurts the US even more. All these international agreements with no penalties are freely IGNORED by signatories who are NOT the United States of America. You end up with an agreement that punishes the US, lets China get away with environmental murder, and lets everyone else shirk their duties, just like they do with NATO contributions.
The entire agreement only makes the USA pay. Everyone else just gets massive amounts of money. Trump laid it alllll out for ya, man.
Now we're as stupid as Syria.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
When you dont know what you are talking about you make up nonsense.
You do know China has signed into this non binding treaty that they will do absolutely nothing until 2030.
You know India will double its coal production under this agreement?
If you believe in the AGW propaganda or don't, the Paris accord is bad for America.
Article 9 of the Paris Agreement stipulates that developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention. Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily. The US was going to pay $3 billion into this fund.
Their bad pollution is why they are starting to take leadership on this. It's that, or riots.
Someone had to do it.
And remember: The leaders of some of those countries have degrees in Science
(unlike King Stupid).
No sig today...
What happens when the remaining signatories to the climate accord decide to implement a 5% carbon tax on all products imported from countries that are not substantially meeting their obligations under the deal.
Tariffs!
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Nuclear is the most expensive and most dangerous power. Solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, gas, coal, etc. (everything).
Burning natural gas creates CO2 (in case you didn't know) and the methane leaks are 30 times as damaging to the climate as CO2.
The US is the greatest contributor to global warming so it should pay the most to clean it up.
Really... Nuclear is safer that many of the others, including solar. Even accounting for nuclear accidents. It's also cheaper than solar according to Wikipedia. There is a huge startup cost and shutdown cost but produces a huge amount of energy that ends up making it cheaper in the long run. Plus, you are comparing 1970's and 1980's nuclear technology to modern energy sources. There have been huge advances in nuclear power design and safety but we'll never see it in the US except on subs and aircraft carriers...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I use the word "half" to refer to the division within the country. And that Trump won with 46% of the popular vote (roughly, but not quite half) versus Clinton's 48% of the popular vote (again, not exactly half, but you're the one quibbling over a low order digits)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Mostly people that have enough energy to learn of (mostly) theoretical methods reactors can be improved but not enough to learn how and why nuclear energy in general isn't a money efficient energy form. They also tend to ignore the risks and problems even with cleaner forms of nuclear energy, it still require fuel which means either uranium mining or fuel enrichment and they still generate waste products with high radioactivity. The core will always be highly radioactive and a security issue. Even the fact the power source is concentrated is a problem in itself making infrastructure more sensitive to attacks, breakdowns etc.
The post you replied to seem to think liquid metal cooling is something novel - enough proof of ignorance.
"Two things only the people anxiously desire - Bread and Circuses."
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Here's hoping...
We know what will happen though, King Stupid will simply slap a double-tax on the rest of the world.
Let him try it, I say. I'd love to see the next generation of Americans working in shoe factories for $1 a day while the rest of the world makes their own machinery.
(America's biggest export right now is machinery).
No sig today...
You obviously haven't read the agreement. It includes massive costs to the participants.
I say to all Democrats is to boycott the state of the union speech. Trump has absolutely nothing of value to say therefore it is a complete waste of time listening to him. He has proven that he considers anything the Democrats say to be of no value so they should return the favor and not consider anything he says to have any value at all, This decision is the worst possible and put him with every evil dictator that has ever existed so I consider him to be on par with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. I hope the world response with imposing as many tariffs on American good as they can possibly do. Only when our trade balance gets worse will Trump listen to reason.
Fuck you are you saying everyone including scientist are nuts if they disagree with the official global warming narrative wtf? /.
Science does not exist unless it agrees with some asshole on
Nice link. The author of the article self-admittedly represents oil and gas companies and his sole link to the "devastating" costs of the agreement is a "report" issued by the Heritage Foundation.
Sigh.
So you have no actual argument then?
Nuclear is almost the expensive way to produce power there is. What is this obsession with nuclear? It only makes sense when you're prepared for massive amounts of taxpayer subsidy.
Nuclear is expensive in a large part due to the cost of fuel and waste handling. Both costs can be reduced dramatically by implementing fuel rod recycling like is done in most other countries. Currently we take the "spent" rods (which are still 95% fissible material) and dissolve them in giant acid vats, vitrified, and must be treated as highly radioactive waste for 1000's of years. Instead, we could be recycling them and producing only low-grade non-radioactive waste. We don't because of nonproliferation treaties, not a lack of capability. France uses nuclear as it's primary power source and already recycles its fuel.
This change, combined with safer and more efficient modern reactor designs could make nuclear far cheaper than it is today. Good luck reaching high penetration of wind/solar without a baseload power source. Nuclear seems like a good option given it doesn't directly emit CO2.
http://www.anl.gov/articles/nuclear-fuel-recycling-could-offer-plentiful-energy
Oh fuck off.
LOL sad. Also, not an argument.
Well, Syria and Nicaragua are on the side of the US in this matter, so technically the US has not yet alienated the whole rest of the world...
Pretty much. That aside, politicians would be best advised to realize that not every one of their campaign promises is supported by a majority of people who voted for them. So even if they decide to govern for their supporters only, which is awful, they aren't even doing that.
Also people change their minds. Especially when they wise up after being lied to. Witness the health care issue. All the Rs saying "we ran on repeal" as if that's a justification for screwing us all over need to eat a reality cookie.
Someone had to do it.
I'm glad you already know what willful ignorance is. Gold star for you.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
If the agreement is truly a meaningless symbol, then sticking with also will have no effect.
Sticking with a bad agreement provides cover for many countries to do nothing, because after all they are in an "agreement" that protects the climate.
The fire that has erupted over leaving this will in all probability cause more actual action to be taken to protect the environment than the agreement ever would have helped. In all probability Greenpeace begged Trump to leave.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's all just fuck off america.
self centered pieces of shit
No wonder you've been downvoted. This is mostly an american site.
But I concur with your sentiment, fuck off america and its people. A bunch of self centered pieces of shit that worship only the dollar. And fuck all else.
massive amounts of taxpayer subsidy
Taxpayer subsidies are bad? Every significant form of renewable energy has been and/or is being supported by all manner of subsidy. Somehow it's only a problem for nuclear/fossil fuels...
And you're badly wrong about the cost of nuclear power. France, for instance, pays less for electricity than every other major European economy because of it's large and well operated nuclear energy system [1]. France also emits far less carbon than its neighbors; have a look at the live map: https://www.electricitymap.org...
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s... c/KWh 2016: France: 0.089 Germany: 0.149 UK: 0.128
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
China and INdia both are moving as quickly as they can towards renewables. The problem here is you've bought into the fossil fuel industry's talking points, and even as you demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity, oil inventories keep going up and demand keeps falling. Oil is dying, you moron, so why in the name of fuck would you applaud while the President of the United States literally cut off his balls despite his dick?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I blame Obama for not getting this approved and funded by congress and the senate when the democrats controlled both.
Right. Imagine if the US can no longer afford their near 200 military bases and missile defense systems around the world. There are barbarians at the gates of eastern Europe, South Korea, and the South China Sea.
Crimea, Syria, areas of the middle east, governments like Turkey and Argentina and a number of islands have already been taken while the western world shakes their finger at mean words an orangutan in a suit said. Imagine what will happen when the only country that attempts to guard against invasion and despotism with something more than words shrugs it off for want of money.
Western civilization will indeed fall. It has happened before.
Never answer to people who write "nuclear" instead of "nuclear energy". They are just trolling.
And the first thing they did was ask France for a loan and military help.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Your point is that we should have honored the agreement by ignoring the agreement?
No, but no where in the agreement does it show which countries pay the $100 billion. If the US really didn't want to fulfill its obligations it could make other guesters, such as spending $100 billion ourselves in clean energy per year. Still kind of shitty that we wouldn't directly help developing nations not pollute as much as we did when we were growing, but at least we could say we are doing something.
By pulling out we are simply saying we don't care at all.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
It should have been clear to individual voters 18 months before the election that this guy was unfit for office. Certainly by 12 months. Or 6 months.
Everyone on the ballot was unfit for office.
Don't get to comfortable. According to the Constitution, you're #637 in the order of presidential succession. You may yet find yourself in the Oval Office.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Nuclear power isn't the most dangerous one - fossil fuels are. Burning fossil fuels releases more radioactive elements into the atmosphere (and locally into the ground) than nuclear power and also releases a lot of other nasty things _proven_ to be hazardous to health. A modern nuclear reactor is pretty damn safe and the Fukushima mess* actually proves that - the complex suffered a tripple(!) meltdown with relatively little radioactive leakage most of which were due to hydrogen-oxygen explosions that destroyed containment features. Even the Chernobyl radioactive release were actually mostly due to the graphite moderator being on fire rather than actually suffering a meltdown without having any modern protective features (filter system, containment design).
Statistical analysis of nuclear vs fossil fuel deaths are showing clearly that the later is much more dangerous.
(* it was more than accident and more than one mistake combined -> a bloody mess)
Sooooooooooo much butthurt in these comments. Trump gave the finger to globalist trash the acolytes of the climate religion and everyone here is crying about an agreement they all admit was non-binding and pointless anyways. Even the unelected nazi thug juncker is whining and crying and wringing his hands publicly. Thanks for the entertainment guys
If you have reproducible evidence, as in something that follows the scientific method, then by all means, share. Although you should have done that a long time ago because we're at the point where the debate is over, we've discussed it for decades now. We refine the models but the basic conclusion has not changed because the data has not changed. We have documented the human sources of CO2 and CH4 and have quite accurate estimates of our contribution. The outcomes are matching the models, and the models work when we change things like civilization's CO2 output.
CO2 levels spiked in only the last 60 years, not 200. Temperatures always change, and there are a lot of factors that contribute to the immediate temperature. Not coincidentally ocean temperatures have begun to rise at the same time as CO2 levels spike. We can really go on for pages of this, the information has been collected elsewhere and in better detail than I can fit into an internet forum.
If you want to refuse to believe it, fine. We're under no obligation to convince people who stubbornly refuse to agree. We simply do not need your consensus at this point, you've been given ample information and ample time to understand and failed to improve on the scientific understanding. You're free to call this a conspiracy, or a hoax, or oppression, or suppression or whatever fantasy satisfies your fringe beliefs. Because at this point your position is irrelevant, so step aside and shut the fuck up.
Fuck you are you saying everyone including scientist are nuts if they disagree with the official global warming narrative wtf?
Yes, that's what we are saying. So what?
Good question. Actually eight of the countries that are signatories to the Paris accord have nuclear arsenals. So the question you have to ask yourself is, "Do I feel lucky?"
Well, do you?
You are welcome on my lawn.
If we're ignorant and foolish enough to go to war with Europe rather than give up our right to fuck up the atmosphere, we deserve it.
Well, Syria and Nicaragua are on the side of the US in this matter, so technically the US has not yet alienated the whole rest of the world...
Nope, Nicaragua thought the agreement should be binding so they pulled out, and Syria wasn't even invited to the discussions. The US is all alone on this one.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
MightyMartian we all know you are a little irrational when it comes to this subject.
My point is that the Paris accord is a bad one.
Why would anyone remain in a deal that is bad? For appearances?
China is building nuclear plants. If the USA would be doing the same, Id be all for it.
You know nothing of what I have bought from the fossil industry, which is absolutely nothing exept for a tank of gasoline a few days ago.
If oil is dying, what is all the hubbub about? Why exactly do we need to transfer billions of dollars to the World Banks slush fund?
And if demand is falling, why do we need to go to some crazy efforts to make useless promises to reduce emissions which have badly defined results?
Ive been saying for decades, technology will slowly but surely resolve these issues on their own given enough time. And there is NO REASON to believe we will hit a catastrophic brick wall before it takes us there.
that's what we're worried about. Yes, it has no force of law or actual requirements. It's a feel good treaty all around. That's what makes pulling out so bad. There's only one reason to pull out, and it's to say: Fuck You World. By pulling out we send a message that we're not willing to even consider working with the rest of the world.
CNN has an article describing how this could lead to a trade war. TLDR: Frustrated nations slap carbon taxes on imported goods because they're building with clean energy while we shamelessly pollute (which is much cheaper) and then Trump responds with his own tarriffs. Then it escalates from there and badda bing badda boom, recession/depression.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Oh fuck off. Nuclear is almost the expensive way to produce power there is. What is this obsession with nuclear? It only makes sense when you're prepared for massive amounts of taxpayer subsidy.
THings have gone badly wrong with the managing of the nuclear industry. It's the safest form of power measured in deaths per TWh, but we're stuck with ageing 1970s tech, and building brand new 1970s tech. The mismanagement caused by misplaced fear means we're running the equivalent of nuclear Pintos in 2017.
Safety and density have a lot going for it. It doesn't matter as much for a country like the USA, but for smaller, denser countries, it's the only way to gain energy independence to any degree. Once you get to a country like the UK, renewables aren't going to cut it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
We should end all the ridiculous government subsidies for them... stop wasting taxpayer money on a scam
I am beginning to understand why the right has been calling you "cucks".
Heil Hitler salutes at campaign events is why we call the alt-right nazis http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.co...
There seems to be little impact as it is from the accords, perhaps the only actionable thing in it is unwritten interpretation of it.
It is supposed to go into effect in 2020 (well after Obama knew he wasn't going to be holding the ball) and agrees to reduce global temperature to pre-industrial levels within a 2 degree margin (aka: no change).
To do this, it will tax the richer nations that use carbon fuel and funnel that money to other nations that do implement "renewable" sources (aka EU) so they can give out their credits to the poor nations to ... buy carbon fuel.
The problem is that nobody actually wants to make payments or owe credits to anyone, the US no longer wants to uphold the failing EU states, especially now that the richest of them are talking about exiting, even the EU no longer wants to keep its poorest economies up (e.g. Greece and Portugal).
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Don't get to comfortable. According to the Constitution, you're #637 in the order of presidential succession. You may yet find yourself in the Oval Office.
I wish I could commit some felonies in order to keep myself out of the Oval Office, but that strategy appears to no longer work.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Yes, this. As a Brit, I see China leading the way on a great many things. If we can culturally bring their middle classes around to a kinder form of government, then they show so much more promise than the abandoned promise of the land of the free.
What a disappointment the US has turned out to be.
Don't equate science with globalist agenda of sponsoring parasitic refugees. Fuck you and fuck your refugees.
Nah, we don't want them to fuck over the American economy. We want them fucking over jobs in Appalachia and the South.
The real cucks were the fools in the North who granted the Confederacy their statehoods back, instead of permanently designating them as territories to be plundered.
Well, if only there was another trade bloc larger than Russia and China combined.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Not only is everyone else going to remain in your supposedly "bad deal" but China in particular is soon going to use it to turn the screws on the US. You fail to see the big picture here, that the "deal" isn't just about future emissions targets, it's about who gets to call the shots going forward, and the EU-China climate pact represents the largest trading and population group on the planet.
This idea that some people, like you, apparently have that Paris will fall part because the US backs out is not only just wrong, but utterly delusional. China, and likely now that Trump has gone out of his way to show his contempt for Europe, the EU as well, are going to use Paris and successor agreements to pummel the US.
And then you still have to factor in the ever-mounting costs to the US having to actual deal with the physical effects of AGW. Oil isn't dying fast enough to keep emissions, and consequently temperature increases, from royally fucking things over, so if China, the EU and everyone else that signs aboard has to pay a large proportion of the bill, then they are going to use the overwhelming economic clout of this new pact to make the US pay in every other conceivable way.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
China's pollution is horrendous & they made a very bad mistake by both allowing it to get like that as well as to build so many substandard coal plants.
But now they have or are moving on, and doing so quickly. Not only are newer plants much more efficient & cleaner, none of the old ones will be grandfathered - it's clean up or shut down.
In contrast, it took the USA 40 years to get to more than 2/3rds of their coal plants fitted with emission controls and only the advent of cheap natgas (and all its attendant problems) forced the closure of more than a few of the older coal-fired ones.
If India also gets its act together, it's not inconceivable that Asia will be the clean energy powerhouse in 10-15 years.
India's plan is to have 100GW solar installed by 2022, a target they're not likely to meet.
But they went from 160 MW in 2010 to just over 1 GW in 2012 and with 1/2 of 2017 still remaining, have exceeded 13GW!! So it's not inconceivable they'll at least get to 50GW by 2022 which is nearly a quadrupling of the current installed base of solar PV and would probably land them somewhere in the lower 1/2 of the Top 10.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Actually China is now the bulwark of Western Civilization, and has been for some months now.
Still better than putting forward a budget with a $1 Trillion arithmetic error.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
We are unable to alter our own course as evidenced by our inability to control population growth. Be adaptable or go extinct. The first step is to learn to embrace whatever climate change carries with it.
Not pessimism, realism.
Trade sanctions are ridiculously easy to put in place with every other country in the world in agreement over them. Europeans, Chinese and Russians alike are rubbing their hands with glee at the pratfall Trump has performed with his economic casus belli. Punative import duties and sanctions all round - the US will be lucky to ever export anything, ever again.
Thats $100B a year collectively among the signed members and it doesn't even have to entirely come from tax revenue! The goal is to get private and public interests aligned by providing hard money and in-kind contributions to that goal.
There is nearly 200 countries signed to this agreement but if we just take the top 20 countries that emit >1% of the greenhouse gases globally, that's $5B per country. If we were to suggest each country contribute a nearly equal amount, that's about $500M. Obviously thats not going to be possible for the smallest and most struggling of countries, but it can clearly be seen that its not nearly as striking as you are suggesting it to be.
You also conveniently neglected to acknowledge that even though the agreement mentions $100B, its strictly mentioned as a goal and not an absolute requirement. In fact, the lack of any enforcement was one of the most controversial aspects to the agreement to begin with.
Have you read the agreement?
Don't be an asshat.
Are you including the Norks in that total? :)
If we don't feel lucky yet, we need to get our missile defense right.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The funniest thing of all is that the Paris agreement was 100% voluntary. Each individual nation could set whatever parameters for reduction it wanted including no reduction at all. He could have just changed the numbers and marched on and no one could do anything about it.
The funny this is it takes 3 years to withdraw plus a one year wait after the 3, when he loses in 2020 the new president will be able to halt the process. Hell when the Democrats take back Congress in 2018 they will be able to halt his action. If he's just stayed in and revised the numbers no one could have stopped him and it would have been immediate.
Given a choice of having:
A, a future with the decedents of the the rich living like kings and my decedents dealing with the environmental fall out of no fucking controls on pollution,
or
B, a future with the decedents of the the rich living merely like princes and my decedents having clean air and water,
I choose B every time. The rich are still rich, the poor still funnel most of their money into the rich people's bank accounts... it's not like they can save it.
but at the very least the environment is marginally less fucked.
When the short term gains are enough to push people into the most basic fucking tragedy of the commons situation then we need to apply some sort of cost adjustment to make it clear that while you could make $$$ trashing the place, someone going to have to spend $$ cleaning the mess up. Maybe it's better if you just make $, because getting the $$ out of you afterwards isn't going to happen.
And if it costs $$$$ to fix the problem, or the problem isn't fixable afterwards then we're in trouble.
The free market is great, but sometimes you've got to get people to cover the hidden costs of their actions.
Voluntary aid, NOT mandated. Did you read it?
If it's such a great idea and only Trump is against it, why didn't Obama follow the US Constitution and submit it to the US Senate for ratification?
reasonable = people who agree with me
When 100% of the countries invited to be part of the Paris Climate Agreement felt the agreement was either worth signing or didn't go far enough to curb emissions, its safe to say you can objectively say what the reasonable opinion is.
The truth is not a popularity contest. The countries that agreed to a treaty believe it is in their interest to do so. "Truth" does not enter into such things.
> There are no other world leaders ignorant enough to do what Trump did
Don't their nations get largesse from the climate agreement? And we pay? I mean, that was the gist of Trump's arguments- more total coal jobs, just in India and China. China gets to punt until 2030 and increase emissions until then. Meanwhile, we pay billions and billions.
If this isn't true, maybe argue with that some. Pointing to nations that we are funding and saying "look at how backwards we are for wanting out" is like three wolves mocking a sheep for being backwards for not going along with the Mutton-For-Dinner plan, that all advanced carnivores agree unanimously on.
If even half of what Trump said was not complete bullshit, then the climate agreement mostly existed to transfer our wealth to others.
And most of them are close enough to the US to use medium strike range ordnance. Hello from UK, by the way.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
No, the comment was modded down because it's flamebait. It was modded down correctly. When you make sweeping generalizations about all people within a country, especially when you're insulting them, you're not being constructive at all. You just want people to respond angrily.
Back in November, 71% of Americans supported the Paris Climate Accords. A majority in every US state supported the Paris Climate Accords. Here are some sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/21/trump-wants-to-dump-the-paris-climate-deal-but-71-percent-of-americans-support-it-survey-finds/
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2017-06-01/a-bipartisan-majority-thinks-the-us-should-stay-in-the-paris-agreement
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/trump-leaves-paris-climate-agreement-though-americans-supported-it.html
Most Americans do support the Paris Climate Accords. Trump did not win the popular vote and won the electoral vote by a narrow majority. Russia attempted to influence the US election in Trump's favor, something that is generally accepted regardless of whether Trump's campaign was complicit in that meddling. Trump's approval rating is estimated at 39.1% while 54.8% of Americans disapprove of him. Here's a source for that, too:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
It is completely ignorant and unhelpful to blame and insult all Americans when a majority of Americans do not support Trump and a substantial majority of Americans disagree with Trump on withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords. Your post and the grandparent post are not factually correct, nor do they contribute any substance to the discussion. They're just attempts to insult Americans and evoke angry responses. That is why your post and its parent deserve to be modded down.
Furthermore, many cities and states are still making strong efforts to address climate change. California, by itself, is the world's sixth largest economy. Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement will not impede California from continuing to impose measures that go beyond what the US committed to do.
Incendiary remarks deserve to be modded down as flamebait, especially when those remarks aren't rooted at all in fact.
Trump is the new King Canute. He believes his words can command nature itself.
this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal
- Barack Obama
Dark Reflection
> when he loses in 2020
Ah, you are a prophet! Wait, lets check your post history.
> For Trump to win he MUST win more that 33% of Latino electorate because he's going to get less than 1% of the black vote.
Huh, Trump DIDN'T win 33% of the Latino vote. And he got way MORE than 1% of the black vote. It seems your record on Predicting Trump is pretty fail.
You, sir, are a poor prophet!
Sometimes I wonder whether some of Trump's actions are doing things that are what he believes are good for the country or whether he has just has a hard-on for destroying anything Obama enacted?
I can almost imagine Trump in a mental asylum scrawling 'I hate you Obama' on the walls, like a crazy man.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
All centers of power decline over time and replacements fill the void.
America has voted to be isolationist, anti-globalist, anti-science, pro-white supremacist, Islamophobic, batshit crazy Evangelical Christian, anti-immigration, anti-refugee and anti-business.
Blaming Trump is vacuous. We the People have spoken and it is what it is.
HRC had too much baggage; was Obama 2.0, and ignored the undereducated poor white trash voters.
As America continues to peg the meter to the right, she'll get what she deserves.
Power will now shift to China and India.
God rest (in peace) America.
It was a great ride.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Blue states should get together and promise internationally to try to keep the spirit of the agreement alive in their respective states. While it may not be constitutional to make formal agreements, at least token pledges can be given.
Why not just sit at the table? US states have a lot of leeway to enforce environmental laws and give incentives within their borders. There's a lot they can do shy of entering a international treaty. To put it in some perspective, if California was a nation it would have the 6th highest GDP in the world. Many US states are at least as qualified to sit at the table to reduce greenhouse emissions as signatory nations like Narau, Togo, St. Lucia, etc. The Earth doesn't care about your nation status or who the POTUS is.
Fuckwidth ... living humans eat their fellows ... it's called being a carnivore. 2nd Law. Go fuck your vegetarian boyfriend, freeze in your baby-mamaz hot-tube and stay out of my face or else ...
Listen to yourself, lol. You want other nations to hurt us? What is wired so backwards in your head?
I hope most Democrats disagree vehemently with you and all of your sentiments, or we won't see many Democrats winning elections in the near future. I know I'd never vote for anyone with even a hint of the stench of self-hatred you reek of in your post.
Where else will our "allies" turn?
Besides, with allies like that, who needs enemies? If you're wondering why they're screaming bloody murder now, think about who benefitted financially from the Paris Accords. Hint - it wasn't the USA.
I never dreamed I would say something like this, but: I would be very happy to have George W. back again. (And I didn't not vote for him.)
W. may have had some bad policy ideas. But he surrounded himself with people smarter than he was. He may not have been very bright. But he was sane.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
You environmentalists just assume man made global warming is a certainty and there is no reason to discuss facts or the science.
There is always reason to actually discuss facts or science. But whenever I show a calculation that shows, the increase of carbondioxide from 1895 (0.027 percent) to today level (2017: 0.040 percent) can be solely explained by burning of about 75 percent of all the coal mined and all the oil pumped between 1895 and 2017, somehow the discussion stops.
"you don't get to ignore the constitution just because it is inconvenient."
Ha Ha, that has nothing to do with this.
Unless you're trying to start a fake narrative ...
What leaving DOES do is give up the opportunity for the U.S. to have a leadership role, or any role, in international discussions on climate change. The rest of the world will move on, without us. That means uncountable opportunities missed, picked up by, I don't know, China?
This is the same reason scrapping the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement was stupid. You don't like it, you change it. You don't just walk away, because if you do, some other power will gladly take over. Like China.
Giving up American power and influence around the world, with 1,251 days to go.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
... shoot him and his team, so we're done with the morons...
That's one of the most negative, toxic, and defeatist statements I've heard in a while. Are there really people who think that way in the US? That the US should isolate themselves to make the world more instable, so there will be wars and later other people will 'miss' the US?
Are you that butthurt just because you've elected a shit-president that you need to wish for fighting elsewhere?
So the USA abandons 'Leader of the (free) world' appellation. Who gets to have the moral authority now? Looks like Europe i.e. France/ Germany are the best contenders.
America may now be considered a heavily armed bully.
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
I heard this exact point being made by a Republican congressman this afternoon on CNN. He argued that we would be much better to stay in the Paris climate accords and try to improve them instead of withdrawing. If we're genuinely interested in reducing carbon emissions, countries like China and India must do more than what they've pledged to do. We're not really solving the problem if the United States reduces emission while other countries get to increase theirs for awhile. The mistakes of the United States do not justify other countries repeating those mistakes. The problem is that, instead of insisting that China and India pollute less, Trump wants the United States to be able to pollute more. If we were a world leader, we would stay in the Paris climate accords and then insist that other major polluters match our commitment.
You've listed a number of nuclear myths in your post. There are many more pushed by nuclear proponents.
Here's a rundown of the whole list before you post more:
http://energypost.eu/renewable...
(I'd take a look at Myths 5 through 9 to address your concerns.)
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Congratulations to américains for their stupidy !!!
Because wind and solar aren't subsidized right? Oh and by the way; they're far more expensive than nuclear dumbass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
G. W. still worse. Way higher body count. Don't use rose colored glasses. I think Trump will surpass Bush if he lasts much longer.
Play Command HQ online
China has been leading the way in renewables spending, and not just in nuclear. Also, fwiw, the money isn't going into the World Bank, it's just countries agreeing to spend money on THEIR OWN industries.
Source 1: http://www.publicfinanceintern...
Source 2: http://uk.reuters.com/article/...
Too bad he won't be in office in 2019 to actually sign you out though, eh?
How do you get by, day to day, ignoring the facts on the ground?
Just today, Putin admitted that Russians interfered in your election. He's never going to admit the state was involved, but even he knows he has to admit that Russians were.
Do you seriously not understand that nothing your president promises that won't take effect for three years can't be reversed?
Let me descend to your level of mental capability by saying, "I know you are but what am I?"
Retard.
Oops, sorry to show my superiority by at least using correct capitalization and punctuation.
So we're agreed: in or out doesn't make a difference in terms of CO2 emissions. So what's your problem then? We're out now. Good. One less level of bureaucracy to worry about.
The whole thing is just for show. He wants to stir up some noise and stick it (symbolically) to the establishment and the environmentalists.
Play Command HQ online
It's amazing how people like you are unable to see anything without applying the finantial lens. Maybe... maybe they're mad for a different reason? An environmental reason?
Trump is an asshole.
Why lead in the development of clean energy tech? R&D in solar panels has consumed lots of money, and industrial espionage will make up a lot of ground quickly.
China has already cut its coal consumption year on year since 2013, even while markedly increasing its total energy consumption. Overall CO2 emissions from China have fallen by almost 3% since its peak in 2013, despite continued growth. They have already decommissioned more than 100 coal-fired power plants, and cancelled all plans and current projects that involve building new ones.
India is not so far advanced, but has put a moratorium on new coal development and plans to start cutting back its coal usage in absolute terms by 2024.
The comment was meant to be non-partisan and is in no way a reference to the 2016 election.
I was referring to overall public concern over climate change, which ranges from about 65-70% of US adults who have concern over climate change, based off various survey statistics.
The reason that the Paris agreement allows for example China to take longer before putting on the brakes has to do with fairness.
Since 1850, the average US person has contributed 10 x the GHGs to the atmosphere as the average Chinese person. US economic growth has been built on that 10x bigger fossil-fuel energy consumption and emissions per person.
China starts by saying, well look, in a sense, we have as a population have a right to emit like 10x more than we've ever collectively emitted, starting from after the moment you (US) cut to 0 emissions, for our total historical emissions to be the same per person (US to China).
Then China sees itself CONCEDING from that "right" down to "ok we'll consume for 13 more years than you" then rapidly ramp down with you, or more rapidly than you.
It's all about perspective. They have a damn good point.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
OP seems to have his rage directed in the right place then he didn't say fuck off Donald
Climate is chaotic. We can't know how it'll turn out. We just have probabilities. So why make things hard now when it could turn out all right? Let's just have fun and burn all the oil and coal we can get our hands on! Let's just party with Trump and play russian games!
Make America Great Again!!!
Trump said the Paris agreement "front loads costs on American people.
Like the Republican "American Health Care Act" does, but this hurts rich people.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
... because it makes it easier for the overwhelming majority of the countries remaining in the treaty to live up to their promises and actually do something serious about climate change.
You deserve the imaginary hell you've constructed for yourself. Just don't drag the rest of us in with it.
There is a reason you have no friends. That nagging feeling that people merely tolerate you rather than engage you is real.
Update: Former president Barack Obama said the U.S. "joins a small handful of nations that reject the future."
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
How the hell do you have no name?
After 30 years of Pascal's wager answers to scientific questions which satisfy the imagination of children and the religious, AGW is finally going the way of other weather scares such as Witches controlling the weather (where the term 'denier' as in 'a denier of witch craft' and 'skeptic' as in 'skeptical of witchcraft') and now I think it also means that activists can no longer skip to what the mob would say "Burn them at the stake".
It has been a fun 30 years to watch. But I guess with the Artic and Antarctica growing in ice, is it now time activists shift to 'we are 86% sure it really is man made global cooling'?
What is this nonsense? Who called it a treaty? Where are you getting this from?
Do you even know what a treaty is? Do you know what an agreement is? Do you know what the constitution actually requires? It doesn't say: "The President is congress' little bitch and has to get approval before he says anything to anyone." Under the present circumstances that may be an unfortunate truth, but it is a truth.
Yep.
You also don't get to ignore physics. I guess we'll watch several coastal cities flood in the next century due to AGW. Further, we'll keep losing $2.3 trillion a year due to the health problems caused by fossil fuel pollution.
We finally have a President that puts America first.
Have you read the agreement?
He didn't read past his DNC talking points.
"When 100% of the countries invited to be part of the Consolidation of Political Power and Virtue Signaling Agreement felt the agreement was either worth signing or didn't go far enough, its safe to say you can objectively say what the reasonable opinion is."
Premise would apply here as well?
Heh. International courts.
Spoken like a proper Communist. Stalin regarding the Holy See: "How many divisions does the Pope have?"
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
There are no costs mandated by the Paris Climate Agreement. It was non-binding and had no ramifications if we didn't uphold our end of the bargain.
So it's not an agreement and it's not a bargain? It's just pointless theatrics? All the more reason to leave the circus and let the clowns frolic as they please.
You argue from a fundamentally retarded premise. The problem with Paris is, as even Trump could figure out, at the US pays everyone else. Your argument has no bearing on reality.
I don't get these kinds of comments. Why do you think investment and significant expansion of the nuclear industry is not inline with the Paris accords? There is nothing in them (that I've seen, maybe I am misinterpreting legalese) that says solar or wind are the ways and CCS or nuclear are "not counted". It's just about reduced emissions, every country can get there however it pleases.
There also doesn't seem to be any requirement in the transfer rules for developed countries to developing countries that this transfer be cash. We could transfer anything, including giving limited tax breaks to companies that pool IP and "give" it to certain poor countries at a licensing cost (that companies set but we don't collect) that gets us there. You could even be even more creative and make that license a right to buy the goods from US manufacturers only. There are so many ways to transfer with it only costing the US a fraction of what it has signed up for (which is already a pretty small number, it's 100 bio a year spread across every developed country in the group). We already do things like this when it comes to medical assistance to poor countries, and all that window dressing is just for PR.
These were all options we had yesterday and Trump could have put forward such a multipronged approach if his closest advisers were people who had expertise in things like energy generation and economic policy. It could basically have been a revival of GWB policy on energy in so many ways. Instead the entire opportunity to show thoughtful leadership was squandered.
The health problems from a general lack of energy would dwarf that amount.
The EU? The union just had one full third of its members that matter leave? The EU has the Brits, the Frogs, the Krauts, and a bunch of shitty little orphans they got roped into supporting. The Brits got sick of it and voted to leave, and recently reaffirmed that they're really going to leave. How much longer will Germany and France put up with it?
China? A leader in anything dealing with pollution or the environment?
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Keep going to class Don't cut class for rallies. Your Sophomore year will prove more challenging.
I want my country to be a rational, creative, compassionate leader within the community of nations. Failing that, I want my nation's policies to promote our own long-term growth and success without stepping on the rights of other people. Failing that, which is apparently where we are today, I want the community of nations to pressure my nation into pretending to value those principles.
Do you get to sue someone if compliance with the Paris accords costs you money?
You think he's passing his freshman remedials? I doubt it.
The whole thing is just for show. He wants to stir up some noise and stick it (symbolically) to the establishment and the environmentalists.
...and this is the problem arising from making climate change policy an ideological issue. Instead of a facts- and evidence-based issue. It's like arguing over whether clean drinking water is a "right-wing" or "left-wing" thing. Nuts. The Left is just as much to blame here as is the Right, except that the Right maybe started it, due to being beholden to corporate fossil fuel interests.
Note: there are both "right-wing" (market-based) and "left-wing" (state-action, regulation-based) approaches to dealing with climate change and CO2 emissions. How best to deal with climate change can be a right/left point of contention. However making belief in climate change a right/left thing is completely insane.
Considering we arm half the world, and we help drive the economy of the other half good luck with that you guilt ridden little weasel.
Do what you can to go green in spite of Trump.
Conserve by replacing failed equipment with energy efficient versions
If you have a good roof for solar, get solar, either by paying cash or getting a loan. Don't lease.
When it's time to replace a car, and if you have a place to charge it from natural gas- or renewably-generated electricity, get an EV or Plugin Hybrid. If you don't have a place to charge it and don't expect to have one in the near future, get a non-plugin hybrid.
Support green efforts in your town/city/state.
Yes, you will need to spend a little money today, but it'll be better than the billion-pound cure we'll need to buy in the future. (Or even the $hundreds of billions we're losing in pollution related health costs each year.)
reasonable = people who agree with me
When 100% of the countries invited to be part of the Paris Climate Agreement felt the agreement was either worth signing or didn't go far enough to curb emissions, its safe to say you can objectively say what the reasonable opinion is. There are no other world leaders ignorant enough to do what Trump did, we have the worst one. Even North Korea ratified it.
You are objectively wrong on this one.
You've switched "people" for "countries" here. I can tell you for a fact that I disagree with the official position of the government associated with my country on a great many issues.
Also, I don't see what's objectively reasonable about the consensus opinion of the psychopaths that rule the world. Such a consensus should instead be deeply alarming.
Wtf are you talking about. There are other solutions for energy and have been for ages. Hell, these days some countries are actually producing an excess of renewable energy on some days
King Canute did what he did to show that God was greater than he and that his own power was limited. You've been misinformed.
Context matters, dipshit.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Why would the USA want to ally with nations like North Korea, China, and Russia?
The whole planet was set to benefit, just like when we all banned CFCs which fixed the hole in the ozone layer.
Climate change is real, we have damaged the ozone layer and suffered for it. That's fixed now because of agreements like this.
Yeah, the amount of own goals this admin has managed in such a short timeframe is amazing. I knew Trump was stupid but not this stupid.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Conservatives have just ceded leadership of the free world to Russia and China. How can people be so fucking stupid as to not understand that in this global economy, which is what it is regardless of their whiny little asshatery, unless you are moving forward you are falling behind. Conservatives don't care... they are a cult of anti-American shitstains.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
We cannot halt the progression of climate change without radical and drastic action such as the following:
1. Tear down the factories
2. Block industrialization of developing countries
3. Ban all combustion engines
4. Ban all plastics
5. No more global trade. Trade occurs locally and regionally
6. No more pesticides, herbicides, or industrial agriculture
We cannot claim to make progress on climate change without eliminating the products and manufacturing processes that produce emissions.
And it's beyond stupid, he took America away from the negotiating table. For a claimed deal maker not sitting at the table is about the stupidest deal you can make! Without the US at the table the rest of the world could decide to impose carbon tariffs on the US exports. You gain absolutely NOTHING by not participating, you can only lose.
use the overwhelming economic clout of this new pact to make the US pay in every other conceivable way.
"Nope."
Now that we are officially out of the "treaty", which was never submitted for ratification by the Senate, including violating the sense of the Senate resolution, and no money was actually voted for support of the "treaty", it's time to sue to recover the billion Obama transferred out of the military budget to the UN for this and arrest him and his cronies for theft and embezzlement. Maybe some hard time will help to clear his head.
Why wish? Europe almost killed itself twice in the last hundred years. If the U.S. Strips the bases, withdraws all personnel and ditches NATO, I'd give Europe about a decade (if Putin goes to sleep for ten years) before World War III.
Then the US replies in kind. They all need the products from the US much more than the US needs them. Even US-China trade is only around two percent of the US economy. It could be eliminated without missing a step.
If you genuinely care about about reducing carbon emissions, you should reject that line of reasoning. You're counting carbon emissions between 1850 to the present day, but for a good portion of that time, we were polluting out of ignorance. We weren't aware that the carbon emissions would have a significant impact on climate. The science was far less certain a few decades ago than it is in the present day. We built an economy based on fossil fuels largely out of the ignorance of the impacts of burning fossil fuels. We also didn't have viable alternatives for a significant portion of that time, particularly because our awareness of the threat from carbon emissions was lower than it is now.
Many of the mistakes made in the past by the United States were made with some degree of ignorance. China is insisting that they get to repeat those actions, but with far less ignorance. The same is true of India. The United States has a small percentage of the world's population. If every country asserted the right to produce as much per capita carbon emissions as the United States has since 1950, we'll be ramping up carbon emissions and severely exacerbating climate change.
Your flawed logic places international politics ahead of mitigating severe damage from climate change. By the way, that's the same flawed type of logic that Trump is using to justify withdrawing from the Paris climate accords. Past mistakes made in large part out of ignorance do not justify repeating those mistakes with knowledge of the consequences.
We can't afford to wait until 2030 to draw down carbon emissions -- whether it's the United States, China, or India delaying.
Sanctions against US, that will inevitably will lead to retaliation, will be God's gift to Russia and China.
Trump was God's gift to Russia, even if they paid for it.
There are no costs mandated by the Paris Climate Agreement. It was non-binding and had no ramifications if we didn't uphold our end of the bargain. It is hard to not just spout expletives when responding to your comment since it shows such an immense lack of knowledge and the belief your ignorance should be considered in public policy.
How can it simultaneously be non-binding and also the EOTWAWKI?
To be fair to the late Mr Canute, he took his throne and advisors to the sea to show that even he, a King, could not stop the sea by command.
He was iterating the point to his advisors that mortal power had a limit.
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
Be careful - hurt the US's feelings and they may not bail you out when Russia decides to liberate Paris to stop the oppression of the ethnic Russians there.
anything. That is more than I am willing to chip in. You pay for it, I will not.
The interesting thing is the Democrats had a supermajority. They could have rammed through a climate change treaty just as easily as they did Ocare. Why didn't they? Because Congress didn't want to touch it. Once ppl found out what had happened it would have made the shitstorm backlash from Ocare look like a spring day. Insane amount of money to accomplish next to nothing at best.
I'm not sure how the context you provided changes it.
Dark Reflection
Europe shooting a nuke at the U.S. would be a pretty effective way to end global warming.
The centuries of nuclear winter from the annihilation by nuclear hellfire of all traces of there ever having existed sentient life on Earth would drastically curb fossil fuel CO2 emissions and cause a quick drop in surface and ocean temperatures.
So, how do we get this thing launched?
Like you and other globalist snowflakes, an International court serving against USA will get an ass-fucking only two months in SanFran could equal.
faggot
doesn't make them a populist. In fact, if you're trying to carve out your own little fiefdom that's kinda the way to go.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I agree with your comment about China.
Though Nuclear will be their main source of energy.
About your second comment, you are misinformed.
http://unfccc.int/cooperation_...
to take the blame for the mess Trump left in his wake. Same thing happened to Obama. You'd be amazed how many people blame him for the crash that started before he took office. Even the smart ones blame him for not fixing it better and ignore the congress of Republicans & DINOs.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Thats the vacuum that Trump is forming as he disengages the US from leadership roles around the world. And who is rushing in to fill that lack of leadership? China. Yes in making America Great Again (R), Trump is ceding our role as a world leader. Destroy the education system that produces some of the best engineers in the world. Don't think that true? Visit any engineering school and see how many foreign students are training here. American manufacturing will be restored when we become the peons of our Asian overlords and engineers
Oh enough of you stroking your anti-GOP hate-boner. It's messing with your head; let the blood go elsewhere.
If reduced CO2 ever becomes a serious obstacle to international business, US companies can simply purchase green/blue tech from the countries developing it (assuming we won't be producing it already).
Or maybe we'll just pull a China and steal the designs.
Once CO2 affects business, the US gov't will do whats necessary.
First you say oil is dying anyways so lets all jump on the "spend too much for expensive energy" bandwagon, and now you say its not dying fast enough so "lets all jump on the expensive energy" bandwagon. In short, you want poor people to die.
For the rest of your diatribe of words, you make allot of presumptions and obviously hate the USA, however you, like allot of your greeny friends, no nothing about the global economy.
We will see, but I have an overwhelming feeling that everything you mentioned, will NOT come to pass.
Not being signed up to a treaty which (was signed illegally by the last President[1]) does not in any way mean that the US is doing nothing. Not only do we still have a fully functional EPA, but some of the toughest regulations in the world for clean air and water. Better still, if you listened to the whole speech by the President, you would have heard that he was already starting to negotiate a new treaty which is more fair for Americans. Specifically, US Tax payers were mentioned in the speech.
Why so many people believe it is so much easier to listen to hours of CNN and MSNBC interpreting the Presidents few minute speech than to listen to the source is astounding. Listen to or read the transcript for all you need to know, instead of relying on propagandists for their "opinion" of something instead of deciding for yourself based on actual facts.
[1] The President does not have the authority to sign treaties with foreign Governments. This is the job of the House and Senate. President Obama bypassed his legal authority by claiming this was not a treating and calling it an "accord". Wording in the agreement is exactly that of a treaty with multiple foreign Governments. If a Republican President had signed a similar agreement, Democrats would have yelled for impeachment (rightly so).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If the treaty cost nothing, did nothing, and has no penalties for acting or not acting then why is anyone upset if the USA withdraws? Why were so many people overjoyed upon it's signing?
If people want to see the USA use more wind and solar energy then the solution is simple, make it cheaper than coal. I believe that the wind and solar subsidies made the situation worse for renewable R&D. They were all happy swimming in government dollars instead of doing the hard work of competing with coal.
I have to wonder if we'd have all ethanol fueled cars by now if the teetotalers hadn't prohibited private distilling. Even after the prohibition was lifted the taxes on ethanol made it difficult and it continues even today. I believe the free market is the best means to fix any problem. Get rid of the taxes and subsidies and let people do their R&D without the government getting in the way.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If the aid is voluntary then all POTUS did is signal that the USA "volunteers" not to pay out. Either we don't pay now (by withdrawing from the treaty) or we don't pay later (by not volunteering to donate the money).
Apparently nothing was lost here, which make me wonder why anyone is upset about POTUS "unsigning" the treaty.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If you voted trump, you deserve to die. Just the fact.
It's political because environmental law is at the nexus of trade. Some countries have higher allowances to pollute, therefore factories are moved to China and such and keep on operating. Nothing actually changes, except that America's trade deficit keeps growing while the investor class enriches itself.
If the government had not baled out GM then their factories would have been bought by the likes of Tesla, and we'd have had those same workers back to work building electric cars in a matter of weeks.
If the government was interested in pushing electric vehicle technology forward then they would have left GM to die or innovate.
I'll believe that the federal government is interested in getting off of oil when they get rid of the road taxes on gasoline. We should be using gasoline for fueling airplanes, as a paint thinner, and nothing else. That will happen precisely when we run out of oil or the government gets rid of the taxes. That's assuming the sun doesn't consume the Earth first.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Global warming denial was enshrined in repug political religion for no reason other than a prominent person, who just so happened to be a Democrat, expressed concern about it. Repugs truly are the enemy of mankind.
Fixed? No. Maybe slowing down the rate we continue to break it.
I think you and your party are the ones who usurped the meaning of swamp draining. Ask yourself, why do people drain swamps? The answer is to build something expensive and hopefully profitable on it like a hotel, a casino, a condominium complex, etc. If you thought a construction mogul who screamed about swamp draining wasn't gonna build something profitable on that reclaimed swampland then that's one more thing to add to the list that proves just how ignorant or malicious you really are. We warned you guys. You got what you wanted. trump won. GET OVER IT!
Reneging on an international agreement is bad for America - worse than supporting it would have been.
In most times, most places, by most people, liars are considered contemptible. - Ursula Le Guin
That's My President!!! MAKE AMERICA GREAT Again!! My grandkids will thank him for undoing the previous villainy the Republic has undergone.
Some by orders of magnitude more than others...
No it would not have been.
Non binding, means... NON binding.
Supporting it would have cost hundreds of billions + increased energy prices for no reason.
It would have meant giving over (eventually) control to an un-elected body in determining policy in the USA.
BTW, I see your Feynman quote. You should do a little research on what he though about the GHG effect, also about vague theories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You mean "to spite", not "despite". The saying you're borrowibg, "cut off your nose to spite your face" should make more sense to you now. :)
The president can sign any treaty. It has no force of law in the States unless ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
For instance, Woodrow Wilson signed the League of Nations treaty. The Senate refused to ratify so we never became part of the League of Nations. No great loss really. The League was busy debating European standards for tariffs on shoes the morning of September 1, 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland.
China and India currently have over 350 large coal generation plants under construction.
They have been bringing over 20 new coal plants online every month for over a decade. And they have no intention of slowing down at all. At the earliest, they may take some action in 2030 to reduce their emissions.
America, by comparison, has greatly reduced its coal plants under 0bama and has converted many more to natural gas, a far less damaging fossil fuel. Our carbon emissions are now at the level we had back in the early 1990's and will decline further due to natural gas. I was at the local public power office today and they told me that they were completing their own conversion from coal. So our coal-fired plant will shortly be powered entirely by hydrogen and not by trainloads of coal. The hydrogen is being generated as a by-product of local natural gas here in the Plains states and is being produced by a local gas processing company. So our local coal plant will soon be emitting only pure H2O, no carbon at all.
talking all rational and stuff
"In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States "
How is not dealing with world-wide climate change protecting Americans?
What promiment person are you talking about? I think the facts are far more complex (and much older) than you imply.
You've got it exactly backwards. King Canute was never under any impression that he could do that. That was the whole point: demonstrating that even a king as powerful as he had limits.
Also, the story seems to be apocryphal, but even so, he was "Canute the Great", not "Canute the Ignorant". Very little in common between the two leaders, unfortunately.
Maybe you should check the actual records. That "global warming" you are talking about NEVER HAPPENED. While the claims of "record temperatures" are thrown around all the time, when you check the historical records you can see that the claims are not even in the top 5 spots.
There is reason why they are now calling it "climate change". And that reason is because facts did not match the "global warming" rhetoric.
Trump has no choice but to surround himself with people smarter than him because literally everyone on the planet is smarter than he is.
Are the aliens giving you advanced information from the future? That other person in your head telling you what's going to happen? When is your doom and gloom forecast for, so I can laugh at you after you are another fraud spreading FUD?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Exactly. The reason Musk (i.e., Tesla) is complaining is because he will lose all the government subsidies he is counting one to build his factory for of the mostly useless and inefficient solar panels.
Don't expect the dipshit red state Idiocracy to understand anything more complex than the Arby's menu.
"There won't be Western Civilization left standing in America when this all plays out." Fixed
Trump is just a narcissistic con-man who thinks he's a great deal-maker. He hasn't closed one single deal since he took office because running a country and managing foreign policy isn't like greasing a local zoning board so you can build a golf course. He's completely incompetent as a leader.
You haven't spent much time in the red states, have you? Those hillbilly dipshits don't care about anything except being able to afford tickets for the next monster truck rally, or fender flares for stupid truck that gets 12 mpg and then complain when gas prices go up..
>EU and China are so advanced
>Drumpf just wants more money
>US will regret not paying trillions of dollars for literally nothing
I could be wrong, but it sure seems like you know absolutely shit about climate change and the Paris accord. From where I sit it looks like a do-nothing agreement (less than 0.05C impact over 100 years) that would have cost trillions of dollars for what, exactly? How does paying money to the developing world help the climate? Do you think all those 3rd world kings and rulers are going to use that money responsibly to combat climate change? I can think of any number of projects that would be a far more useful investment: solar farms, updating ourselves on nuclear fuel rod recycling like France does, improved/expanded fracking for natural gas, the list is innumerable. Why waste your money on Paris exactly? Please enlighten all of us why this is the best use of our money.
http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm
its collectivism vs individualism
Why not address the pathetic self-loathing and reduce your carbon footprint at the same time, and kill yourself?
Win-win.
Mate, I am from New Zealand, feel free to liberate us anytime you like.
We may not be on your map anyway.
New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
I feel sorry for a people thatll most likely become droned in the future. So blind.
Clean water is an anti-right issue by definition
Coal burning has enormous economic costs, Just ask the national bureau of economic research who say that it should cost at least a factor of four more to offset just local costs.
They had a super majority for 72 days, and Joseph Liberman, who had endorsed McCain, was part of that so called supermajority.
Says a guy who doesn't work in an industry that exports to China. I think you'd hear a pretty big cry of uncle form Trump's base if he actually started a trade war.
At least he didn't try to give Angela Merkel a backrub.
Given his history, at least he didn't try to grab her by the crotch...
I am glad this happened. This is a major setback for you and we intend to set you back further.
Go to hell ecofraud scum.
It also doesn't explicitly require that the help be cash. We could have done it similar to how we do many other forms of aid with the money having to be spent with US based companies,and we could via interesting tax incentives induce private companies to foot most of the explicit bill. You could comfortably get to a reasonable number of "assistance" and that assistance can come in so many ways.
You could argue the at accord is obsolete.
Given the advances we are seeing in Electric Vehicles, and new propsoed infrastructure projects propose by Trump many of the cities stand to be revitalized, with more efficient self driving buses and vehicles.
All electric, which will drive emissions to focal points at power plants which will centralize their eventual reduction.
Also my first car got 24 miles to the gallon. My new Jetta gets 31 miles to the gallon, and some of the newer gasoline engines coming down the pipe will be even more efficient.
Each 5mpg increase in efficiency per car probably destroys billions in Oil revenue and millions of barrels will not be burned.
if we ever solve the battery issues, everyone could own their own electric car eventually.
But right now there is no way everyone can drive an electric car as there is not enough lithium to go around unfortunately.
So we need a different battery tech. I am hoping Copper Sulfate.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, FBI, NSA, POTUS, armed forces, the popular mass media ... every motherfucking last one of them wilfully ignores the parts of the US constitution they don't like whenever it's "inconvenient".
Haven't you been paying attention recently?
Bush 2 was correct - it's just a "piece of paper", and because no one wants to pay for the Iraqi war crime lies (only the most obvious of the multitude of ancient and modern US war crimes), the constitution will be wifully ignored well into the distant future.l
Welcome to Planet Earth.
How long does Elon Musk continue to invest in the USA before he sees the writing on the wall and moves his operation to a different country?
"I went to an Ivy League school. I’m very highly educated. I know words, I have the best words."
"The Wharton School of Finance is probably the hardest there is to get into. Some of the great business minds in the world have gone to Wharton."
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
- Donald Trump
But isn't that the truly horrendous bit? I thought GWB was awful, and that moment was right up there with why I thought he was such a tool. The ghastly reality is that DT has made me re-evaluate that as if it's no big deal. "Hey, there was no ill will in George's heart, he was just trying to be friendly in a very inappropriate way." DT shoving people out of the way? Different story.
You obviously haven't eaten at such an Arby's- there, I'm not even sure the employees understand the menu.
I'am proudly american and I hate all this international agreements. I hate G7, G20 too. When we won the II World War we were just a sovereign nation. We have defeated the evil, the fascism, Hitler, and all those european bullshits...Let's make America Great Again. Thank you Mr. President.
because without consensus agreements, the greedy and corrupt take advantage
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
the US, per capita, produces twice the amount of pollution than China even though its a quarter of the population
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
because it will take long time to turn the amount of coal fired power stations into something better, they are not resting on their laurels, they are already leading in solar production.
The Paris accord is only bad for America because they are so profligate with cheap fuel, its cheap to burn burn burn and sod the consequences. it should have been the incentive for a large part of the US population to grow up and be more efficient, insulate their homes properly, get rid of the gas guzzling vehicles etc etc
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Is that $100B an investment with returns or just a give away?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Or grab her by the pussy...
it's not like USA was doing much really anyways and could have KEPT DOING JUST AS THEY ARE DOING even while staying technically in the paris deal.
because the deal is just .. well, it's an intent deal.
it's not real. it doesn't impose anything that usa actually has to do or some big bully will come and do something to them if they stay in the deal.
on that the announcement is really baffling.
however we know that Musk is peeved because he wants gasoline cars to have a penalty tax just the same as other countries have (what he fails to understand is that teslas cars are going to get car taxed the same as others pretty soon in the countries where they're half price compared to gasoline luxury cars of the same price in usa).
Maserati ghibli s in usa is the base tesla price. in Finland the ghibli s is roughly 50 000 euros more expensive than the base tesla. and the base tesla sucks in range.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Airports across the country broke traffic records this year. Millennials are the most traveled generation, ever. Studies have shown the "progressives" take more flights each year, and fly more miles each year, than do "conservatives". But the coasts are going to plunge into the ocean. Okay, tell you what, get a referendum on the ballot to have you folks thrown in jail, and I'll vote for it. How's that for solving climate change? See, the people who wring their hands about it the most, are the people who cause it the most. You guys could go a long way toward solving it yourselves, even if nobody else agreed with you.
But, let's face it. Not one of you give two and a half shits about the climate. Climate change is YOUR dog whistle. You know, the one that says "I'm with the affluent, formally educated white people!"
It's never been about the climate.
If you want to know what people really believe, don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
Your actions say that few, if any of you, care about climate change.
Withdrawing from Paris Accords opens the possiblity of future Carbon Tariffs on US goods. But TPP (I'm not advocating TPP by the way, glad it's dead) would have prevented the signatories from imposing Carbon Tariffs on imports from the US (for fear of litigation if for no other reason). By pulling both, Trump has made US trade and industry more vulnerable, not less.
*IF he loses in 2020
FTFY
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
...and the mental image of Trump pulling out of her.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Climate change now accelerated to 1 degree per HOUR!!!!
As the sun cums up, the earth's temperature goes up
average 1 degree per hour. And when then sun goes
down, the globe cools 1 degree per hour.
Awe noooo!
Power will now shift to China and India.
How ironic we're talking about climate change, and you name some of the most polluted places on the entire planet as those taking control.
Chances are they'll be dead from poisoning themselves before a shift in power is approved through politics.
Not really. The reasonable people knows that the world is not black and white. That you do not want to pay for an expensive daycare centre made out of black marble, suggested by some opportunist marble sales man, does NOT mean that you want to kill all the worlds children.
I am from Europe, I find it hard to believe we would put a tax on US products even tho they left the agreement. Because US is producing less CO2 now than in start date 2005, and even tho they will not meet their promised ~25% reduction by 2025 they will produce a considerable amount less (even with Trump). Not when the agreement allows China to increase their CO2 production up until 2030. Americans could say that we are reducing, China is increasing, why tax us? And we would have no answer...
Yep, I think there's ample justification now to place a carbon tax on all US exports as effectively Trump is now saying he wants to cheat at world trade - to pollute more than any other country in the world to produce products, then have all the countries he wants to buy those products pay for the cleanup costs of his country's pollutants. He's effectively demanding that he be able to double charge the rest of the world for part of production of goods, by first selling products at a profit that covers entire production costs and makes a profit on top, but then rather than use that income to actually pay for the polluting production costs, leave those costs to the buyer as well on top of the headline price. As such it makes sense for the rest of the world to force that to be included directly in the price of US products with a carbon tariff, they wouldn't be doing anything wrong, just forcing the US to be upfront about the real cost of it's goods compared to the rest of the world so it's actually a legitimate use of tariffs
Sure, Trump can place counter-tariffs on the entire world, good luck with that one. Maybe he can setup a free trade zone with the only other two countries in agreement with him on this one? Nicaragua and Syria.
Make America Great Again? Create jobs? Yeah, not gonna happen when the rest of the world stops buying your goods and you take your 0.3bn people into an economic war with the other 7bn people in the world.
If "climate change/global warming" was so critical, why didn't President Barak Obama and his Democrat super-majority in Congress forego the piddling little issue of health insurance and instead make some real changes to address "climate change/global warming?"
Please people, try to think "outside the box."
In all seriousness:
The solution to this is not "follow through in your promises even if they were bad", but "don't make bad promises".
Also remember that aid is not some blackhole than money disappears into.
China will say to any number of nations: "Here, have some climate impact mitigation aid money, but you must buy Chinese equipment/services with it.".
The money soon flows back to Chinese companies (after being skimmed for kickbacks and some local handling). These Chinese companies use the money to ramp up production, gaining economies of scale through what in effect is government based support that neatly does an end run around WTO state aid rules. Now, not only has the USA been locked out of these initial deals, it's locked out of the long term contracts (services, maintenance, upgrades), has lost vital mindshare in these new markets and has potentially allowed Chinese companies to undercut US prices because they've had a big whack of state aid.
Sure, you've made some coal miners temporarily happy and sold a few more #MAGA hats, but you've potentially buggered up some juicy long term markets in which America could have competed.
And that's the best case scenario, because if the agreement parties decide that more urgent action is needed, a carbon tariff on non-signatories could really cause headaches for American companies.
Given the Trump administration seems to be getting a kick out of giving the rest of the world the middle finger, I can imagine the rest of the world won't have too many qualms about sticking it to the USA in return.
You sound mournful? Why? The world has long been demanding an end to American bullying, American imperialism, and American leadership. This isn't something that happened today. America sucks all the air out of the room and makes it impossible for countries like China and India to be heard. Now China and India have a chance to show their quality and it's somehow a bad thing? Explain. The rogue superpower voluntarily pulling back from the world is a big win for everyone.
Explain how this is a bad thing? The world has been loudly demanding an end to American hegemony, American exceptionalism, and American bullying for a long time. Now that this long-desired big win is coming, it's a bad thing? Huh? So many voices calling for China and Europe to take leadership roles. I really don't get it here.
I'm always reminded of the story of some very left wing US acquaintance who, upon hearing of 9/11, was telling all their UK friends that "we have to bomb someone!!"
Values come from context and life conditions.
One of the very tricky things about the energy debate is that many of the people who have strong views about this, can currently turn the lights on, make breakfast, and get to work.
This gives politicians and companies a lot of leeway in playing with things like wind power and biofuels.
Subsidies or no subsidies, green or fossil, old or new, we are not conscious of the real numbers and whether we'll be able to turn the lights on.
Likewise, we cannot really be conscious of climate change because the "real effects" are nowhere to be found, really. They only appear as hand-wavy interpretations of this or that storm or melt.
Likewise people can argue over the global warming pause till the cows come home.
So it is all rhetoric. Like this thing that India and China are moving really fast as possible... which is a rhetorical point simply to counter the older rhetorical point of, what's the point of CO2 cuts if China and India don't do the same?
This arguing has been going on for 15 or 20 years now, and one of these days, it might actually start to matter. Or maybe not.
And before anyone takes offence at my nonchalant attitude here, remember that, well by coincidence, Prince Charles in the UK, who given his position, you'd think would be well informed to comment on this, said exactly 8 years ago that, we had just 8 years to save the planet.
And even though very little has been done -- he was talking of ending capitalism, "the age of convenience is over" -- here we are today, and either nothing really happened to the planet, or, if he was right, it is now too late anyway.
Your president is turning usa into a coal workers paradise. And everybody else can just move out of there. Uncle sam wants all the coal workers of the planet.
With attitudes like this, who could blame the Americans for doing what's in their interest? America can do no right in the world's eyes. It's constant criticism, no matter what. and the only (very faint) praise America ever gets is for falling into a globalist agenda. A globalist agenda that will ruin America and reduce it to a level of prosperity that a Pakistani bricklayer would find acceptable. This is why hating America was such a bad idea, Americans get the idea that it doesn't matter what they do, so might as well do what's good for themselves. And then they get criticized for taking their own self-interest. Sheesh, can't win. I, for one, look forward to the constant barrage of criticism hitting the EU and China for a change. It will be nice to sit on the sidelines and chuckle as they suddenly find out what it's like.
If trumps continues this way the US will not be an export or any other kind of desirable market any longer.
Its just pathetic.
Yes an executive agreement is basically saying We agree the Climate is changing perhaps something should be done.
A treaty is anything that obligates us to act, to pay money and to change laws. The Paris Accord called on the US as a first world nation to give money to other countries. That makes it a treaty and that requires Senate Ratification (and full congressional action to appropriate the money.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
The world is being actively destroyed while you elect stupid trolls.
I say we work harder to compensate for the US being stubborn and boycott every American product -- to minimize damage from their foolishness.
We already wasted a lot of time trying to convince them to follow international units. They show they have their own way and do not want to help.
We cannot afford to lose more time before we take the necessary steps to protect the world. They were invited and decided not to come aboard.
Since the country cannot be moved, the good people will have to move from the US. I cannot speak for anyone, but I guess progressive Americans will always be welcome in some countries.
How, exactly, do you propose nuclear is safer then solar? Of all the accidents I can think of the don't really amount to anything more significant then a burned down complex.
It helped keep Hillary out. Even if the FBI wouldn't prosecute her for them, her felonies are a big part of the reason she lost.
The USA with 5% of the World's population generates 15% of the World's anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Damned right it owes the World something.
Also, in what way is the USA super successful? It's got the most guns. Wow. How about providing its citizens with a half way decent healthcare system. Even here in the UK we have managed that.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Yep, problem was Democratic voters crossing party lines to vote in the critical early state primaries gave him the early momentum that is absolutely critical to win the nomination. Early states were almost entirely open primaries, in the early closed primary states Trump lost badly at first until the momentum he'd gained from the early wins made him the ever more obvious best option.
And then when it came time for the general election, he was a lousy choice, but light years better than the felon the Dems rigged their primaries to put forward. Any other Dem would likely have beat him hands down. But Hillary was a repulsive option to everybody outside the coastal big cities.
Nuclear is only so expensive due to the extensive lengths the environmentalist's will go to, in order to try to prevent it.
As soon as someone even mentions the idea of building a Nuc plant they will be sued, and the lawsuits will continue every step of the way.
Get the greenies to wake up and realize the harm they are causing to the environment by preventing us from getting away from fossil fuels and the price will drop greatly. Get a President willing to revoke the Carter ban of fast breeder reactors and the waste fuel issue is greatly diminished.
Nuclear is a great option, but groups that quiver in fear of the word have made it so expensive that new plants are rare when they should be going up right and left.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Well seeing as western civilization is responsible for history's greatest crimes, I don't think anyone is going to shed a tear to bid goodnight to the people who came up with The Holocaust.
Nicaragua, said it didn't go far ENOUGH, and Syria is in the middle of a civil war. America excuse, the President, dodo.
Any article that starts out calling anyone who disagrees with it a shill is not getting my time to read it. If you can't make an argument without resorting to insults from the very beginning then your argument is flawed and weak and you know it.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Not sure this changes anything in regards to the US commitment to making our world cleaner? The deal was just that, a deal to make world figures look important.
China the worst offender was not a country willing to really commit to anything. Verbal agreements are great, makes you look as though your trying.
I agree with Trump on this on, it was unfair, committed the US too heavily all the while China committed to very little. At the very least it needs to be a agreement that every country commits to equally.
People fall off roofs while installing solar power. https://asiancorrespondent.com...
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
Also, and correct me if I'm wrong here, the US has a 2/3 import/export ratio with the EU. A tariff war would disproportionately affect the EU. In fact, other than food products and overvalued pop media, I'm not sure what exactly we have to slap tariffs on.
All around the World, money is being invested into alternative energy and "Green" technologies - even with this weirdly cheap oil and natural gas.
China is going gangbusters because their leadership thinks long term. As a matter of fact, today if you want those solar panels, buy smart; buy Chinese. They have the best stuff.
China and many other companies are also doing plenty of R&D and starting to manufacture electric vehicles.
And they are not waiting for subsidies from anyone. They are doing it because that the future and where the money is going to be made. Oil and gas is going to be the next coal - an energy source that is going to get killed by cheaper sources: green energy.
And what are we Americans going to do then? Import that technology because we're too short sighted and half our population is unable to accept facts.
I meant export/import ratio. /sigh
I hate to burst your bubble, but Democrats aren't going to take back Congress in 2018. Hell, Trump will probably be re-elected in 2020. And I am most emphatically not saying that because that's what I want. I hate Trump and the Republican party with a purple passion you cannot measure.
But the sad fact is that collectively, American voters are dumb as dirt. I mean, we're really, really stupid. Sure, there are a lot of good, smart people out there, but not nearly as many as idiots. I used to be hopeful and optimistic, but the 2016 election irrevocably changed that. We had a man running who literally said that he could get away with anything, including sexual assault, and who was a cultural icon of the greed and excess of our most decadent decade of greed and excess. People lined up in droves to vote for him.
And on the left? We still have a contingent of people, our own version of the Tea Party, who insist that Hillary Clinton is "just as bad," embracing weird conspiracy theories posited by the crazy branch of the right-wing, such as her "rigging" the primaries or deleting thousands of incriminating emails, things there has never been any evidence of her doing.
Some people (including Clinton herself) chalk all of these woes up to misogyny or Russian interference. Yeah, that had some impact. But personally, I chalk it up to a more basic truth: We Americans are collectively as stupid as they come. While most of the world praises intelligence and experience, we have an active disdain for it. When someone excels at something, we look for ways to take them down a peg because they're "elitist." Instead, we bow to the cult of Trump, where you don't have to be smart, motivated, and have a proven track record of getting worthwhile things done. You just have to have a larger-than-life personality and willing to say literally anything, even if it contradicts something you said two minutes ago. We'd prefer electing someone who's openly lying to our face because the person who's telling the truth must be hiding something nefarious.
I know, you're probably thinking that now that Trump has steered our boat straight down shit creek, people are finally waking up. I'll remind you that just a week ago, the people of Montana elected a man who literally physically and deliberately harmed another person because he was "sick and tired" of being asked questions about health care, the most important domestic issue facing America today. We pay lip service to teaching our kids to play nice, share, and be good people, but then we turn right around and reward people like Gianforte with being elected to what used to be an esteemed office. Which lesson do you think they're learning?
And before that, when Democrats lost a mayoral election in Omaha, Nebraska, the Sandersesque contingent came out of the woodwork yet again to point fingers at the national Democratic party for somehow failing to win the seat, even though that election was much closer than the one four years ago. And why? Because the DNC leadership criticized the Democratic candidate for being anti-abortion. Gasp! Democrats had the audacity to vocally support women's rights? No wonder they lost!
I always get amused at people who want term limits for Congresspeople, or who say things like, "Throw them all out!" What exactly makes you think that anything would be any different? I mean, the idiots in Kentucky who keep electing Mitch McConnell, the man who plainly stated that his number one political goal was to make Barack Obama a one-term president (and, incidentally, who spectacularly failed at even that number one goal) would just find some other jackass to line up behind in the following election. Maybe even someone worse.
So yeah, I'd like to think that Democrats are going to make a resurgence in 2018. I'd like to think that 2020 will see a wave of blue overtake the country and finally sweep out the assholes and villains of the right-wing that have been holding this country back for decades. I can't help but roll my e
I don't think the exporters are that concerned about losing the American market. Is it a speed bump for them economically? Of course it is. But in the long run they're putting the planet's health and survival above their own interests.
This is as it should be. If you are arguing for government to deal with climate change then you are abdicating _your_ responsibilities in regard to climate change.
Lobby your local government to make changes.
Lobby your local companies to make changes.
Turn away from corporations and their products that don't help with climate change.
Do without the second and third family vehicle.
Use mass transit.
Turn off your air conditioning more often.
Use public pools instead of getting one of your own.
Turn off electrical and electronic devices you aren't using.
Waste less.
When we the people take responsibility for our climate and environment, then we'll see change. Leave it to government and all you will get is 'hot air' and higher taxes.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
The biggest source of US reductions in CO2 has been a switch from coal to natural gas.
Natural gas of course produces CO2, but it produces less per kwh of electricity delivered to the consumer. If you've ever seen a coal train, which is an astonish sight if you ever tried to watch one from start to finish, you'll see one of the reasons why. Another is that natural gas generators are much more efficient, because you can turn the power output up and down almost instantly by twisting a valve.
It's not regulation that's killing coal. It's lower prices driven by competition with natural gas. And like competition it creates jobs in one place (fracking) and kills them in another (mining). Here's the epitaph for all those mining jobs: Coal, killed by the free market.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
...or 190 other nations in the world who signed the Paris Agreement? Well, maybe you should start asking yourself whether any other nation will want to ally with the US in the future if your country continues to go down that path...
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Look at USPS vs UPS, social security vs 401k, and most of the public transit system. Anything the government touch, local, state, fed, DIE, and then becomes zombie, consume resource and produce nothing. If you don't want the planet die, and become zombies, don't let the government get involve. I don't know any government that is 'over deliver, and under promise'l, or simply deliver what it promised at a reasonable cost. Look at Flint, same thing happened to DC 10 yrs prior. Think about how much time you can't get it back from DMV, passport application, getting marry at the local city hall, just waiting for your turn.
Besides, how much energy we can derive from solar and wind? Since the dawn of human, we jumping from one type of pollution to another without ever consider cleaning after ourselves, eventually, our Earth will have no more room for all the pollutants that we produced, and break down ... now that's an irreversible disaster.
Oh, that's easy to explain. I belong to the Illuminati. We don't give away our names easily.
All the talking heads, like Kerry...saying "well this wasn't binding anyway".
If this was the case, they what difference does it make if we're in it or out of it?
I wouldn't mind going back into it, IF it was non-binding, AND we leave out the part about the US funding up around $3B a year to other countries for them to "clean up"...but that being money with no strings attached to it.
I'm tired of the US sending money we could use at home to the rest of the planet.
But back to original point...if it wasn't binding, then what real difference does it make?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
And how would WW3 be desirable for the US in any way whatsoever? Has your reality denial and negativity overwhelmed you so much that you cannot even see the most basic foreign policy interests of your country any longer?
Western countries can claim greener and cleaner economy because they moved the dirty business in these countries. Trump wants them back in USA. That's why he withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord. These dirty businesses provide job for the less educated in the country.
Achille Talon
Hop!
How ironic we're talking about climate change
GP explicitly brought up isolationism, science denial, religious fundamentalism, immigration, business, and overarching political trends.
But sure, we're only talking about climate change.
The problem with the media is that he said the US is withdrawing, then either coming up with a better agreement or joining the Paris agreement under better financial conditions.
I ask you, fellow slashdotters, what's your favorite part of the Paris Agreement? Be specific.
Blaming Trump is vacuous. We the People have spoken and it is what it is.
Yep. And Trump promised during his campaign to take the US out of this agreement, So he's doing what he said what he would do which is better than what thousands of current and past politicians have done.
If you didn't like it, then you should've voted someone else into office.
Are you sure? Formally leaving the accord takes three years yes, but Obama never had it signed by congress, so I am not sure if the US is even officially in it. As far as I understand it is was a voluntary agreement between the Obama adminstration and the other parties (they even had a long discussion on the wording to make that possible).
I doubt there would've been pushback. The GOP were great at talking, but when it came time to stand for conservative principles, they were nowhere to be found. Just look at how they staged their opposition to Obama's Iran deal. They introduced a fatally flawed bill (Corker bill) that allowed Obama to bypass the 2/3rds Senate majority rule required for a treaty.
Actually, the Paris agreement required developed countries to provide *at least* $100B per year by the year 2020.
If I was Tuvalu or Maldives, I'd be more than a little concerned about how much that undervalues the cumulative damage done to my nation by developed nations over the decades up until then.
Yeah. Fuck life and Earth. Fuck science. Let's burn coal and create an unlivable hell hole for our children. Fuck'em too.
There are nuclear and fossil fuel shills spreading these myths. If you're not a shill, the term doesn't apply.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
...are uniquely unfavorable. The Paris agreement is extortion.
Why should the rest of the world buy American products, if they contribute more to pollution?
All Trump is managing to do is alienate our allies. If he is dismantling anything it is America. The rest of the world, which is 96 % of the world's population will go on without us if necessary.
Or we could just keep spending money we don't have on the rest of the world until we destroy our own country, then we won't be good to anyone including our own citizens. The "rest of the world" as you say will go on without us in that case which is precisely what you're advocating.
We'll make great pets
1. Trump alienating our allies is headline news lately.
Give the guy some credit. At least he didn't try to give Angela Merkel a backrub.
Ugh, how bad is it that Trump makes me nostalgic for George W Bush? I thought he would go down in history as America's worst President, but then this orange clown showed up.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Do you know what the constitution actually requires? It doesn't say: "The President is congress' little bitch and has to get approval before he says anything to anyone." Under the present circumstances that may be an unfortunate truth, but it is a truth.
Well my my aren't you dramatic? Ok, let's revisit Civics 101. If the President wielded supreme executive power, we would have a monarchy thus not needing a system of checks and balances, an executive, legislative or judicial branch of the government. You see friend, we have precisely those things so that no single entity within the government, including the President, can have supreme authority because history tells us that this often leads to dictatorships and tyranny and the outcomes are typically not favorable to citizens nor representative of their will. While the President probably couldn't be categorized as "Congress' little bitch", neither party can arbitrarily do anything it wants to without agreeing to a certain extent the criteria for which is outlined in the Constitution.
We'll make great pets
Yes a 100% voluntary agreement with paragraph 17 being:
"17. Each party to such an agreement shall be responsible for its emission level as set out
in the agreement referred to in paragraph 16 of this Article"
There's 117 other shall statements in your "voluntary" treaty. In fact there's 5 voluntary clauses in the entire treaty. 4 of them are concerned with transferring emissions via agreed trading schemes, and the 5th says that signatories may voluntary implement more ambitious plans.
But really what the treaty says is irrelevant compared to the actual actions that the signatories are taking, and so far all signatories are taking your so called "voluntary" actions. ... Except the USA of course.
America makes things? Bombs and movies I guess, though half the movies are made in Canada.
Every significant form of renewable energy has been and/or is being supported by all manner of subsidy.
You're wrong. Every significant form of energy has been and or is being supported by all manner of subsidy.
Not just the renewables.
If you didn't like it, then you should've voted someone else into office.
Many of us tried
Somehow I think that when the supercop leaves the world will go back to fighting - and then and only then might they miss the US.
Or they'll realize that the supercop wasn't as essential as everyone thought. It's not good when the most powerful nation on the planet decides to not be part of the process. The rest of the world will move ahead anyway and the US may lose its seat at the table.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
go suck your dad's penis. And your mom's for that matter.
The whole planet was set to benefit, just like when we all banned CFCs which fixed the hole in the ozone layer. Climate change is real, we have damaged the ozone layer and suffered for it. That's fixed now because of agreements like this.
Are you nuts? What do you want to do, ban the combustion engine? The economic disaster that would follow from that would be devastating. You must deal with the reality that we have a global economic system that is reliant on fossil fuels. Alternate energy sources is the answer and that can only be accomplished with science not regulation. Learn how to be pragmatic instead of a hippie idealist. It's people like you that cause suffering for other people with your wishful thinking.
We'll make great pets
> America has voted to be isolationist, anti-globalist, anti-science, pro-white supremacist
Good luck with that. Whites will be a minority by the end of this century.
There is no white country on the planet that isn't "multicultural". The idea white-supremacy is alive and well is absolute BULLSHIT as it doesn't exist anywhere on the planet.
Fun fact: King Canute's (or Knud den store as he is known in Denmark) grandfather was Harald Bluetooth after whom the bluetooth protocol was named.
-- Make America hate again!
Sadly, your link is a thinly researched opinion piece. The references are basically 3 "green" energy blogs and 1 senate bill.
My favorite Myth is the Yucca mountain costs without mentioning the political aspect of the costs and failure of the mountain (thanks Harry Reed).
Also, holding up Japan's failed nuclear policy as an example is bit of a stretch. The problems in Japan are linked more in corruption and culture than technology.
Don't get me wrong, nuclear is scary and deserves respect, but I have faith in humanity that we can sort it out.
--WooooHoooo--
Excellent.
So long, myth of human-made global warming.
Scientists can not agree on that, so why should a country block it's business - in a ploy to slow down it's economy.
Hell, everyone says the agreement wasn't binding in any fashion....so, WTF difference does it make if the US is in or out of it officially?
Also..shouldn't congress have voted on this anyway?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'll believe that the federal government is interested in getting off of oil when they get rid of the road taxes on gasoline. We should be using gasoline for fueling airplanes, as a paint thinner, and nothing else. That will happen precisely when we run out of oil or the government gets rid of the taxes.
How will eliminating gasoline taxes discourage the use of gasoline in cars? It will make fuel cheaper, so make operating gasoline-powered vehicles cheaper.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Yucca mountain reinforces the fact that there is no realistic way to store nuclear waste safely.
Japan follows US nuclear regulations. They failed. You can't say nuclear is safe and not count Fukushima and Chernobyl. Real world systems are complex and nuclear is dangerous.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
> But back to original point...if it wasn't binding, then what real difference does it make?
The importance of this is that . . . (gasp!) . . . a man with non-white skin made this agreement! Unacceptable!
I think that is the most likely underlying reason this is so important to some people.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I see people sitting in their cars in parking lots with the car running everyday. Cars are now one of the main sources of CO2. The cars that are running while parked are not electric cars. They are just as frequently trucks as sedans/coupes. If they were electric cars, I may not notice them.
I see people run into the dry cleaner to drop off or pick up an order and they can't be bothered to turn off their vehicle. I see people pumping gas and they don't turn off their car. While pumping gas. That person is not going anywhere at least as long as the pump is inserted in the car's gas receiver, yet the car still runs.
With behavior like that, where are the cuts you are talking about?
captcha: menial
He'd have a nasty surprise if he tried to grab her pussy.
Alternate energy sources is the answer and that can only be accomplished with science not regulation.
I do not agree. I think that regulation in some form MUST be a component because as we've all seen, massive corporations are reluctant to make expensive investments unless prodded to do so. Do you honestly believe we'd have had the increases in fuel efficiency or the proliferation of hybrid vehicles without some of the regulations that have been imposed?
No one's talking about banning the internal combustion energy, dude. Just like we didn't just ban CFCs, we phased out the CFC based refrigerants over 20 years, and you know what? It worked.
So, why don't you get that enormous cock off your chest and quit accusing people of being "hippie idealists" who are essentially saying the same thing you are? Any idiot with half a brain recognizes that our planets reliance on fossil fuels is a dead end street, and everyone agrees renewables is the way to go (well.....except those die hard Trumpies.....they just want their coal jobs back...).
Hopefully, instead, we will implement a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS/SERVICES based on what state/nations the worst CO2 comes from.
That's not going to happen because it would put the USA at a severe disadvantage compared to basically everyone, except maybe China.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hang on for a millennium while I find a tax that solved anything....
All Trump is managing to do is alienate our allies. If he is dismantling anything it is America. The rest of the world, which is 96 % of the world's population will go on without us if necessary.
1. It doesn't matter what the US does to reduce it's CO2 emissions as long as China increases twice as much as we reduce.
2. The US is reducing it's CO2 emissions and we're on a continuing downward trend even without the Self-flagellation the Paris Discord would require of us.
3. The Paris Discord has no verification process, so at best it'll be a lier's club.
4. Most of the "Allies" we are managing to do is alienate, have been alienating us pretty well over the last few decades.
5. If the rest of the world thinks it can go on without the U$ 100 Billion a year to the UN Green Climate Fund, then have at it.I see no reason to fund African Dictator’s pensions anyway.
6. At best the Paris Discord would have stopped the average global temp from going up 0.2K and that would have mostly been due to decreased night time cooling, not increased day time warming. Measurement error is bigger than 0.2K!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You have no clue what people are doing or how they've altered their lifestyle to reduce carbon emissions and energy demands.
Aside from that, there are significantly more lower hanging fruit that can be targeted as a society. Perhaps you're echoing the few corporate shills who have much to lose by these changes and don't give a shit about the planet.
He'd have his hand on her sack and blutwurst.
Promises only takes you so far. And it's one thing to fulfill a promise, another to maintain it.
It would be fun to see where we end up at the next election. I think it's hard to find a candidate wilder than Trump.
The people behind House of Cards even complains that Trump stole all their ideas.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
But back to original point...if it wasn't binding, then what real difference does it make?
The real impact is what it shows us about Trump. That speech yesterday just put words in his mouth. To borrow the phrase, Trump signaled us, is lack of virtues.
Not that we didn't know from how Trumpcare (grandiose over a House vote that is Dead in the Senate) and Muslim Ban (Even aside from the issues in court, the sudden implementation was flawed), but hey, now we know we have another indication that he just wants to tear down Obama.
If he were smart, or got good advice, he would simply have convened a commission for parties in the US to dicker over the details of implementation. That would have benefited him as a political sop and spared him the wedge the rest of the world can now use against him.
Hell, he could have scored more points by simply forwarding it to the Senate as a treaty.
Seriously....?
Even this gets the racial card thrown out on it? Sheesh...
For me, a large part of it was the language that had the US pumping out about $3B annually to other countries with no strings attached, for them to "clean up" their act. Even if it had no binding obligations to the agreement....I'm willing to be the MONEY part would have been observed, and I'm tired of sending our tax dollars out when they could be put to much better use here at home.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well, they gotta do something, obamacare is failing under its own weight, and many voted to get rid of the damned thing, this is him trying to keep election promises.
Hmm...he was wanting to restrict travel from a small subset of countries with heavy terrorist activity, that was largely the same list the Obama administration restricted for awhile when he was in office?
Again, seems more common sense than acrimony or racism....it does happen these areas are largely muslim, but hey...if we have an upturn in terrorist Buddhists or Presbyterian activity, I expect to enact similar restrictions.
Well, a lot of people didn't like many of the things Obama did, and hence voted for someone to reign them in vs continue another 4 years of the same policies. Again...keeping election promises...
OH just great..then it *would* have made it binding....no thanks.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Clinton is the most corrupt person to have ever ran for president, and probably the only person who is a bigger narcissist than Trump. Sanders is too socialist to be elected and was totally eviscerated by his own party. Likewise Stein is too socialist to be elected, but to her credit she's unapologeticly socialist. Johnson might have been interesting if he laid off the pot enough to sound like he wasn't a total High-on.
That pretty much leaves us with Trump.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
the US, per capita, produces twice the amount of pollution than China even though its a quarter of the population
I guess these stats are bullshit then: https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_by_country.jsp
Oh well. It sucks that one of the largest industrial county in the world [the US] ranks at 97 on the list of worst polluters. I guess we really need to step up our game to get to that holy grail of 115 in this list before we worry about those bastions of clean air like China.
China beats us by a wide margin, and Chinese pollution is really pollution.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Do it to reduce emissions.
How many of the people who oppose pulling out of the Paris agreement also want to flood the USA with 3rd world immigrants? Do we have an epidemic of cognitive dissonance on our hands?
"I want to reduce U.S. carbon emissions!" && "I support more people coming to the U.S.(who will increase energy demand)!"
According to Wikipedia U.S. energy consumption per capita is 4.5X that of Mexico. How can these people who are sooooooo concerned about climate change also want millions more people adopting the energy intensive U.S. lifestyle? How are we going to cut carbon emissions by 25% in the next 8 years if we keep increasing energy demand through immigration? Without immigration, the U.S. population is relatively stable. If we maintain the population at current levels, at least we won't have population growth working against us as we're trying to transition to renewable energy and reduce overall consumption.
Solving a hard problem is going to mean hard decisions. If you are genuinely concerned about "climate change" then you should, at the very least, oppose any policies which are directly exacerbating the problem(it won't kill you to agree with Trump but for different reasons). You can do enough virtue signalling with your stance on the environment. You don't need to also demonstrate what a good little "anti-racist" you are by supporting immigration.
P.S.
How far would we be toward meeting the Paris targets if we deported 20 million illegals or ~6% of the population?
Your tears are yummy and sweet.
The notion of listening to "international courts" is a slippery slope. Is some 3rd world country going to sue for one hundred trillion dollars and get it - maybe. Politics can drive such absurdities. However I think much of the US will say come and try and take it.
I agree, One needs to be careful when the cost of your existence far exceeds the cost of your elimination. I've often wondered why patent trolls don't end up in body bags.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"If your argument is [insert something I'm offended about here because I'm a snowflake], then there is no reason [for me not to stick my fingers in my ears and yell "la la la la la" so that I can't hear you]." <Insert pointless rant here that the person I've just blown off is never going to read.>
Idiots in the halls of power, corruption, lack of education/common sense, mistreatment of its citizens (or select groups), waste, these are the underpinnings of a nations fall from grace. It eventually happens to all powers, I had hoped that I at least wouldn't see it in my lifetime. Sadly it's looking more everyday like we won't be so lucky.
All of the democratic states were grographically attached to Canada or indirectly via another state which was direct.
Just move some borders and join Canada.
This is really the danger for Agent Orange. There's nothing stopping the rest of the world from imposing a carbon tax on American products with the proceeds used to advance other countries' green industries. That idiot better hope that doesn't happen.
Do you really think other nations give a flying rats ass what we call the Paris accords in this country. For them, its a treaty and the U.S. signed on. I wish Obama had submitted it to Congress. He didn't because it would have been rejected but at least he would have gotten the moron Republicans on the record of thumbing their nose at the rest of the world. Now it just appears some whacko in the White House and a few fellow travelers are thumbing their nose.
Asshole lost the popular vote and given what the Democrats were running in opposition, he won. Yes there are a significant number of white trash voters who believe as he does. I do think he has a tin-ear for politics. He just happened to run at the right time for a moron of his limited intellectual prowess.
If the Democrats can get out of their Warren-Biden-Sanders rut and run to the center, el Presidente Tweetie will get dis-elected and the next president will spend about 6 months undoing all the executive orders that moron has pushed out. If he gets impeached, Pence has a similar tin ear and will only push the same dumb policies. The Republicans still think it is the 1980s, and they've not learned anything since. It turns out the Democrats haven't either.
If you are not being sarcastic, I can find tens of thousands of EPA regulations which are in effect. I can find tens of thousands of EPA employees being paid by my tax dollars. I can find a recommendation by the Executive branch to cut funding to the EPA by around 8%, but I have not seen Congress take even that little bit of action.
Who exactly is getting paid for FUD here? Me with facts to back my opinion, or you simply repeating FUD which has no factual basis? Yeah, you are trolling (or Shilling).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
When 100% of the countries invited to be part of the Paris Climate Agreement felt the agreement was either worth signing or didn't go far enough to curb emissions, its safe to say you can objectively say what the reasonable opinion is.
Don't exaggerate. It's only 99.5% - Syria claims it has other things to worry about right now. They're obviously planet haters like DJT.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Well, they gotta do something, obamacare is failing under its own weight, and many voted to get rid of the damned thing, this is him trying to keep election promises.
I'm going to put "Pass a pretend law that doesn't even work that merely checks off a list that gets buried in the morass on the Senate" as doing less than nothing.
It's just a pretend act, by a pretentious pompous turnip. If the ACA is failing, Trumpcare will do nothing to ameliorate it.
Hmm...he was wanting to restrict travel from a small subset of countries with heavy terrorist activity, that was largely the same list the Obama administration restricted for awhile when he was in office?
Again, seems more common sense than acrimony or racism....it does happen these areas are largely muslim, but hey...if we have an upturn in terrorist Buddhists or Presbyterian activity, I expect to enact similar restrictions
Ah, but Obama didn't make the mistake of saying "HEY, let's revoke these bans as they're flyign into the country" let alone the even more egregious mistake of shouting his "Muslim Ban" to confirm the animus for all to see. Obama made a lot of mistakes, to be sure, but not on that one.
That's where Trump lost out. He should have simply moderated his words as "I will take steps to increase security and prevent terrorism" but instead he went to rallies and called for a Muslim Ban and no matter how many other words and phrases he salts into it, that's still going to haunt him.
And even if not that, he should have simply called for a review WITHOUT immediately cancelling all the existing documents that had been approved.
He might have gotten away with that and looked like he was keeping his promises, but instead, he did what he did, he said what he said, and that'll haunt him.
Websites linger too.
...we know we have another indication that he just wants to tear down Obama.
Well, a lot of people didn't like many of the things Obama did, and hence voted for someone to reign them in vs continue another 4 years of the same policies.
Oh, Trump isn't going to rein anything in, he's rushing off like Mr. Toad on a Phaeton, heading right to the cliff. He's got the crop, not the reins.
See, you leave out the key part: When you do it just because you just want to tear Obama down, rather than actually seek out valid and actual substance on which to base policies and practices, that's where you are making your own self clear. And boy did Trump do that when he revealed the truth on immigration. He drew all the lines himself.
And it ain't a pretty picture. Doesn't help him one bit either. At this rate, the Norwegians are going to give Obama ANOTHER prize just to spite Trump.
Again...keeping election promises...
You keep relying on that. It's going to haunt you too.
Hell, he could have scored more points by simply forwarding it to the Senate as a treaty.
OH just great..then it *would* have made it binding....no thanks.
No, the treaty being forwarded to the Senate wouldn't have made it any more binding, even assuming they'd ratified it. You do know that they can choose to reject a treaty, don't you?
You don't need to be willfully obtuse, it doesn't serve much purpose.
If they rejected it, he could proclaim that the "Senate Spoke, and
Riiiight.... 195 countries got together in some ploy to slow down their own economy. Just for the lulz.
You guys are absolutely retarded, idiocracy at it's best.
Per capita, the US emits more pollution.
China is doing something about it (largest solar and wind installations, cancelling 107 coal plants, etc.) vs the US which is run by the fossil fuel companies with Trump as their useful idiot.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Dumb as dirt because they don't vote for democrats?? We can use your arrogant bullshit post as the reason why. Fuck off, buddy!
Currently we take the "spent" rods (which are still 95% fissible material)
Fuel rods start at most 5% enrichment (enriched to 5% Uranium-235). Uranium-235 is fissile. The remaining Uranium is primarily Uranium-238. Uranium-238 is fissionable but fissile (meaning it requires addition of energy to make it split).
The fission process uses up Uranium-235, so end-of-use fuel rods are less than 5% fuel. The production of other fissile isotopes like Plutonium-239 does not offset this loss of Uranium-235.
We also generally store spent fuel rods on-site in interim storage facilities (until something like Yucca Mountain is developed). These rods have had time for short-lived isotopes to decay. These spent fuel rods are stored in high-integrity canisters where natural circulation takes away the remaining heat generated from additional decay of radioactive isotopes.
Some links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel
https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html
How will eliminating gasoline taxes discourage the use of gasoline in cars?
It won't and I did not claim it would.
I said I will believe the government is interested in removing gasoline fueled cars from the roads when they remove the road taxes from gasoline. If the majority of cars on the road will be electric in ten years, or whatever the claim is this week, then to pay for the roads we will need a funding mechanism for the roads that does not rely on those cars burning gasoline.
Right now the government justifies the road taxes on gasoline because a majority of the gasoline used is for cars on the road. There's some used for things like lawn mowers, off road vehicles, light aircraft, and such which is likely to continue for some time after cars transition to electric but that cannot fund the roads due to its much smaller usage. If the powers that be in the government actually believe that gasoline cars will be rare soon, are responsible about government spending, and can think beyond the next election (which is what planning for a 3C rise in global temperatures requires) then they need to plan for the transition to road funding that does not rely on gasoline fueled cars.
If we are going to be driving electric cars in ten years, and that electricity is going to come from windmills, then we should see someone proposing legislation to tax windmills to pay for the roads, no?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If this was such a critically important Treaty, then perhaps the President at the time should have actually dealt with it legally as a TREATY - ie get the ratification of congress?
The fact is, he chose not to, making its repeal simply a matter of the whim of a subsequent president.
Liberals will cry "he didn't send it to congress because they'd have just blocked it anyway". Well sure, if your idea of 'compromise' is "JUST DO IT MY WAY AND WE'LL BE HAPPY", it wouldn't have gotten far. But our three-branch government is built on negotiated compromise: giving something to get something.
If this treaty was so /critically/ important to the future of the human species as is being asserted, then one might logically believe that Mr Obama would have been willing to give up something substantial in order to get it ratified. That's how it works. I guarantee you if he'd been willing to, I dunno, shelve Obamacare, he would have easily picked up enough GOP votes to pass this into Law.
He did not make any such offer.
3 part government means that compromises require sacrifice. If you choose to rule by fiat, understand that you can be undone by the same method.
-Styopa
few people voted for him. The Russian/GOP strategy was to lower voter turnout
Den stora kuken
I said I will believe the government is interested in removing gasoline fueled cars from the roads when they remove the road taxes from gasoline. If the majority of cars on the road will be electric in ten years, or whatever the claim is this week, then to pay for the roads we will need a funding mechanism for the roads that does not rely on those cars burning gasoline.
Ah, okay. I wondered if the word "road" was the point of distinction.
Sure, the government(s) should stop calling gasoline taxes "road" taxes, and should start thinking about alternative highway funding mechanisms. Personally, I like mileage taxes, assessed on a scale that increases based on gross vehicle weight, based on the amount of road damage heavier vehicles do. I'm told that damage increases with the fourth power of GVW, but I've never seen that substantiated. We already have the core measuring tool for a mileage tax in place, the odometer, though we might find it necessary to increase the penalties associated with altering odometers. Or we can just go to toll roads everywhere, though that requires deploying a lot of infrastructure.
However, we should also begin seriously increasing taxes on fossil fuels, of all forms, in direct proportion to the amount of CO2 emitted by burning them. There should be a mechanism for getting a rebate on the taxes for provably-recaptured and sequestered CO2. This would harness the power of the market to find and deploy low- and zero-emission alternatives to fossil fuels as well as recapture and sequestration technologies. To avoid hammering the economy, the taxes should be phased in over a few years -- but everyone should be made aware of the phase-in schedule so they can prepare for it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
For a claimed deal maker not sitting at the table is about the stupidest deal you can make!
You don't negotiate much, do you? Sometimes sitting at the table in the first place is a mistake, either because no deal made there can possibly benefit you, or the odds of such are stacked deeply against you. Maybe it's just a waste of time. Remaining at the table signals to the others that your position isn't firm, you can still be bargained with or manipulated. Being perfectly willing to get up and leave the table is the strongest signal you can give in a negotiation.
Without the US at the table the rest of the world could decide to impose carbon tariffs on the US exports.
They didn't need the Paris Accords to do that. They might also all collude to exterminate all ducks in our absence. Just because they could do something doesn't even make it likely, just theoretically possible.
Have you thought about any of this rationally, or did the various political dogwhistles here call you to toe the line on your master's side?
What negotiating table? The Paris deal is signed, it's done, has been for years. He put the US *at* the negotiating table.
It won't and I did not claim it would.
You did however, speak poorly in terms of expression. However, that paled in comparison to your far more egregious error in asserting that Tesla had the funds or resources to put those GM employees back to work in a matter of weeks.
Hardly. They weren't even producing the model S back then. GM was out of bankruptcy before Musk got that far.
If we are going to be driving electric cars in ten years, and that electricity is going to come from windmills, then we should see someone proposing legislation to tax windmills to pay for the roads, no?
No, I would, instead you tax EVs for road usage, not windmills. And yes, those proposals were happening years ago. Before the Model S came out too, I believe, but even right now, there are at least six states with EV tax proposals on the docket. California, Minnesota, Indiana, South Carolina, Tennessee and Montana.
Some others have them on the books already. Georgia is one, North Carolina is another, I think. Not much, but still there, yes.
It's mostly on the back burner, but you only asked for proposals anyway, and that, yes, they have happened.
You seem out of touch. Perhaps you put hands on the wrong part of the Trained Armodon?
Well, here's the thing. Climate change is climate change. It doesn't respond to "president" or "senate", it responds to ameliorative, neutral and aggravating action.
The smart move is to ameliorate; regardless of the degree of change that may or may not be coming down the pike, the environment we have had, land, air and ocean, is the one we are most prepared to cope with, and it is very clearly changing.
Trump's chosen to back away from ameliorative action. That's not smart. It's poor leadership.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Power will now shift to China and India.
And Brazil. We've been busy but we're catching up, thank you very much.
And also, every country that isn't a signatory, whether after or before the Paris Accord, also has the right to impose tariffs. And they can do it to the USA or anyone else, for whatever reason they want to. If you can't impose a tariff, you're not a government.
And as for "unilateral" I have to assume you're joking. Not only can the US retaliate, but the US has already made "unilateral" moves in that direction, so it wouldn't even be retaliation. We are attacking first.
Nah, you first, arrogant, self-righteous little prick.
Tell you what, you pathetic retarded little maggot, how about we fucking end you now.
Pax Vobiscum
Well, it sucks to be "them" then.
If I have a meeting with a bunch of people and "agree" to give away your house, the other people may get upset, but they don't get to have your house.
Obama had a meeting with a bunch of people, and agreed to give away the American taxpayer's money. There is a process he has to go through before he is able to do that. He didn't go through the process. "They" don't get to have our money. Cry me a river.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Hell, they'd crucify Jesus a SECOND time if they could hang Obama alongside him.
That sounds kinda good but a proper crucifixion comes in threes, i.e. Jesus plus two thieves.
So if you had Jesus in the middle with 0dinga and Hitlery on either side, that would be a proper crucifixion scenario.
PPV, baby.
Really, "insightful" for not only flagrantly misunderstanding the Accord and the Constitution, but being sanctimonious about it at the same time?
Better still, if you listened to the whole speech by the President, you would have heard that he was already starting to negotiate a new treaty which is more fair for Americans.
Oh my god. It never occurred to me that people that can read and type might believe crap like that. Negotiating with whom? The dudes he pushes out of the way at summits? The foreign leaders who are happier to see each other than him? And when the fuck, exactly, would he have been doing this "already"?
However, we should also begin seriously increasing taxes on fossil fuels, of all forms, in direct proportion to the amount of CO2 emitted by burning them.
YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG WAY!
Don't increase taxes on fossil fuels, that only makes the government more reliant on their use for their funding. America is not addicted to oil, the American federal government is addicted to oil taxes. Sure, the import tariff on oil is little to none but the taxes on fossil fuels is HUGE. The federal government is not going to enact a tax on an item to only later discourage it's future use.
I know that seeing taxes on gasoline reduced is unlikely. I also know that if society is to reduce its oil use it will be because of market forces, not some dictate from the federal government.
We will stop burning petroleum when the costs outweigh the benefits. One way for that to happen is an energy source, like nuclear power, to become cheaper, more reliable, more abundant, and cheaper. (I know I stated "cheaper" twice, it's that important.) Wind, solar, and hydro simply cannot compete with coal and oil, even with a "smart grid". Once we have nuclear power cheaper than oil then it won't matter what kind of taxes are put on gasoline because no one will be buying it anyway.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Americans could say that we are reducing, China is increasing, why tax us? And we would have no answer...
Because there is no answer.
You do know far more people were killed in the East at the same time right?
Fucking children 'round these parts
Not america, but north america, please, or US... Central and South America are also America and have nothing to do with this shit...
It's silly to have a country with no name...
in what way is the USA super successful?
It's got the most guns.
Funny how you answered your own question.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
We will stop burning petroleum when the costs outweigh the benefits. One way for that to happen is an energy source, like nuclear power, to become cheaper, more reliable, more abundant, and cheaper. (I know I stated "cheaper" twice, it's that important.) Wind, solar, and hydro simply cannot compete with coal and oil, even with a "smart grid". Once we have nuclear power cheaper than oil then it won't matter what kind of taxes are put on gasoline because no one will be buying it anyway.
To quote you, you are going the wrong way. You seem focused on nuclear power replacing gasoline, when the primary usage for gasoline is in motor vehicles, a utilization which nuclear is poorly situated to supplant in itself.
So what you really want is more Electric Vehicles (And possibly Hydrogen), but sadly, what you need to do is increase production, the costs of operation of an EV is already lower.
In any case, you talked about the costs outweighing the benefits, so your own premise supports the notion of taxes(that would be a way for that to happen after all), therefore, if your goal is to avoid a tax-based solution, you need to rephrase your own expression.
This is especially important since your option as expressed is actually not focused in that direction anyway, so why hinder yourself?
I have. And from your comment, it is apparent that you haven't.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
We the People have spoken and it is what it is.
True. You the people have spoken. But most of you said something else.
Alternate energy sources is the answer and that can only be accomplished with science not regulation.
I do not agree. I think that regulation in some form MUST be a component because as we've all seen, massive corporations are reluctant to make expensive investments unless prodded to do so. Do you honestly believe we'd have had the increases in fuel efficiency or the proliferation of hybrid vehicles without some of the regulations that have been imposed?
Increasing fuel efficiency is science and engineering. Hybrid vehicles have failed to make any substantial improvement. The reason is because they are cost prohibitive compared to combustion engine vehicles. The solution to that problem is to close the gap in cost. If you were to make the hybrid vehicles cheaper than combustion engine vehicles and afford similar amenities, the problem would solve itself.
My criticism of idealists and/or wishful thinkers is valid because you folks start with an end result and work your way backwards instead of starting with the problem and using the problem to define the solution. You can spend all the time you want ignoring the properties of the problem you don't want to deal with. You're not going to solve anything that way. If you really care about these problems, you would do well to accept the whole problem and persistently work within that problem context to find a solution. Otherwise, you're not doing anything useful. Get going on it. Everyone is rooting for you. Or just stay behind your computer and just be a loud mouth.
Very liberal thinkers have a tendency to want to ignore economic systems entirely. My interpretation of that type of thinking "I reject reality and insert my own." What you don't realize is that this thinking is essentially suggesting to burn everything to the ground and start over again. I'm fairly certain you would not enjoy the outcome of that and be incessantly bitching and moaning about that pointing fingers at everyone.
We'll make great pets
Every significant form of energy has been and or is being supported by all manner of subsidy.
The part where I claimed subsidy is unique to renewables is confusion inside your head; you're having reading comprehension problems.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
I'm trying to comfort myself by wondering if the US being so tragicomically stupid well help the resolve of other countries and help to set a good example by failure. Like Papa Berenstain Bear?
Mod +1 (Insightful)
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Oh my god it did no such thing. For Christ's sake, does nobody actually understand what the agreement was? Countries came together, decided the climate was changing, and committed to coming up with THEIR OWN responses to the issue. The only "binding" part of the agreement was countries need to retort regularly on their progress. The US choose its own response, and the agreement allows for modifications. People are saying "if it's not binding, who cares?" are missing the point. Since it's a handshake agreement, going back on it makes us look like untrustworthy assholes.
All Trump needed to do was change the contribution in a hundred different ways, but instead he slapped the face of every other nation in the world.
China is canceling 107 cleaner more modern coal fired plants, instead of closing 107 old obsolete plants belching pollution!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Learn to read and comprehend, asshole.
I said America wants this, essentially in agreement with you.
I sure as hell didn't vote for that tiny pee-pee'd pussy grabbing son of a bitch immature naive ignorant sexual predator.
The problem is not Trump, at all.
It's much less shallow that Trump.
The batshit crazy right-wing Evangelical white trash poor under-educated Christians (like you) have gotten what you want.
You have achieved success, so shut your goddam pie hole and find something else to bitch about, like no fucking jobs.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
You are free to leave this nation and its citizens that you hate with such a passion and relocate to somewhere else far more forward thinking. I hear that Nicaragua has just emerged as being in the forefront of progressivism, perhaps you will be more comfortable among your peers there?
Of course, I don't think that you will actually leave, because deep down you know that you have it good in this country - and you don't want to give up your way of life.
http://cylan.deviantart.com/gallery/
We've rerouted around the damaged person.
Paris Accord is in effect. It save all the states which have joined it large amounts of money and makes our industry and commerce and even residential consumers more efficient and paying less for energy than the deadender states that Comrade Trump and his Russians represent.
Which is why we green capitalists will crush you. We pay less for more efficient production, more efficient data centers, and our utility bills are small while our output is huge.
Enjoy your whale oil and kerosene and coal, deadenders. Hope your buggy whips work.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Even if giving away trillions of dollars would help deal with CO2 (it won't), we shouldn't do it because (1) we can't afford it because we don't have any fucking money and (2) giving away money is not sustainable and does not bring about any permanent change. We are running a deficit year after year, borrowing money to keep the lights on. How can you argue it's reasonable for us to borrow *more* money to give it away? Do you want to turn into Venezuela? That's exactly how to begin.
Even if we could afford it and knew that the money wouldn't be wasted on lining corrupt politician's pockets of every 3rd world country, giving away money is a stupid idea. Giving away anything is stupid. See "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish" argument. How many lotto winners go from rags to riches back to rags in a span of less than 5 years? Most of them. Food aid doesn't prevent starvation, it encourages it because farmers can't compete with "free" and birth rates go up. Financial aid doesn't encourage fiscal responsibility, it encourages recklessness and waste because the recipient didn't spend any effort in the acquisition. Over and over again we know what happens when you attempt to jumpstart success by dressing something up to make it look like something else. You change the outward appearance but fix nothing of the substance. Real change comes from within. It's painful, slow, and requires a lot of patience and discipline. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot fix the world's problems by printing dollars and handing them out. It's reckless, stupid, and doomed from the outset. I'm so glad we don't have Bernie or Hillary in the White House. Trump is a deeply flawed man, but at least he seems to realize that you can't solve every problem by throwing money at it.
Or grab her pussy.
OK. So first we have that this agreement is non-binding and voluntary. So what is the point?
Next we have the point. This agreement allows for an end run around existing law enabling corruption and state sponsorship of domestic business.
Oh, and if you don't come to the party then you will be punished.
Yeah. These people really care about our environment.
I especially like how the agreement mentions forests and their maintenance many times. Would these forests be palm plantations that displace natural forests? That's what happened with the European carbon tax. The destruction of vast areas of forests and their replacement with palm plantations was directly funded by the carbon tax. The carbon tax just neglected to mention anything about NOT getting credit if you burn down forest to plant the palm trees for credits. This agreement doesn't either. The destruction of forest in Asia for plantations is one of the greatest environmental disasters ever and the greatest of our time.
Whether the motivation for Trump's decision was ugly and stupid, the motivation for the people arranging this agreement is worse. So let the troglodyte fight the wolves. Both are vile.
To those who are saying the USA is reducing CO2 emissions anyway, why does Trump keep saying he wants to burn coal?
CAPCHA: whaling
You just described the US throughout most of its history. All those negatives were run over by :
A dedication to self-education
A thriving Progressive movement NOTE!!! NOT the so called progressives of today.
A dedication to progress in industrial production (inventiveness and general effort to be industrious)
A rejection of class and a well considered rejection of critics and abusers that attempt to enforce class.
That reasoning may resonate as a political talking point but it's factually flawed in a number of important ways. The US was a massive exporter during it's heyday of C02 emissions. To accurately calculate a countries individual historical impact you would need to account for all of the goods and advances they imported from the US. This line of reasoning seeks to force western nations to absolve their advantages through the use of guilt.
Beyond that western nations obviously didn't have modern alternatives available to them when they where industrializing. That's not the case today. We have both the science to explain the issue and technologies to help alleviate it. Knowingly ignoring the issue to leverage economic advantage on the world stage is not morally equivalent to the western worlds build up over the last couple of hundred years.
We should work on the issue from the realistic stand point of where we are. Anything else isn't attempting to solve climate change it's attempting to speed up redistribution of western wealth and power to developing nations. Fairness doesn't enter into it because the conditions are not equal.
P.S. None of that's to say I think the US should have pulled out of the agreement, if only because it cost us little beyond our current trajectory and provided motivation to other countries.
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
Why should Trump needs a job? I'm confused
Yes, you got the reference. Or are that that guy who has to explain every joke he sees?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
their idea is still very plausible. Also look up "Tragedy of the Commons" or just plain how traffic jams get started. One bad actor can get everyone doing the same and then everything goes to crap for everyone.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
few people voted for him. The Russian/GOP strategy was to lower voter turnout
Please don't misrepresent this. Trump received 46.1% of votes. That's hardly a "few people". And some states were up in voter turn out, TX, PA, FL, GA, AL, and others. A few were down only slightly like NY, CA, MI, OH, MA, VA, TN, NC, and others. Certainly the demographic shift in the turn out lead to Trump getting as many votes as he did, and the way our electoral collect work is the only reason he won. Even if we eliminated the electoral college, the popular vote was very close between Trump and Clinton and in that hypothetical situation nobody would have considered Hillary's victory a land slide.
I blame the arrogance of the DNC for suppressing grass roots movements during the primary election. The insiders in the DNC chose Hillary as the candidate, rather than giving some of the other candidates a fair chance. Strategically a far left candidate that had a squeaky clean record like Sanders would have motivated far better voter turn out than Clinton with the open questions on her emails and Benghazi involvement. I have no problems with Hillary Clinton and I have confidence in her leadership abilities especially in complex international politics. But the accusations surrounding her hurt her campaign severely, regardless if they had merit or if they were baseless accusations designed to discredit her.
If we can trace this to being an international campaign to spread misinformation, that would be huge news. But because of the kind of politician she is, it would be difficult to separate the false accusations from the lies she regularly makes. I doubt she has done anything criminal with regard to her email server or to Benghazi, but she provides limited details and inconsistent answers because she is constantly trying to cover her mistakes. It's behavior that is normal to any politician, but when it is so blatant it makes people not want to vote for her.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Democrats are probably incompetent.
Also Obama's term only saw 59 active Democrat senators. He would have needed 60 for a true super majority.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
This.
He is in a downward spiral and there is no getting out of it. The only people in the world he has support from are the people that voted the clown as potus. And he made them the most retarded promises during election. He has to keep these promises or he will truly be nothing.
Saying no to climate had no other reason than please his uneducated supporters. There is really no other reason than that. And it is so important to him that he fucked everything else for it. He is done for and he knows it. It won't be long for him to end up between a rock and a hard place, where he will be squashed like the pimple he is.
China will say to any number of nations: "Here, have some climate impact mitigation aid money, but you must buy Chinese equipment/services with it.". The money soon flows back to Chinese companies (after being skimmed for kickbacks and some local handling). These Chinese companies use the money to ramp up production, gaining economies of scale through what in effect is government based support that neatly does an end run around WTO state aid rules. Now, not only has the USA been locked out of these initial deals, it's locked out of the long term contracts (services, maintenance, upgrades)...
So only countries who have signed up for the Paris Climate accord are allowed to give money to other countries with strings attached? Not that this administration would do it but I'm pretty sure that we are just as capable of giving clean energy money to other countries with strings attached today as we were before the announcement.
I believe the Gallup poll from last year worked out to 64% of Americans expressed concern over climate change. So you want to quibble over slightly less than two thirds instead of half?
Honestly it's fucked up that it's not 90%. Might as well be zero if we have a hundred million people in this country who still deny climate change.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You seem focused on nuclear power replacing gasoline, when the primary usage for gasoline is in motor vehicles, a utilization which nuclear is poorly situated to supplant in itself.
Nuclear power replaces gasoline by the way of electric vehicles, as you seemed quite an advocate of EVs I thought that would be clear to you.
the costs of operation of an EV is already lower.
But the total cost of ownership is higher. The initial cost is higher. What happens to that cost of operation as they become more common? Will the demands on the electric grid raise the price of electricity?
When the total cost of ownership is close to parity then we will see greater adoption of EVs. As it is now EVs are toys for the wealthy.
In any case, you talked about the costs outweighing the benefits, so your own premise supports the notion of taxes(that would be a way for that to happen after all), therefore, if your goal is to avoid a tax-based solution, you need to rephrase your own expression.
Taxes do not and cannot change the cost/benefit analysis. This is because a tax on an item does not change the costs to society. It changes the cost to the individual but in the aggregate the taxes just move money around, it cancels out in the end.
Also, a government can only govern by with the permission of the governed. People tolerate gas taxes now because gasoline is a convenient energy source for vehicles and people understand the need for those taxes to fund roads. I know that the money does not actually all go towards roads but so long as that lie is generally believed it is tolerated.
For a gas tax to get people to move to another source of energy there must be something of equal value to replace it. With the high costs of EVs compared to gasoline vehicles there would have to be a crushing tax on gas to get people to switch, and the governed will not tolerate that. People will vote in officials to remove the tax, or a black market will develop.
The only proven way to get people to move is with market forces, not taxes and mandates. We saw this with light bulbs. There was a subsidy on CFL which prompted people to buy them. I bought some too. Then I realized how much they suck. They did not reach full brightness for an hour, they interfered with infrared TV remotes, and if broken they left a toxic mess. Oh, and they never lasted as long as promised. When LED lights came on the market I saw CFLs nearly disappear. No one I know buys CFLs any more. The market found the solution much better than taxes and mandates ever could.
Electric vehicles may be the solution but I have serious doubts on that. If they are the solution then the market will decide, not the government. For electric vehicles to actually reduce CO2 output then we need low carbon energy, and nuclear power is the lowest carbon energy we have right now. Wind and solar are still future energy sources because they cost more in real dollars than coal. We can afford to subsidize wind and solar only because a majority of our energy comes from cheap coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Tax subsidies don't change the real cost to the consumer, it just means taking the money by gunpoint instead of having them hand it over willingly.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Musk got about half a billion dollars from the Feds for starting up Tesla. Musk's solar and battery businesses depend on state and federal subsidies to end users, as does his Tesla business. Even his Boring and Hyperloopy businesses would probably eventually depend on mass transit subsidies, much like Jerry Brown's bullet train for the rich. All of that is needed in order to meet Obama's goals put forth as part of Paris. I can't imagine why Musk would be opposed to leaving Paris.
Man, you really like to be obtuse don't you?
Listen, dipshit, yes, fuel efficiency is science and engineering......that was fucking PUSHED by regulation. You think those companies like Ford and Chrysler just decided to do something nice for the planet because it was the right thing to do? Hell no. They did it because regulations tightened on emissions and efficiency, so they were forced to adapt. And I love your anecdotal horse shit "hybrid vehicles have failed to make any substantial improvement" trip. What the hell are you even talking about here?? Where do you live that you don't see any substantial use of hybrid vehicles?
And yes, initially hybrids were cost prohibitive, but that has evolved due to regulation and subsidization. The problem with you curmudgeonly fucks is that you can't see past your own nose, and you cannot imagine the steps necessary to initiate a true sea change. Guys like you who love to believe that they're financial analysts try to boil things down to back of the napkin comparisons, when the reality is so much more complex.
But, go ahead and be an asshole, I don't care. We smart folks will happily leave you behind.
What I'm really saying is that blaming climate change on China given that you've been 10 times worse a contributor to it is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
The US has no valid arguments as to why its velocity of emissions reduction should not be the greatest among all countries, in any agreement on reductions.
1) It has contributed by far the most CO2 per person to the atmosphere.
2) It is roughly the wealthiest and most able to move (and to help others move).
3) Its emissions per capita are STILL more than double China's and more than three times the world average.
This is the position Trump should be talking from. Humility, recognition of outsized role in causing the problem, and determination to be a world leader in correcting the problem. Instead he's pathetically mansplaining some excuse not to act, and blaming it on his little brother like a toddler. Pathetic and lame to the extreme. Dumb, counterproductive, harmful.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
No, I'm not going the wrong way, unless you can think of some way other than taxes to internalize the fossil fuel-burning externalities. Merely hoping that other technologies will magically become cheaper than fossil fuels when fossil fuel-burners remain free to ignore the costs they're imposing on others won't work.
I'm a strong believer in the power of free markets, but they only work when all costs are internalized.
Unfortunately, there's really no practical way to internalize the cost of carbon emissions. The only impractical way I can think of doing it is also to use government: ban all CO2 emissions. That would force fossil fuel burners to find a way to capture and sequester all of their output which would do a marvelous job of internalizing the costs, but it seems completely impractical.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Mate, I am from New Zealand, feel free to liberate us anytime you like.
We may not be on your map anyway.
Isn't New Zealand in the "Here be Monsters" region to the right of the "Here Live Criminals and Brigands" country?
HRC had too much baggage
Yup, 25 years worth of it heaped on her from the GOP character assassination campaign. Never mind that the great majority of it was not actually hers.
Certainly not completely without her own baggage but not of the magnitude the GOP would like you to believe.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
The only impractical way I can think of doing it is also to use government: ban all CO2 emissions.
Oh c'mon, I can think of at least two impractical ways to do it.
1. Permit lawsuits to recoup expenses incurred as a result of injuries occurring from combustion of fossil fuels.
2. Require all exhaust gases to be fed directly to the persons benefitting from the fuels being burned.
But seriously, don't worry much about blindseer, he may mean well (at least, he isn't an outright fraud like some other posters), but he lacks cognizance of his own self in a way that prevents recognizing his own mistaken approach.
First, there is no such thing as a clean coal plant. Newer plants are slightly cleaner and more efficient but still terribly polluting.
Second, they are also closing hundreds of old obsolete coal power plants. The remaining plants are only operating at less than 50% capacity (and dropping). They are installing 1000 Gigawatts of renewable power (more than the capacity of the entire US electrical grid).
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
The only impractical way I can think of doing it is also to use government: ban all CO2 emissions.
Oh c'mon, I can think of at least two impractical ways to do it.
Good point. I'm sure there are lots and lots of impractical ways :-)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I don't disagree with you, however the UK is probably better positioned than just about anyone for renewables as it is surrounded by water which is where all the best windpower is located. Though you have to get past all the NIMBY's and real estate barons first. A better example might be some small landlocked European country.
The US should have signed the agreement and then totally failed to live up it and miss all their targets without any repercussions like the rest of us!
Some of us have already left. A lot of Americans moved to Europe during the GW Bush years, I saw a number move back to the US during Obama's second term, and this year I have already seen a new set come to Europe. I have only been in Europe long enough to see 3 presidents in office, so I don't know if it has always worked this way. But I can say that some take up root in Europe and never go back. And they aren't the stupid ones. It takes some doing to leave your home nation, learn a new language, and get a job, especially when there are no housekeeping or agricultural jobs available.
I'm a strong believer in the power of free markets, but they only work when all costs are internalized.
I believe the costs of CO2 emissions have been internalized. We did this by informing people of the costs. People know that if they burn fossil fuels now that their children will pay for it later. People understand the need to care for their children and make choices to give them the best chances for success in the future. Put up billboards, put public service announcements on TV, and provide informative articles on the internet and dead tree form.
Creating taxes to "push" people to make certain choices creates a dislike for government. The people that want to impose these choices on others will vote for these taxes, those that don't want the taxes will vote them away. It's not just the "climate deniers" that will vote against these taxes but also the people that believe that CO2 emissions are bad but also believe that government enforcement of "good" choices is not the way to run a free society.
I see a problem with these alarmists that think man made CO2 creates runaway global warming. There is a large and vocal group that make the claim that man made CO2 is bad but "next year" or "next decade" or more vaguely "real soon now" we will have cheap wind and solar power, maybe even fusion reactors, that will solve all of our problems. They have just built this huge argument on how we are destroying the planet and then flushed it all down the toilet. There's nothing we need to do today if the problem will be solved for us tomorrow.
A responsible adult hearing this will make their choices much like this... The children need food, shelter, clothing, and an education. To do this I need the best products for the lowest price because what is left over goes into their college education fund. I'll get the cheap gas powered car, I'll heat and cook with natural gas. I can justify this because "real soon now" we will have cheap fusion power and all our CO2 emission problems will be solved. By the time the children are old enough to go to college they'll pack their things in their hydrogen powered hovercraft and float off to a bright future.
Al Gore is the biggest example of this. He shot himself in the foot on how future technology can save us, right after he stuck his foot in his mouth when scaremongering on how we are killing the planet. Al Gore hasn't been making many speeches lately. It seems he's realized his brand of saving the world isn't so popular any more.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Blaming Trump is vacuous. We the People have spoken and it is what it is.
Except, you know, the people spoke and what they said was actually "Clinton", but because of the electoral college, the candidate with the second most votes won... Again...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Oh okay. Let's review:
Every significant form: - All major things related to what follows in the sentence.
of renewable: - An adjective that describes a subset of the noun with which its associated.
energy: - The subject of the sentence, limited to a subset defined by the adjective that preceded it.
has been and/or is being: - Indicating present or past tense of the following verb applies.
supported by: - The verb applying to the subset of the subject defined by the adjective that preceded it.
by all manner of: - A colloquialism describing the whole of the noun which follows.
subsidy: - The item being applied to the subset of the subject defined by the adjective that preceded it.
Now I can't stress this enough, the adjective defined a subset of the noun that formed the subject of the sentence, not in my head but in the general understanding of every English speaking person who correctly read your sentence.
Do you even English man?
It should have been clear to individual voters 18 months before the election that this guy was unfit for office. Certainly by 12 months. Or 6 months.
You can divide Trump voters into three groups:
Group 3 is surprising large.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'm a strong believer in the power of free markets, but they only work when all costs are internalized.
I believe the costs of CO2 emissions have been internalized. We did this by informing people of the costs.
Dude, you're nuts. Just telling people about the costs will not change their behavior.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Come on, you know as well as I do that if Russia invaded Paris while Trump was president, America would officially congratulate Russia on their bold, humanitarian actions.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Any article that starts out calling anyone who disagrees with it a shill is not getting my time to read it. If you can't make an argument without resorting to insults from the very beginning then your argument is flawed and weak and you know it.
That interpretation of the article's pre-amble is so divorced from the actual text that it makes it seem like you were reading a totally different article. Of course, we all know the real reason is that you didn't want to read it in the first place, so you seized the very first reason you could find to ignore everything that runs counter to your pre-existing beliefs.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
We've also got the most thermonuclear weapons, and a guy in charge of them with his finger on the button that would not hesitate.
Be careful. You're no longer dealing with a limp-wristed pajama-boy like Oblamer.
Your understanding and precise parsing of one sentence is correct and I agree with it. It clearly states that all renewables are supported. It does not follow that non-renewables are not also supported by "all manner of subsidy." It simply doesn't. You misunderstood a straightforward sentence and then spouted off based on that misunderstanding. Your belief that something I wrote implies that ONLY renewables ("Not just the renewables") are subsidized is false. I wrote no such thing at any point. I wouldn't because I know that is false.
That has been a sincere attempt to address your confusion. Go ahead and get your last word in if it makes you feel better, but I'm done with this.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Makes no fucking difference at all.
Like football scores, this election outcome is in the record books and armchair quarterbacking is nothing more than a review of the facts.
It is what it is.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Blaming the electoral college directly, or as part of the system doesn't work.
The presidential elections proceeded in a lawful manner and until the law is changed, it is what it is.
America WANTS a fucking pussy grabbing white nationalist under-educated president who doesn't know much about civics, social studies, geography, politics, military or governance.
America panicked and voted for jobs and fuck everything else.
It reminds me of tobacco litigation whereby people who KNEW they were killing people still wanted their jobs even if it killed them and other people.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
You seem focused on nuclear power replacing gasoline, when the primary usage for gasoline is in motor vehicles, a utilization which nuclear is poorly situated to supplant in itself.
Nuclear power replaces gasoline by the way of electric vehicles, as you seemed quite an advocate of EVs I thought that would be clear to you.
Nope, I was actually forced to read through your unclear statement, like I said, you went the wrong way yourself. Try considering ways to improve your phrasing to more effectively present your ideas.
That was my point. Same with my point about EVs. The biggest concern is not the operational costs, but the production costs. You need to focus on that.
Taxes do not and cannot change the cost/benefit analysis.
You may believe them to be wrong, but it's a pointless fight, You're going uphill, when instead you should circumvent it, by not choosing words that encourage the implementation of increased costs in the form of taxation.
Like I said, going the wrong way. Pick a phrasing that doesn't lead to the outcome you opposed being considered.
says the AC.
Trump offered to renegotiate US contributions and Germany/France told him to fuck off.
Maybe we could just copy China and offer to raise emissions but hopefully peak them by 2030?
Trump's previous efforts have been towards increasing CO2 emissions in the USA. His attempt to pull out of the Paris Agreement is just more of the same.
So, in answer to your question: mu. You have not made a valid question or statement.
The USA with 5% of the World's population generates 15% of the World's anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Damned right it owes the World something.
Well, the US has saved the West's ass on at least a couple occasions, using our own blood and treasure.
Tell you what, you can STFU and we won't decide some rainy day to come after you for what you owe the US, OK pal? Be thankful we do not alter the deal further!
All Trump is managing to do is alienate our allies
"Allies"!?
Pfft!
Outside of Israel, with US "allies" like these, the US doesn't need enemies!
I say the US should simply move in and take charge of western Europe and make those former sovereign nations US Territories. I say Territories because I don't think any of them rate a new star on the US flag as a new State without a lot of work first.
Rejoice, Europeans! Your new American Overlords are kinder and more benevolent than any European national government you've ever had, and far less authoritarian then your soon-to-be-former EU Overlords.
ok, the small landlocked ones do have it worse. Even with the UK though, the numbers don't add up, not entirely. They more than do for the USA though.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If they have been so concerned with environment issues it would be logical for them to choose serious non-disputed issues, like Fakushima and storage of massive amounts of so called spend fuel, Mercury in consumed fish, PCB, BPA, air and water pollution. Instead they did what they typically like to do the most - go to petty mass gathering of similar uneducated salesheads to pump their own collective simple minds up. And it does not matter it is fake news, fake science of fake art, as far as it please them with their own imaginative grandeur.
I don't hate the USA, I hate the fucking moron at the top and the fucking morons that back him.
Yes, oil is dying. Look at the price, supply is up, demand is down, but it isn't dying fast enough to hold back temperature rises.
And renewables are dropping in price, so what's really needed is a way to start properly pricing emissions.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why? Why does it need to die faster?
Its well on its way, technology is doing its thing. Renewables are dropping in price. Things are on track.
Its a fallacy that we need to accelerate this.
Trump is new to all this, this debate has been going on for much longer, its just the new face and you want to blame it all on him.
He's right, its simple. The Paris deal was bad, is bad and would have done absolutely nothing but send money to the world bank.
The fact that you dont know how bad for the world economy this whole thing is, is the problem. I just dont know how to make you understand, but I guess maybe you just dont want to.
You are correct to call it a "treaty." And because it was never ratified by the U.S. Senate, the U.S. was never a signatory to this treaty.
The former president personally thought it was a good idea (which has nothing to do with what the Constitution says about how treaties are entered into). But now, it has neither Senate ratification nor the personal approval of the current, Constitutionally-elected president. So the US' hands are rather tied.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Why do you think Russia wanted Trump to win the election? The Russian government wants to break the west and destroy NATO and Trump is childish enough to give them everything they want, whether he knows it or not.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The US, with 350m people and 99% economic engagement
That sounds like a made-up number. The most recent figure I saw was a 62.7% labor force participation rate, which is approximately as bad as it was 38 years, ago, when Jimmy Carter was proclaiming an economic "malaise."
So, 37.3% of Americans are not in the labor force. They are being provided for by some combination of the following: (a) family members who are in the labor force, (b) living off savings, or (c) government entitlement programs.
The unemployment rate reported by the media (the U-3 rate) is not 37.3%, because it uses a very narrow definition of "unemployed": those who have applied for a job in the past four weeks. It excludes those who have become too discouraged to look for work. A large pool of discouraged workers is certainly bad sign, so the U-3 rate (which buries its head in the sand when it comes to discouraged workers) is a very poor way to measure unemployment.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
abandoning any leading role it may have in the development of clean energy tech... takign a machete to the US clean energy tech sector.
How does withdrawing from the Paris accord preclude any U.S. company from doing R&D in clean energy tech?
In your mind, is not providing taxpayer subsidies to a sector of the economy the same thing as "taking a machete" to that sector of the economy?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Having grown up in Tennessee and Kentucky, I can say he was right. Those idiots still go buy leaded gasoline for their cars because they think it runs "cooler." Fucking leaded gas. You think they give a shit about the climate when they're willing to give their own kids brain damage so they can go mudding?
Do you actually LIVE in California? California has the absolutely most aggressive automobile pollution standards in the country, if not the world RIGHT NOW... Also, people are buying electric cars in California by the truckloads. Just drive down the 101 in LA or Silicon Valley and see how many Telsa cars are on the road.
Did the CA folks give up all their cars already?
Tesla has not yet produced 200,000 cars. Only the first 200,000 cars will qualify for the $7,500 tax credit.
CNN, 2016:
Anyone who buys a plug-in car in the U.S. today is eligible for a federal tax credit of up to $7,500. That's more than 20% of the Model 3's $35,000 starting price.
But that tax credit won't last forever -- in fact, it's only good on the first 200,000 U.S. cars that any manufacturer sells.
And it looks like the tax credit could start phasing out for Tesla buyers just as it ramps up production of Model 3's in early 2018.
That could put a huge dent in demand said Karl Brauer, senior analyst with Kelley Blue Book. More than 40% of car buyers interested in a Model 3 told a KBB survey that they wouldn't buy a one without the tax credit.
"You've got people counting on the tax credit and they'll be frustrated when they discover it's gone," Brauer said.
We'll see how many still want to pay the full price when the federal government (taxpayers) no longer subsidize over 20% of their Tesla purchase.
Because in your world "promote our own growth, but not at the expense of the rest of the world" is the same as "not the interests of the American people"? Just how much of a narcissist child are you that you think "destroy everyone else" is a necessary part of "growth"?
Having grown up in Tennessee and Kentucky, I can say he was right. Those idiots still go buy leaded gasoline for their cars because they think it runs "cooler." Fucking leaded gas. You think they give a shit about the climate when they're willing to give their own kids brain damage so they can go mudding?
You are referring to tetraethyllead. Its use in the States sharply declined after 1975 when catalytic converters were mandated for all new cars (yes, many years ahead of other nations). As most of us know, putting leaded gas through a catalytic converter destroys it as an anti-pollution device, rendering it worthless. There are still a few types of leaded aviation fuel that have some lead, at least the last I knew.
It also virtually disappeared around the world decades ago, following America's lead on getting rid of it. Lead in the environment is just plain nasty.
So you're pretty much a lying idiot and are probably not even from TN or KY. Nor is it likely that you own a car.
Wiki: "Leaded gasoline remained legal as of late 2014[19] in parts of Algeria, Iraq, Yemen, Myanmar, North Korea, and Afghanistan. It was available at the pump in most of these countries as of 2011, but very little was used in North Korea and it was not clear whether it was sold in Afghanistan.[20][21] Specialty chemical company Innospec says that it is the world's only manufacturer of TEL[22] and sells it for automotive use nowhere except to Algeria as of late 2014.[19] Innospec previously sold TEL to Iraq and Yemen as of 2011, but remains unclear after head executives were charged for bribing various government state owned oil companies, to approve the sale of their TEL products.[21][23] North Korea and Myanmar buy their TEL from China.[7] The governments of Algeria and Iraq have scheduled the final elimination of leaded gasoline in their countries in 2015, after refinery upgrades. The status in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Myanmar is unclear."
I never dreamed I would say something like this, but: I would be very happy to have George W. back again. (And I didn't not vote for him.) W. may have had some bad policy ideas. But he surrounded himself with people smarter than he was. He may not have been very bright. But he was sane.
I recall Republicans saying the same thing about missing Clinton after Obama was elected.
Every American president makes his predecessors look much better. That's just how it works out. Some people think this points to a reflexive conservative compass in politics but I think it only reflects fear of change. And the Other Party holding power.
Do you know what the constitution actually requires?
Yes. The Wikipedia article on this, which is pretty reliable, describes three types of international agreements.
1. Treaties. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says that treaties negotiated by the president must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
2. A Congressional-executive agreement (CEA) have a lower bar for ratification -- a simple majority of both houses.
3. A sole-executive agreement can be ratified by the President alone. This type of agreement can also be nullified by a President alone.
Thomas Jefferson said that treaties are "are forever irrevocable but by joint consent," and that CEAs are sometimes preferable because "when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party."
Sole-executive agreements are even more ephemeral and temporary than CEAs. U.S. participation in the Paris Climate Agreement was a sole-executive agreement. One could argue that was a poor choice on the part of the previous president. But depending on your perspective, it may have been the best choice, given the fact that Congress never would have approved it as a CEA, let alone as a treaty.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I knew Trump was stupid but not this stupid.
Stupid? In what way? You think he or the party will lose votes and money over this?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
why would that put us at a disadvantage? It would not.
It would put nations and states at a disadvantage that have high emissions / $ GDP.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually, America imports more than any other nation. It would make our states, and nations that either import directly, OR that include parts/services from nations/states that have high emissions/ $GDP to start lowering.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
huh.
Chinese economy is caused by MODERATE VAT COMBINED WITH LARGE numbers of Tariffs(even though they agreed to drop them), combined with limited time subsidies.
Brazil was similar.
Europe was the same after WWII.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The paris accord is a poor agreement for america. The president can ignore it, and should.
Thanks .. That link is pretty interesting!