Was it Right for Trump to Pull the US out of the Paris Agreement?

Well here's the easy way. Since you just said few are leftists. Prove it.

 

Climate change is world-wide problem, which requires a world-wide solution. China installed over twice the wind power as the US last year. They are working towards their goals, as is the US and many other countries.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/13/chin...-installations-says-global-energy-report.html

China installed 23.4 GW of new capacity, a 42.7 percent share of the market. A distant second to China in terms of new capacity was the U.S., where 8.2 GW was installed.

Trump, playing into the hands of the fossil fuel industry, is a disgusting obstacle to this progress. Next thing, political leaders in other countries will be pressured to following the lead of the US. It's a pathetic move, by a pathetic liar, who is anything but a world leader.

 

If the accusation that China has been
deliberately polluting even more than necessary
over this past decade or so in order to reap huge
carbon tax benefits when an agreement is signed.......
then yes......
the pull out was justified.

A carbon tax will NOT work fast enough to address WAIS collapse.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-fast-enough-to-address-wais-collapse.443154/

 

Bullshit, you keep reappearing this lie. Hate to break it to you ol' gal, but however many times you repeat this bs, it isn't going to come true.


On the other hand, the Paris agreement is not just about emissions reductions. The deal consists of many elements designed to keep climate change in check and ensure that poor countries are dealt a fair hand.

By shutting itself out of the Paris agreement, the U.S. does not just withdraw from its own emissions reduction commitments, but from global cooperation on a range of important climate issues.

This includes provisions on financial contributions of $100 billion a year by 2020 to developing nations, adaptation to the impacts of climate change, how to deal with losses and damage caused by such impacts, technology and carbon trading.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-be-about-to-leave-it/?utm_term=.c901850f4e75

 

We can simply blame the high price of tea on China then that'll explain what it's got to do with it.

There is no "Strong political divide" between Republicans and Democrats. Noticeable disagreements like that shown signal nothing but business as usual. Both major Parties (with a capital "P", you idiots at PEW) are conservative as hell and exist to rationalize each other's existence, keeping all others safely at bay. Of course there is no Left, but incredibly, PEW seems to think there are no political parties other than the two major ones - and anyone who doesn't "lean" right toward D or R simply doesn't count. Gee, small wonder we end up with clowns like Trump and Hillary for our only choices.

 

The Paris Accord is a lot more than a carbon tax. It sets actual goals in temperature reduction. Each nation has signed on to do what they can to make this happen. Is it perfect? Probably not. Is it a start - absolutely. Is Trump's action irresponsible as all getup. Absolutely. Earlier somebody posted that only 22 Republican Senators agree with Trump (FOX News link for you Republicans).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...want-us-to-pull-out-paris-climate-accord.html

And surprise - surprise --- from this link:

Most of the senators who signed are from states that depend on the continued burning of coal, oil and gas. That includes Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe and others who, like Trump, have suggested the scientific data showing the Earth is warming due to man-made carbon emissions is a hoax.

It's not surprising that Trump's ratings retreated from the low 40 percentile last week to the mid-30s again. The Republican Party continues to show that they don't give a hoot about ordinary American citizens. They are there to serve the Plutarchs and Oligarchs.

 

And the Dems, the lefter side of the Corporate Party, are there to prevent actual progressives from ever obtaining real power.

DNC Chair Perez Booed, F-Bombs Fly At California Democratic Convention
Eric Bauman named new chairman of the California Democratic Party — but his rival refuses to concede

 

Those who believe in man made global warming will say no and those who don't will say yes. I have no problem with Trump withdrawing the U.S. out of it. That door was left open by President Obama when he chose not to get the agreement ratified by congress. By not doing so, Obama made it an agreement between Obama, his administration and the other nations of Paris. Not an agreement between the United States and those nations of the Paris Climate agreement. Hence any future president wasn't bound by the agreement if that future president chose not to abide by it.

Our withdrawal won't affect the other nations who are part of the Paris agreement. They are still bound. I highly doubt the United States will begin bringing back coal or relax our environmental regulations. There are some that are stupid and very costly while other regulations are needed and some expanded. If we continue with a common sense approach to our environment, whether we are part of Paris or not becomes irrelevant.

 

Media_Truth, what do you mean by the phrase "world - wide buy - in?"

Does it at all fit with this theory?

Is a Unified Theory of Modern World Problems even possible?

 

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the sake of clarity though.... I do
believe that the climate is changing and I do believe that
our industry does play an important role........
my issue is that I do not think that a carbon tax will actually work very well......
for a number of reasons.

1. I don't really trust it in the hands of lawyers and bureaucrats
2. I prefer the idea of turning deserts green first.........
trees and plants will automatically eat up lots of atmospheric CO2 anyway.....
but they have the added benefit of
3. directly addressing the threat of rising oceans.

(My house is on a lake that is classified as tidal water...... I still have a mortgage...... so I have to admit... I look at this question a little differently than somebody would who is independently wealthy and owns lots of homes further inland)!

 

Right, where no one cares about facts. Toward the right. More than ever. Nixon was a commie compared to you people. Even Reagan can't stop scratching his head wondering what the hell's happened to this country.

Excess surface carbon is the actual pollutant. CO2 is just a gaseous byproduct. Methane as well. The only way to actually rid ourselves of excess carbon is to collect it in solid form, put it back deep under the ground, and stop extracting more.

 

That is the unverified hypothesis based on unverified computer models.

 

No. It's basic chemistry.

 

In case anyone's still fond of facts, even really old ones from back in 2004, read them here:
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

eta: Notice:

380 ppm then, over 400 ppm now. The ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce because the planet is warming. If it were cooling, the same plants would die back and the ocean would release the carbon back into the atmosphere. So it's a natural buffering effect that gives us a little more time to screw around, not a permanent solution to anything.

 

(http://oilprice.com)

 

That is the high tech rather expensive method..........
but that way of addressing the problem leaves us also to build
massive sea walls, dikes and levees to attempt to protect
cities like New Orleans from rising ocean levels............

Large scale desalination of ocean water for agriculture, reforestation projects and
for towns..... .address both.... getting CO2 out of the atmophere....... and.......
every cubic meter of ocean water that is desalinated and added to the water table of a nation with lots of
desert..........
saves a lot of money in sea walls, dikes and levees!

I was impressed with the level of practical thinking by members of this forum:



The Sahara Forest Project...and saving New Orleans and Florida from rising oceans!


Is turning deserts green a good response to climate change?

1. 
   No, only a carbon tax of some form will stop climate change!
   2 vote(s)
   6.5%
2. *
   Yes, plants are both a carbon as well as a water sink!
   13 vote(s)
   41.9%
3. 
   No, we should never engage in geo-engineering of any form or shape, EVER!!!
   6 vote(s)
   19.4%
4. *
   Yes, with one billion hungry, how can we go wrong by producing more food?
   15 vote(s)
   48.4%

Multiple votes are allowed.

 

The link is a boatload of information, and I will decline to comment. What I meant by "World-Wide buy-in" was much simpler than these theories, and it's the fact that all but 2 nations signed the Paris Accord - Nicaragua and Syria.

 

Thousands of scientists, based on a consensus that Continental Drift was real, vilified, debased and demeaned the few scientist who subscribed to Tectonic Plate Theory.

Who turned out to be right?

Good for China.

Market Forces are always at work, and if there was a Market for renewables in the US, then the US might be creating jobs.

No, it isn't but thanks for the warped viewpoint just the same.

Correct. The US cannot be subordinated to any Treaty or Agreement without the express approval of the Senate.

 

Which part of "Inter-Glacial Period" totally confuses and confounds you?

Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Let's look at basic Physics. The principal absorption spectrum of CO2 is 15 micrometers (um). Applying Wien's Law, where
T (Temperature in K) = b / Wavelength, with "b" being a constant equal to 2,900 um-K, then:

T = 2,900 um-K / 15 um = 193 K = -112°F = -80°C

On the other hand, we have Water Vapor (H2O) whose principal spectrum is 0.629 um:

T = 2,900 um-K / 6.29 = 461 K = 370°F = 187°C


Compare Water Vapor which is ~0.33% by weight, to CO2 which is ~0.04% by weight.

 

So you're not disputing the increased atmospheric CO2 caused by human extraction and burning of carbon based fuels, but suggesting instead that there is no significant greenhouse effect due to atmospheric CO2 period. Correct?

 

And yet it is and has been with increasing frequency since its founding.

State Dept:

FindLaw:

 

Pointing out when Trump is lying is liberal bias and fake news.

 

Correct. Exacerbated by human extraction and burning of fossil fuels (carbon). That's why Global Warming has always been the more appropriate and meaningful description.

 

Wow! Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon. What a revelation! And here I thought we always had 72 deg F temperatures with sunny skies.

I suppose you know more than the 97% of scientists that say recent warming (last 40-50 years) is caused by the activities of mankind. Ninety-seven percent! And these are scientists who have studied the issue.