About Trumps withdrawl of the US from the Paris Climate Agreement

What is amazing is your response.

This is a debate-forum, not a Message Board nor a Chat Room where mindless invective is an appropriate response ...

 

Cheap shot. France is a part of a larger entity called the "European Continent". Ever hear of it?

From here (New York Times): Pollution Around the World: A Matter of Choices

Yes, Europe has been more lax than the US in establishing/applying pollution restrictions particularly in its large cities where most of the European population lives. Which is why it has steadfastly promoted the Paris Agreement. Europe will tighten pollution standards, which is why governments (for instance) are promoting sales-tax reductions on electric-cars.

The differences between the US and Europe as regards overall pollution levels are minor and, given that the EU has a population differential 230% greater than the US, I'd say that's not at all a bad achievement given also that the US is a geographic size 3 times that of Europe (meaning less concentration of pollution). Also both countries have populations around 80% of which inhabit cities where pollution is habitually worse ....

 

Yes! Becaue the BigWinners will be in Europe and China who will achieve inevitably the standards set by the Paris Agreement. It will take another decade and a half - but the Agreement will succeed. (Regardless of the doubters on this forum.)

Everywhere except in the US. However, as I see some of the feedback in recent news, the larger American cities do not agree with Donald Dork and will try to achieve the Paris Agreement levels of authorized pollution. The ex-Mayor of New York (Bloomberg) was on French TV (from Paris) this morning as he is promising to replace the $15M that the US withdraws from the Paris Agreement funding.

 

Good.. Trump should have listened to Tillerson who encouraged him to stay in the agreement.

 

Amazing only to you.

Only an ignoramus would deny the factual evidence upon which the Paris Agreement is based. Its scientific foundation is faultless. The pollution levels are well-known and their direction is UP!.

Simpletons on this forum think that just because US-cities have lower pollution levels than Europe, that it is right to withdraw from the Paris Agreement? Which is tantamount to colossal stoopidity.

Donald Dork pulled out because of a promise made to the total of 75.5K American coal-miners? The lives of 321 million against those of 75 thousand?

How fundamentally incompetent can a PotUS get? In this White House - VERY ... !

 

Great.

If you want to send France's citizens' money to China and North Korea as part of this then knock yourselves out.

They'll take your money, spend it on whatever they want, then ask for more. Good luck with that.

 

I haven't seen anyone from the left debating anything. The only thing happening is wailing and teeth gnashing on the left.

I'll ask you the same thing I've asked two other people, who have failed to answer:

What are the specific points of the US leaving this accord that you're concerned with?

How does the US leaving this toothless accord prevent the rest of the world from reducing their pollution emissions?

 

That's right.

It's scientific foundation states that even if every country in the world meets it's 26%-27% reduction in carbon emissions, it will have a minuscule effect that still does not meet the stated 2 degree goal.

Here's what it's all about: wealth redistribution.

http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=647

However, the summit still leaves unfinished discussions on the financing of cleaner energy efforts by developing countries and a pathway toward a low-carbon global economy.

 

Goodness, what idiocy.

Taxation is all about Wealth Distribution.

Go take a course in economics, though I doubt it will do you one iota of good.

Wealth Distribution does not occur because of International Trade, though you would like to think it does. The Chinese were once poor and now some are very rich - so that's "Wealth Redistribution"? What silliness!

In conventional economics, Wealth Distribution happens internally in a country due to taxation levels. Not between trading nations where one has a dominant competitive advantage due to export prices ...

 

Well, that is true--partially.

All those other countries went through their respective governing bodies, to have the agreement ratified.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, never submitted the agreement to the US Congress.

Presumably, this was because he knew that the Congress would not accept America's subordination to a world body.

It was only by executive order that the US ever signed onto this non-treaty...

 

I'll bet you felt the same way when your mother forced you to take medicine.

Lucky for you that she did ...

 

Yeah? What do you call it when the US is paying for another country's infrastructure projects then?

Please continue to mock me. All you're doing is showing how much you don't know.

 

It has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. The US has 3x the per capita fossil fuel consumption as the next closest country. Therefore, the agreement utilitized a Carbon Tax system. This gives the US incentives to reduce our fossil fuel consumption, and our share of the carbon taxation would go down. These same incentives exist for all nations.

 

You seem to want to ignore the underlying principals of climate change. We can recover from financial issues, but this is unrecoverable. We're already very late on action, this agreement was a START.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

 

You are already winning. Your children and grandchild will not have to pay back the 2 billion Obama had not sent yet. What makes you think not joining a globalist wealth distribution scheme stops technological innovation?

 

Referring to (un)SkepticalScience is like getting your news from InfoWars.

 

Ahh, that sounds so very nice. So sanitized.

It would give us "incentives" to act as the left claims to be appropriate.

Normal people would describe higher prices (at the pump, as well as elsewhere) as a stick with which to beat a recalcitrant public over the head, rather than a benign carrot...

 

So the Bush/Cheney Iraqi oil war cost the US $6 Trillion. I think we'd do better to discuss these kinds of expenditures, if you're concerned about the fiscal well-being of your children and grandchildren.

Also, how many Katrina's will it take to save $2 billion? You do understand that those are the scope of the events that we're talking about, don't you?

 

Hey, if that's "normal" people, then admittedly, I am not normal. Perhaps, you're thinking in terms of your circle of friends and acquaintances. Are you aware that the majority of Americans were in favor of the Paris Accord, when it was signed. Only one state, West Virginia, was against it.

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/paris_agreement_by_state/

 

Like they say, enough drops and the bucket overflows. You may not care about throwing money down a rathole but others do.

 

I said much more than this, that you choose to ignore.

 

Yeah, it's called a logical fallacy. Not that you are aware.

 

Perhaps you should speak to the issues mentioned, instead of resorting to personal attacks. But I guess, this is what we've grown to expect from Republicans. Character attacks, like the Birther Lie, instead of issue discussion. FOX News is right up your alley then...

 

II realize that China-bashing is in vogue with this new president. The fact of the matter is that China is going head-over-heels into renewables.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37409069

China has been building two wind turbines every hour, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has told BBC News.
This is the world's biggest programme of turbine installation, double that of its nearest rival, the US.
The nation’s entire annual increase in energy demand has been fulfilled from the wind.

This is amazing, because the US has increased it's wind energy production from 1% to 7% of total demand, in the last 8 years. The US is expected to get 10% of it's electricity from wind by 2020. That just goes to show, that China is really going bonkers over wind energy! And they have shown terrific support for the Paris Accord.

Lu Kang, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, told BBC News: "China has made great efforts in areas including reducing emission, environmental protection and developing renewable sustainable energy.

“The International Community recognises our leading example role on climate change. I can assure you that China is determined to stick to this green sustainable path of development. This also serves China’s own need for development."

 

LOL, you believe everything a totalitarian regime claims.