Paris: Trump Blocks First of Obama's 'Three Authoritarianisms' Projection does seem to be the favorite pastime of the day. Trump is now an 'authoritarian' for not putting the US under the yoke of a globalist agenda.
I think the decision to avoid congress was because of partisanship, and the fact that trying to reach across the aisle created more partisanship, and in this age of "enemies to be vanquished" political ideologies, one cannot appear to go outside the party. Plus, had congress been involved, it wouldn't have made any difference. Climate change is real, it's happening, there is evidence abound, and no one can ignore it without derision. And, justly so.
The only constant in climate is change so your comment is not about climate change but about sticking to dogma without evidence. In case you missed it, we have laws and rules in this country, not that Obama ever cared.
The constant in climate change is science. You don't get to add chemicals to a state of existence and there not be consequences, you already know this. The addition of chemicals to any state induces change. Basic stuff, undeniable, but of course, you're talking from an ideological perspective instead of a rational perspective. I should have expected that. I agree; the Paris Accord should have been treated as a treaty. But, let's face the reality here; nothing moved through the senate because of ideology. Nothing. So it would have gone nowhere. It is a nonbinding agreement, a pledge, to help reduce carbon emissions. It would have killed a bunch of jobs. Of course, oft ignored is the reality that alt energy jobs is a growing industry that will outemploy fossil fuels. The reality is though that the ideologies at hand are a problem and need to change.
Yet all of the alarmism is not based on observed science but failed modelling. If you are not aware of this you should be. There is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of the climate as claimed.
Nonsense. There is evidence abound and just the basic laws of scientific application; introducing checmicals into a stable state alters this state. Are you denying that the expulsion of soot and ash and carbon gasses into the atmosphere after a volcanic eruption can have no impact on climate? Krakatoa? You should read about it sometime. It's earth shattering.
CO2 is a naturally occurring chemical in the atmosphere. There is no proof that it is a main driver of climate. That is a model based assumption. Soot and Ash cool the earth, not warm and almost always for a short period of time so is irrelevant to the conversation.
Iran funds it's terrorist support ad Nuclear program with oil money. In fact, oil money supports terrorist activity all over the globe. Fossil fuel production is associated with dangerous water and air pollution, terrorist activity, epic marine disasters, the deaths of thousands of children with respiratory disease. THAT'S what the Paris treaty was about. If Trump FanBoys want to build it into some twisted conspiracy theory in their own little brains, I can't stop them. But the rest of the world knows better.
Seeing how China didn't have to do anything until 2030 and India not at all and our money went to other countries to fund the same while putting a crimp in our economy and on top of that, no teeth in the agreement, your rant is irrelevant.
Nah.....it didn't have anything to do with avoiding Congress over Partisanship. Especially when his own kind couldn't be persuaded to back him up on something that was just about him. Remaining in the Paris pact will invite litigation to impose the Paris standards and direct the EPA to impose drastic carbon cuts that would hurt the economy. Energy companies are aware of this threat, and despite Exxon ’s recent pledge to pour $20 billion into Gulf Coast facilities, other companies remain wary of U.S. regulation. Mr. Trump’s best bet is to exit the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which could be done in a year and would result in a simultaneous withdrawal from Paris. That would quickly end the litigation risk. America has already done more to reduce CO2 emissions with its natural-gas fracking revolution than has most of the world. Many of the Paris signers want to use the pact to diminish any U.S. fossil-fuel production. The best U.S. insurance against the risks of climate change is to revive economic growth that will drive energy innovation and create the wealth to cope with any future damage—if that day arrives. Policy details aside, the worst part of Mr. Obama’s climate agenda was its lack of democratic consent. He failed to persuade either a Republican or Democratic Congress to pass his regulation and taxes. So he attempted to impose that agenda at home through the EPA and abroad via Paris to use international pressure against domestic political resistance.....snip~ http://www.thegwpf.com/the-wall-street-journal-makes-the-case-for-pulling-out-of-obamas-paris-deal/
If you think its science, then explain it to us ignorant slubs in scientific terms in your own words and be articulate.
THANK YOU - Donald Trump. I was not a big Trump supporter, but he is doing some really good things. Paris Climate Accord was nothing more than a transfer of wealth from U.S. Citizens to India, China, and more. It also would have put us on a competitive disadvantage as our energy would have cost a lot more for decades vs. other "participants". Finally, the Paris Climate Accord would not have done anything significant for the Trillions it would have demanded from the U.S.
The idea was to get the train moving - not that it was going to reach the goals instantly. The amazing part about the Paris agreement was that it was able to MAKE A START with the agreement of over 100 countries on THE DIRECTION toward the goals. It will now be extremely difficult to get countries to agree on such common ground again. We could have had many more meeting to revise the original accords. Trump just declared bankruptcy and walked away from another project. He is a failure once again.
Denialism. Yes, it is a naturally occurring chemical compound. No, it is not natural to have this much dumped into the atmosphere. Thus the injection of this continued chemical abuse into the atmosphere will absolutely alter the state of the atmosphere and thus change the climate. Soot and ash cool, yes, but that doesn't address the point I made. Try again.
Ignorant slubs? I explained it in scientific laymans terms above. It's clear you missed it, but I will do so here: You do not get to add chemicals to a state of existence and expect no change to the state. It really is that simple.
Sorry - not. Trade deals with countries involved in the Paris accords are in the trillions - not billions. We lose political clout and economic trade deals with other countries. Long term - it is a fail.
You honestly think the many countries involved aren't going to think twice about trade deals with the US? They won't know from one year to the next if the US is going to bail on other treaties as well. Why not give better deals to countries who have their backs on other issues like climate change. We lose face. We lose good-will. We save a few dollars in the short run. We give up long term deals and favored trade status in the long run. It is a fail for economic security.
No trade deal, then no more protection. Fair? Which countries are no longer going to trade with us? Lets list some biggies... S. Korea? Yeah, lets see how they do when we don't buy their stuff and we pull our troops=) China? They really, REALLY like our business. Germany? Pull all our forces out. If Russia wants to move into Germany, they can basically kiss themselves goodbye as we watch and they BEG FOR HELP. England? Trade and military protection go hand in hand. Australia? Don't think they care. Mexico? Ha! Canada? Ha! Anyone in S. America? Again, we buy their stuff. You seem to think the Paris agreement is more important than trade. Thats funny stuff. Think about how scuzzy and horrible Saudi Arabia is and we still deal with them. We can still implement ANYTHING we want in the Paris agreement, without having to sign it....ON OUR OWN.
You are surprised that they are upset about not receiving free money? I think you are naive about trade and the importance of this political stunt called the Paris accord.
This is the big problem I have, why can't we just make the Accord say "All countries have to reduce their emissions by X%"? Why is there always this huge burden on the US? We have a ridiculous amount of problems at home, I don't want to pay for anyone in another country when there are Americans that need help. The Paris Accords were incredibly ideology driven and not enough about actually cleaning the environment up. Of course everyone is calling people evil who disagree. My favorite comment is "ideologies obviously have to change", lol, in other words, YOUR ideology needs to change because I am right, you are wrong and obviously evil. lol at the politics of today
Exactly. Basically follow the money. Anyone here thinks we can afford billions to give away for an unproven ideology that will only allegedly reduce the increase in temperature by 0.2C by 2100?
