Adieu Accord de Paris

[Arturo Bandini]

Even North Korea signed it ...

[Vlad]

(06-01-2017, 06:10 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: How do you guys made this complete tool your president ?

I still can't believe it.

You're gonna take a 15 years step back on the energies of the future to bring back coal ...

Because he's doing what he said he promised he would do.
The coal thing, really?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-coal-idUSKBN0TY2TG20151216

[Vlad]

(06-03-2017, 10:36 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Even North Korea signed it ...

Whos coal production is vital to its economy.

But I'm sure we can trust their little fat leader Kim to cut coal production.

You've just presented a fine example of a liberal circular argument.

[GMDino]

(06-03-2017, 09:21 AM)Vlad Wrote: Meanwhile, lets bring God into this when it becomes convenient.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/02/pelosi-trump-dishonoring-god-by-withdrawing-from-paris-agreement/

“And while we’re [the Democrats] doing the Lord’s work by ministering to the needs of God’s creation, [Republicans] are ignoring those needs, which is to dishonor the God who made them.”

Right, democrats ministering to the needs of Gods creation...take the fetus for example..

This isn't about abortion.

Crossing the streams makes the GOP looks just as hypocritical when it comes to "pro-life" so let's not go there and stay on the topic of the environment.

[Millhouse]

(06-02-2017, 08:54 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that global climate change is unproven scientifically. Even if it is, do you think that nations that agree to work toward a solution to climate change are more or less likely to go to war with each other, or help each other defeat a terrorist threat ?

The up side to the entire planet agreeing to work together toward a common goal was encouraging. The positive advancements in human relations around the planet is invaluable regardless of the basis of that work imho.


Take the old saying, "You gotta start somewhere"
Name another issue that has more nations on board than climate change does.....opportunities like this don't come around that often

This is one reason Sec of St. Tillerson was against pulling out, because of the possible ripple effects of diplomacy with many countries. And probably the main reason I was against Trump withdrawing too.

It wasn't even going to cost a lot either, I believe what a minimum of 6 billion in a few years time, with 3 billion by 2020? Thats nothing compared to the loss of political capital that just occurred. 

But I believe climate change is happening, 1000%. I think it is mainly due to the Earth going through a cycle like it has done countless times since the beginning. But I also agree with scientists, all 99+% of them, that humans through carbon emissions is contributing to it as well. Trump, Bannon, and the EPA head would disagree with that and would roll back many changes from the last few decades that have reduced emissions just to create a few jobs for people while suffocating our planet even more so.

[Arturo Bandini]

(06-03-2017, 11:05 AM)Vlad Wrote: Because he's doing what he said he promised he would do.
The coal thing, really?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-coal-idUSKBN0TY2TG20151216

That's nice company ! 


Make America a Philippines competitor.

Every people knows coal is the answer to the XXIst century.

Why not destroying all the machines and get back to hand plough every field ? A lot of jobs there.

Is this all you can bring to the table ? Coal mining jobs ?

Wow, what a visionary.

Somehow, we have the politicians we deserve.

[Dill]

(06-03-2017, 09:21 AM)Vlad Wrote: Meanwhile, lets bring God into this when it becomes convenient.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/02/pelosi-trump-dishonoring-god-by-withdrawing-from-paris-agreement/

“And while we’re [the Democrats] doing the Lord’s work by ministering to the needs of God’s creation, [Republicans] are ignoring those needs, which is to dishonor the God who made them.”

Right, democrats ministering to the needs of Gods creation...take the fetus for example..

LOL trying to out-Republican the Republicans.

Democrats need to stick to science, facts, data and logic--even if it costs them elections.

[Dill]

(06-03-2017, 11:05 AM)Vlad Wrote: Because he's doing what he said he promised he would do.
The coal thing, really?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-coal-idUSKBN0TY2TG20151216

I don't see a point here, other than that there are too many coal burning plants in the world.

How could this be an argument against the Accord de Paris.

Why is it good to keep a bad promise to people who reject climate science.

[SunsetBengal]

Anyone need to really know more?

[Arturo Bandini]

Don't pretend you're the only one to pay.

http://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/contributors/resources-mobilized



BTW, if you think it's better to make bombs and walls.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-03-2017, 03:16 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Don't pretend you're the only one to pay.

http://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/contributors/resources-mobilized



BTW, if you think it's better to make bombs and walls.

If that is how you feel.  Then perhaps the Nations of your Continent should raise their own military to adequately protect them from the evil forces around the globe, whist the rest of you contemplate how to save the planet from industry?

[Dill]

(06-03-2017, 09:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: If that is how you feel.  Then perhaps the Nations of your Continent should raise their own military to adequately protect them from the evil forces around the globe, whist the rest of you contemplate how to save the planet from industry?

How many non-American NATO personnel died for the US in Afghanistan?

[Dill]

(06-03-2017, 03:04 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Anyone need to really know more?

Sunset, what do you think this shows? I don't see a problem here.

The point of the Accord was to get the nations of the world working together to reduce carbon emissions.

It's not like all these nations are ordering Chinese take out together but only the US is paying.

[Arturo Bandini]

1 billion for countries like ours is a tip in a restaurant.

USA budget defense is 824 billions a year.

Isn't it possible to make it 823 billions and give 1 to the Earth ?

[Vlad]

WARNING: What you are about to see and hear may cause many of you to lose sleep.
Viewer discretion is advised.





 

[Dill]

(06-03-2017, 08:31 AM)Vlad Wrote: Thats right, build a wall just for the sake of building a wall and keep taxes low just for the sake of keeping taxes low.

How about:
If you think free education and healthcare are worthy goals, then join the Democratic Party and make your voice heard. If you would rather the money spent on putting and end to illegal immigration by building this wall, or believe lowering taxes will stimulate economic growth then understand your priorities.

Cant even one liberal on this board not be so disingenuous?

LOL, right. no one knew the wall was about stopping brown people from entering the country or heard of trickle down until you told them.

[Dill]

(06-04-2017, 07:27 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: 1 billion for countries like ours is a tip in a restaurant.

USA budget defense is 824 billions a year.

Isn't it possible to make it 823 billions and give 1 to the Earth ?

The US Right doesn't see it that way.

They don't believe anthropogenic climate change is a problem, so to them the Accord is all about welfare for poorer nations. You can tell from the postings on this and other threads that they don't understand how and where the 1 billion would be spent or how that benefits the US.

In their view, Earth should be looking for a job rather than handouts from hardworking American Republicans.  If Earth's health takes a turn for the worse, that' s Earth's problem, not theirs. No free healthcare either!

[Dill]

(06-02-2017, 02:53 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So because they already waste money on things I don't agree with, I should get on board wasting money on MORE things? You look at the government wasting money and say "why not waste more giving it away?" while I look at it and say "how about we stop wasting it at all?"

Instead we keep that $400m a year, say "F you Syria" and go home, saving that money, and then start finding out where that government waste spending is and cutting that back too.

Then we can use that money to reduce our country's debt, rebuild crumbling infrastructure, and lower our taxes while reducing our emissions anyway, because we like clean air and water.

That sounds way better than giving random countries our tax dollars. Let alone giving them our tax dollars for something they might not even follow through on, because it's nonbinding. Guess what... if you give $200m to Haiti, that shit is gone. It's not going to actually help the environment. It is going in people's pockets. Take a look over there and see how the reconstruction of people's homes has gone after the earthquake of *2010*. Yet billions upon billions were sent to the country.

You are arguing that the US ignore Syria and other failed states to save money. Can you calculate the cost of another 9/11?

Leonard, the US would not just be handing Haiti some money while asking them to spend it wisely.

It will be very hard to lower the debt and rebuild US infrastructure AND cut taxes all at once. Republicans want you to gamble that it can be done.
And they are not going to help reduce emissions because the emitters like profits.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-03-2017, 09:32 AM)xxlt Wrote: Yeah, Nicaragua wanted to do more for the environment, so they only held out because they thought we could do better.

So it is pretty much Trump and Assad. Yeah, that's a couple of leaders the whole world envies!

How many countries would have refused to join it if instead of receiving money, they had to give billions of dollars?

Of course if you say "Hey, sign your name here and you get hundreds of millions of dollars, with no repercussions or measurements to actually force you to spend it on what we want you to spend it on" you're going to get a ton of countries to join.

I've still yet to see from anyone in this thread why the US can't just pull out, cut their emissions anyway, and also keep their money.

[GMDino]

(06-04-2017, 03:10 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: How many countries would have refused to join it if instead of receiving money, they had to give billions of dollars?

Of course if you say "Hey, sign your name here and you get hundreds of millions of dollars, with no repercussions or measurements to actually force you to spend it on what we want you to spend it on" you're going to get a ton of countries to join.

I've still yet to see from anyone in this thread why the US can't just pull out, cut their emissions anyway, and also keep their money.

They can pull out.

They can cut emissions anyway.

The can keep "their" money.

But the idea behind the Accord was years of negotiating to get the majority of the entire world to work together.  And for the US to be a leader in helping the lesser nations.

But small minded people only care about money, and keeping it, so the POTUS pulled out.

A man who not only doesn't understand anything but refuses to learn about it made the decision.  Well, after contacting FOX to make sure he'd get good press from it.

I mean I get y'all wanna save a buck...got up that military budget...but to not see that the vast majority of the leaders in the world, plus the majority of US citizens and companies all backed the accord is just blind partisanship and loyalty to the "R" next to the President's name (for now).