Policy at the local level: Mayors to do their own climate change deal

[StLucieBengal]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/24/nations-mayors-pledge-own-paris-agreement-cant-depend-on-our-national-government-anymore/

Quote:

Thompson Reuters

Mayors attending the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Miami Beach this weekend took a tour of streets that have been raised in anticipation of rising sea levels and pledged to uphold the goals of the Paris climate change agreement that former President Barack Obama signed onto and from which President Donald Trump withdrew.

“The conference supported the Paris agreement, and according to preliminary results released Saturday morning from an ongoing nationwide survey, the vast majority of U.S. mayors want to work together and with the private sector to respond to climate change,” ABC reported on Saturday.


Generate Facebook Leads

Create and execute targeted Facebook ads that drive transaction-ready leads

“There’s near unanimity in this conference that climate change is real and that humans contribute to it,” New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu said. “There may be a little bit of a disagreement about how actually to deal with it.

“If the federal government refuses to act or is just paralyzed, the cities themselves, through their mayors, are going to create a new national policy by the accumulation of our individual efforts,” said Landrieu, who is the new chairman of the conference.

“With the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accords, national policy on climate change will emerge from U.S. cities working to reduce emissions and become more resilient to rising sea levels, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu said at the annual U.S. Conferences of Mayors meeting in Miami Beach,” ABC reported.

“A May survey of local sustainability efforts, conducted by the conference and the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, initially only included 80 mayors who hold leadership positions within the conference. It was extended to all conference members and the mayors of about 1,400 cities with populations of 30,000 or more after President Donald Trump pulled the country out of the Paris agreement,” ABC reported.

Former President Bill Clinton spoke at the conference and criticized Trump’s decision to withdraw from the the Paris accord.

“You can get out any minute, but water is going to keep rising,” Clinton said. “Politics has almost no influence on science.”

“You got to seal and deliver,” Clinton told the mayors. “Every one of you has different budgetary constraints, every one of you has different options.

“You have to find a way to do it,” Clinton said.

ABC noted that “traditional energy sources still dominate,” but the survey said more cities “could use renewable electricity if their states passed legislation.”

“[New York City Mayor Bill] de Blasio joined Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine on a tour of a South Beach neighborhood where the city raised streets and installed pumps to send up to 120,000 gallons of water a minute flowing back into Biscayne Bay,” ABC reported.

“But if we don’t do it, who’s going to do it, right?” de Blasio said. “Cities and states around the country are now doing the kinds of things the national government should do.

“It’s just that we can’t depend on our national government anymore,” de Blasio said.

This is perfect. Dems now showing we don't need a federal policy on climate change. Since the locals can do it and we can vote them out a lot more easy.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Meh. I would rather see mayors at the local level work to defeat ISIS in 30 days, solve the healthcare conundrum, lower the price of gasoline, or some other policy on the national level they can't possibly influence at the local level. After they inevitably fail to influence an issue at the local level we can use that as an excuse to call for less federal government.

[Belsnickel]

While this is a good thing, the climate is a global issue, pollution doesn't stop at a city or state border. This is why larger scale discussions need to happen. And then there isn't the whole fact that we have told the set of the world that we don't want to be their leader any longer by pulling out of Paris. The damage to our international affairs is the heavier blow we are going to feel.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-25-2017, 12:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While this is a good thing, the climate is a global issue, pollution doesn't stop at a city or state border. This is why larger scale discussions need to happen. And then there isn't the whole fact that we have told the set of the world that we don't want to be their leader any longer by pulling out of Paris. The damage to our international affairs is the heavier blow we are going to feel.

I have no idea how you can honestly type that out. The Paris deal was a sham anyway as each country set its own parameters. Yet we were responsible for much more of the funding.

Sorry but we are leaders by showing the world we can pull out of these deals and allow locals to step up for what they feel are important policies.
these matters should be done by those who can be most easily voted in or out. When they go Federal it just becomes a black hole of wasted cost.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-25-2017, 11:41 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Meh. I would rather see mayors at the local level work to defeat ISIS in 30 days, solve the healthcare conundrum, lower the price of gasoline, or some other policy on the national level they can't possibly influence at the local level. After they inevitably fail to influence an issue at the local level we can use that as an excuse to call for less federal government.

Healthcare has been improved on the state level. Which is where it should be ....

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2017, 01:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have no idea how you can honestly type that out.

Because that is the way all of the foreign policy analysts are describing it.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-25-2017, 01:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because that is the way all of the foreign policy analysts are describing it.

You are playing fast and loose with the word "all" .... there are plenty out there calling it a mess. Besides this deal is great for countries like China who doesn't have to do anything for 20 years. Or India who needs a payout until they will join. Change our deal to mirror India and china and we can join. 20 years until we have to do anything and we need a payout.

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2017, 01:21 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You are playing fast and loose with the word "all" .... there are plenty out there calling it a mess.

You're right, I should have specified all of the non-partisan ones. But also, even if the agreement is a mess, which some who have made the statement I did have stated, doesn't mean our action by pulling out in the manner we did was anything short of stepping back as a world leader. The two things are not mutually exclusive in an analysis of the situation.

[hollodero]

(06-25-2017, 01:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The Paris deal was a sham anyway as each country set its own parameters.  Yet we were responsible for much more of the funding.  

The first statement contradicts the second one. The US also set its own parameters in every aspect, hence the US wasn't actually responsible for anything.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-25-2017, 01:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: The first statement contradicts the second one. The US also set its own parameters in every aspect, hence the US wasn't actually responsible for anything.

Yes and it was a bad deal made by an administration who was crazy on this issue. Once again Obama rushed a deal agreeing to anything to protect his legacy. Nothing about the Paris agreement helps this country.

https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/56198

[hollodero]

(06-25-2017, 01:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yes and it was a bad deal made by an administration who was crazy on this issue.   Once again Obama rushed a deal agreeing to anything to protect his legacy.   Nothing about the Paris agreement helps this country.

https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/56198

Again, it isn't exactly a "deal" if all contributions are voluntary and there are no repercussions if announcements are not fulfilled, except being shamed on the world stage.

The US contributions were pretty much in line with those of other rich, first-world countries. So the word "crazy" seems a bit far fetched, it would mean all other rich countries are crazy too. If you feel scammed, you're just as scammed as these countries. But sure, China (not a first world country) could contribute too, can't really argue that one. If pulling out is the answer to that - I guess that depends if you believe climate change is a threat to mankind. Which I just assume you don't. If you do, it's the wrong move.

That also goes to the not helping the country part. Fighting climate change would help the US. Unless you believe climate change is a scam.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-25-2017, 02:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: Again, it isn't exactly a "deal" if all contributions are voluntary and there are no repercussions if announcements are not fulfilled, except being shamed on the world stage.

The US contributions were pretty much in line with those of other rich, first-world countries. So the word "crazy" seems a bit far fetched, it would mean all other rich countries are crazy too. If you feel scammed, you're just as scammed as these countries. But sure, China (not a first world country) could contribute too, can't really argue that one. If pulling out is the answer to that - I guess that depends if you believe climate change is a threat to mankind. Which I just assume you don't. If you do, it's the wrong move.

That also goes to the not helping the country part. Fighting climate change would help the US. Unless you believe climate change is a scam.

Climate change is a scam.

I will sign up for all the climate change you want if you pay me up front and give me 20 years before I am expected to do anything.

[hollodero]

(06-25-2017, 03:30 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Climate change is a scam.  

That's no surprise.

(06-25-2017, 03:30 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I will sign up for all the climate change you want if you pay me up front and give me 20 years before I am expected to do anything.

No idea what you mean. Is this about China? You think China scams the US by a bogus climate change story to get your country to pay the enormous sum of 1 billion dollars to the world?

Climate change is about science, not politics.

[Belsnickel]

(06-25-2017, 04:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: Climate change is about science, not politics.

Unfortunately, this statement is not true among certain sectors of American society.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-25-2017, 04:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Unfortunately, this statement is not true among certain sectors of American society.

i am all for science. As with most progressive positions they have gotten out of hand and basically force the rest of us to come along with those pet projects.

Personally I could care less if we destroy the planet. Just more incentive to move beyond earth. I do think we contribute in destroying the earth but it's not more than what the planet can keep up.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-25-2017, 04:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's no surprise.


No idea what you mean. Is this about China? You think China scams the US by a bogus climate change story to get your country to pay the enormous sum of 1 billion dollars to the world?

Climate change is about science, not politics.

Climate change is a boon Doggle to steal tax money.

[Vlad]

(06-25-2017, 12:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While this is a good thing, the climate is a global issue, pollution doesn't stop at a city or state border. This is why larger scale discussions need to happen. And then there isn't the whole fact that we have told the set of the world that we don't want to be their leader any longer by pulling out of Paris. The damage to our international affairs is the heavier blow we are going to feel.

No.
That is not what we're telling the world.. we are telling the world that being its sugar daddy has its limits.

[Vlad]

(06-25-2017, 01:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because that is the way all of the foreign policy analysts are describing it.

These analysts...They wouldn't happen to be leftists would they?

[hollodero]

(06-25-2017, 04:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Climate change is a boon Doggle to steal tax money.

Persuasive.

Climate change also is a scientific process 97% of scientists agree on really happening. What is your thesis about them, I wonder. You think they all underwent a hard education to get a consuming and demanding job that doesn't pay too well. And they all do that just to be part of a big scam? They throw away everything they learned, every scientific ethics, to be part of that scheme? That doesn't make any sense. You don't have anything solid to support your claim. Just your guts.

Fact of the matter is, you are no expert whatsoever. As me, you don't even know about the science behind it. Yet you choose to believe it's a scam, despite all those who know better about it than you do that assure you otherwise. Because they actually did the observation, the math, the science. They use this evidence to argue their stance. You just use your ideology to reason yours (or don't reason it at all). But climate change, again, is not an ideological matter.

What politics makes out of it, that's something different. You're angry about taxes, ok. Doesn't mean climate change isn't real.

But I know I can't really abtain that you reconsider your opinion. It's a hoax. I just wonder, would you really bet the world on that. Because that's what the US right, unlike the whole rest of the world, actually seems to be wanting.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-25-2017, 01:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have no idea how you can honestly type that out. The Paris deal was a sham anyway as each country set its own parameters. Yet we were responsible for much more of the funding.

Sorry but we are leaders by showing the world we can pull out of these deals and allow locals to step up for what they feel are important policies.
these matters should be done by those who can be most easily voted in or out. When they go Federal it just becomes a black hole of wasted cost.

How can local governments affect something that doesn't exist? And when the local governments fail to affect something which doesn't exist we can then point out how ineffective government is.