The Paris Climate Agreement

[GMDino]

Here are two tweets about the Paris Climate Agreement from elected members of the GOP.

By rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, President Biden indicates he’s more interested in the views of the citizens of Paris than in the jobs of the citizens of Pittsburgh. This agreement will do little to affect the climate and will harm the livelihoods of Americans.

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) January 20, 2021

 

I work for the people of Pueblo, not the people of Paris.

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) January 22, 2021

 



So my question is:

Are these Republicans really that dumb?  Or do they have faith that the people that vote for them are that dumb?


While you consider here are two of my favorite comebacks at those two.

Lauren doesn't support the Geneva convention either because she had a bad experience with a mug of Swiss Miss once.

— President Rufus T. Firefly (@Stewey444) January 22, 2021

 



https://www.radio.com/kdkaradio/news/local/seth-meyers-calls-cruz-jagoff-over-paris-pittsburgh-comment

Quote:"I guess with Trump gone, there was an opening for a new wildly objectionable kazoo-voiced s$#!-heel. Look I know he just recycled this line from Trump, but it was dumb then and it's even dumber now.


"For one thing, the Paris Climate Accord isn't about Paris, it was signed in Paris. Are you really this stupid? Is your beard growing into your brain? Does Ted Cruz also think New York Fashion Week is about New York fashion?," he said.

"Now I should clarify - Ted Cruz isn't that stupid. He's a scheming, festering, gym sock full of mayonnaise who knows full well that the City of Pittsburgh voluntarily followed the Paris agreement, even after Trump withdrew.


"Personally, I think Ted Cruz is the last person who should pretend to stick up for Pittsburgh since he just tried throw out the votes of everyone who lives in Pittsburgh.


"Have you no shame you microwave, Aquaman Funko Pop?



"And look, my dad's from there so I'm biased, but I hate that the core of this is that Paris is fancy and Pittsburgh is blue collar, (then said with a Pittsburgh accent) when anyone who's been to both places knows the 'Burgh is just as pretty, if not prettier than Paris. We got more bridges than Venice. Three rivers to Paris' one. And last I checked, you ain't gonna find no incline in the City of Lights."

Meyers corrected that last statement on Twitter Friday because Paris actually does have one.


In his television rant, Meyers continued, "And so Ted Cruz, to use a local parlance of my father's ancestral land - you're a jagoff."

[KillerGoose]

(01-23-2021, 11:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: Here are two tweets about the Paris Climate Agreement from elected members of the GOP.

By rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, President Biden indicates he’s more interested in the views of the citizens of Paris than in the jobs of the citizens of Pittsburgh. This agreement will do little to affect the climate and will harm the livelihoods of Americans.

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) January 20, 2021

 

I work for the people of Pueblo, not the people of Paris.

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) January 22, 2021

 



So my question is:

Are these Republicans really that dumb?  Or do they have faith that the people that vote for them are that dumb?


While you consider here are two of my favorite comebacks at those two.

Lauren doesn't support the Geneva convention either because she had a bad experience with a mug of Swiss Miss once.

— President Rufus T. Firefly (@Stewey444) January 22, 2021

 



https://www.radio.com/kdkaradio/news/local/seth-meyers-calls-cruz-jagoff-over-paris-pittsburgh-comment

Your final quote contains some of the most creative insults I have ever seen. I have never, in my life, seen someone called a microwave. Outstanding.

To your point, I don't think Cruz is that stupid. he's trying to stir something up here, trying to promote misinformation. It is pretty ridiculous. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-25-2021, 11:18 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Your final quote contains some of the most creative insults I have ever seen. I have never, in my life, seen someone called a microwave. Outstanding.

To your point, I don't think Cruz is that stupid. he's trying to stir something up here, trying to promote misinformation. It is pretty ridiculous. 

Yea, Cruz is very smart, he's just spineless and willing to sacrifice his integrity for power. 

Boebert on the other hand is definitely a bit dumb, just based on her past comments and arrest record. 

[CKwi88]

I dont think Cruz is dumb, but I question his post-Trump strategy. I think he has given enough fuel to opponents to really tank his chances at any higher office.

And I don't think that trying to dupe the more......politically illiterate....part of your base is exclusive to the Republicans. Although they do seem to be a little more malicious about it IMO.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I guess my question is and always has been.... Why not just make standards/goals for the US to meet on it's own that are the exact same that they'd need to meet in the Paris Deal, and then just keep our money rather than to give it to other countries for a non-binding agreement?

Never understood why we needed to join a club and pay money in order to do something that we were very much capable of just doing on our own if we wanted.

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-26-2021, 02:12 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I guess my question is and always has been.... Why not just make standards/goals for the US to meet on it's own that are the exact same that they'd need to meet in the Paris Deal, and then just keep our money rather than to give it to other countries for a non-binding agreement?

Never understood why we needed to join a club and pay money in order to do something that we were very much capable of just doing on our own if we wanted.

Because this is a global issue and the cooperation of the every country gives us the best chance to make a difference.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-26-2021, 03:27 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Because this is a global issue and the cooperation of the every country gives us the best chance to make a difference.

Except it isn't. The EU + the 4 largest emission countries (China, US, India, Russia) are 64% of the world's CO2 emissions.

Hell, China alone is nearly 30%, and the US alone is nearly 14%. 

If everyone cut their emissions by half, it would take almost 138 Irelands to make the same impact as 1 US as far as reduction goes. It would take over 35 Canadas to match 1 China.

If the big boys just handle their own shit, problem more or less solved. 

No need to give your money to other countries, no need for all the club nonsense. That's just unnecessary expenses and layers of political BS where there doesn't need to be any.

[*Nately120*]

The Paris climate agreement isn't all about Paris? What's next, a band named Asia being comprised entirely of British dudes?

[Dill]

(01-26-2021, 04:04 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except it isn't. The EU + the 4 largest emission countries (China, US, India, Russia) are 64% of the world's CO2 emissions.

Hell, China alone is nearly 30%, and the US alone is nearly 14%. 

If everyone cut their emissions by half, it would take almost 138 Irelands to make the same impact as 1 US as far as reduction goes. It would take over 35 Canadas to match 1 China.

If the big boys just handle their own shit, problem more or less solved. 

No need to give your money to other countries, no need for all the club nonsense. That's just unnecessary expenses and layers of political BS where there doesn't need to be any.

Does the Paris Agreement make it more or less likely that China, India and others will address their own emissions problem?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-27-2021, 10:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Does the Paris Agreement make it more or less likely that China, India and others will address their own emissions problem?

China has "pledged" to reach peak CO2 emissions by 2030 under the accord. It isn't even a pledge to reduce emissions right now, it's a pledge to try to not let it get any higher than 2030 levels.

China put 60 new medium sized coal power plants online in 2018. Their emissions rose 2.5%. They're still fine because they have until 2030 to peak. China has more GW in coal power plants under construction than the rest of the world COMBINED.

Meanwhile there's $100b/yr in aid going to developing countries (of which China qualifies as).

That's a damn useless plan.

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-27-2021, 11:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: China has "pledged" to reach peak CO2 emissions by 2030 under the accord. It isn't even a pledge to reduce emissions right now, it's a pledge to try to not let it get any higher than 2030 levels.

China put 60 new medium sized coal power plants online in 2018. Their emissions rose 2.5%. They're still fine because they have until 2030 to peak. China has more GW in coal power plants under construction than the rest of the world COMBINED.

Meanwhile there's $100b/yr in aid going to developing countries (of which China qualifies as).

That's a damn useless plan.

I would hope there is strings attached to that money. Like it has to be used for renewable energy infrastructure or something of that nature.

Still doesn’t change my opinion getting all countries together to tackle a global problem is a good idea.

[hollodero]

(01-27-2021, 11:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: China has "pledged" to reach peak CO2 emissions by 2030 under the accord. It isn't even a pledge to reduce emissions right now, it's a pledge to try to not let it get any higher than 2030 levels.

China put 60 new medium sized coal power plants online in 2018. Their emissions rose 2.5%. They're still fine because they have until 2030 to peak. China has more GW in coal power plants under construction than the rest of the world COMBINED.

Meanwhile there's $100b/yr in aid going to developing countries (of which China qualifies as).

That's a damn useless plan.

Well, China or other countries might very well say that the US did the same, just a few decades prior, and founded large parts of their current wealth on this very pollution they to a large part caused from the industrial revolution on. Which is true. Overall, the emissions from the western countries are still the largest contributor to the current CO2 levels, even if China and others play some serious catch up now.

They might find it hypocritical that they should now be denied the same developmental step the US and Europe already took. Or can't all have cars for that matter.

Probably the main idea of a global cooperation on reducing emissions is to take away inclinations for every country to just let the other ones be all clima sensitive; and benefit themselves by consuming cheaper dirty energy. All countries going alone on that would end up like that, or ending up in every country just ignoring the threat to keep the competitive edge.
I know this narrative from former times in my country. All measures to cut down emissions were called strangling the industry too much, they'd be unable to compete with the companies from the US, who allegedly don't give a damn about any CO2 emissions. Which they probably indeed didn't.

[Dill]

(01-27-2021, 11:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: China has "pledged" to reach peak CO2 emissions by 2030 under the accord. It isn't even a pledge to reduce emissions right now, it's a pledge to try to not let it get any higher than 2030 levels.

China put 60 new medium sized coal power plants online in 2018. Their emissions rose 2.5%. They're still fine because they have until 2030 to peak. China has more GW in coal power plants under construction than the rest of the world COMBINED.

Meanwhile there's $100b/yr in aid going to developing countries (of which China qualifies as).

That's a damn useless plan.

So you are saying that the Paris agreement DOES make it more likely China will work with the rest of the world to control emissions? A pledge to eventually limit peak emissions is better than nothing.

Hollo has explained why there is little interest in limiting China's energy use before it has reached 1st-world levels of development.  

The value of the Paris Agreement is that it creates that first step, an agreement and an international, diplomatic framework for discussion/cooperation, setting of targets, sharing of best practices, clean energy technology and the like.  And in individual countries, like China, it tends to decrease the public's tolerance for policies that degrade the environment. 

Just from a Realpolitik perspective, ceding yet another giant, global platform for international development and cooperation to leadership of the country most likely to be our greatest political and economic competitor over the coming century seems short-sighted.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Just another UN in the making :)

We should use our money to self-regulate and be the leaders not followers in lowering our own Emissions, others will be the followers.
If not, we can simply Tariff the hell out of them or flat out block the purchase of their goods until they address it.

[hollodero]

(01-29-2021, 01:56 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Just another UN in the making :)

We should use our money to self-regulate and be the leaders not followers in lowering our own Emissions, others will be the followers.
If not, we can simply Tariff the hell out of them or flat out block the purchase of their goods until they address it.

Cool. Do that then. I'd love nothing more than the US taking on a leadership role on that issue.

The problem I see is that one of your major parties to a large extent flat out denies climate change as a whole. And whoever does not deny it is, in their views, a stupid sheeplelunaticglobalistcommie. They want to forbid cows! The science isn't there! I have a snowball!

The Paris accord was seen as a breakthrough in large parts becaused the US was willing to sign it. Before that, the US' position rather seemed to be screw climate change, we want to keep polluting as much as we want. And as of now, that still seems to be the US' stance, even though you usually celebrate that climate change denial as "cutting regulations" and such.

Oh and about the money, the US apparently attributed 1 billion to the Green Climate fund, which is merely a drop on a hot stone, is not the cause of any budgetary troubles and has not cracked the top ten in per capita contributions before Trump left the accord.

[Dill]

(01-29-2021, 01:56 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Just another UN in the making :)

We should use our money to self-regulate and be the leaders not followers in lowering our own Emissions, others will be the followers.
If not, we can simply Tariff the hell out of them or flat out block the purchase of their goods until they address it.

LOL OtherMike, I can see why you liked Trump's foreign policy.

I wonder though--if most of the world is in some kind of climate UN and we are not,

is it possible that at some point they could all agree to "tariff the hell" out of us or "flat out block the purchase of [our] goods until [we] address it?

Also, seems to me that being our own leaders depends on what kind of leaders we have.

What if we get leaders who don't think Climate change is a problem, but emissions controls are?