Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Note what the "fake" (sarcasm ) MIT researchers stated at the bottom...
I like that you attribute to MIT researchers a set of political talking points still stamped "White House" in the bottom of the image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
Well...he is deporting illegal aliens and working on getting the wall built on the southern border. After all, illegals have large carbon footprints. Getting rid of them will help a lot.
Also, we need to stop allowing 1 million legal immigrants into this country on an annual basis. Since 1965, we've allowed a total of 59 million legal immigrants into the country---not to mention untold millions of illegals. All these people put demands on energy production plus the demand for potable water. We don't have unlimited potable water and buildable land. Phoenix and Tucson rely on underground aquifers for their water and experts don't know how long that supply will last.
One can't wring their hands over the environment and climate change while thinking that letting all these people come to this country is a good thing. When they scream about how they are against reducing the number of legal immigrants and deporting illegals, they expose themselves as being hypocrites.
The liberals of yore at least pushed for ZPG. Somewhere along the way they did a 180 on that.
Most immigrants are relatives of US citizens. Why do you want to separate families?
We have some 41 million foreign born residents, a number which includes all categories of immigrant, including naturalized citizens and unauthorized immigrants. Energy demand is flat or decreasing across the US in spite of population and economic growth.
Water has long been a problem in the American West, and that is not a question of immigration. It is a question of arid climate and agriculture above all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill
What I found from MIT....How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make? | MIT News
“The Paris agreement is certainly a step in the right direction, but it is only a step,” said Monier. “It puts us on the right path to keep warming under 3 C, but even under the same level of commitment of the Paris agreement after 2030, our study indicates a 95 percent probability that the world will warm by more than 2 C by 2100.”
Rec'd for truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
Maybe 30 years ago this would have been true, but those 30 years have changed China a lot more than the United States. The nation became a world leader over that span, and the conditions you describe are no longer true.
While China's problems do still exist, it's no longer unprepared to meet them like they once were. And now, they are fully committed to a China where all its citizens can lead lives of prosperity through the same technology that only we once enjoyed.
Their government fully understands that they only way they can keep progressing at such a rapid rate is to join with the rest of the world instead of isolating themselves from it.
With a billion people, the greatest of all resources of all, the Chinese will happily sell all the goods and services all those people can provide. There is simply no way the United States, with a population of less than a quarter of China's, can compete with them all by ourselves.
If the 20th was the American century, Trump just made it all the easier for the 21st to be the Chinese century.
Withdrawing from the global economy will only make us increasingly non-competitive in a world where no nation owns all the advanced thought that builds advanced technology.
Look at Russia, and see what the United States can become. A rusting, rotting hulk, depending on increasingly aging obsolete manufacturing, with a surly uneducated populace of workers to supply it. While dreaming of their glory days, fading distantly into the past with each passing year. The oligarchs will grow richer, and the rest will grow drunker. And like the Russians, our best young minds will go to where the real action is; in the far east, where China will allow them to thrive.
In less than 6 months, the Trump Administration has ceded global trade leadership and global climate leadership to China. With the end of US involvement in TPP, China's New Silk Road and the RCEP become the de facto roadmap for the future of Afroeurasian trade.
With the US withdrawal from the Paris Accords and other actions in the energy sector, China becomes the global standard bearer for fighting climate change--and the Chinese clean energy sector is poised to boom.
More subtly, but still importantly: the US's about-face on these two major initiatives undermines global faith in America's word. What sense is negotiating with the US when its leadership has no commitment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Your point is not based on fact.
Paris agreement lets China continue to build coal fired plants.
And everyone else. But everyone also commits to reducing emissions & tightening those reductions every 5 years.
Trump's responsibility is to the American people, not other politicians either domestic or foreign.
I agree that, turning back from protecting environment is bad. But he ran with this promise and people voted for him. I am not sure if we can call it turning back his responsibility. As Obama said, there are so many things cities, states can do to protect environment. We all should take responsibility and do our best to conserve environment.
Paris agreement lets China continue to build coal fired plants.
Of course. Transition from obsolete technology doesn't happen in the wink of an eye. Every nation in the accord has to use what it has to get to where it wants to go.
That's where the crucial difference lies. China has all the impetus it needs to abandon coal as fast as it can. Their cities are choked in coal smog now, but that won't last long. The Chinese don't like living in that smog any more than any other people would.
Back before the 20th century, the American century, the 19th century belonged to the British. It was the age of Empire, and Britain ruled the globe. But London was so smoggy from the industry that created their empire that the town's lamps burned day and night, just so people had enough light to walk the streets. Crime was rampant, and slums covered all sides of London.
Newcomers from their colonies were aghast at how bad life was in the heart of the empire, while life in the colonies was often glittering in comparison. While the outer edges of their empire flourished, the heart rotted, even though it kept beating.
That didn't change until Britain lost it's predominance, but the industrial age's technology was nothing as advanced as it is today. China won't need so much time as the British to clean their mother country up, and they have a lot of incentive to do it fast.
Meanwhile, no one living will ever be able to look out on Monument Valley without peering through a haze of coal smoke here in the USA.
The only way any of us will really be able to see it's grandeur is looking at an old John Ford movie, taken there before the generating plants destroyed the clean air.
I agree that, turning back from protecting environment is bad. But he ran with this promise and people voted for him. I am not sure if we can call it turning back his responsibility. As Obama said, there are so many things cities, states can do to protect environment. We all should take responsibility and do our best to conserve environment.
Your only mistake. Thinking the Paris Agreement was about protecting the environment. It wasn't.
if solar is so great, surely it can stand on its own two feet without massive government investments.
right?
truth.
Few years back, lot of people from our community bought Nissan Leaf in Atlanta (On lease I think). Every one got nice share of tax savings. Deal is they got car free literally with all the tax savings.
Obama signed the treaty so right there it tells you the whole thing was crap. It was a slush fund that cost US taxpayers billions for pet projects of other nations. Like Iran, Obama never did a thing that benefited this country.
Further, even without this crap treaty the US still has the highest pollution standards in the world. As they typically do, the liberals have their hair on fire over nothing. This treaty will be renegotiated in a way that is favorable to the US, something Obama never cared about.
Bigotry, Racism and Raw Ignorance is the Summation of Trump.... American continues to prove how dumb it is, to even allow this man to continue to exist in consideration of the damages he has done. This SOB TRUMP is so hung up on his racist madness of trying to Erase Obama, until he just screwed America... Him and his Bannon Madness. But, one thing is for sure... their ideal of a 1950's White Dominated America will never happen... get ready to see the ash piles, as we may descend into the likes of the devastation we wreaked on Iraq and Afghanistan.... I would not be surprised to see us become a wasteland that looks like many other Fallen Empires....
AMERICA, "It's Over" !!!!!!!!!!!!! The Once Great Nation.... is no more...
Republicans, pat your dumb arse self on the back... you almost took down the country in 2007, and Dumb Republican constituency allowed you to come back in less than a Decade and Finish the job..
There has never been nor will there ever be anything dumber than The Make Up of what is a Republican to ever touch foot on soil in America. The vile of the past... has been a carry over for 100's of years, and what we have is still a nation of bottom feeding masses of "some" ignorant white people still lusting after a fake illusion based on their skin.
I agree that, turning back from protecting environment is bad. But he ran with this promise and people voted for him. I am not sure if we can call it turning back his responsibility. As Obama said, there are so many things cities, states can do to protect environment. We all should take responsibility and do our best to conserve environment.
Probably the best thing is to keep Trump supporters out so they won't ruin your city or state. They truly hate the environment as Trump does. This will make blue geographies more deeply blue and red geographies more deeply red, which will make it easier for the country to divide as it should. One half of the country has absolutely nothing in common with the other half.
Your only mistake. Thinking the Paris Agreement was about protecting the environment. It wasn't.
Based on Trump speech, it looks like a sham. But I am not sure all the details. That being said, he needs to put an effort to come up with a better options with aim to protect environment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) MIT researchers stated at the bottom... 
