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.
So, I've been just casually trying to find out if any of my own reps in congress support having trump get us out of the Paris Accord. Can't find anything except the "top GOP leaders" support it. It seems to me that the 'run of the mill' congressional rep should be hearing from actual Americans voters, whether they support the move or not. So, heck, I just wrote to all of them.
It is a bit of a hoot, tho, that even though Goldman Sachs is heavily represented in the trump administration, this caused the CEO to tweet for the first time ever.
"he used it to criticize President Trump's decision to back out of the Paris climate pact."Today's decision is a setback for the environment and for the U.S.'s leadership position in the world. #ParisAgreement," he said."
So basically libs are admitting that the rest of the world doesn't care or believe in curing human caused global warming if they then fall apart without US leadership.
china is on track to lead the world in several areas, why don't they pick up the green baton?
The US still leads the globe in energy research solutions. No paris accord needed.
Every country and business suppoorting the paris accord is in it for profit and image at financial cost to the American taxpayer.
Hear the global and local swamp creatures scream as their government teat is taken away.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19459
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Developing country my ass... What you repeated at least twice is that they will reducing emissions when in fact they under no limitations whatsoever until "peak" in 2030. Peak is whatever the hell number they can achieve by then.
So in fact what you have repeated not once but twice is not a factual statement.
They do so at their own economic peril, California for example already has some of highest energy prices in the country.
The accord is about encouraging countries to move away from fossil fuel to cleaner fuels and is renewed every five years, in order try to reduce each countries emissions further still.
In terms of China it is actually investing in renewable energy sources, indeed China is becoming a global leader in such new renewable energy technology, which will eventually replace the countries reliance on coal in the longer term.
In December of 2015, 196 nations signed The Paris Agreement. In Article 4, it says, "Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties..." "Parties" means Parties to the Agreement, the 196 nations.
It's perfectly understandable that developing countries are given a bit more leeway. But the Agreement also says they still need to get on board as quickly as possible.
The Agreement is fairly flexible ("as soon as possible") in what the Parties are required to do but the goal isn't: Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
The 1.5°C level, by the way, was pushed by tiny island nations that recognize their land would be swallowed by the rising ocean if we ever hit the 2°C mark.
If you look at the politics of this whole thing, it's easy to understand why the Republicans don't want to be part of the Agreement:
- The Agreement relies on the best available scientific knowledge to determine what measures need to be taken. What party has vilified scientists?
- The Agreement calls on Party nations to invest in renewable energy and free themselves from dependence of coal and oil. Trump just signed a half-trillion arms deal with the Saudis. No way he wants to stab them in the back with all the money rolling in for the defense contractors.
- The Agreement would require our government to implement regulations that help us comply. That would mean some corporations (aka campaign donors) would have to cough up money to fix things.
In terms of China it is actually investing in renewable energy sources, indeed China is becoming a global leader in such new technology, which will eventually replace the countries reliance on coal in the longer term.
At their current rate China will burn through their domestic supply of coal in the next 3 or 4 decades. In that three or four decades it will be about the equivalent of what the US would burn in the next 150 to 200 years. Undoubtedly they will burn all of it and they will need in place something to replace it.
This is not something I agree with. Any raw natural resources flowing out of this country should have a hefty export tariff on it whether it's coal, oil, natural gas etc. We need to use those resources here to make finished products to ship to China.
It puts coal miners to work, and half our coal plants were already shut down by Obama. Until new coal plants are opened, we should export a product which gives jobs to Americans and currently has a limited local market due to prior political meddling. After we can consume our coal, fine, stop exporting. The left is very hostile to coal, it may take a while to ramp up use, and Americans are out of work and desperate. Surely we can export for a bit, until we increase internal demand so these workers have decent jobs?
There is actually a lot of uses for coal ash, as one example if you have drywall in your house which most houses do there is about a 50% chance the synthetic gypsum was manufactured from coal ash.
It's the bottom ash that is the primary issue because it's difficult to process into anything useful. Keep in mind the level of toxins is slightly elevated above that of the dirt in your backyard. The biggest issue is the containment ponds which often end up into nearby waterways. Very big short term problem but generally not a long term issue.
"Because of the way the agreement was designed, it will take years for the US to fully exit it. According to its rules, the earliest Trump could give written notice of the US's withdrawal would be November 2019, and the US wouldn't officially exit it until November 4, 2020 — the day after the next presidential election."
"While Obama agreed to the Paris accord through executive action, the US Senate approved the original treaty that was the UN's basis of the overall Paris agreement back when George H.W. Bush was president in 1992."
"Exiting the overall UN agreement would take a year, but would likely require Senate approval."
Bull! We just did, and it can't be "designed" so that we can't exit something that we never agreed to. Congress never ratified it, so it's is null and void. Period.
Our Constitution is what governs, not what some globalists say. We don't go by someone else's "rules." We are a sovereign nation.
Obama had no authority to "agree" by "executive action." The Constitution forbids him making "agreements" with foreign nations. He may make Treaties, which must be ratified by Congress before they are effective.
That boat has sailed with all of the foreign aid this nation doles out.
What about Israel?
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.
