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.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 27 days ago)
27,646 posts, read 16,129,622 times
Reputation: 19065
Quote:
Originally Posted by swayalot
President Trump already has 98% of his base satisfied- ABC/Wapo Poll: 98 Percent of Trump Voters Happy With Their Choice
and now we can safely say 100% or 105%.
This is my favorite speech, ever.
The most patriotic speech ever, and the most genuine and heartfelt loyalty.
We have been talking about cutting $90 billion in subsidies, and providing $100 billion or more to developing countries for renewable energy. But private investment in renewables worldwide is already at $300 billion annually, and climbing.
Significant numbers of coal-fired power plants are being shut down, and many plans for new ones abandoned. Three quarters of new construction for electricity generation in the US is in renewables, in spite of having more and worse Denialists than anywhere else in the world. China and India have pledged to follow.
I read it somewhere that the agreement is sort of like a collective weight loss program. Let's all meet every few years and “not gain two degrees”. Instead of focusing on the weight gain, I think we should focus on the diet.
It is completely wrong for collective entities to relocate resources to those that are closer to their hearts in cases like climate that can not be controlled in principle.
Nicaragua is actually trying to get to something like 80-90% renewable energy. They are taking a more aggressive approach than the countries in the Paris accord. Trump, meanwhile, wants to take us back to the 50s.
China and India will be happy to take our place as a world leader in renewable energy, and will profit handsomely.
Really, why don't you ask people who are scientists what they think? I have a PhD and scientist trained, and know that climate science is a bunch of junk science made up of correlations and models that can't reproduce previous climate scenarios. I would rather not have my tax dollars spent in a global group think that couldn't find a light switch in a dark room. I am all in favor of doing things that actually may help the environment, and not wreck havoc on our economy. Let me see, lets pass more regulations down the line that will limit more coal and nuclear facilities, and promise green jobs....only problem with that is that green jobs are not being created fast enough or in locations where coal miners live.
How dare you come around here, spouting your common sense and using your unimpeachable logic?
That's simply not allowed in this forum, you know.
All the whiny libs don't even know what they are complaining about.
Meaningless except for the solar, wind, and other subsidies the U.S. pays, meaningless except for the compensation the U.S. is expected to pay 3rd world countries, meaningless except for the jobs it destroys, meaningless except for the tremendous economic harm it does the U.S., meaningless because it won't affect global CO2 one bit, meaningless because Donald Trump is President.
Under developed countries will not have mandated coal restrictions for years.
Those countries can not afford modern high tech coal power plants. And if traditional coal power plants were outlawed in those countries plenty of people would not have electricity. Instead the deal gives those countries time to transition to modern high tech coal power.
Quote:
They take are manufacturing jobs(jobs are sent overseas), because we have to shut down plants.
Traditional power sources like coil and oil are old technologies and these industries are downsizing. Like the new Keystone oil pipeline republicans just approved that kills 1,000's of jobs in the trucking, railroad and oil storage facilities (and then replaces those jobs with 35 permanent jobs monitoring the pipeline.) Keystone XL pipeline would only create 35 permanent jobs - Mar. 24, 2017
Real new job creation would be altering our current power plants with new high tech features, and creating a whole new job field developing and maintaining those new power plants. But republican politicians like the old technology because those corporations give the republicans vast amounts of campaign money.
The Agreement asks both rich and poor countries to take action to curb the rise in global temperatures that is melting glaciers, raising sea levels and shifting rainfall patterns. It requires governments to present national plans to reduce emissions to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Good luck with that, rich countries.
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.
Perhaps they need some Tylenol to go with their "whine" ...
