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.
I think his action shows leadership. We aren't going to be participating in what many believe (with good reason) is a hoax.
The word of us pulling out has already had a huge effect on the stock market (skyrocketing). I don't think there is any doubt this will contribute to increasing jobs.
There is no "downside," because there was no "upside."
The Paris Agreement was entered into illegally by Obama. He had no authority under the Constitution to enter into such an agreement. No treaty can be made that is not pursuant to our Constitution. No treaty can be made that requires that we give up our sovereignty over how we use/develop our natural resources, or limits production of private companies. As a reminder, all our energy producers are private companies. We do not have State run energy companies. The State does not own the means of production.
In short, the Paris Agreement was invalid. Never ratified by the Senate (thank God) and it was unlawful for Obama to sign onto it, because its terms violated our Constitution. No treaty can be above our Constitution.
You can argue the extent of climate change but no one truly believes that it doesn't exist, if you agree that CO2 contributes to warming I don't know how you can continue down the same path.
I don't see how pulling out from a voluntary program would increase jobs, where are they coming from coal?
The Paris Agreement was weak agreement at best and was rather insignificant but the downside is continued sea level rise, what is Trumps plan to address damage to coastal communities. He can't just ignore the impact or just being against something, he needs to promote solutions.
Your argument was invalidated several pages ago, now your current argument is just stupid.
Lets recap the completely stupid argument you have:
Hey people! There are special aliens in millions of light years away, they exist, have contacted us, and are running the planet!!!
Prove me wrong!!!
What is that? You can't provide any evidence to prove my claim wrong!!!
HAHAHHA /derp /derp /derp!! I win the Internet.
There is an old Internet saying I will leave you people with:
"Arguing with someone over the Internet is like winning in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded".
So, I will leave you brilliant folks with your "undeniable" logic.
You've got it backwards, you're the one with the wild theory so you do need to back it up.
Lets start simple, do you deny that the Earth is warming up?
Do you deny how greenhouse gases work?
Do you deny how greenhouse gases are produced?
If you don't deny those then you agree with the basic premise of climate change but argue without any evidence that the theory is wrong. If you do deny those then you are arguing against the existence of evidence which is even more stupid/crazy.
How has my argument been invalidated? Just saying it is doesn't make it so.
No one is claiming that humans can control "the heavens" (sun, moon, planets, and stars). No one is suggesting that humans can control the weather (direct the wind, create storms, make rain, etc).
The claim is this: humans are affecting the chemical makeup of the atmosphere by more than a century of burning fossil fuels on a large scale. The change in atmospheric chemistry will increase the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere and gradually raise the average temperature.
That's all fine. And I will NEVER accept a solution to the problem that involves stealing MY MONEY and giving it to primitive 3rd world hell holes as a payoff to alter their development strategies. When anyone with minimal street sense knows that money funneled to the 3rd world ends up as a direct welfare payment to the personal fortunes of tyrants and terrorists.
So NO CLIMATE PACT THAT INVOLES 3RD WORLD WELFARE SCHEMES.
And further, get identity politics off the IPCC website and maybe we can open a discussion. As long as climate science is intertwined with gender equality and income inequality and all of the other left-wing SJW collectivist ENVY-TOLERANCE-TRASH, there can be no discussion of science.
That's all fine. And I will NEVER accept a solution to the problem that involves stealing MY MONEY and giving it to primitive 3rd world hell holes as a payoff to alter their development strategies. When anyone with minimal street sense knows that money funneled to the 3rd world ends up as a direct welfare payment to the personal fortunes of tyrants and terrorists.
So NO CLIMATE PACT THAT INVOLES 3RD WORLD WELFARE SCHEMES.
And further, get identity politics off the IPCC website and maybe we can open a discussion. As long as climate science is intertwined with gender equality and income inequality and all of the other left-wing SJW collectivist ENVY-TOLERANCE-TRASH, there can be no discussion of science.
Well, when companies add jobs/keep existing jobs in the U.S., he certainly takes credit for it. He's also pretty quiet when things don't go as well for U.S. companies.
There's nothing legally binding in the Paris Agreement that said the U.S. HAD to pay. Literally every piece of it is voluntary. He can simply choose not to hold up the U.S. end of the deal if he didn't want to and there would be no punitive consequence. So opting out was a political layup for him and little else. It was the easy political move for him. It was one of the few campaign promises he could easily uphold so he did it to appease his base. As a result, the U.S. is yet again the laughingstock of the world and there's no real benefit to anyone beyond DJT who was able to reinforce his base a bit.
So if there's nothing forcing the U.S. (or anyone else for that matter) to really do anything why stay in it? What's the point?
You've got it backwards, you're the one with the wild theory so you do need to back it up.
Lets start simple, do you deny that the Earth is warming up?
Do you deny how greenhouse gases work?
Do you deny how greenhouse gases are produced?
If you don't deny those then you agree with the basic premise of climate change but argue without any evidence that the theory is wrong. If you do deny those then you are arguing against the existence of evidence which is even more stupid/crazy.
How has my argument been invalidated? Just saying it is doesn't make it so.
You have already admitted you don't know your head from your arse concerning scientific process, but you continue on making this stupid argument.
Your own arguments invalidate themselves. Anyone who isn't a boot licking activist or an idiot can see this clearly.
You have already admitted you don't know your head from your arse concerning scientific process, but you continue on making this stupid argument.
Your own arguments invalidate themselves. Anyone who isn't a boot licking activist or an idiot can see this clearly.
/shrug
I know enough to know that I don't know more than the experts, if only you would know that. I also know enough to be able to read and understand things, another thing that you could do with learning. You have completely failed over and over again in this thread to back up your ridiculous non-argument.
So if there's nothing forcing the U.S. (or anyone else for that matter) to really do anything why stay in it? What's the point?
Well, to partner with countries around the world to meet a common goal would be the big one. So it's a diplomatic blunder for a president who can ill-afford those. We've seen the fallout already with France and Germany- two of our biggest allies- knocking the president for leaving the agreement. Leaving further establishes us as unreliable and alienates us even more. #Sad!
I know the "America First" crowd probably doesn't care about diplomacy, so let's focus on the economy. First of all, many of America's largest companies (totaling over $17 Trillion in worth) advocated for us to remain in the agreement for a number of reasons (which you can read here), but the general theme was that global cooperation on climate change and a focus on developing renewable energy is good for business. Exxon, BP, and Shell all advocated for remaining in the agreement.
Finally, remaining in the agreement at least for the time being, buys the president more time to weight the issue and costs him (and the U.S.) nothing since there's no penalty for not meeting the goals. Leaving now was purely a political move to appease a base that's been somewhat frustrated by a lack of progress on some fronts (Obamacare, Wall, Budget, Immigration, Travel ban, etc.) and about faces on some campaign promises (relationship with Saudi Arabia/ME, "locking up" Clinton, etc.).
He really hits it on the head. Can't control the border but can control the heavens. How arrogant.
It was Nixon who started the Environmental Protection Agency.
The idea that there are negative consequences to our actions on this planet is hardly an insane or unprecedented idea.
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.
