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.
Preserving the environment is definitely an important thing. Although, what does it have to do with being a part of this big circle jerk where each country sets it's own goals and we may or may not have to pay into it ?
Commitments, pledges, etc.... sounds like HR / Management gibberish.
Not being a part of this agreement does not hinder our country from trying to improve the environment.
This is exactly the point. The accord does nothing but take our money that we could spend on real environmental changes.
I would guess the American worker is at risk, as is every other inhabitant of earth, to the potential effects of global warming, such as drought and sea level rise. The best way to approach this problem is through international cooperation. Yes, we would like India and China to do more. Pulling out of the agreement does nothing to advance that goal.
That's all fine, but you didn't answer my question. How does this help the average American worker? Why not keep the money we would pay into this accord and use that for building our own clean energy infrastructure? Why sign an agreement that has no teeth and lets China and India get to pay nothing in some instances and little in others, while the US (and others) pay more?
...
It's pretty straightforward: If there's no air, there are no workers.
I would guess the American worker is at risk, as is every other inhabitant of earth, to the potential effects of global warming, such as drought and sea level rise. The best way to approach this problem is through international cooperation. Yes, we would like India and China to do more. Pulling out of the agreement does nothing to advance that goal.
It's just me, but I would think the best way to approach the problem is by actually doing things. Talk is cheap, actions are far better than words.
There are roughly 5,000 containerships polluting our oceans and air. With the amount of pollution each one creates, one would think these would be the number one things to address. Followed by deforestation, which contributes to 10% of global warming.
Then we need to get rid of those damn plastic water bottles. Go back to glass. Recycled paper for packing products instead of plastic or styrofoam. Things like that.
Maybe start trying some sort of population control as well. The more people on the planet the more we consume and heat the air.
“It has been estimated that just one of these container ships, the length of around six football pitches, can produce the same amount of pollution as 50 million cars. The emissions from 15 of these mega-ships match those from all the cars in the world. And if the shipping industry were a country, it would be ranked between Germany and Japan as the sixth-largest contributor to CO2 emissions.”
From the consensus, it appears the only way possible to help the environment is to sign the global agreement because without the agreement the environment is doomed. Unreal.
All you people shrieking about this accord need to look up the Tragedy of the Commons.
Now try to visualize the environment, and control of global warming, as the commons.
No doubt, we can’t leave it to individual countries to decide how they will deal with this problem, that’s why treaties are made, because how one country deals with this problem affects all of us whether we like it or not.
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.