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.
The entire premise of the Paris Climate agreement is to limit global warming.
If you don't agree that global warming is a problem, then you have no basis arguing whether it is an effective agreement or not: you're arguing against something that is fundamental to even discussing the document. You're wasting your time, it's like trying to explain to an NRA convention that gun rights should have limits, or to a flat earther that the world is really round, or to MAGAs at a Trump rally in DC that violently assaulting the capitol is not the most effective way to support democracy.
You're entitled to your opinion. My opinion, and apparently President Biden's, based on the vast preponderance of scientific authorities, is that global warming is probably a pretty bad deal overall.
You are unqualified to be in this discussion. The Paris document doesn't even do what it claims to be doing. But you are a cult member who can't stand threats to his doctrine.
Because it's only a commitment to work towards better environmental standards and leaves it up to each nation as to how they achieve this.
^^^Now THAT is a UN agenda that holds up to it's core values.
Kinda like the Kyoto accords where the people that signed it....many violated it. But at least they signed it...unlike the US who reduced their emissions more...lol.
Where is the league of nations when you need them to really put forth a plan that works?
You are unqualified to be in this discussion. The Paris document doesn't even do what it claims to be doing. But you are a cult member who can't stand threats to his doctrine.
I've long since learned to take anything you post and assume it's completely and demonstrably wrong, and you never let me down. The phrase "it doesn't do what it claims to be doing" is really...about as inaccurate as anything you've ever said, and that's really reaching low.
Really? An agreement doesn't "do what it claims to be doing?" A more accurate way to say what you're bumbling along trying to say in a very clumsy way is that you believe it is ineffective at achieving its stated goals.
The fact those stated goals threatens your worldview seems to scare you. Tough. See below for the stated goals, directly from the text of the Agreement. You should try reading the document you are trying to tear down, but that would probably resemble critical thinking too much for you to be interested.
Quote:
1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention,
including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of
climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate
poverty, including by:
(a) 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, recognizing that this would
significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;
(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate
change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions
development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; and
(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low
greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.
I've long since learned to take anything you post and assume it's completely and demonstrably wrong, and you never let me down. The phrase "it doesn't do what it claims to be doing" is really...about as inaccurate as anything you've ever said, and that's really reaching low.
Really? An agreement doesn't "do what it claims to be doing?" A more accurate way to say what you're bumbling along trying to say in a very clumsy way is that you believe it is ineffective at achieving its stated goals.
The fact those stated goals threatens your worldview seems to scare you. Tough. See below for the stated goals, directly from the text of the Agreement. You should try reading the document you are trying to tear down, but that would probably resemble critical thinking too much for you to be interested.
This sounds horrific. A euphemism-filled gobbledygook of confusion where the real goal is redistribution of wealth to the third world. We should have no part of this.
Wouldn’t that cause billions of death, but who cares, right?
It's all about saving the planet, compromises have to be made !
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.
