Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Raptor Witness

Trump Withdraws from Paris Climate Accord

413 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DieChecker
5 hours ago, Gromdor said:

I don't get why Trump even brought it up.  Ignore it and nothing happens.  Going  on TV and declaring that you are leaving just creates the media headlines and gives the world the impression that the word of the US is valueless because of how we change presidents. 

Probably because he wants to do what he suggested in the Campaign season and negotiate a better deal for the US. Sometimes you have to announce you're pulling out of a deal, in order to spur discussion into a better one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

With all due respect Raven... India and China even though big polluters now have contributed a very small percentage of the overall damage to the environment. Of course, I can't deny that global warming hasn't been occurring way before the onset of the industrial revolution but the biggest beneficiarys has been America and Europe. And they stand to lose the most also. By adhering to the agreed emissions target America would be looking after their people. Try not to confuse Trumps pride with what is in the best long term interests of the world, including America's.

So you are OK with allowing India and China to continue polluting at 100% of their current rates into the foreseeable future? That's like saying we need to deal with the Muslim immigration issues in France, but not the rest of Europe, while maintaining open borders. It isn't going to work. 

If the US is going to lead by example, then that example needs to be followed. And as such China and India both need to cut back also. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
8 minutes ago, kartikg said:

As far as I know India started importing more and more solar panels from both usa and China to meet it commitment of Paris accords. It was a win win situation for all parties because the exporters were making money and the importers creating jobs for installation and maintenance of those plants. Ignoring all this lets agree that usa was compromising more than others but these are some decisions that need to be taken for the common good, let's just say all other 193 countries inspired by this pull out and start burning fossil fuels, what if south American countries start chopping amazon for cultivation and timber or some countries killing some endangered species for profit? 

Considering that probably the lower 125 of those countries contribute less then 1% of the CO2, even while burning coal, I think their inclusion, or leaving, is a non-issue. Considering that China is the number two polluter of CO2, I think they should be forced to cut back as much as the US is. 

Do you disagree China should cut back? If so, then what path to making that happen is there, other then to force a renegotiation of the Accords?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
8 hours ago, toast said:

#45 justified his error decision to pull the Paris Agreement with the arguments to save US money and to strengthen the US economy. That schemes will backfire at an amount much higher than the costs been saved.

Today, there are still 194 countries who dont support the exit. 194 countries are 194 (more or less, I know) markets for US products and services. These markets provide commercial customers and private customers as well, who generate a big part of the US`s GNP by exports of US products/services into foreign countries. I expect a very high number, up to 1B, of private individuals to start boycotting products and services of US origin. Also I expect a high number of commercial/industrial customers to avoid US products and services due to the exit. 

I thought it was a matter of "fairness" in paying an equitable share, rather then the lion's share. And it forcing equitable cuts from everyone, not excluding some nations like China from hard cuts.

 

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
7 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Well that's not really true. Pollution and global warming started with the industrial revolution, that being America and Europe. The Chinese and Indians have come later on. Above all... America has a moral obligation to leed by example. Of course IMO Trump lacks all moral fibre and sense of fair play. Trump apparently now says he intends to renegotiate the terms of the Paris convention. 

Generally the guy's a jerk in my eyes. 

Do you agree that China should cut back? If not, then why? And how do we change that without challenging the current Accords?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
7 hours ago, The Russian Hare said:

Amount of carbon dioxide a gas known to trap heat goes up, temperature goes up at the same time, seems pretty straightforward cause effect relationship to me :mellow:

sorry but have I agree with the left on this one, it is a scientific issue not a political one, 99 engineers tell me a bridge is unsafe I will err on the side of caution and fix it rather than believe the 1 that tells me it's fine, that just seems prudent  :blink:

BUT, what if your neighbor has 6 cars and you have 2, and yet though both of you have to use the bridge, you are required to pay for 75% of the repairs? Would you seek to renegotiate such a deal?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg
5 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Considering that probably,  the lower 125 of those countries co. ntribute less then 1% of the CO2, even while burning coal, I think their inclusion, or leaving, is a non-issue. Considering that China is the number two polluter of CO2, I think they should be forced to cut back as much as the US is. 

Do you disagree China should cut back? If so, then what path to making that happen is there, other then to force a renegotiation of the Accords?

I have no idea on China and I agree that China should cut back as much as usa or more and I don't see how usa can use any leverage against China since it's out of the agreement now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
6 minutes ago, kartikg said:

I have no idea on China and I agree that China should cut back as much as usa or more and I don't see how usa can use any leverage against China since it's out of the agreement now. 

Country by CO2 production...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

#1 = China = 10.6 million kilotons of CO2 out of 36 million kilotons worldwide. 

#2 = USA = 5.2 million kilotons.

I agree the US should cut back, but from what I've read, the Paris Accords did not require China to do a single thing.

And like has been said, it required the US to pay 100 billion dollars, while requiring 0% enforcement of signatory nations self imposed cuts.

Since the US does pollute almost as much as China, it is still in the worlds best interest to sit down and renegotiate the deal. What is the alternative? Just let the world go to hell out of Euro-centered spite?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
4 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

So, he leaves the possibility of going back into it, with a fair deal for the USA.  Has anyone mentioned that? Do the Partisans who call him "#45" even care?

#45 isnt leading the global show. Germany, France and Italy leaders stated already that there will be no "deal" nor negotiation about the Paris Climate Accord.

BTW: Did he ever asked for negotiation of the US conditions within the Accord before withdrawal? Ive seen nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg
6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Country by CO2 production...

https://en.wikipedia.org, /wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

#1 = China = 10.6 million kilotons of CO2 out of 36 million kilotons worldwide. 

#2 = USA = 5.2 million kilotons.

I agree the US should cut back, but from what I've read, the Paris Accords did not require China to do a single thing.

And like has been said, it required the US to pay 100 billion dollars, while requiring 0% enforcement of signatory nations self imposed cuts.

Since the US does pollute almost as much as China, it is still in the worlds best interest to sit down and renegotiate the deal. What is the alternative? Just let the world go to hell out of Euro-centered spite

Okay just for a minute come out of USA mode and think about the 100B as a investment made in self intrest just like when you install a app you get cash back, the best way would have been staying in the group and forcing for negotiations with China . I feeI usa had the right opportunity with it's technology like solar battery and electric cars to establish a new wave of companies just as it did in software like Microsoft Google IBM etc. with 100B usa could have cunningly opened the door for such companies in developing countries 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
8 hours ago, Wickian said:

Good call.  Believing that a trace gas making up less than a half of a half of a half of a half of one percent of the atmosphere is the primary driving force of Global Warming aside, this whole Paris Deal is a scam that boils down to giving 100B a year to poor countries with no oversight and no penalties for not using the money for it's intended purpose.

 

 

it does seem to be a political and economic scam for the globalist agenda - an issue to unite the world!!! no matter if the science 
is dubious or even outright faked at times..

I'm sure ''''they''' see it as the seed of the One World Government - and will be enraged that President Trump has pulled
the US out - 

I saw his speech live last night and thought it was very good - 

.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Probably because he wants to do what he suggested in the Campaign season and negotiate a better deal for the US. Sometimes you have to announce you're pulling out of a deal, in order to spur discussion into a better one.

yep, like walking out of dealership,  it works. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
22 minutes ago, aztek said:

yep, like walking out of dealership,  it works. 

Except, he is climate change denier and is walking out because he isn't ever going to buy a car......  Him saying that he might is just him leading on the followers that think he truly needs one. 

It's more like having cancer.  If you really think you have it, you start chemo.  You don't walk away to argue for better medical bill payments........ 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Except, he is climate change denier and is walking out because he isn't ever going to buy a car.....

he is global warming denier, not climate change, big difference,  and he already pays lease payments for a car he does not want, (100b) he wants a better deal, and a different car. or no deal and no car.

or think of it as an appt, he stuck in crappy appt, that costs way more than it worth, he inherited that appt. now he want to either get better rent, or not extend the lease.

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 hours ago, kartikg said:

Okay just for a minute come out of USA mode and think about the 100B as a investment made in self intrest just like when you install a app you get cash back, the best way would have been staying in the group and forcing for negotiations with China . I feeI usa had the right opportunity with it's technology like solar battery and electric cars to establish a new wave of companies just as it did in software like Microsoft Google IBM etc. with 100B usa could have cunningly opened the door for such companies in developing countries 

I don't disagree. Something does have to be done, I just don't think that the existing deal was equitable/fair. In which I agree with Trump... I was not a favorable deal to the US. 

The US could meet all the same commitments, and if more commitment was gained from nations like China, then perhaps many Americans who see it as a bad deal today, would not see it as so bad. If the expense was spread around more, and there was some kind of oversight on spending....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 hours ago, toast said:

#45 isnt leading the global show. Germany, France and Italy leaders stated already that there will be no "deal" nor negotiation about the Paris Climate Accord.

BTW: Did he ever asked for negotiation of the US conditions within the Accord before withdrawal? Ive seen nothing.

No new deals? I guess they don't care about saving the world... So sad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
14 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Except, he is climate change denier and is walking out because he isn't ever going to buy a car......  Him saying that he might is just him leading on the followers that think he truly needs one. 

It's more like having cancer.  If you really think you have it, you start chemo.  You don't walk away to argue for better medical bill payments........ 

Actually it is like a town having cancer, and one guy being required to pay for the chemo for 140 of the 165 townspeople. Is that equitable? 

People absolutely do bargain with their insurance companies when diagnosed, because often the insurance will try to drop you, or claim you aren't covered, or that you don't meet various requirements. Making sure you will not bankrupt your family first isn't necessarily a bad idea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary Meadows

You can't save the world,  might as well save a few bucks!

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg
27 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I don't disagree. S,.  ome, thing does have to be done, I just don't think that the existing deal was equitable/fair. In which I agree with Trump... I was not a favorable deal to the US. 

The US could meet all the same commitments, and if more commitment was gained from nations like China, then perhaps many Americans who see it as a bad deal today, would not see it as so bad. If the expense was spread around more, and there was some kind of oversight on spending....

well I think the responsibility is now more on individual, everyone as to think about their power consumption, plastic usage , car usage etc and plant a few trees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BiffSplitkins

By 2100, following the Paris agreement will only prevent 0.2°C of warming. Is that worth the United States paying membership fees ranging from $42 billion to $176 billion every year until 2050? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

The USA is 20 Trillion in debt...how will pushing the United States into the 3rd world serve to save the planet? Just because we won't be paying for everyone's pollution doesn't mean we won't look to help stop pollution. I highly suspect there might be some other agreement (with a more fair payment option) that the US could very well become involved in.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
1 hour ago, Gary Meadows said:

You can't save the world,  might as well save a few bucks!

 

:)

One thing's for sure, if a country becomes utterly destitute it's unlikely it will be saving much of anything, let alone the planet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Also, if the thinking is that rich countries should pay to save the planet, then here are the countries that should be paying: Qatar, Luxemborg, Macau, Singapore and Brunei. Care to guess why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BiffSplitkins

I have many progressive friends on Facebook that are all acting crazy about this decision. Jeeesh folks, it's not like Trump is telling us to all go and burn tires in our back yards. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore
15 hours ago, Myles said:

I'm vacationing, so can someone give me a brief summary of what this really means?   

I know it looks bad on the surface - Pulling out of a Global Climate Agreement.

 

I wondered that too. There's a lot of reactions and commentary about it, but not much about what it means. So I hit google this morning, lol. I'll put up three of the first articles that came up for me.

The Hill: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/335842-trump-pulls-us-out-of-paris-deal-what-it-would-mean

Accuweather: http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-trumps-decision-to-pull-out-of-the-paris-climate-agreement-means-for-the-us/70001816

Finacial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/7f3a92aa-46ed-11e7-8d27-59b4dd6296b8

And a couple of what is it bits..

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Signature_and_entry_into_force

NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/01/531048986/so-what-exactly-is-in-the-paris-climate-accord

So here's the summary I got out of all that. In 2015 the US became part of it, and it does not go into full effect till 2020 though some parts of it have been getting worked on this whole time so far. Now the US has said it's withdrawing. The withdrawal process could take till 2020 if it's done through the paperwork route. The US seems to be open to negotiations for a "better deal" on their behalf. Some folks think the withdrawal is a good thing, some folks are mighty unhappy about it. It may or may not negatively impact US relations with some other countries, and it may or may not have a positive or negative effect with trade and energy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.