« prev   random   next »

4
5

Back to dark ages, Trump pulls out of Paris accord

By Tim Aurora following x   2017 Jun 1, 12:51pm 7,213 views   106 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-pulling-u-s-paris-agreement-193701009.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=3aacda52-9772-11e5-ac54-fa163ecf49c3&.tsrc=notification-brknews

President Trump announced his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change Thursday afternoon.Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a hoax, made the announcement that he will start the process of removing the U.S. from the international climate accord to limit the increase in average global temperature to below 2C.The United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Thanks you, but begin negotiations to

« First    « Previous     Comments 65 - 104 of 104     Last »

67   BrownIncome   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 2, 10:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Strategist says

Holy shit. I stand corrected. I revise my statement... most poor, who are on welfare don't work anyway.

I guess if you make $1,800 per month, with 6 kids, you will need welfare. These are the type of people I would respect. At least they are working, and doing their best.

If you were making 3 times this money when you had the 6 kids, you deserve welfare. Otherwise, the only thing you should get for free is a dick-otomy

68   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2017 Jun 2, 10:31am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

zzyzzx says

This is Al Gore’s House. It uses twenty times as much energy as the average American home. $30,000 a year in utility bills yet he thinks he can lecture you on your carbon footprint.

A little smaller than Thomas Friedman's Wife mansion-palace. That only is home to two people, when Friedman isn't sucking Corporate Cock in China or Chartres

Elon Musk flies his 650ER all the time. It "Only" uses 490 gallons of fuel an hour at cruising speed.

Great pics, zzyzzx.

69   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Jun 2, 10:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

Just curious-- does the fact that Gore lives in a big house mean that global warming is fake?

70   Hassan_Rouhani   ignore (2)   2017 Jun 2, 10:50am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says

Just curious-- does the fact that Gore lives in a big house mean that global warming is fake?

At the very minimum it paints him as a non-believer in the very thing he preaches. Like if Pope were to openly bang hoes.

It's like Dan proposing confiscation of assets from the polluters and than balking at the suggestion that his gas-guzzling jalopy should be on the list.

71   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Jun 2, 10:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote        

It does? So, if Gore lives in a smaller home, then global warming will be reversed?

It's the same tired argument people make saying if Buffett really wanted to solve income inequality, he could give away all his money. These problems are collective and must be solved as a population.

72   Hassan_Rouhani   ignore (2)   2017 Jun 2, 10:56am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says

It does? So, if Gore lives in a smaller home, then global warming will be reversed?

You're funny.

73   Hassan_Rouhani   ignore (2)   2017 Jun 2, 11:12am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says

It's the same tired argument people make saying if Buffett really wanted to solve income inequality, he could give away all his money. These problems are collective and must be solved as a population.

If the same argument is applied to countries instead of persons you basically have Trump's position on GW measures: why the fuck US has to do more than China, India, Russia?

74   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 2, 11:14am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says

Just curious-- does the fact that Gore lives in a big house mean that global warming is fake?

To me it doesn't matter if someone thinks climate change is fake or not. The optics are bad. If Gore truly was worried about climate change he would make at least an honest attempt at reducing his carbon footprint. That house is ridiculous for his age. Normal people, even climate change deniers, usually downsize at that age regardless of their beliefs. It's like, "shit, my kids just moved out. Let's fucking stick it to the globe and double the size of our house."

While I don't know where Gore derives his current wealth (and I don't care to look it up) I'm pretty certain some of it is from his notoriety over climate change. I don't deny that climate is changing, but when one of the most noticeable figureheads of a movement does the complete opposite of what he's preaching it really destroys any validity they may have had. It's like an alcoholic leading an AA meeting drunk.

75   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Jun 2, 11:16am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I certainly agree with that. Gore is politician and not a good spokesperson.

76   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Jun 2, 11:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

zzyzzx says

This is Al Gore’s House.

This still doesn't mean we shouldn't tax carbon. Hell, if you hate Gore so much, tax his carbon use!

The opulence of the rich does not negate the fact that we're killing ourselves by polluting.

77   Hassan_Rouhani   ignore (2)   2017 Jun 2, 1:28pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Dan8267 says

if you hate Gore so much, tax his carbon use!

As long as it doesn't bring my standard of living down I'm all for it.

78   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 2, 1:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Straw Man says

It's like Dan proposing confiscation of assets from the polluters and than balking at the suggestion that his gas-guzzling jalopy should be on the list.

And that's actually happened today! Of course he will claim that he somehow won that argument.

79   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 2, 2:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

The US stature is now reduced and we are more isolated than ever. That hurts at many places. We will become like Great Britain, still fairly well off ( not rich) but hardly the standards we are used to. Sooner or later we will have a left leaning government that will socialize everything and our standard of living will go down drastically. Countries like China, Germany will lead

Here is how it hurts :

* So the important thing to remember is when US wants a favor from other countries, and it always does as it has economic interests everywhere, they will extract a higher price. Ask China to help on North Korea or Colombia on drugs, they will extract a higher price

* When we ask other countries to send their troops to help us, we will not get as much help.
* Dollar may not be the world currency anymore. To many that seems like a small issue but it will wipe off trillions with a T from our economy.
* People will start moving investments elsewhere.
* US will see less # of tourists , specially from Asian countries
* World will be a dangerous place. Japan, South Korea and maybe smaller countries like Malaysia will start developing Nuclear bombs

80   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2017 Jun 2, 2:34pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Tim Aurora says

The US stature is now reduced and we are more isolated than ever.

Hahahahahaha. If this Accord is so ultra special important, why did Macron the GILF Hunter proclaim it was not renegotiable?

Are the Eurocucks so clueless to think this is gonna hurt Trump domestically, and he'd come back on his hands and knees.

Truth is Germany and France are old toothless tigers who think they are the Lion King.

81   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Jun 2, 3:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

Straw Man says

As long as it doesn't bring my standard of living down I'm all for it.

Are you willing to greatly reduce the standard of living of your grandchildren to slightly increase your own standard of living?

82   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Jun 2, 3:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Quigley says

Straw Man says

It's like Dan proposing confiscation of assets from the polluters and than balking at the suggestion that his gas-guzzling jalopy should be on the list.

And that's actually happened today! Of course he will claim that he somehow won that argument.

I'm pretty fucking sure I use significantly less gas than either of you two.

Of course, none of your nonsense is relevant to the fact that we should have a carbon tax and a methane tax and ban coal.

83   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 2, 3:31pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Hahahahahaha. If this Accord is so ultra special important, why did Macron the GILF Hunter proclaim it was not renegotiable?

Because renegotiating a "signed" negotiated document without good reason is stupid and will just create chaos. I do business and never renegotiate a signed contract. Bad for business and then there is no end to it. Waste of time

84   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 2, 3:36pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Another point is that this does not buy USA anything except loss of stature

* The agreement was non binding
* US would have been able to achieve most of the goals regardless
* Coal jobs are gone because of abundance of natural gas. No point saving dead technologies

85   Strategist   ignore (1)   2017 Jun 2, 4:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Tim Aurora says

Another point is that this does not buy USA anything except loss of stature

* The agreement was non binding

* US would have been able to achieve most of the goals regardless

* Coal jobs are gone because of abundance of natural gas. No point saving dead technologies

And the States like California are going it alone. The only thing Trump really achieved was to make us look silly.

86   FortWayne   ignore (2)   2017 Jun 2, 4:10pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

If it was so pointless, there was no point to sign it.

Tim Aurora says

Another point is that this does not buy USA anything except loss of stature

* The agreement was non binding

* US would have been able to achieve most of the goals regardless

* Coal jobs are gone because of abundance of natural gas. No point saving dead technologies

87   socal2   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 2, 4:21pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

FortWayne says

If it was so pointless, there was no point to sign it.

Exactly. They need to get their story straight. Was the Paris accord vital to save the world, or was it just a big nothing burger?

America will now be free to continue and increase our natural gas extraction and those exports will help India and China reduce their carbon emissions by using our cleaner gas instead of dirtier North Korean and Chinese coal.

88   socal2   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 2, 4:29pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Strategist says

And the States like California are going it alone. The only thing Trump really achieved was to make us look silly.

Gawd. The Democrat morons who have super majorities in my State just passed a Single Payer law too. No clue how to fund it.......the costs are 2X the entire State budget. The same morons that can't run government pensions without bankrupting the state can run the entire State's healthcare? And now California is going to go it alone on Paris?

Talk about looking silly!

89   Strategist   ignore (1)   2017 Jun 2, 5:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

socal2 says

Gawd. The Democrat morons who have super majorities in my State just passed a Single Payer law too. No clue how to fund it.......the costs are 2X the entire State budget. The same morons that can't run government pensions without bankrupting the state can run the entire State's healthcare? And now California is going to go it alone on Paris?

The California Democrats really screw up when it comes to pensions and budgets. They think money grows on trees.
Even those who screw up can be right on a few things, and they are right when it comes to pollution caused by fossil fuels. Trump trying to create coal mining jobs is downright stupid. It's a dying industry. Trump may as well try bringing back jobs to Kodak.

90   FortWayne   ignore (2)   2017 Jun 2, 8:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Strategist says

socal2 says

Gawd. The Democrat morons who have super majorities in my State just passed a Single Payer law too. No clue how to fund it.......the costs are 2X the entire State budget. The same morons that can't run government pensions without bankrupting the state can run the entire State's healthcare? And now California is going to go it alone on Paris?

The California Democrats really screw up when it comes to pensions and budgets. They think money grows on trees.

Even those who screw up can be right on a few things, and they are right when it comes to pollution caused by fossil fuels. Trump trying to create coal mining jobs is downright stupid. It's a dying industry. Trump may as well try bringing back jobs to Kodak.

You don't think film will be cool again if we label it "hipster"?

91   komputodo   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 2, 9:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Booger says

I think China and India should have stricter emissions standards to make up for having so many people farting.

Hey MOCO, just dosing Rosie O'Donnell and Michael Moore with Beano should have quite an impact.

92   sagacious1   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 3, 5:34am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I doubt this agreement was a nothing burger, it simply had little or nothing to do with climate change. My guess would be it had more to do with losing National Sovereignty, yet that's only a guess because really no average American has actually seen what it says....nor anyone in Congress because they were never allowed, even though it is considered a treaty. Which means Congress (the peoples representatives) had been bypassed. That should be the outrage.

93   sagacious1   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 3, 6:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Typical political sleight of hand....Of course parents should have an advantage from experience: "I bet you a candy bar, you can't pick up all those Legos and put them into the pail in 1 trip." It's like magic.

94   BayArea   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 3, 6:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Can someone fill me in on what the main arguments are to leave the Paris Accord?

I'm certain there are some good ones

95   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 3, 7:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Can anyone actually spell out the terms of the Paris agreement? Any quotes from the treaty itself? No? Oh that's right, it's secret and Congress has never voted to ratify it (and never will). So it was a dead agreement without teeth even before Trump officially dropped it. The USA is leading the world in green energy. We need to keep that up, keep innovating, and then spread the results of our innovation to the world as it becomes in the world's best economic interests to also adopt these new green technologies. There's absolutely zero reason to enter into a lopsided treaty which costs us a lot and actually hampers our growth and innovation while adding a very regressive tax to further oppress the poor and middle classes.

97   sagacious1   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 3, 7:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

BayArea says

Can someone fill me in on what the main arguments are to leave the Paris Accord?

I'm certain there are some good ones

Sure.......
115. Resolves to enhance the provision of urgent and adequate finance, technology and capacity-building support by developed country Parties in order to enhance the level of ambition of pre-2020 action by Parties, and in this regard strongly urges developed country Parties to scale up their level of financial support, with a concrete roadmap to achieve the goal of jointly providing USD 100 billion annually by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation while significantly increasing adaptation finance from current levels and to further provide appropriate technology and capacity-building support;

Nowhere in the text are designations of National committed contributions. I'm certain they've been defined, however it's not stated clearly. If I'm agreeing to pony up $100 billion annually or any portion thereof, I'd like to know that.

Also, the entire agreement is to be conducted under the auspices of the U.N., who I have major sovereign issues with.

As well, although I have no issues with women's rights and empowerment, I'm not clear as to why this is a defined objective for climate control?

......migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity, Also acknowledging the specific needs and concerns of developing country Parties arising from the impact of the implementation of response measures and, in this regard, decisions 5/CP.7, 1/CP.10, 1/CP.16 and 8/CP.17,

Additionally, collated into the accord, is the Kyoto agreement which was incredibly unfair to the U.S.

Those are just a few issues I have...has anyone read the agreement?

98   Booger   ignore (1)   2017 Jun 3, 7:50am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Every US company that moves their operations to China shifts their emissions to a country that does not regulate pollution. They damage our economy when they move to China, then we're supposed to foot the bill again when they pollute freely in another country??

99   komputodo   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 3, 8:20am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Booger says

Every US company that moves their operations to China shifts their emissions to a country that does not regulate pollution. They damage our economy when they move to China, then we're supposed to foot the bill again when they pollute freely in another country??

Booger, you make too much sense and that doesn't sit well with a lot of the PATNET forum members. They would rather act panicked, wring their hands and pull at their hair than listen to reason.

100   komputodo   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 3, 8:37am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Many people between 20 and 65 years seem to live for the one and only purpose of earning as much money as possible in order to be able to buy as many things as possible. In this light, it is not surprising that discussions about potential solutions to fight global warming concentrate on technical measures instead of a fundamental change of our attitude to life in general and to Nature in particular.

Someone who respects Nature and regards mankind as a part of a larger whole would never dream about using up non-renewable resources in a short time nor would this person contaminate the environment with gigantic amounts of pollution. By contrary, someone who respects Nature and regards mankind as a part of a larger whole would in all decisions carefully evaluate any effects on Nature. The preservation of Nature would be given a very high priority.

It is in our very own interest to induce fundamental changes in our attitude and behavior towards Nature: Modesty and humility, admiration and respect for all life on Earth instead of arrogance and haughtiness.

Let's emphasize it again: Not the others need to change, we must change ourselves. There are no international treaties or additional national laws required to start changing. We can start to change our consciousness immediately. It is really only about our personal behaviour - independent of what others do or don't do.

101   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 3, 10:29am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Those are nice words Komputado, but they reflect a serious lack of understanding about how the civilization we know is made possible. First of all, your food isn't grown locally for the most part. To achieve the scale of farming that's most efficient for the growing of enough crops to feed 350 million people, we need large combines and farming equipment, plus large trucks to haul food, fertilizer, pump water, and so many other things. If we went back "close to nature" on a large scale, half the country would starve, and probably the initiation of such affairs would cause a chain reaction where civilization itself was destroyed. Anarchy after all, is only as far off as it takes a city to eat its available food.

102   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2017 Jun 3, 1:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says

It does? So, if Gore lives in a smaller home, then global warming will be reversed?

Leadership and Commitment, since I believe the Utility Bill on his mansion is the same as 20 ordinary (non-Green) SFH homes. Ironically at least partially paid by Inconvenient Truth sales and Green Speechifying. It's like somebody who demands we all go Vegetarian, who eats MORE meat than the typical American.

Same with Elon Musk-rat. 490 Gallons an hour. Maybe he should take AMTRAK or appear Remotely via Skype. His interest in this is all the Green Subsidies he'd get for Tesla, even though Rare Earths, necessary for EV batteries, are unbelievably polluting and almost all of it is mined and refined in China.

Tim Aurora says

Because renegotiating a "signed" negotiated document without good reason is stupid and will just create chaos. I do business and never renegotiate a signed contract. Bad for business and then there is no end to it. Waste of time

It's not a contract. It's bad for American business and subsidizes the Developing World without any obligations to commit to less CO2.

Look at what the German Auto industry is saying.

This thing was a trap.

It's common for businesses TO renegotiate if they really want a contract to stay in effect.

103   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2017 Jun 3, 1:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says


Because renegotiating a "signed" negotiated document without good reason is stupid and will just create chaos. I do business and never renegotiate a signed contract. Bad for business and then there is no end to it. Waste of time

It's not a contract. It's bad for American business and subsidizes the Developing World without any obligations to commit to less CO2

Now we are going to split here. it is an agreement with lot of latitude. Yet Trump, just because he wants to look important, throws a fit and cancels the accord. He wants to renegotiate an accord which took 10 years to get everybody on board to just show off his negotiating skills. The guy is a certified narcissist head case.

104   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2017 Jun 3, 2:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Imagine that. And the US Chamber of Commerce approves, because it will incentive more offshoring to places that have no CO2 reduction requirements, like India and China.

It's wealth redistribution, and ultimate bag holder is working class Americans. Upper class Americans will profit off the labor arb from outsourcing while fawning over themselves in a lugubrious sense of self-virtue.

« First    « Previous     Comments 65 - 104 of 104     Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions